PDA

View Full Version : Sky TV - GTF?



Renfrew_Hibby
29-03-2012, 10:10 AM
Not been following the recent events too closely but it has been reported that Hibs make up to four times as much from match day income (gate receipts, hospitality, club shop, food and programmes ect) than we make from Sky.
now £80M seems a lot of money but when you break that down for us is it not £20M per year of with Rantic get 80% and we get on average 10% of the remainder = £400K per year. Im sure that is a decent chunk of our budget but surely one we could live without if if meant slightly larger crowds at the bigger games that would have been televised and more season ticket sales on the back of guaranteed kick off times and dates?

Let the old firm sign their own deals. If Sky want to show them at Easter Road then we get to call the shots and if that doesn't suit Sky then they can always show every home match at Ibrox or Celtic Park and have their fans mucked about with kick off times and dates for a change.

Alex Trager
29-03-2012, 10:13 AM
Not been following the recent events too closely but it has been reported that Hibs make up to four times as much from match day income (gate receipts, hospitality, club shop, food and programmes ect) than we make from Sky.
now £80M seems a lot of money but when you break that down for us is it not £20M per year of with Rantic get 80% and we get on average 10% of the remainder = £400K per year. Im sure that is a decent chunk of our budget but surely one we could live without if if meant slightly larger crowds at the bigger games that would have been televised and more season ticket sales on the back of guaranteed kick off times and dates?

Let the old firm sign their own deals. If Sky want to show them at Easter Road then we get to call the shots and if that doesn't suit Sky then they can always show every home match at Ibrox or Celtic Park and have their fans mucked about with kick off times and dates for a change.

spot on, never ever realised why they never showed their home games on the tele. It all makes sense now.

Mark79
29-03-2012, 10:28 AM
We were self sufficient before tv deals ever existed. I'm sure we can be now.

From the talks it looks like sky would pull the plug if the huns go to the wall. That sums it up really that they are only concerned with those two and that we are just an extra they have to take.

blackpoolhibs
29-03-2012, 10:51 AM
We were self sufficient before tv deals ever existed. I'm sure we can be now.

From the talks it looks like sky would pull the plug if the huns go to the wall. That sums it up really that they are only concerned with those two and that we are just an extra they have to take.

Thats it in a nutshell, we need the chairmen of the non old firm clubs to grow some balls. They need to drag the game back from sky and huntic, and let them all know OUR game is for everyone, not a vehicle for them to make money at the detriment of everything and everyone else.

Kato
29-03-2012, 10:55 AM
If Sky want to show them at Easter Road then we get to call the shots and if that doesn't suit Sky then they can always show every home match at Ibrox or Celtic Park and have their fans mucked about with kick off times and dates for a change.

:top marks :aok:

HFC 0-7
29-03-2012, 10:58 AM
If it is that we are only getting 400K out the tv deal then doing away with it and getting back to better KO times and a more balanced league would draw fans back, another 1000 ST's each year would cover the loss from the TV deal.

Hibercelona
29-03-2012, 11:03 AM
:agree:

The TV deal has always been over hyped.

There is far more positives to come out of this than negatives. The loses would be covered in the long run.

pentlando
29-03-2012, 11:03 AM
spot on, never ever realised why they never showed their home games on the tele. It all makes sense now.

Win win for the old firm. Home games rarely televised = no impact on their home crowds. Away games usually televised = money where they would usually get nothing.

Can't help feeling that all the talk will get swept aside by the powers at SPL and SFA. Johnston of Killie likened it to an Arab Spring, and IMO is going to take the footballing equivalent strong action from supporters to achieve it.

For anyone who ventures onto other supporters forums in Scotland, is the feeling as strong for change with their supporters??

lucky
29-03-2012, 11:09 AM
The TV deal also brings extra money in advertising. The £20m per annum should be shared out more fairly. 50% shared equally and 50% on league positions

Hibercelona
29-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Win win for the old firm. Home games rarely televised = no impact on their home crowds. Away games usually televised = money where they would usually get nothing.

Can't help feeling that all the talk will get swept aside by the powers at SPL and SFA. Johnston of Killie likened it to an Arab Spring, and IMO is going to take the footballing equivalent strong action from supporters to achieve it.

For anyone who ventures onto other supporters forums in Scotland, is the feeling as strong for change with their supporters??

The view is very strongly held between fans of non-OF clubs.

hibsforeurope
29-03-2012, 11:19 AM
The TV deal also brings extra money in advertising. The £20m per annum should be shared out more fairly. 50% shared equally and 50% on league positions

I would be tempted to go even further, split the TV money equaly between the teams. league position prize money can come from the sponsors brought in by the extra tv coverage.

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 11:19 AM
now £80M seems a lot of money but when you break that down for us is it not £20M per year of with Rantic get 80% and we get on average 10% of the remainder = £400K per year.

The distribution of the TV money is as follows;

Everyone gets an equal share of the first 48% and the remaining 52% is allocated according to league position.

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%
12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

Assuming you stay in the league, the very minimum a club could receive for the 4 year term would be £4m.

Hopefully it will be Motherwell picking up the 15% for second place this season, although I'm not sure how that helps Hibs.

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 11:20 AM
If it is that we are only getting 400K out the tv deal then doing away with it and getting back to better KO times and a more balanced league would draw fans back, another 1000 ST's each year would cover the loss from the TV deal.

It's not.

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 11:21 AM
The TV deal also brings extra money in advertising. The £20m per annum should be shared out more fairly. 50% shared equally and 50% on league positions

It is.

48% and 52%.

The_Todd
29-03-2012, 11:26 AM
The distribution of the TV money is as follows;

Everyone gets an equal share of the first 48% and the remaining 52% is allocated according to league position.

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%


The gap between 2nd and 3rd is criminal and has clearly been designed to build a gap between the OF and the rest. Who the hell voted to agree this structure?

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 11:30 AM
The gap between 2nd and 3rd is criminal and has clearly been designed to build a gap between the OF and the rest. Who the hell voted to agree this structure?

!st - £3.4m
2nd - £3.0m
3rd - £1.9m

Heedersnvolleys
29-03-2012, 11:35 AM
I don't know if your figures are true or not but i doubt it is as simple as that! For example do you think Crabbies would be willing to continue there sponsorship at the same rate as they currently pay if the hibs shirt is not on the telly a couple times a month. You could say that for almost all sponsorship. I think the board have already said at some point that it is not just the telly money you loose but other revenues that come due to being on the telly.*looks like I took to long to type on my phone!!!

Joe Baker II
29-03-2012, 11:42 AM
I agree with the sentiments (see Hibs Board have recently been claiming they opposed the 1215 kick off for semi final having previously signed up to previous absurdiites) though stress that it is more the scheduling at 12/1230 than the principle of live coverage I am unhappy with.

But I think you will find that the Old Firm will have a similar number of home games televised as other clubs - and to be fair their away supporters really take the punishment of SKY/ESPN scheduling given the number of away games shown - though obviously this reflects fact that their Boards (like those of many other SPL clubs) do not give a toss about their away supporters.

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 11:45 AM
I don't know if your figures are true or not but i doubt it is as simple as that! For example do you think Crabbies would be willing to continue there sponsorship at the same rate as they currently pay if the hibs shirt is not on the telly a couple times a month. You could say that for almost all sponsorship. I think the board have already said at some point that it is not just the telly money you loose but other revenues that come due to being on the telly.*looks like I took to long to type on my phone!!!

I don't know whose figures you are questioning, but mine came from David Ogilvie at the SPL and are 100% accurate.

You are right about the sponsorship money though.

Matty_Jack04
29-03-2012, 11:51 AM
I'm no expert but isn't the fact that the league is broadcast more of a bargaining tool for other sponsorships? I don't think we'd get near the amount of sponsorship deals if the product was limited to bbc Scotland highlight show on a Sunday evening

I wish we could just tell them to get stuffed but I fear we're missing the bigger picture

Matty_Jack04
29-03-2012, 11:52 AM
I don't know if your figures are true or not but i doubt it is as simple as that! For example do you think Crabbies would be willing to continue there sponsorship at the same rate as they currently pay if the hibs shirt is not on the telly a couple times a month. You could say that for almost all sponsorship. I think the board have already said at some point that it is not just the telly money you loose but other revenues that come due to being on the telly.*looks like I took to long to type on my phone!!!

Didn't read this apologies .... I agree

Heedersnvolleys
29-03-2012, 11:59 AM
I don't know whose figures you are questioning, but mine came from David Ogilvie at the SPL and are 100% accurate.

You are right about the sponsorship money though.
I was questioning the original posters 400k.

rubber mal
29-03-2012, 12:06 PM
Thats it in a nutshell, we need the chairmen of the non old firm clubs to grow some balls. They need to drag the game back from sky and huntic, and let them all know OUR game is for everyone, not a vehicle for them to make money at the detriment of everything and everyone else.

100% bang on.

Thecat23
29-03-2012, 12:15 PM
I honestly hope Sky pull the plug on the SPL. That will mean 3pm kick off times and also a rise in the gates. Some folk think the money Sky give us is huge but as posted by others it's not when it's broken down.

They never show the Old Firm home games in case it affects the gates unless its the derby which is always a sell out so no loss there. yet they are happy to show every other SPL team at home with kick off times 12:30 or something stupid like that. I remember when football was all about sat afternoon and not just money, money, money, i couldn't care less if folk say but the standard of the SPL will drop. Bull***t it's at rock bottom anyway. We need to break away from this league set up and bring back the reserve league as well. Develop youth and have a proper DOF at Hibs and better scouting. That way we will see some of the best talent coming through and not these imposters who think they can turn up and get a wage. Sorry went a little off topic there. So for me Sky can ram it. These clubs for the first time have a real chance at changing Scottish football for the better, lets all hope this time the Old Firm don't win and we can build a league for the better without the money men.

Beefster
29-03-2012, 03:01 PM
The amount of myths that have taken hold about the TV money is incredible. About half of the rants on this thread are based on nonsense.

Monts
29-03-2012, 03:22 PM
I honestly hope Sky pull the plug on the SPL. That will mean 3pm kick off times and also a rise in the gates. Some folk think the money Sky give us is huge but as posted by others it's not when it's broken down.

They never show the Old Firm home games in case it affects the gates unless its the derby which is always a sell out so no loss there. yet they are happy to show every other SPL team at home with kick off times 12:30 or something stupid like that. I remember when football was all about sat afternoon and not just money, money, money, i couldn't care less if folk say but the standard of the SPL will drop. Bull***t it's at rock bottom anyway. We need to break away from this league set up and bring back the reserve league as well. Develop youth and have a proper DOF at Hibs and better scouting. That way we will see some of the best talent coming through and not these imposters who think they can turn up and get a wage. Sorry went a little off topic there. So for me Sky can ram it. These clubs for the first time have a real chance at changing Scottish football for the better, lets all hope this time the Old Firm don't win and we can build a league for the better without the money men.

Are you sure about that bit?

Keith_M
29-03-2012, 04:12 PM
....

But I think you will find that the Old Firm will have a similar number of home games televised as other clubs


Sorry but that's blatantly untrue. The four OF games are indeed on TV but that's only because they would sell out anyway. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of games televised from Ibrox or Celtc Park against the other clubs, where the scheduling would affect the money they take in gate receipts. The losses on gate receipts are almost totally made by the other ten.


....and to be fair their away supporters really take the punishment of SKY/ESPN scheduling given the number of away games shown - though obviously this reflects fact that their Boards (like those of many other SPL clubs) do not give a toss about their away supporters.


I agree with that but would go further, they don't care about supporters in general, not just away supporters.

To be fair, though, with the bile that lot bring to ER with them, I have absolutely no sympathy for the fans of the ugly sisters at all.

Beefster
29-03-2012, 04:18 PM
Sorry but that's blatantly untrue. The four OF games are indeed on TV but that's only because they would sell out anyway. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of games televised from Ibrox or Celtc Park against the other clubs, where the scheduling would affect the money they take in gate receipts. The losses on gate receipts are almost totally made by the other ten.

Our televised home games are generally against Celtic, Rangers and Hearts. Games that we would sell out if we had a decent team.

Honestly, all this conspiracy stuff is getting Yam-esque.

Keith_M
29-03-2012, 04:29 PM
Our televised home games are generally against Celtic, Rangers and Hearts. Games that we would sell out if we had a decent team.

Honestly, all this conspiracy stuff is getting Yam-esque.

WE don't have a decent team. The fact of the matter is that having games live on TV DOES affect attendances.


What other reason do you think the OF games against the other 10 are almost never on TV yet practically every away game is? I presume that's total coincidence, is it?

Beefster
29-03-2012, 05:11 PM
WE don't have a decent team. The fact of the matter is that having games live on TV DOES affect attendances.


What other reason do you think the OF games against the other 10 are almost never on TV yet practically every away game is? I presume that's total coincidence, is it?

AFAIK, there are restrictions on the number of televised home games that a club can have (or there were in the past).

In general, a club's televised home games involve the Old Firm and occasionally, Hibs, Hearts or Aberdeen (i.e. the five teams that will probably attract the most viewers). The OF's home games are generally kept for the league flag unfurling, OF derbies and games later in the season that may be important (e.g. a team is going to win the league).

The majority of our home games are at 3pm on a Saturday but you think, from what is posted on here, that that wasn't the case.

Hibbyradge
29-03-2012, 05:31 PM
Sat 23/07/2011 Rangers Hearts
Sun 18/09/2011 Rangers Celtic
Wed 28/12/2011 Celtic Rangers
Sun 25/03/2012 Rangers Celtic

Sun 1st Apr Celtic V St Johnstone

So according to my research, by this weekend, Rangers will have had 3 home games televised live and Celtic 2.

I think we can safely assume that Celtic will get at least one more.

Hibs have had 4 and we're scheduled to get our 5th, and probably last, on 8 April.

edit Last season we had 6 live home games. Celtic and Rangers had 4 each.

NAE NOOKIE
29-03-2012, 05:53 PM
Heres a few downsides to early and changed kick off times.

Pubs around football grounds make a few bob from 3pm kick offs, 12:30 kick offs especially on a Sunday at ER mean that these businesses lose money. It will be the same for pubs around Hampden on the 14th and 15th of April.

It also means that fans to whom a couple of pre match pints is a matchday tradition ( like me ) have their match day spoiled.

A lot of people who work on a Saturday, for instance bank workers, work up to lunchtime. No chance of them making a 12:30 kick off.

Constant changes to KO times put people off buying STs Whats the point of paying for games you cant go to?

There is also decent evidence to suggest that home crowds are affected by games being on live telly no matter what the KO time. There have been games against the OF in recent times where the Hibs home support didnt get any higher than for matches against Aberdeen or Dundee Utd and yet in the past the home crowds for OF games were always higher. This has even prompted Hibs to give away tickets for these games.

The chairman of Dunfermline a few years back said that the loss of home support for TV matches negated any money received from the TV people.

There is nothing wrong with having a TV deal, in fact a lot of advantages, but it seems to me that there hasnt been a lot of thought given to how we get a balance between whats good for the clubs and fans and whats good for the TV folk.

007 Mickey Weir
29-03-2012, 06:50 PM
I am all for losing the TV deal. The OF can negotiate a pay per view for the old firms derbies. BBC could maybe negotiate to show a some games on a Sunday at normal times.

Talked to BBC and get extended highlights programme on a sat night, with the mini highlights online on the Sunday. Or all clubs can start there own channels like HibsTV and charge people to watch games online.

We lose money but gain back fans who get back into the match day experience of meeting for a couple before the game then all heading along.

The standard of football might lose a bit quality for a while but it will come back. the quality is pretty rotten at the moment so whats the risk.

time for change is needed and rid the league of cheats like Rangers and Mini Rangers.

Eyrie
29-03-2012, 07:40 PM
If we can get the voting structure fixed, then the allocation of the TV money should be an internal matter for the SPL and not involve Sky providing they get their four precious hate-fests each year. I'd even go so far as to re-negotiate it with fixed kick off times as Hyland was talking about in today's Scotsman, and a minimum of four weeks notice for which games are being moved.

Other than the obvious reduction in prize money for first and second place so that the differential with third is similar to that for the other places, there is one other change I'd like to see. That is allocating some of the TV money as compensation for the home team to reflect the reduced gates when a game is shown live.

Keep the 4% per team for the first 48%. Say that first gets 6%, second gets 5.5%, third 5% and so on until twelfth gets 0.5% as the prize money (total 39%). That would free up 13% of the total pot for the home team each week, or 0.34% per game (assuming 38 games). If the deal is £80m over four years, or £20m per season, it's worth £68k per game. That could even be split 80:20 in favour of the home team (ie £55k and £13k), and even although the Ugly Sisters would get most of the away money it would still benefit the rest of us.

itchy07
29-03-2012, 08:10 PM
I'd like to add the fact that the Sky deal is dependant on the 4 Of games. So no relegation for Cfc or Rfc(ia), of course that's not gonna happen but then neither is another team winning the league. Kinda makes the whole thing just a little pointless.

Joe Baker II
30-03-2012, 08:29 AM
Heres a few downsides to early and changed kick off times.

Pubs around football grounds make a few bob from 3pm kick offs, 12:30 kick offs especially on a Sunday at ER mean that these businesses lose money. It will be the same for pubs around Hampden on the 14th and 15th of April.

It also means that fans to whom a couple of pre match pints is a matchday tradition ( like me ) have their match day spoiled.

A lot of people who work on a Saturday, for instance bank workers, work up to lunchtime. No chance of them making a 12:30 kick off.

Constant changes to KO times put people off buying STs Whats the point of paying for games you cant go to?

There is also decent evidence to suggest that home crowds are affected by games being on live telly no matter what the KO time. There have been games against the OF in recent times where the Hibs home support didnt get any higher than for matches against Aberdeen or Dundee Utd and yet in the past the home crowds for OF games were always higher. This has even prompted Hibs to give away tickets for these games.

The chairman of Dunfermline a few years back said that the loss of home support for TV matches negated any money received from the TV people.

There is nothing wrong with having a TV deal, in fact a lot of advantages, but it seems to me that there hasnt been a lot of thought given to how we get a balance between whats good for the clubs and fans and whats good for the TV folk.

Agree entirely - irony is that if Hibs get relegated there will be more incentive to buy a season ticket due to prospect of regular 3pm kick offs (imagine many Pars fans feel the same way).

Phil MaGlass
30-03-2012, 10:04 AM
Agree entirely - irony is that if Hibs get relegated there will be more incentive to buy a season ticket due to prospect of regular 3pm kick offs (imagine many Pars fans feel the same way).
At SPL prices, dont think so somehow.

Joe Baker II
30-03-2012, 10:52 AM
At SPL prices, dont think so somehow.

Think there are some fans who will pay more for 3pm kick offs regardless of quality of opposition so do not totally agree here, though relaise you are only expressing opinion.

Albion Hibs
30-03-2012, 11:43 AM
I have said this one million times over, for what we get from them it is simply not worth it. I am sure we could make up the lack of funds in ST alone from people not having the opportunity to watch on TV. In addition to that I would think visits from Rangers, Celtic and Hearts would produce even bigger crowds.

The impact on what we recieve from sponsers is perhaps harder to guage but again, more people will see the adverts at games. I am in no doubt that is not the same as having their brand on the TV, but again I am sure of between 400-800k we can cover that in ticket sales.

The issue the club will have is lack of certainty in income, but I would think things like the kiosk lease, hospitaility leases / prices could be increased given the rise in up take.

I think the likes of us, hearts, celtic, and aberdeen could do without this money, making it up through sales. I think Rangers will now definately need it, perhaps more reason for celtic to join us in getting shot of it. The downfall will be other clubs that do not have the fan base to sell and additional 1,000 ST's.

My view is getting shot of SKY, or getting a better deal, having kick off's on saturday at 3pm (sat 12pm if police insist for derbies etc) and allowing fans to buy a drink before and during a game would make a world of difference to the match day experience. Changing the price of tickets is simply not going to happen, football is different, the costs on and off the pitch now v's 25 years ago are not even comparable, but getting the basics right will make the whole thing a lot more appealing.

Case and point being this sunday - 3pm away to ICT - SKY TV get to ****.

ancient hibee
30-03-2012, 07:52 PM
I have said this one million times over, for what we get from them it is simply not worth it. I am sure we could make up the lack of funds in ST alone from people not having the opportunity to watch on TV. In addition to that I would think visits from Rangers, Celtic and Hearts would produce even bigger crowds.

The impact on what we recieve from sponsers is perhaps harder to guage but again, more people will see the adverts at games. I am in no doubt that is not the same as having their brand on the TV, but again I am sure of between 400-800k we can cover that in ticket sales.

The issue the club will have is lack of certainty in income, but I would think things like the kiosk lease, hospitaility leases / prices could be increased given the rise in up take.

I think the likes of us, hearts, celtic, and aberdeen could do without this money, making it up through sales. I think Rangers will now definately need it, perhaps more reason for celtic to join us in getting shot of it. The downfall will be other clubs that do not have the fan base to sell and additional 1,000 ST's.

My view is getting shot of SKY, or getting a better deal, having kick off's on saturday at 3pm (sat 12pm if police insist for derbies etc) and allowing fans to buy a drink before and during a game would make a world of difference to the match day experience. Changing the price of tickets is simply not going to happen, football is different, the costs on and off the pitch now v's 25 years ago are not even comparable, but getting the basics right will make the whole thing a lot more appealing.

Case and point being this sunday - 3pm away to ICT - SKY TV get to ****.

So if we sold another 2,500 season tickets we might make up the shortfall which would put us in the position we are now which is losing a million quid a year-not a great prospect is it.Sunday's kick off time has nothing to do with SKY but I always believe in not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good rant

stoneyburn hibs
30-03-2012, 08:02 PM
So if we sold another 2,500 season tickets we might make up the shortfall which would put us in the position we are now which is losing a million quid a year-not a great prospect is it.Sunday's kick off time has nothing to do with SKY but I always believe in not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good rant

Actually it may make a difference , i and many others would attend more/season ticket, if more games were fixed at 3pm saturday , and not just home games , i as of right now have seen about half of our fixtures , nearly equal home and away.

Albion Hibs
30-03-2012, 08:46 PM
So if we sold another 2,500 season tickets we might make up the shortfall which would put us in the position we are now which is losing a million quid a year-not a great prospect is it.Sunday's kick off time has nothing to do with SKY but I always believe in not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good rant

So we are;

- suffering from falling crowds
- the biggest critsicism of the league accross the country is game dates and times being decided by tv
- we are losing £1m per year

Those are the facts.

I believe the OP said we recieved £400k per year - that would mean 1,000 season tickets -FACT. If we sold 2,500 that would be an additional 600k which would mean, based on your numbers our operating loss would be reduced by 60% - FACT - not bad really.

Personally I think we would see more than an additional 2,500 season tickets.

I dont believe you had a solution, just a nonsence comment, and effectively a vote for standing still, falling crowds and losing £1m a year and growing, how much longer do you think we could do that for?

Look forward to hearing more of your facts.

Beefster
31-03-2012, 07:27 AM
So we are;

- suffering from falling crowds
- the biggest critsicism of the league accross the country is game dates and times being decided by tv
- we are losing £1m per year

Those are the facts.

I believe the OP said we recieved £400k per year - that would mean 1,000 season tickets -FACT. If we sold 2,500 that would be an additional 600k which would mean, based on your numbers our operating loss would be reduced by 60% - FACT - not bad really.

Personally I think we would see more than an additional 2,500 season tickets.

I dont believe you had a solution, just a nonsence comment, and effectively a vote for standing still, falling crowds and losing £1m a year and growing, how much longer do you think we could do that for?

Look forward to hearing more of your facts.

Your facts are pish.

The average ST prices is somewhere around £200, not £400. That's from the club itself.

We receive more than £400k per season from the TV deal.

Hibbyradge
31-03-2012, 07:48 AM
I think the likes of us, hearts, celtic, and aberdeen could do without this money, making it up through sales. I think Rangers will now definately need it, perhaps more reason for celtic to join us in getting shot of it. The downfall will be other clubs that do not have the fan base to sell and additional 1,000 ST's.



Excellent. We can aspire to a league of 3.

Hibbyradge
31-03-2012, 08:16 AM
Your facts are pish.

The average ST prices is somewhere around £200, not £400. That's from the club itself.

We receive more than £400k per season from the TV deal.

The team that finishes 12th receives around £900000 just from TV.

They also receive 4.5% of the SPL's sponsorship money.

The distribution mechanism includes all TV money, sponsorship money etc

League position - % of cash pot

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%
12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

Before dismissing the TV money, it should be remembered that shirt manufacturers, sponsors, pitch side advertisers all pay premium rates because they know their products will be featured on TV. The fact that games involving Rangers and celtic are shown around the world is of great interest to exporters etc.

TV money on its own may only be a fifth of Hibs income, but I'm certain that combined with associated sponsorship, it will represent a much higher percentage.

Posh Swanny
31-03-2012, 09:08 AM
All this talk of money, money, money again. Of what benefit is it to supporters that Hibs will get £1m this year, Inverness £1.1m, St Mirren £1.3m etc? It doesn't really give anyone much of an advantage domestically so are we scared of losing all of our world class players should that money disappear? Or that the clubs will not budget accordingly and we'd all instantly start to lose £1m+ extra every year? I thought football was supposed to be about winning as many matches as possible. The way the Sky TV debate is going it's as though having a decent turnover is just as important to everyone.

DMR1875
31-03-2012, 09:51 AM
If the SPL went back to 3pm kick off and the home game's every second week I could then budget to get season tickets for the family. That's four new season ticket holders. Just how many football fans in Scotland could and would do the same.

Another thing..The SPL football fans now need to subscribe not only Sky but also ESPN to see the games. I would not give them it.

Hibbyradge
31-03-2012, 09:56 AM
All this talk of money, money, money again. Of what benefit is it to supporters that Hibs will get £1m this year, Inverness £1.1m, St Mirren £1.3m etc? It doesn't really give anyone much of an advantage domestically so are we scared of losing all of our world class players should that money disappear? Or that the clubs will not budget accordingly and we'd all instantly start to lose £1m+ extra every year? I thought football was supposed to be about winning as many matches as possible. The way the Sky TV debate is going it's as though having a decent turnover is just as important to everyone.

If we lose income, we won't be able to pay for the standard of player we curently "enjoy".

If our players get worse, performances will drop and attendances will follow.

If folk are happy in the knowledge that we'll be competing for players at a lower standard, fair enough, but let's be aware of the consequences of what we wish for.

ancient hibee
31-03-2012, 10:02 AM
So we are;

- suffering from falling crowds
- the biggest critsicism of the league accross the country is game dates and times being decided by tv
- we are losing £1m per year

Those are the facts.

I believe the OP said we recieved £400k per year - that would mean 1,000 season tickets -FACT. If we sold 2,500 that would be an additional 600k which would mean, based on your numbers our operating loss would be reduced by 60% - FACT - not bad really.

Personally I think we would see more than an additional 2,500 season tickets.

I dont believe you had a solution, just a nonsence comment, and effectively a vote for standing still, falling crowds and losing £1m a year and growing, how much longer do you think we could do that for?

Look forward to hearing more of your facts.

I never put facts in as FACTS particularly when they're a load of tosh.The very least we get as a result of the TV deal is around a million quid-probably more when you take into account other sponsorship deals on the back of it.It's complete fantasy to say we'll pick up another 2,500 season tickets because we're not on TV.The only thing that'll do that is winning,entertaining football.

Eyrie
31-03-2012, 10:28 AM
All this talk of money, money, money again. Of what benefit is it to supporters that Hibs will get £1m this year, Inverness £1.1m, St Mirren £1.3m etc? It doesn't really give anyone much of an advantage domestically so are we scared of losing all of our world class players should that money disappear? Or that the clubs will not budget accordingly and we'd all instantly start to lose £1m+ extra every year? I thought football was supposed to be about winning as many matches as possible. The way the Sky TV debate is going it's as though having a decent turnover is just as important to everyone.


If we lose income, we won't be able to pay for the standard of player we curently "enjoy".

If our players get worse, performances will drop and attendances will follow.

If folk are happy in the knowledge that we'll be competing for players at a lower standard, fair enough, but let's be aware of the consequences of what we wish for.
So without TV money then every team will be in the same boat and we'll all have a slightly lower standard of player. To my mind that means that we'd still have a more competitive league. In addition there will be more incentive to develope and play youngsters rather than bring in a veteran of a similar standard, because clubs will be looking to get the most out of their expenditure on youth.

I think we'd still be able to get a TV deal in place though, albeit for less money, so the impact would be reduced.

marinello59
31-03-2012, 10:59 AM
So without TV money then every team will be in the same boat and we'll all have a slightly lower standard of player. To my mind that means that we'd still have a more competitive league. In addition there will be more incentive to develope and play youngsters rather than bring in a veteran of a similar standard, because clubs will be looking to get the most out of their expenditure on youth.

I think we'd still be able to get a TV deal in place though, albeit for less money, so the impact would be reduced.

And we will all be happy with that because the league is more competitive. Except those who constantly slate the players we have at the moment for not being good enough of course.
When did happily accepting lower standards become part of the Scottish mindset? Surely we should still have the ambition to be the best we can be and that means improving standards, not willfully accepting second or third best.

blackpoolhibs
31-03-2012, 11:07 AM
And we will all be happy with that because the league is more competitive. Except those who constantly slate the players we have at the moment for not being good enough of course.
When did happily accepting lower standards become part of the Scottish mindset? Surely we should still have the ambition to be the best we be and that means improving standards, not willfully accepting second or third best.

I dont have the answers, and agree we need to be improving things not making them worse. We certainly need things to be more competitive, the status quo cant be the way forward, if it is then the ba's burst imo.

Summer football on a Saturday at 3, fairer distribution of the wealth and voting, plus much more are needed to bring the game back from the brink of death.

As you say there has to be a desire to do this, for the good of Scottish football. I dont know if those in charge of each club, and the SFA have the guts for this fight, or will we just see more hot air and nothing changing? :dunno:

Lucius Apuleius
31-03-2012, 11:59 AM
And we will all be happy with that because the league is more competitive. Except those who constantly slate the players we have at the moment for not being good enough of course.
When did happily accepting lower standards become part of the Scottish mindset? Surely we should still have the ambition to be the best we can be and that means improving standards, not willfully accepting second or third best.

I think you are right M that standard of players will drop. Hopefully to such an extent that we will stop importing overpaid useless lumps of mince and develop our own players, Scottish, again. Now, that is not for one nanosecond xenophobic but what a boost it would be to the national team as well if all the Scottish teams had to develop players. I think a few (OK some of us only have a few left anyway) years down the line we would definitely be in a much better place than we are now.

Glory glory

Eyrie
31-03-2012, 01:16 PM
And we will all be happy with that because the league is more competitive. Except those who constantly slate the players we have at the moment for not being good enough of course.
When did happily accepting lower standards become part of the Scottish mindset? Surely we should still have the ambition to be the best we can be and that means improving standards, not willfully accepting second or third best.
I'm being consistent.

The current situation means kow-towing to the Ugly Sisters and Sky/ESPN, and willfully accepting that ten clubs are playing to be third at best every season. If dropping the TV deal and ensuring a fairer split of income result in a slightly lower standard of football, but one which is more competitive, then it's a price worth paying to my mind. But as Lucius Apuleius points out, this may eventually result in a higher standard of home grown player which is something we'd all welcome.

pentlando
31-03-2012, 01:23 PM
I think you are right M that standard of players will drop. Hopefully to such an extent that we will stop importing overpaid useless lumps of mince and develop our own players, Scottish, again. Now, that is not for one nanosecond xenophobic but what a boost it would be to the national team as well if all the Scottish teams had to develop players. I think a few (OK some of us only have a few left anyway) years down the line we would definitely be in a much better place than we are now.

Glory glory

IMO the national team benefits from having as many players as possible playing at the highest level. The lower the standard in Scotland may mean more young Scottish players, but it doesn't automatically mean they will be better players than we produce at the moment.

Lucius Apuleius
31-03-2012, 01:31 PM
IMO the national team benefits from having as many players as possible playing at the highest level. The lower the standard in Scotland may mean more young Scottish players, but it doesn't automatically mean they will be better players than we produce at the moment.

Not necessarily, absolutely correct. Glass half full kinda guy so reckon it would.

Moulin Yarns
31-03-2012, 04:32 PM
IMO the national team benefits from having as many players as possible playing at the highest level.

Unless the player is Steven Fletcher, of course.

Kaiser1962
31-03-2012, 04:45 PM
!st - £3.4m
2nd - £3.0m
3rd - £1.9m


Given your %'s in the earlier post, which I believe are accurate, that would give an overall divi up of around £21.6923m (approx) overall. I understand the current Sky deal accounts for £13m a season.

If the amount is right then 2nd would get just over £2.9m and third just over £1.7m.


Season ended Hibs income was £7.1m as it was the year before. Given the figure to be divi'd up at £21m+ (I dont imagine David Ogilviewill be that far out) Hibs income from the media split, given that we finished tenth last year would have been a tad over £845k, or 13.5% of the total. Finishing fourth, given the same figures, we would have recieved just under £1.5m, which would have been responsible for adding around 26.7% to our income.

Kaiser1962
31-03-2012, 05:42 PM
Sat 23/07/2011 Rangers Hearts
Sun 18/09/2011 Rangers Celtic
Wed 28/12/2011 Celtic Rangers
Sun 25/03/2012 Rangers Celtic

Sun 1st Apr Celtic V St Johnstone

So according to my research, by this weekend, Rangers will have had 3 home games televised live and Celtic 2.

I think we can safely assume that Celtic will get at least one more.

Hibs have had 4 and we're scheduled to get our 5th, and probably last, on 8 April.

edit Last season we had 6 live home games. Celtic and Rangers had 4 each.

Are these SPL games? I though there was a limit of 4 at home each?

Billy Whizz
31-03-2012, 06:42 PM
Are these SPL games? I though there was a limit of 4 at home each?

I think this applies upto the split only