Project Brave rumbles on..

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Bazil85 said:

I'm talking about both. I'm talking about fans not happy with our TV deal and the reason why I think our TV deal is spot on. Lack of interest because of competition. You get more competition you get more interested parties at home and away. Even for Celtic and Sevco fans for example. I've spoken to five 'Celtic' fans today. Three didn't know the score yesterday. If Aberdeen Celtic and Sevco were all neck and neck and it was a nail biting time do you think that would be the same? 

Oh ffs.  We're basing this now on the views of OF halfwits who are barely interested in football at all.

Anyway, you started off going on about overseas markets, and have now shifted the terms altogether.  

I would genuinely love it, Keegan style, if the landscape at the top of our game was more egalitarian across several clubs.  However, the agenda you're peddling here, is very close to the one that says we need a strong Rangers because a Celtic procession has no appeal in England.  It's the sort of groundless bunkum that Souness was spewing out.

By all means, try to tackle wild commercial inequality, but not for spurious commercial reasons.

[Salvo Montalbano]

The Dutch League is shown as filler on Sky Sports to use up space on their football channel. The Belgian and Portuguese leagues are shown on FreeSports (exactly), an offshoot of Premier Sports who have very small, sometimes immeasurably so viewing figures. The Russian and Danish leagues aren't shown in the UK. On top of that, many leagues televise every game or a higher percentage of games per matchday. If you have a £/game breakdown that shows we are miles behind everyone else then fine, but I don't think you'll find that.

[foreverarover]

That's a bit harder since it's not always clear which clubs should take credit for certain players - for example, is Stuart Armstrong under Inverness or Dundee United?  I've tried my best to put something together (with Armstrong as DUFC).  Averages don't make much sense here, so I've just added up the total number of appearances for players produced by each Scottish club.   The main list shows players of all nationalities, while the one hidden in the spoiler is only for Scottish players. Again, the top 6 have all been given Elite status.  Motherwell are joint 8th and Rangers are 11th.

 

 

Total number of 2017/18 Premiership starts by producing youth system:Celtic: 135Hearts: 69Hibs: 64Aberdeen: 63Hamilton: 58Kilmarnock: 51St Mirren: 51Livingston: 38Motherwell: 38Dundee United: 36Rangers: 32Queen's Park: 28Ross County: 22Inverness: 21Montrose: 21St Johnstone: 21Partick Thistle: 19Dundee: 15Clyde: 13Lanark United: 13Dumbarton United: 12Queen of the South: 12Raith Rovers: 11Dunfermline: 9Kello Rovers: 8Falkirk: 7Kilbirnie Ladeside: 6Syngenta Amateurs: 6Cowdenbeath: 3Stenhousemuir: 3Berwick Rangers: 2

Spoiler  

 

 

Total number of 2017/18 Premiership starts by producing youth system:Celtic: 129Hearts: 69Hibs: 64Hamilton: 58Kilmarnock: 51St Mirren: 51Aberdeen: 50Livingston: 38Motherwell: 38Dundee United: 36Rangers: 32Inverness: 21Montrose: 21St Johnstone: 21Partick Thistle: 17Queen's Park: 17Dundee: 15Clyde: 13Lanark United: 13Ross County: 13Dumbarton United: 12Queen of the South: 12Raith Rovers: 11Dunfermline: 9Kello Rovers: 8Falkirk: 7Kilbirnie Ladeside: 6Syngenta Amateurs: 6Cowdenbeath: 3Stenhousemuir: 3Berwick Rangers: 2

 

 

 

Total number of starts by producing youth system. Wtf does that mean???? If it means number of first team starts by players brought through, then Raith' s at 11 is utter gash and is much higher than that.

 

 

 

[craigkillie]

I thought it was fairly self-explanatory - the number of Premiership starts by players who were produced by the youth systems of various Scottish clubs.  It was a while back, so I don't remember exactly who was counted for Raith - possibly just Callachan.

[Bazil85]

On 12/24/2017 at 12:56, Monkey Tennis said:

Oh ffs.  We're basing this now on the views of OF halfwits who are barely interested in football at all.

Anyway, you started off going on about overseas markets, and have now shifted the terms altogether.  

I would genuinely love it, Keegan style, if the landscape at the top of our game was more egalitarian across several clubs.  However, the agenda you're peddling here, is very close to the one that says we need a strong Rangers because a Celtic procession has no appeal in England.  It's the sort of groundless bunkum that Souness was spewing out.

By all means, try to tackle wild commercial inequality, but not for spurious commercial reasons.

You clearly aren't falling me at all on this. No we do not need a strong Rangers, as per my earlier post I said going from a one horse race to a coin toss is equally boring.

Overseas markets and football at home are related, what's so difficult about that point? And in what way, shape or form is it shifting anything? You generate more excitement that excitement is felt here and makes for more marketability overseas. Do you think many people in Asia or America cared much about Leicester City a couple seasons ago? I'm using that example with a pinch of salt because obviously it's on a much larger scale than we could ever want to generate interest on.) 

My point is very very very simple.

More interest = More cash.

Knowing who the champion (or top two) will be in August = Not very much interest.

You can argue that point all you want but I'd love to see an example anywhere where more interest has resulted in less money? It all comes back to my initial point that no one can moan about the TV revenue we currently get because it's what we deserve for having a boring, predicatble product. 

[Bazil85]

On 12/24/2017 at 21:31, Salvo Montalbano said:

The Dutch League is shown as filler on Sky Sports to use up space on their football channel. The Belgian and Portuguese leagues are shown on FreeSports (exactly), an offshoot of Premier Sports who have very small, sometimes immeasurably so viewing figures. The Russian and Danish leagues aren't shown in the UK. On top of that, many leagues televise every game or a higher percentage of games per matchday. If you have a £/game breakdown that shows we are miles behind everyone else then fine, but I don't think you'll find that.

As I've said, several times I'm not talking about turning us into the EPL or La Liga. Everything you've said there is TV deal related for those countries. All of it is extra money that the Scottish league do not have. You're pretty much proving my point by agreeing these football leagues can be watched in this country but the SP likely can't be watched in theirs (as readily). They are all countries where football isn't viewed per capita by as many people as Scotland, that's fact. It's online, it's well publicised. Okay some of the countries might have bigger populations making for more people actually watching the games but there isn't one league I feel Scotland couldn't compete with if our country had a wee bit of excitement and competition. 

As for the Russian league and Danish league (and a lot others), they have coverage deals with various betting companies where if you bet on the game, you can watch the game live on a betting app (we have some but not nearly as much hence why we are so low down in the TV revenue table). The leagues get income from that, yet again income hampered because there is so little interest in Scottish football right now because of the lack of competition. 

[Monkey Tennis]

21 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

You clearly aren't falling me at all on this. No we do not need a strong Rangers, as per my earlier post I said going from a one horse race to a coin toss is equally boring.

Overseas markets and football at home are related, what's so difficult about that point? And in what way, shape or form is it shifting anything? You generate more excitement that excitement is felt here and makes for more marketability overseas. Do you think many people in Asia or America cared much about Leicester City a couple seasons ago? I'm using that example with a pinch of salt because obviously it's on a much larger scale than we could ever want to generate interest on.) 

My point is very very very simple.

More interest = More cash.

Knowing who the champion (or top two) will be in August = Not very much interest.

You can argue that point all you want but I'd love to see an example anywhere where more interest has resulted in less money? It all comes back to my initial point that no one can moan about the TV revenue we currently get because it's what we deserve for having a boring, predicatble product. 

More interest = more cash.  No argument there.  

However, you still have a couple of problems.  One is that any additional cash would have to be distributed radically differently from the methods currently in use, if it was to do anything to help rather than exacerbate the current imbalance it helps ensure.

Another problem is that the increased interest would have to be on a huge scale in order for the cash increase to be significant.

The final difficulty is that no correlation between a tighter title race and this renewed, enlarged Interest has even been established, let alone a relationship based on causation.

Again, you're thinking of what would engage your interest more (and mine incidentally) and imposing it on a huge, hypothetical TV audience at home and abroad.  It's not a process that's successful.

 

[Bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

More interest = more cash.  No argument there.  

However, you still have a couple of problems.  One is that any additional cash would have to be distributed radically differently from the methods currently in use, if it was to do anything to help rather than exacerbate the current imbalance it helps ensure.

Another problem is that the increased interest would have to be on a huge scale in order for the cash increase to be significant.

The final difficulty is that no correlation between a tighter title race and this renewed, enlarged Interest has even been established, let alone a relationship based on causation.

Again, you're thinking of what would engage your interest more (and mine incidentally) and imposing it on a huge, hypothetical TV audience at home and abroad.  It's not a process that's successful.

 

First one - why is that a problem for my point? My point is we could get more if we had a competitive league. I've never said it would be dished out fairly, it certainly wouldn't.

Second one - Agree, again not the point I'm making. What I would say is if we had consistent competition over the last 20/ 30 years we would likely be in a much better position. 

Your final point - I don't know if we've ever had the opportunity to test it in Scotland however other exciting competitive leagues have certainly generated more interest elsewhere. It would have to be prolonged and consistent. One season of a challenge wouldn't do it. In saying that, I think the closest we've ever came was the season Hearts won their first 10 games or something like that. There was a real belief they could beat or split (which they did) the OF. That generated interest in England and beyond. 

The final point about prolonged, answers your final sentence. I think we can see it in other less footballing countries that have more valuable TV and commericial deals. 

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

First one - why is that a problem for my point? My point is we could get more if we had a competitive league. I've never said it would be dished out fairly, it certainly wouldn't.

Second one - Agree, again not the point I'm making. What I would say is if we had consistent competition over the last 20/ 30 years we would likely be in a much better position. 

Your final point - I don't know if we've ever had the opportunity to test it in Scotland however other exciting competitive leagues have certainly generated more interest elsewhere. It would have to be prolonged and consistent. One season of a challenge wouldn't do it. In saying that, I think the closest we've ever came was the season Hearts won their first 10 games or something like that. There was a real belief they could beat or split (which they did) the OF. That generated interest in England and beyond. 

The final point about prolonged, answers your final sentence. I think we can see it in other less footballing countries that have more valuable TV and commericial deals. 

Interest in England and beyond?

Really.  How's this measured?  Have you something more convincing than the anecdotal pish of Souness and Rae?

[SilverWolfe]

Interest in England and beyond?
Really.  How's this measured?  Have you something more convincing than the anecdotal pish of Souness and Rae?

Been catching up on this and see you're off on one of your stubborn arguments again. I'm just wondering, are you of the opinion that there is nothing at all that can be done to increase the leagues revenue significantly? You never seem to provide your own answers, just happy to pick holes in everyone else's ideas. What would you do and how would it help us?

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Interest in England and beyond?
Really.  How's this measured?  Have you something more convincing than the anecdotal pish of Souness and Rae?

Been catching up on this and see you're off on one of your stubborn arguments again. I'm just wondering, are you of the opinion that there is nothing at all that can be done to increase the leagues revenue significantly? You never seem to provide your own answers, just happy to pick holes in everyone else's ideas. What would you do and how would it help us?

 As I said recently at a meeting at work, I don't bring solutions; I bring problems.  

League revenues maybe could increase, but it's the distribution of any wealth that's far more important than its gross size. 

I desperately want a more equal picture at the top of our game, but pretty much for its own sake, rather than because of what it might raise financially.  Allied to this, I don't think such a thing would prove especially lucrative anyway.

That's all Tony.

[SilverWolfe]

[emoji38] As I said recently at a meeting at work, I don't bring solutions; I bring problems.  
League revenues maybe could increase, but it's the distribution of any wealth that's far more important than its gross size. 
I desperately want a more equal picture at the top of our game, but pretty much for its own sake, rather than because of what it might raise financially.  Allied to this, I don't think such a thing would prove especially lucrative anyway.
That's all Tony.

Fair enough. You make this point quite a lot but I've yet to see you provide any ideas as to how we achieve this equilibrium. It's something we all want (yes, even me) but I don't see how it's possible. Care to enlighten us?

[Salvo Montalbano]

As I've said, several times I'm not talking about turning us into the EPL or La Liga. Everything you've said there is TV deal related for those countries. All of it is extra money that the Scottish league do not have. You're pretty much proving my point by agreeing these football leagues can be watched in this country but the SP likely can't be watched in theirs (as readily). They are all countries where football isn't viewed per capita by as many people as Scotland, that's fact. It's online, it's well publicised. Okay some of the countries might have bigger populations making for more people actually watching the games but there isn't one league I feel Scotland couldn't compete with if our country had a wee bit of excitement and competition. 
As for the Russian league and Danish league (and a lot others), they have coverage deals with various betting companies where if you bet on the game, you can watch the game live on a betting app (we have some but not nearly as much hence why we are so low down in the TV revenue table). The leagues get income from that, yet again income hampered because there is so little interest in Scottish football right now because of the lack of competition. 

And those games can be streamed by betting sites because they are being covered anyway for domestic coverage - if all of our games were covered then getting a rebroadcast deal on betting sites would be easy. Do you want more/all games broadcast live? That seems to be the easiest way to get more TV money.

[Ira Gaines]

It is completely impossible to even things out at the top end of the game. Unless UEFA suddenly stop handing out big money for CL qualification. You could give Celtic £0 every season and CL qualification would still see them so far ahead of the pack that any attempt to even things out are worthless.

There are ways to increase revenue in the game since the people at the top have undersold it and made it sound like complete shit at times when we've needed sponsorship, and even improving that side of things would see things change, but it wouldn't be enough, nor could it be.

[Bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

2 hours ago, Bazil85 said:

As I've said, several times I'm not talking about turning us into the EPL or La Liga. Everything you've said there is TV deal related for those countries. All of it is extra money that the Scottish league do not have. You're pretty much proving my point by agreeing these football leagues can be watched in this country but the SP likely can't be watched in theirs (as readily). They are all countries where football isn't viewed per capita by as many people as Scotland, that's fact. It's online, it's well publicised. Okay some of the countries might have bigger populations making for more people actually watching the games but there isn't one league I feel Scotland couldn't compete with if our country had a wee bit of excitement and competition. 
As for the Russian league and Danish league (and a lot others), they have coverage deals with various betting companies where if you bet on the game, you can watch the game live on a betting app (we have some but not nearly as much hence why we are so low down in the TV revenue table). The leagues get income from that, yet again income hampered because there is so little interest in Scottish football right now because of the lack of competition. 

And those games can be streamed by betting sites because they are being covered anyway for domestic coverage - if all of our games were covered then getting a rebroadcast deal on betting sites would be easy. Do you want more/all games broadcast live? That seems to be the easiest way to get more TV money.

I've not said what i want/ don't want. I'd much rather all games were 3pm on a Saturday and no TV money. I'm simply stating facts of the matter. The no TV money thing isn't going to happen so I'm just saying what would increase revenue. Again my whole point is we don't deserve a better deal. 

[Bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

It is completely impossible to even things out at the top end of the game. Unless UEFA suddenly stop handing out big money for CL qualification. You could give Celtic £0 every season and CL qualification would still see them so far ahead of the pack that any attempt to even things out are worthless.

There are ways to increase revenue in the game since the people at the top have undersold it and made it sound like complete shit at times when we've needed sponsorship, and even improving that side of things would see things change, but it wouldn't be enough, nor could it be.

How has the game in Scotland been undersold? 

[Ira Gaines]

Neil Doncaster, when the TV deal was up, told them that our game and top league is absolutely nothing without Rangers, disrespected every other club in the country outside of them and Celtic and tried to bully everyone else into agreeing.

No surprise that after that, we started to have more trouble finding sponsors for cup and league sponsorship than we'd ever had before. Those of us who don't have the memory of a goldfish remember this pretty well.

They didn't give a f**k about marketing our game and trying to be positive about it. And we've suffered because of it.

[SilverWolfe]

It is completely impossible to even things out at the top end of the game

Under the current set up you're likely spot on and probably also spot on that it could never be completely even, however, there are ways to bridge the gap both financially and competitively.

For me, far too many people concentrate on trying to immediately increase revenue rather than on the thing that is most important, competition.

Change the competition to increase the chances of other teams winning the league and the revenue will naturally follow. Especially if marketed correctly.

[Ira Gaines]

3 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Change the competition to increase the chances of other teams winning the league and the revenue will naturally follow. Especially if marketed correctly.

How would you do that though?

You thinking of an A-League style playoff ending or something?

[Monkey Tennis]

35 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

49 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 As I said recently at a meeting at work, I don't bring solutions; I bring problems.  
League revenues maybe could increase, but it's the distribution of any wealth that's far more important than its gross size. 
I desperately want a more equal picture at the top of our game, but pretty much for its own sake, rather than because of what it might raise financially.  Allied to this, I don't think such a thing would prove especially lucrative anyway.
That's all Tony.

Fair enough. You make this point quite a lot but I've yet to see you provide any ideas as to how we achieve this equilibrium. It's something we all want (yes, even me) but I don't see how it's possible. Care to enlighten us?

I'd have gate sharing and I'd have all merchandising income pooled and distributed evenly between 42 clubs, and the same thing would happen to income generated from clubs participating in Europe and from broadcasting deals.

I've a feeling you wouldn't like it Tony.