coprolite

Successful fund managers just haven’t been found out yet.

I’m a little in the dark as to how these purchases will be organised but it looks like it will be auctions. So the bonds should be sold at market prices. That won’t cover the loss for the funds, it will crystallise it. The funds won’t avoid losses here. They’ll be able to meet their cash demands and carry on as funds though. The (realistic) alternative is that the fund goes into insolvency and has to sell its assets to raise cash. If there’s loads of funds doing this there won’t be many buyers and asset prices will crash. Some people may think that’s not a bad thing. It would be very disruptive to society. Again, some people may say that’s not a bad thing. But the BoE has a mandate to stabilise the economy, so it can’t let the funds go insolvent.

They’re a low risk asset in terms of their default risk. The risk of losing capital on them has generally been quite low for years, but unpredictable inflation has increased that risk. The issue is that the funds have been buying them on margin, effectively borrowing money that they’ll repay out of the sale. The bond price has been hammered by sheer idiocy, so the value’s gone below a set % of the amount borrowed. The lenders are calling in the difference. It’s very like negative equity on a mortgage with a different pattern of payments.

They’ve not intervened in currency markets have they? And buying bonds increases money supply so will be a downward pressure on exchange. I guess their stability mandate could cover exchange rates and there could be an element of confidence in the currency price, but it’s hard to see todays wiping of the government’s shitey arse as a currency intervention

Sounds a bit like a run. demand for cash from creditors? Yep caused by lack of confidence in assets backing credit? Yep Vicious Circle? Yep There’s a legitimate question as to whether pension funds should be allowed to take on this sort of risk (to which the answer is of course they shouldn’t). There’s also a legitimate question as to whether this is actually true and not a smokescreen. If it is factually accurate, I don’t think the BofE has any option but to inject liquidity. The sheer scale of pension funds would mean that any significant ones going bust would have massive unpredictable effects on the economy. But if we’re doing free markets, it’s just creative destruction and survival of the fittest. Really, Kwasi should be stopping the state from interfering here.

How much of the top 1%/50% ‘s wealth comes from and is protected by them living in a stable* democracy under the rule of law and with a skilled workforce at their disposal to exploit? How much do you think James Dyson would be worth if he grew up in Mogadishu? We all earn in partnership with wider society through the apparatus of the state. It’s not money they’ve earned exclusively through their own genius and hard work.

There will be a real human cost to all this, and it won't be those that should bear it that do. But the irony of Brittania Unchained "unleashing the power of the markets" only to find out that markets are dangerous indiscriminate fuckers is quite hilarious.

Keep your chip on the shoulder club shit to the club pages please. I'd love that Porteous to score, and would prefer him to start ahead of Gallagher, and I'm bitter as f**k.

They're not getting smaller, your hands are getting bigger. It's probably acromegaly caused by a pituitary tumour. But don't worry, they're mostly benign.

He looks like a dick and this fucking menu: https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Yh73q52JmRLFRTsSde-Xdu119OsdZFRp Not sure whether I"m more irritated by the faux jocko slang or writing prices as £24 & 50p. Anyway, put a nappy on them and shitfest this to a draw please.

I think that a league wide marketing strategy was one of the recommendations from that Deloitte report recently. It really shouldn't have needed a consultant to come up with that. The Swedish experience of using TV as marketing and increasing crowds is in line with the Netherlands and England's experience. Obviously Sky were a big part of that in England, hyping "the best league in the world" years before that was a remotely tenable claim. If Sky get behind us it would be win win. But they're not really, unless it's an OF game. Making attendance more enjoyable would be a huge help but it could be really difficult. I've ended up in the Main Stand at Pittodrie before and the sweetie-rustlers' idea of an enjoyable experience apparently didn't include me shouting, whereas mine did. Shouldn't be insoluble though.

Great player. Him and Strachan were my favourites when i was a small child.

I read those articles. The last one is paywalled and is the only reference to the government losing bns. Care to shate that content? The rest talk about £700m being paid to the government, not by it, so you'll understand if i don't want to take your word as gospel.

It's quite telling that absolutely no-one on here has celebrated this new deal or even said they think it's good. I think "understandable" is about as strong as the praise has got. Hopefully by the time this gets renegotiated there's more competition for Sky. Streaming platforms going more mainstream is probably the best hope.

Poor social skills

You wouldn't let it lie would you. What you've done there is made me do a spreadsheet. I've used pre-covid seasons and looked at games where Aberdeen had games televised. Where there was an equivalent fixture that wasn't televised , I've calculated the difference in attendance. Over 11 data points there is a clear correlation between televised games- with a mean % reduction of 9.2% There might be other causes for the variation. But this data is consistent with the hypothesis that televising games reduces attendance. season Live game Att day equivalent not on tele att day TV reduction number % 1819 Kilmarnock Away 5,270 Sun y 6,531 Sat 1,261 19.3% 1819 Hibs H 15,629 Fri y 18,631 Sun 3,002 16.1% 1819 Celtic H 20,027 Wed n n/a 1819 Rangers H 18,190 Wed y 19,046 Sun 856 4.5% 1819 Rangers A 49,667 Sun y 49,711 Wed 44 0.1% 1819 Celtic H 15,189 Sat n n/a 1819 Hearts H 14,371 Fri y 16,451 Sat 2,080 12.6% 1718 Motherwell A 4,545 Sun y 4,127 Tue -418 -10.1% 1718 Celtic H 20,528 Wed n n/a 1718 Kilmarnock Away 4,198 Sun y 5,067 Sat 869 17.2% 1718 Rangers A 48,647 Wed y 49,707 Wed 1,060 2.1% 1718 Rangers H 18,983 Wed n n/a 1718 Dundee A 6,541 Fri n n/a 1718 Hibs H 14,923 Sat y 17,822 Sat 2,899 16.3% 1718 Celtic H 17,026 Sun n n/a 1718 Hearts H 14,045 Fri y 18,371 Sat 4,326 23.5% 1718 Rangers H 17,745 Sat n n/a 1718 Celtic A 59,048 Sun y 58,975 Sat -73 -0.1%

I agree it does. I'm not saying i agree with Dave and the SPFL's view on that point, but it is a matter of judgement and they'll bear the cost more than i will for getting it wrong. I'd be surprised if Rangers have had double figures away at 3 on Saturday over the last two years

It is an interesting point (to me. Apologies to non nerds for what follows) I'd be interested to see his workings. This study mentions a positive correlation between attendances and games on TV in the Netherlands. I can't see that causality was investigated. But it is at least plausible that increased tv coverage could increase stadium attendances. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7928532/ They do conclude that while factors affecting attendance in Ned can apply internationally, they don't necessarily. From what i can see of this article there's actual empirical evidence from Scotland that TV coverage negatively affects attendance here. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247739048_Does_Television_Crowd_Out_Spectators_New_Evidence_From_the_Scottish_Premier_League That's old data which is a minus for comparability but it is direct observation of our society and league. I'd rate that more highly than an international analogy, except i can't actually see it to know what it says. It is at least plausible that Tv coverage will negatively effect attendance in Scotland. Without doing a spreadsheet and a regression, my impression is that Sunday lunch and midweek games are always more poorly attended than the equivalent fixture on Saturday at 3. I agree that there's speculation, but i think that informed speculation would tend to support the contention that tv would cannibalise other income.

Absolutely. But we're never going to be in a position where there's easy comparisons with other deals, for all sorts of reasons. I think the biggest issue with the Sky deal isn't the size of the payments. It's the lack of promotion outside the OF.

"But given that TV games don’t really cost anything extra to put on compared to normal games," False. They have an opportunity cost in forgone revenue from other sources. He's calculated that £7.8m could be a break even for lost ST sales in a worst case scenario. That looks like possibly a reasonably based estimate. To balance out the fact that that's worst case, it doesn't include hospitality, walk ups etc. I'd expect hospitality to be worst hit and that's a big part of Aberdeen's strategy. Where's the evidence that anything like that is acheivable? And he doesn't make any further pertinent arguments. He makes an assertion that there's "no interest in finding out" if there's a better deal, without any support for that assertion. I'm sure i recognise this guy's name from the banter years as a sevco propagandist and this just reads like a regurgitation of Stewart Robinson's unsupported contentions (acknowledging that Dave's statement that they've talked to the market is also unsupported). I don't know why the clubs are behind this deal and feel the need to push it through now. I do find it hard to believe that a load of rich and successful people who are going to be on the hook for underwriting losses would willingly and knowingly enter into a deal that increases those losses, if they don't need to.

It's not really. When we sell broadcast rights there's an opportunity cost to the clubs in terms of lost revenues from other potential broadcasters, and ticket sales. Tickets are affected both by direct competition from the game being on tv and by being moved to shitey times. I'd assume that hospitality packages and the like are disproportionately affected compared to normal ticket sales - eg a 30% dip in attendance from being moved to Monday evening could easily be a 75% dip in hospitality. When we agree not to sell those rights it's only the opportunity cost relating to other broadcasters. For balance, games being on tv might generate more sponsorship income but i'd guess that's marginal. After Sky have had their pick of the 48 games (all OF away games + Edinburgh derbies only gets them to 42) then what's left isn't very marketable. The value of that package is the opportunity cost of exclusivity. So the costs to the clubs depend a lot on the nature of the rights we sell. Exclusivity costs a lot less to sell than broadcast. It is qualitatively a different deal. I'll take the money and the teeth, but not the transatlantic accent.

No you haven't. What a load of shite. In terms of your terrible analogy we can still wear the jacket. We can still play the unsold games when we want and won't be competing against tv coverage for ticket sales. It's not semantics. There is a real world substantive difference between selling rights to broadcast a game and agreeing to not sell those rights. Now clean yourself up, you dribbling mess.

From August, before the extension was negotiated: HIBS chief Ron Gordon reckons the new SPFL TV deal IS good for the game - and reckons it can help clubs reach their £50 million jackpot goal. The Easter Road supremo believes Sky Sports are the 'best partners' for the Scottish game, and reckons that view is 'validated by the findings of this week's Deloitte report. The report, commissioned by Hibs and four other clubs, looked into how to increase revenues in our game. Premiership clubs now reckon they can be aiming to increase annual revenue in the SPFL to £50 million by 2029. That would be a big jump from the £28.5m shared among the SPFL's clubs last season. SunSport revealed last week that the SPFL were closing in on a new agreement with Premiership broadcasters Sky. It would be a deal worth £30m per season that includes 60 live matches, 12 more than the current deal. Clubs would also have the opportunity to broadcast five games on PPV that aren't selected for televised coverage. Response to the proposed new deal have been varied, but Hibs chief Gordon has backed it. He said: “I feel Sky are the best partners for us but the Deloitte report also validated this. I feel they are the best partner for us, for a variety of reasons. "They are tried and true and all we are trying to do is to make it better. “It is also the home of the best football in the UK. The Premier League is there and we are the little brother of the Premier League. "If you want to see top football then you want to be on Sky. That is not to say there won’t be other players further down the road because we will have opportunities to go with a second package in three years, assuming this Sky deal moves the way we all think it is going to move. "I don’t have any visibility of anybody who can play to the level of Sky as it stands.” Gordon also confirmed the pay-per-view discussions. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, clubs were able to broadcast non-televised matches on their in-house TV channels, but the 3pm Saturday blackout has returned this campaign for games not picked for broadcast. He added: “We are also in talks about pay-per-view. We don’t have that at the moment and we are trying to carve that out, which would be excellent. "We want to protect our gate, have more exposure and create another revenue through the pay-per-view which we currently don’t have.”

It’s no more misleading than comparing the deals like for like. Probably a better way of comparing, if anything.

Comprehensive list below https://elvies.co.uk/awards.php?Action=Awards