JamboRobbo
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by JamboRobbo
-
-
From the BARB site:
"5,100 homes"
"Representing 11,500 viewers"
We have the Nielsen ratings here in the U.S. which uses samples of households too....
My point is, it is a stretch when the report confidently states numbers in the 100,000+ range when all they are doing is multiplying the small sample.
I just don't believe it, but thanks for the link. Wonder if any BARB sets are in pubs? Must be lots of people without Sky who go to their local to watch games.
They say they cover pubs also. I agree it's a stretch to say the figures are massively accurate, but rightly or wrongly those are the official figures everyone uses in UK.
0 -
So how do they actually come up with those viewing figures? Does it take into account folk Sky+ing it to watch later? How do you gauge how many people are in a pub watching it? Electrical surge for folk at half & full time getting the kettle on? What about gas cookers? etc,.....
0 -
Aye, that's a fair point right enough. If they'd had realistic alternative it would have strengthened their hand. Could the SPLTV option helped here?...
Perhaps. If I recall correctly, SPL was desperate due to Setanta going tits up?
0 -
Well, yeah, but that average is skewed massively by the OF games, and show Rangers v. otherr teams being slightly more popular than Celtic versus same. I was aware of this, but seeing it laid out like that is pretty damning. That doesn't mean, however, that a more competitive Rangers free league still wouldn't have some value, and given the trend for ever yet more money for rights across Europe and the need to fill space on ever more channels.
Agreed. but without working out all the figures, we're still getting somewhere around 100k viewers for the non OF content.
0 -
That is a very interesting document which, for the first time i think, puts some science behind a lot of the speculating and scaremongering. Someone smarter than me will hopefully be able to pick out the juicy bits and summarise.
More average match viewers than La Liga by nearly double is a surprise.
Cockwomble may now be regretting playing up the SPL value in that document. Makes their current statements look all the more stupid.
0 -
If these figures are true then it shows what a piss poor deal was negotiated by the wombling cock. A fifth of the EPL viewers but only gaining 2% of the revenue? This shows that Scottish football and Scottish viewers are more important to Sky than the SPL have estimated. This is a brilliant deal for Sky - they've negotiated it well. And now they've got a chance to renegotiate further due to there being no OF games.
The most important thing in a negotiation is understanding what's important (and not) to the other side - the SPL have failed to do this and sold our game short.
Agree to an extent. But Sky were the only ones at the table at the time. Main point is, Sky won't be walking away. Or if they did, someone else (BT?) would snap up the SPL as it's a bargain at current price, with or without SEVCO.
0 -
An averge which would quickly alter without Rangers, as you are well aware.
Without Sevco, it would drop to about 100k average. 10% of premiership average.
Sky needs SPL just as much as SPL needs Sky. Cockwombles lies and threats will be exposed soon enough, Sky don't do walking away....
0 -
Or it could consult the actual figures.
Which shows average Permieship viewers at 1M, with average SPL at 200k. Page 12 for the slow of reading, aka rangers fans.
0 -
Still doesn't make them responsible as to how the Scottish game spends the money they provide .. I honestly fail to see any possible link as to how that makes them responsible.
They buy the product at price agreed by both parties. They air the games and make their profit.
The SPL and the clubs receive the money.
How does the above well thought out argument apply ... honestly enlighten me. Try a few paragraphs this time just to expand it this time and give us all a clue.
Though I suspect it will not changes SKY's responsibility one iota ...
Pretty simple. Sky has lots of viewers who watch Scottish Football on their channels. Scottish football doesn't cost them very much for the number of viewers it gets.
(costs about 2% of what the premiership costs, but gets WAY more than 2% of the viewers). Scottish games get about 200k viewers, compared to 1M viewers for premiership matches.
Unless Sky wants to throw away one of it's better watched and cheapest sports, they will have to stick with SPL.
0 -
Unfortunately you are probably wrong. Sky work on viewer numbers and will walk away from Scottish Football using a legitimate break clause in the contract based on sound commercial reasoning.
That's not scaremongering, that's harsh commercial reality.
And fill the gaps with what? Rugby? Conference? Scottish Football viewing figures on Sky are decent. They need to fill their sports channels, and scottish football, shite as it might be, gets decent viewing figures.
Quite a bit of detail on Sky viewing figures for scottish football here.
http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/staticFiles/71/72/0,,10291~160369,00.pdf
0 -
You can read people's words but you fail to interpret the meaning .. honestly there are classes out there that could help you with this.
To put it simply .. all I said was it has f*** all to do with SKY. They have no f***** responsibility no matter how you try to associate them with the problem. They buy the product and their responsibility ends there.
Same as the guy that sold the EBT scheme to Rangers has no responsibility as to how they used it (in reverse).
It's business END OF .. and calling people c**ts just highlights the inadequacies of your argument ...
Sky has customers. Many of them in Scotland.
0 -
Well said. Now let us join the EPL and leave you all to it
Please hurry up and leave. You keep promising to do it, then you always dissapoint.
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528
Five years for 600k of tax and NI evasion.
Surely Rangers have done the same on a much larger scale?
0 -
Not defending the court action...they should have gone to court of arbitration but Rangers do not have a large squad and there is every chance they will not be able to fulfill fixtures next season once suspensions and injuries kick in.
Injuries and suspensions are the least of your worries. There are a hundred other reasons why they will not be fulfilling any fixtures next season.
0 -
FIFA will not be happy.
http://oi49.tinypic.com/330zjhd.jpg
Rangers can go to CAS if they like, but going to civil courts is a big no no. Surprised they have been so stupid.
0 -
Point taken but I'll bet there was at least another 20,000 plus Hearts an Hibee fans that never got a ticket to the final because it was always going to be a sell out even if Hampden had 70,000 plus seats.
Never mind. It's on BBC, so you'll be able to watch it on council telly.
0 -
Would they not have to show that liquidating the assets would give the creditors a better return than selling them to a Newco?
More importantly, if they want to sell the assets to a Newco for £11.2M as suggested they would do for Bill Miller, would they not have to show that selling assets to Newco for £11.2M would give a better return than liquidating the assets (i.e. sell Ibrox for building houses on).
Find it very hard to believe that the land Ibrox and Murray park is on is not worth more than £11.2M.
0 -
Mandaric has confirmed in a statement he has no interest in becoming involved with Rangers!
It's one thing being up in court for Tax Evasion - he can handle that. But he'll not accept slandering his name by associating him with a bid for Rangers.
0 -
Sadly no. Thomson will take a pragmatic approach befitting a club Chairman who is due the bank £5.5m. Maybe we supporters from various clubs should threaten a boycott if the SPL ignore the wishes of the vast majority of non-OF fans* who would not want to see a re-invented rangers given priority treatment.
* Based upon the fact that every single person I have spoken to since yesterday has expressed their delight at the thought of RFC going down the tubes - please advise if your experience is different.
We can but hope. To be honest, I doubt HMFC would be any different if it wasn't for the fact Vlad's a bit mental. Sad indictment of most scottish chairman that they'd rather feed off the scraps of the OF than risk it all in the hope of acheiving something better - e.g. a competitive league with teams bringing through youngsters.
0 -
Maybe but as I understand SPL rules only 2 clubs would need to oppose any proposal to veto it. I would suggest (at least) whichever club that would be saved from relegation by Rangers getiing turfed out of SPL plus Mad Vlad.
Do you think Thomson would be up for it?
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted · Edited by JamboRobbo
Just behind Rangers?