lionel hutz Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Put it this way, Mitchell thought it could raise £33m a season and that was just for the SPL rights, imagine what you could do with all 4 leagues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Mitchell thinks a lot of things, most of them completely batshit insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsjfc Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Currently SPFL get approaching £20M from TV deals - £15M for league, £2M for League Cup, maybe £1.5M for highlights (removing radio rights from c£2.8M deal), small amount for Challenge Cup and lower levels off BBC Alba. SFA get £14M from Sky for Scottish Cup and home friendlies That's fairly impressive from the sfa. Assume extra from BBC on top of that too for highlights + final too? Makes the SPFL seem pretty poor in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Should have said it also includes U21 internationals and the Youth Cup. I'd forgotten SFA must be getting X million £ from BBC for their live Scottish Cup games too, so my grand total should actually be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I'm the sort that would pay for SPFLTV (I cancelled my sky sports sub a few years back) - but I'm not convinced that the subscriber numbers required is even remotely sustainable. I guess one interesting thing would be if they were genuinely going ahead with it, would that in itself add some value to the rights - ie - would Sky or BT up the ante to avoid losing Rangers and Celtic's armchair fans? I'd also be interested to hear ideas of how SPFL TV could work without being a traditional TV channel to lower costs/increase margins. Could it be aimed at Smart TVs and devices instead of having to pay to use Sky or Virgin's platform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 On 9/2/2016 at 11:05, RabidAl said: By definition, the 'best of the rest' must have a winning record against (at the very least, a significant minority of) the rest of the league - the non-old firm teams; the best of the rest almost never have a winning record against the old firm; so those aspects of the argument don't stand up. If the argument is that, in general, the 'best of the rest' drop too many points against non-old firm teams, then that's also an argument for bigger leagues - since with bigger leagues the quality of 'the rest' will be diluted in comparison to smaller leagues, and there will be fewer games against the better teams including the best-resourced: the old firm. The proportion of games against the old firm would fall from 8/38 in the current set up to 4/34 with an 18-team league (for example) so that, along with playing the other strongest teams on fewer occasions, it would be easier for potential challengers to pick up points against the relatively weaker teams they would be playing instead. An example would be if (?) Aberdeen shared the points in the 12 games against their nearest rivals last season - Celtic, Hearts, St.Johnstone. In a larger league, they might still share the points in their 6 games with these teams, with the other 6 games coming against the new teams from 13 to 18th who would be weaker and they'd be far more likely to win. Based on last season, the 'best of the rest' (Aberdeen) dropped 36.3% of points in games against 'the rest' and 50% of points in games against 'the best' (Celtic). And that's exaggerating things, since in a typical season the best of the rest fail to come close to a share of the points against the old firm. So - as you would expect - it's a myth that the Best of the Rest drop as many points against the other teams as they do against the better-resourced teams of the old firm. (To make a valid comparison, you need to look at it in relative terms, because teams play 'the rest' about four times as often as they play the old firm: there are 90 points to be dropped in the 30 games against 'the rest', but only 24 points to be dropped in the 8 games against the old firm.) So, you have to ask potential challengers: would you prefer to play in a smaller league where you are more likely to drop points against more difficult opponents, or a larger league where you have a better chance of attracting supporters through winning more matches and challenging for the title? After 40 years of smaller leagues - of which the past 31 consecutive years have given nothing but old firm winners - it's time we realised that teams playing one another 4 times a season simply compounds the advantage in resources that the old firm have. For the first 10 years the 'best v best' x4 scenario produced a competitive league that actually seemed to improve both players and teams, but once gate receipts were no longer shared by clubs (from 1981) the door was opened to the old firm to harness their larger potential revenues. Playing each other four times means dropping more points against much better resourced opponents (the old firm) than is necessary, and also dropping more points against similarly resourced teams than is necessary: challengers could have fewer games against each and more games against slightly weaker opponents in a larger league. It's also worth considering that the introduction of 3 points for a win, from 1994, simply exaggerates the advantage of the best-resourced teams, who would win regardless, and makes the league less interesting to supporters of potential challengers. An 18-team league that would still give the commercial revenues of 4 old firm games could be...teams playing home and away to give a core of 34 games, but topping and tailing the season with head-to-heads....match day 1 could be an additional set of head-to-heads based on the previous season's finishing positions...then run through the 34 home and aways of the fixtures list as normal, for 35 games each in total...then European play-offs down to 6th (see previous post, above). All of which would give bigger leagues, still a 'top six' to keep the mid-table interesting, plenty of head-to-heads, and still 4 old-firm games for the money men. You could have a single 42 team league and Celtic (and in time Rangers) will win the title virtually every year and your homeopathic theory of football will make no more than a cosmetic difference to that. While the financial disparity exists as it does at the moment then a 34/36/38 game 9-month slog is going to be won by one of the OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 You could have a single 42 team league and Celtic (and in time Rangers) will win the title virtually every year and your homeopathic theory of football will make no more than a cosmetic difference to that. While the financial disparity exists as it does at the moment then a 34/36/38 game 9-month slog is going to be won by one of the OF. In fact an 82 game season would only heighten the advantage of clubs who can maintain most strength in depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: In fact an 82 game season would only heighten the advantage of clubs who can maintain most strength in depth 41 game season...maybe 42 if we adopted the Argentinian 'play everyone once and an extra game against your derby rivals' madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 41 game season...maybe 42 if we adopted the Argentinian 'play everyone once and an extra game against your derby rivals' madness The same logic applies even if it's just another 3 or 4 additional games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 11 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: The same logic applies even if it's just another 3 or 4 additional games. I'm sorry I'm not sure what logic you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 12 hours ago, EdTheDuck said: I'm sorry I'm not sure what logic you mean? That longer seasons reinforce the advantage of better resourced clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: That longer seasons reinforce the advantage of better resourced clubs. Ah yes, indeed. Excuse me for being so thick, but I'm...well...thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.