Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Loose Women: David Goodw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 The SFA deal with Sky for the International games and the Scottish Cup games is up soon isn't it? Would sadly stunned however if it didn't stay with Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Not read the whole thread yet but a few things coming to mind so far: 1) why are they negotiating a deal to run from 2020-21 through until the mid 2020s in January 2017? It's 3-and-a-half years until it will even start, and could be almost a decade until it will end depending on how long the deal is for. Seems surprisingly early. 2) people comparing with Belgium, Denmark and so on are not comparing "like with like". They show most or all their games spread out over the weekend. How much more would we get for showing 228 games instead of 65 - but how much would be lost by moving so many matches away from Saturday afternoons and televising them? We know from UEFA's report how much more clubs here rely on gate money compared to TV cash. 3) some of the figures people are bandying around to push an SPFL TV station are clearly fantasy? You'd have all the equipment, broadcast, admin and staff costs - currently borne by the buyer within the huge operations of Sky or BT - and you'd need huge numbers of people to take an extra subscription. Lots of them might just stick with their main Sky or BT deal. Content like U20s games are attractive to a minority but effectively loss-leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 On 20/01/2017 at 21:07, LondonHibsFan said: I imagine the talks have gone something like this. We're getting all the popsicles we can eat, boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 In regards to viewing figures, the average for a Premier League game is around 900,000 viewers, the average for a Scottish Premiership game is around 150,000 viewers (about 16% of PL viewers). Per game, Scotland should receive around 16% of what England get, however that doesn't mean Scotland should get 16% of £1.9bn. On SKY and BT there are around 150 live matches from the PL and only 70 or so from Scotland- which is only 47% of the number of live games down south. So the Premiership should receive 47% of 16% of the £1.9bn that the PL receives. 0.16 * 1,900,000,000 = £302m * 0.47 = £142m per season However, BT and SKY will never pay even half that for Scottish football. But these are the figures that Cockwomble and co should go into the negotiations with. As HJ says, most other leagues do show every match live, but Poland receives £30m a season and don't have every game live, Switzerland receives £35m with a similar set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I heard a rumour that the spfl is trying to push through again the 12-12 league reconstruction splitting into 3 league's of 8 for bt sports new exclusive tv deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ftk said: I heard a rumour that the spfl is trying to push through again the 12-12 league reconstruction splitting into 3 league's of 8 for bt sports new exclusive tv deal. Who is this shit idea meant to appeal to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Who is this shit idea meant to appeal to? Not sure but they were keen on doing it before but st Mirren and Ross county I think voted against it. The enhanced tv contract should be the deal breaker in the club's voting it in this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Marr1 said: In regards to viewing figures, the average for a Premier League game is around 900,000 viewers, the average for a Scottish Premiership game is around 150,000 viewers (about 16% of PL viewers). Per game, Scotland should receive around 16% of what England get, however that doesn't mean Scotland should get 16% of £1.9bn. On SKY and BT there are around 150 live matches from the PL and only 70 or so from Scotland- which is only 47% of the number of live games down south. So the Premiership should receive 47% of 16% of the £1.9bn that the PL receives. 0.16 * 1,900,000,000 = £302m * 0.47 = £142m per season However, BT and SKY will never pay even half that for Scottish football. But these are the figures that Cockwomble and co should go into the negotiations with. As HJ says, most other leagues do show every match live, but Poland receives £30m a season and don't have every game live, Switzerland receives £35m with a similar set up. These figures are I'm afraid, irrelevant. As the BBC (which has a public service remit that BT and Sky don't) argue when pressed on the disparity between the sums they pay to screen highlights of Scottish and English football, this thing is dictated entirely by market forces. The reality is that the EPL can command massive sums because of the worldwide demand to watch it. We don't have that, or what might even seem like a proportionate chunk of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said: Not read the whole thread yet but a few things coming to mind so far: 1) why are they negotiating a deal to run from 2020-21 through until the mid 2020s in January 2017? It's 3-and-a-half years until it will even start, and could be almost a decade until it will end depending on how long the deal is for. Seems surprisingly early. 2) people comparing with Belgium, Denmark and so on are not comparing "like with like". They show most or all their games spread out over the weekend. How much more would we get for showing 228 games instead of 65 - but how much would be lost by moving so many matches away from Saturday afternoons and televising them? We know from UEFA's report how much more clubs here rely on gate money compared to TV cash. 3) some of the figures people are bandying around to push an SPFL TV station are clearly fantasy? You'd have all the equipment, broadcast, admin and staff costs - currently borne by the buyer within the huge operations of Sky or BT - and you'd need huge numbers of people to take an extra subscription. Lots of them might just stick with their main Sky or BT deal. Content like U20s games are attractive to a minority but effectively loss-leaders. Point 2 is particularly important when we're comparing our deal with others'. If TV income is not so significant for our game currently, we shouldn't look to sell the game's soul (such as it is) in pursuit of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grazza Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 40 minutes ago, ftk said: I heard a rumour that the spfl is trying to push through again the 12-12 league reconstruction splitting into 3 league's of 8 for bt sports new exclusive tv deal. Wonder what they would need to push that through. Only 6 teams would get 4 home games v Celtic/Rangers which seems to be why we have what we have now. Probably suit likes of Hearts and Aberdeen and Hibs in longer term but probably just create bigger gap between these teams and the motherwells, st johstones etc Chairmen won't like not knowing how many visits they get from the bigger away crowds if they fail to make top 8. The tv deal would have to be significantly more than now even for teams that don't make the top 8 to mitigate away gates. Have wondered why they have never really thought about expanding championship to 12 teams considering they want to encourage full time football and training it can give to young players and help academies. Would say Falkirk and QOS be too bothered about 2 additional teams in the league especially if it meant more match days for revenue etc. I understand that its not easy to get agreement on stuff but never really heard of them having a meeting to discuss changes in numbers below top flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 1 minute ago, grazza said: Wonder what they would need to push that through. Only 6 teams would get 4 home games v Celtic/Rangers which seems to be why we have what we have now. Probably suit likes of Hearts and Aberdeen and Hibs in longer term but probably just create bigger gap between these teams and the motherwells, st johstones etc Chairmen won't like not knowing how many visits they get from the bigger away crowds if they fail to make top 8. The tv deal would have to be significantly more than now even for teams that don't make the top 8 to mitigate away gates. Have wondered why they have never really thought about expanding championship to 12 teams considering they want to encourage full time football and training it can give to young players and help academies. Would say Falkirk and QOS be too bothered about 2 additional teams in the league especially if it meant more match days for revenue etc. I understand that its not easy to get agreement on stuff but never really heard of them having a meeting to discuss changes in numbers below top flight. 15 of the L1 and L2 Clubs 8 Cham clubs and 9 Prem CLubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 As I've been saying on another thread - the perennial favourite of internal politicking for league reconstruction doesn't surprise. It being due to TV would... Just now BT have a share in covering a 38-game Premiership (with the split at 33 games) and a 36-game Championship, followed by 3 rounds of 2-legged playoffs. Clubs play each other 3 or 4 times; you get the Premiership title and European races, the race for the Top 6 - the race to avoid being bottom or second bottom in the Premiership, the race to win or finish top 4 in the Championship; then the end-of-season playoffs. BT could buy it outright if Sky aren't interested enough or if they want to outbid them. Given we are small fry to BT it seems confusing why they would put such stock in swapping that for something where everyone plays 36 games, play each other 2 or 4 times, where you get a new Middle 8, but equally no Championship title race or end-of-season playoffs. Seems trivial difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimter-boys Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Reading this had me in an abso kink [emoji23][emoji23] hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 More Rod Stewart in the new TV deal please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanmistermustard Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Only thing guaranteed is that Doncaster will come back with an amazement of a shit deal that will massively undervalue the Scottish game yet will try and spin it as some incredible achievement whilst praising Rangers and Celtic for daring to remain and save Scottish football from being utter pish when they could easily ride off into the English or Super European Leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 More Rod Stewart in the new TV deal please. I Don't Wanna Talk About It: Rod Stewart interviews Rangers fans about "The Journey". Steamin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmadrid Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Set kick off times for the TV games would be superb and it would be great if we told Sky where to go and just worked with BT Sport. If we have to have Friday night games make them lower league games. Then have a Saturday slot at 12.30 and be bold and have a Sunday at 3pm kick off. Ignore the Premier league in England and take a pride in our own game. That give 3 live games a week , no early Sunday kick offs and if your in the Premiership no Friday night games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Ignore the Premier league in England and take a pride in our own game. This is the key IMO. There's not one broadcaster for which our league is the number one footballing priority. I'm not gonna debate independence here, but to Sky and BT, we're a regional league, and thus get treated as such. This is why we need to be innovative, and compromise a little with the TV companies. The new League Cup format is an example of this, and in my opinion it has been promising. We can't really evaluate until after a few years, and my team didn't participate in the group stages, but I enjoyed the compact nature of it, and it emphasises the relative importance of the Scottish Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted January 22, 2017 Author Share Posted January 22, 2017 20 minutes ago, realmadrid said: Set kick off times for the TV games would be superb and it would be great if we told Sky where to go and just worked with BT Sport. If we have to have Friday night games make them lower league games. Then have a Saturday slot at 12.30 and be bold and have a Sunday at 3pm kick off. Ignore the Premier league in England and take a pride in our own game. That give 3 live games a week , no early Sunday kick offs and if your in the Premiership no Friday night games. Why deprive the Premiership of the one TV slot that actually finds a decent amount of favour with fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.