Sportscene watch 2015/16

[vikingTON]

Did they? You can only accept what's offered.

 

Did you go to the Neil Doncaster School of Negotiating Tactics? They can set out a higher figure based on what the league determines the value of the package to be and engage with either different broadcasters or a stand-alone venture. Naturally that would involve negotiating down from the league's own figure towards the broadcaster's initial offer. Or if the BBC or whichever party are taking the piss - refuse to provide coverage until a proper deal is worked out: the league is under no obligation to do so.

 

Snapping up the first offer on the table because 'well... there's nothing else right now' would be utterly cretinous.

 

Sportscene can go to whomever. I don't much care. But losing Sportsound to Super Scoreboard Live would be disaster. For one thing, you can always tell if it's going to be a crappy taxi ride if the driver is listening to SSL.

 

This is true.

 

Based on what?

Sky and BT collectively pay £17.5m/year.

Let's assume a monthly fee of £10. That means you'd need 145,000 subscribers to bring in the same revenue (and charitably assume people will continue to subscribe in the close season). Then there's the cost of production and fees for broadcasting on cable and satellite.

The numbers just don't add up.

 

Only if you don't take advertising within the service into account, which is actually a huge portion of the revenue made by Sky or BT at the moment. Assuming that monthly subscriptions to Sky or BT bear any relation to what the companies offer for broadcasting rights is simply wrong; broadcasters are looking far more towards the additional revenue generated from advertising. I'm not convinced that the sums would fully add up for a separate package tbh, but your argument doesn't stack up either.

[The Master]

Only if you don't take advertising within the service into account, which is actually a huge portion of the revenue made by Sky or BT at the moment. Assuming that monthly subscriptions to Sky or BT bear any relation to what the companies offer for broadcasting rights is simply wrong; broadcasters are looking far more towards the additional revenue generated from advertising. I'm not convinced that the sums would fully add up for a separate package tbh, but your argument doesn't stack up either.

Fair enough, I didn't factor in advertising but revenue from that is directly related to number of subscribers.

I don't think my figure of 145,000 to make the proposition viable is too far off, however, once production costs are factored in. While viewing figures on Sky and BT might suggest that's possible, it also assumes that every person viewing an SPFL game is prepared to pay either an additional subscription, or an alternative one (i.e. cancel Sky) just to get Scottish football.

[Hammer Jag]

I've grown to dislike Richard Gordon.

I'm the same. His smug and condescending nature along with his ability to shoehorn Aberdeen into any discussion is becoming tiresome. He's also allowed routine mistakes to creep into his performance, regularly getting basic facts wrong.

Openly encouraging Chick Young's incompetence and his blatant disregard for our game against Utd the other week had me seething.

[Dee Man]

I've grown to dislike Richard Gordon.

I'm sure he'll be devastated at this news.

[bendan]

Based on what?

Sky and BT collectively pay £17.5m/year.

Let's assume a monthly fee of £10. That means you'd need 145,000 subscribers to bring in the same revenue (and charitably assume people will continue to subscribe in the close season). Then there's the cost of production and fees for broadcasting on cable and satellite.

The numbers just don't add up.

 

You're ignoring the commercial premises fees. Sky used to pay Setanta several million a year so they could keep the Scottish football in the package for pubs.

 

The SPL could also do deals with Virgin or even BT to include 'SPFLTV' in channel packages they offer, just like ESPN and Setanta did. 

[lionel hutz]

The Eredivisie did this for a few seasons and it was quite profitable for them. They only stopped it because Rupert Murdoch paid €1billion for the rights.

 

The average viewing figures for matches on Sky or BT are just over 120,000. The most watched match in the Premiership was Aberdeen vs Celtic with 237,000 viewers.

Viewing Figures here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v7-SRaa3ZYZbCyk68v1g74Ubf3o6XLsKAvaI2SYyPg8/edit#gid=0

[Waspie]

Did anyone see what badge they used on the screen when they interviewed Jack Ross? Certainly wasn't an Alloa one. Typical amateur pish from Sportscene.

It was the Auchinleck Talbot badge. Easily done.

[SaintZorro]

Based on what?

Sky and BT collectively pay £17.5m/year.

Let's assume a monthly fee of £10. That means you'd need 145,000 subscribers to bring in the same revenue (and charitably assume people will continue to subscribe in the close season). Then there's the cost of production and fees for broadcasting on cable and satellite.

The numbers just don't add up.

I'm undoubtedly in the minority but I'd pay for SPFLTV but will never again have a sky sports subscription. I cancelled that about 10 years ago refusing to pay even a tiny amount towards Rio Ferdinand's wages while he sat out a "drugs ban".

[HibeeJibee]

It's an interesting situation.,. Big piece in today's paper about it and surely Topping saying "you give us £1.4M just now, we want £3-4M next year" can only be a negotiating ploy looking for £2M or whatever.

 

Taking highlights off terrestrial TV would reduce viewership - including kids, the next generation of fans - and presumably harm sponsor exposure.

 

There is no comparable radio alternative.

 

Also a piece saying Sportscene's problem is a low production budget. Much criticism on this thread is about things which aren't budget-driven, IMO.

 

Many of the issues are a lack of professionalism, cronyism, poor editorial choices, etc. which aren't necessarily budget-driven.

[vikingTON]

Taking highlights off terrestrial TV would reduce viewership - including kids, the next generation of fans - and presumably harm sponsor exposure.

Perhaps the "next generation" would be better served by actually going to games to view the action for themselves, instead of relying on a show that will spend the majority of its time fawning over each half of the bigots. There is no Helen Lovejoy-esque entitlement to show football highlights on terrestrial TV at all.

It's clearly a negotiating tactic, but one that should absolutely be used to secure a credible offer. Other than Sportsound the BBC takes far more from Scottish game than it gives back, worst of all being their ludicrous three pence BBC Alba deal.

[BuddieInDundee]

Perhaps the "next generation" would be better served by actually going to games to view the action for themselves, instead of relying on a show that will spend the majority of its time fawning over each half of the bigots. There is no Helen Lovejoy-esque entitlement to show football highlights on terrestrial TV at all.

It's clearly a negotiating tactic, but one that should absolutely be used to secure a credible offer. Other than Sportsound the BBC takes far more from Scottish game than it gives back, worst of all being their ludicrous three pence BBC Alba deal.

Is there any particular reason games are shown on Alba? Never seen the point of two central belt sides being shown on live TV...in Gaelic.

[Nowhereman]

I'm undoubtedly in the minority but I'd pay for SPFLTV but will never again have a sky sports subscription. I cancelled that about 10 years ago refusing to pay even a tiny amount towards Rio Ferdinand's wages while he sat out a "drugs ban".

I'm with you on that one. It always surprises me how may p n b'ers have sky subscriptions given the contribution that company have made to the destruction of football as we knew it

[jimmy boo]

Perhaps the "next generation" would be better served by actually going to games to view the action for themselves, instead of relying on a show that will spend the majority of its time fawning over each half of the bigots. There is no Helen Lovejoy-esque entitlement to show football highlights on terrestrial TV at all.

It's clearly a negotiating tactic, but one that should absolutely be used to secure a credible offer. Other than Sportsound the BBC takes far more from Scottish game than it gives back, worst of all being their ludicrous three pence BBC Alba deal.

Good Lord I agree!! I feel dirty.

[jimmy boo]

I'm undoubtedly in the minority but I'd pay for SPFLTV but will never again have a sky sports subscription. I cancelled that about 10 years ago refusing to pay even a tiny amount towards Rio Ferdinand's wages while he sat out a "drugs ban".

 

I'm with you on that one. It always surprises me how may p n b'ers have sky subscriptions given the contribution that company have made to the destruction of football as we knew it

I respect your choices guys but I could never limit myself to just watching the terrible standard of Scottish football. Do you refuse to watch anything else as a matter of principle or do you watch BT, MOTD, streams etc?

[Strathman]

Everyone was very secretive about the actual pittance that the BBC paid for Scottish football presumably because the figure was so low. The quote from Topping "less than a million" is the closest there has been to an actual figure.

Interesting to see the Daily Record (Gordon Waddell) reverting to type and telling us to shut up and eat our cereal.

[mjw]

Interesting to see the Daily Record (Gordon Waddell) reverting to type and telling us to shut up and eat our cereal.

His regular invite on to BBC Radio Scotland's sportsound wouldn't be behind this attitude.would it?

[K.T]

I respect your choices guys but I could never limit myself to just watching the terrible standard of Scottish football. Do you refuse to watch anything else as a matter of principle or do you watch BT, MOTD, streams etc?

Tbh I would also pay to watch a Scottish football channel. I rarely watch any EPL or champions league matches. I don't consciously avoid them I just don't get into the games and don't care who wins. I've found myself watching lower league Scottish games on Alba and getting right into it though. One that springs to mind was a challenge cup final a couple years ago, I think QOS against Partick? I really enjoyed that one. No idea why I find myself interested or rooting for any particular team I don't support but it seems to happen for me with Scottish football and not with any other.

[lionel hutz]

SPFL TV

- Exclusive Live Matches from all four tiers of the SPFL

- Exclusive coverage of the play-offs
- Live Coverage of Scottish Cup, League Cup and Challenge Cup
- Live rights of Scottish teams in the Europa League
- Live coverage of Scotland friendlies and highlights of competitive games

£10.99 per month (standard price)
£7.99/month for Season Tickets holders at a SPFL club. 
 

[jimmy boo]

Tbh I would also pay to watch a Scottish football channel. I rarely watch any EPL or champions league matches. I don't consciously avoid them I just don't get into the games and don't care who wins. I've found myself watching lower league Scottish games on Alba and getting right into it though. One that springs to mind was a challenge cup final a couple years ago, I think QOS against Partick? I really enjoyed that one. No idea why I find myself interested or rooting for any particular team I don't support but it seems to happen for me with Scottish football and not with any other.

Interesting to hear a different and totally opposite viewpoint from mine.

[Savage Henry]

SPFL TV

- Exclusive Live Matches from all four tiers of the SPFL

- Exclusive coverage of the play-offs

- Live Coverage of Scottish Cup, League Cup and Challenge Cup

- Live rights of Scottish teams in the Europa League

- Live coverage of Scotland friendlies and highlights of competitive games

£10.99 per month (standard price)

£7.99/month for Season Tickets holders at a SPFL club. 

 

 

You could have a premium service and a regular service.  Scottish football needs to get away from the idea that only season ticket holders count.  Every single game should be an even in and of itself.  Season tickets should be a side issue at most.