PDA

View Full Version : Why does Scottish football only receive 1M from BBC?



SkintHibby
11-04-2015, 09:45 PM
First of all folks, I don't want this to sound like electioneering and I have just spent the last 10 minutes trying to change my "YES" avatar to a Hibs one without fail (never know how to change the avatar on here).

I seen recently that Scottish football received 1M for the season compared to £55M for England and Wales from the BBC per year and I never realised that until the SNP decided to make it an issue (we have 9% of the population and only receive 1.5% of UK BBC funding).

I send most of my working life with a good lad from County Durham and was discussing this with him last week. He said it was right that Scotland only received a pittance because Scottish football is Tom Kite.

I think the opposite - Scottish football is Tom Kite because we only receive a pittance.

Why the heck do we put up with this???:confused:

Thecat23
11-04-2015, 09:50 PM
Because it invests heavily in keeping pedo's who work within the BBC out of jail.

iwasthere1972
11-04-2015, 09:53 PM
First of all folks, I don't want this to sound like electioneering and I have just spent the last 10 minutes trying to change my "YES" avatar to a Hibs one without fail (never know how to change the avatar on here).

I seen recently that Scottish football received 1M for the season compared to £55M for England and Wales from the BBC per year and I never realised that until the SNP decided to make it an issue (we have 9% of the population and only receive 1.5% of UK BBC funding).

I send most of my working life with a good lad from County Durham and was descussing this with him last week. He said it was right that Scotland only received a pittance because Scottish football is Tom Kite.

I think the opposite - Scottish football is Tom Kite because we only receive a pittance.

Why the heck do we put up with this???:confused:

I don't know what the answer is but I would just love it if Sky went in the same direction as the RBS and all that money they plough into the English games which funds your average teams heavily was lost.

The sooner the better. Level playing field and as far as I'm concerned there is just too much football on the telly.

BH Hibs
11-04-2015, 09:58 PM
Because it invests heavily in keeping pedo's who work within the BBC out of jail.

Should sponsor Hearts then

Thecat23
11-04-2015, 10:01 PM
Should sponsor Hearts then

Couldn't agree more!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7062
11-04-2015, 10:08 PM
I assume that while match of the day is on across the whole of the UK, Sportscene is only on in Scotland. I'd also assume that any highlights of Scottish games that are available online are hardly ever watched south of the border.

Hermit Crab
11-04-2015, 10:11 PM
I assume that while match of the day is on across the whole of the UK, Sportscene is only on in Scotland. I'd also assume that any highlights of Scottish games that are available online are hardly ever watched south of the border.


There just isn't the demand for scottish football South of the border unless it's an old firm game. I'm willing to bet the Derby doesnt pull many punters in England.

Tricla
11-04-2015, 10:19 PM
Because they're ****s.

Tinribs
11-04-2015, 10:26 PM
As the OP said, Scottish football is Tom Kite partly due to a lack of TV money. That welt Doncaster really made a mess of things for our game here by failing to get top level league sponsorship too. And he was completely unfazed by his failure.

I used to quite respect the BBC, they had good quality news usually well written, and quite good sports journos too. I now never watch any of their content, other than online news. We get the English Premier forced down our throats, whether we want it or not, and pish like Open All Mics for the rest of the home nations.

Whatever happened to their prime directive of 'Public Service Broadcasting'? It seems that if it doesn't coin in money, they don't give a monkeys for it. Or us.

Hermit Crab
11-04-2015, 10:41 PM
As the OP said, Scottish football is Tom Kite partly due to a lack of TV money. That welt Doncaster really made a mess of things for our game here by failing to get top level league sponsorship too. And he was completely unfazed by his failure.

I used to quite respect the BBC, they had good quality news usually well written, and quite good sports journos too. I now never watch any of their content, other than online news. We get the English Premier forced down our throats, whether we want it or not, and pish like Open All Mics for the rest of the home nations.

Whatever happened to their prime directive of 'Public Service Broadcasting'? It seems that if it doesn't coin in money, they don't give a monkeys for it. Or us.


Agree. scottish football is utter pish compared to the English leagues.

Northernhibee
11-04-2015, 10:57 PM
Because the SFA are god awful when it comes to adding value to our game. Nothing to do with the BBC at all despite what some conspiracy theorists would like you to know, our game is just run by idiots who have stripped all value from the product with decades of mismanagement.

jodjam
11-04-2015, 11:55 PM
There just isn't the demand for scottish football South of the border unless it's an old firm game. I'm willing to bet the Derby doesnt pull many punters in England.

Sorry HC but your argument is nonsense. The original argument was about percentage spend. We should have 8.3% spend regardless of the quality

Forza Fred
12-04-2015, 01:00 AM
Sorry HC but your argument is nonsense. The original argument was about percentage spend. We should have 8.3% spend regardless of the quality

It's mainly down to TV ratings I guess.

Mainstream channels will generally value what they broadcast on the number of people who watch a particular show.

If there was a huge demand for gardening shows, then the people involved in gardening shows could expect their value to increase because of the demand for their services.

Sadly outside of Scotland, there are not a huge number of people threatening to cancel their subscriptions because Scottisg Fitba is not shown....poor sad buggers like us notwithstanding.

Just as in the Uk I don' think many crave live telecasts from the Danish league.

Scottish fitba is viewed, as the OP stated, as being Tom Kite

7062
12-04-2015, 01:10 AM
Sorry HC but your argument is nonsense. The original argument was about percentage spend. We should have 8.3% spend regardless of the quality

Na, we shouldn't. OVERALL we should get a share based on population, but I don't think the Beeb should pay the same for a SPL game as an EPL game. Or for the deal to have the highlights.

Tinribs
12-04-2015, 01:34 AM
Na, we shouldn't. OVERALL we should get a share based on population, but I don't think the Beeb should pay the same for a SPL game as an EPL game. Or for the deal to have the highlights.

I agree, but as i said earlier, these public funded channels are supposed to be Public Service Broadcasting, we should have at least a Saturday good quality show. One live match and great highlights of the other Tom Kite games, but at least it gets the football out there for others to know about...if no-one ever saw the EPL, would anyone sponsor it?

O'Rourke3
12-04-2015, 02:05 AM
I agree, but as i said earlier, these public funded channels are supposed to be Public Service Broadcasting, we should have at least a Saturday good quality show. One live match and great highlights of the other Tom Kite games, but at least it gets the football out there for others to know about...if no-one ever saw the EPL, would anyone sponsor it?

Unfortunately in England they have ITV who still try and rival the BBC on occasion for football. So there is competition for the broadcasting rights. STV couldn't find their own backsides when it comes to sport and bailed from Scottish Football in the 90s although they didn't admit it then, so in Scotland there is only one free to air public broadcaster. The only reason we get as much is due to radio coverage and latter stages of the cup competitions. The SFPL would have to give the rights away otherwise.
If we are ever going to sell the product again we need to turn tv and radio down. Basically if you are not there you don't see it. Print media is dead so you neither need to give reporters access to the product to help them sell papers. Who gives a stuff if the BBC and the Daily Record put out reports. They can often be inaccurate so, get to the match and see it yourself or complain about the days you used to be able to watch it all from a couch..... All those fans that can't get to games due to geography. There would still be sites like these as well as Hibs TV. They're going to record it anyway for training purposes so any broadcasting rights belong solely to the club. Watching football 3 continents away is a privilege not a right.....

Baader
12-04-2015, 02:13 AM
Bidding and payment for rights will be done within BBC Scotland which is responsible for its own budget. Sportscene doesn't get shown outside of Scotland. The sad reality is that outside of two Glasgow sides, even within Scotland, people just do not watch football in the sort of numbers that would attract more broadcasting money.

lord bunberry
12-04-2015, 05:53 AM
Bidding and payment for rights will be done within BBC Scotland which is responsible for its own budget. Sportscene doesn't get shown outside of Scotland. The sad reality is that outside of two Glasgow sides, even within Scotland, people just do not watch football in the sort of numbers that would attract more broadcasting money.
If it was about numbers then we wouldn't have channels like BBC Alba. The BBC put a lot of money into things it knows won't attract huge audience figures, the fact that they pay Gary Linekar more than they pay the whole of Scottish football can't be right.

Bristolhibby
12-04-2015, 06:53 AM
The other way of looking at it is see the great deal the publicly funded BBC managed to get securing Scottish Football rights. Allowing more money to be spent in regional access channels like ALBA.

BTW Livi v Hibs live on Alba on the 22nd.

J

lucky
12-04-2015, 07:00 AM
The BBC bid the highest amount so won the rights. No one is interested in Scottish football ffs there people on here that aren't interested in paying to watch Hibs. How much do the BBC pay for football in Wales and Northern Ireland ? I bet it's less than in scotland

DarlingtonHibee
12-04-2015, 07:12 AM
To me the biggest mistake was going with Setanta, who offered more than Sky, but a risk assesment had not been done. If I rememember correctly Sky had bid what we previously had. Soon as Setanta went tits up, Sky could pay what they wanted, and the BBC were the same.

There is also no brand or demand for Scottish football outside Scotland, living down South it is very passive as to our game, apart from Celtic and Rangers.

greenlex
12-04-2015, 08:18 AM
As the OP said, Scottish football is Tom Kite partly due to a lack of TV money. That welt Doncaster really made a mess of things for our game here by failing to get top level league sponsorship too. And he was completely unfazed by his failure.

I used to quite respect the BBC, they had good quality news usually well written, and quite good sports journos too. I now never watch any of their content, other than online news. We get the English Premier forced down our throats, whether we want it or not, and pish like Open All Mics for the rest of the home nations.

Whatever happened to their prime directive of 'Public Service Broadcasting'? It seems that if it doesn't coin in money, they don't give a monkeys for it. Or us. At the end of the day Doncaster is just the mouthpiece for the clubs. He may have influence but its the clubs pulling his strings.

Pretty Boy
12-04-2015, 08:23 AM
Agree. scottish football is utter pish compared to the English leagues.

Working on that comparison there's really only about 4 or 5 leagues in the world worth watching.

And of course part of the reason our league is 'pish' compared to England is the massive, amd still growing, disparity in TV revenue.

DarlingtonHibee
12-04-2015, 08:36 AM
To me the biggest mistake was going with Setanta, who offered more than Sky, but a risk assesment had not been done. If I rememember correctly Sky had bid what we previously had. Soon as Setanta went tits up, Sky could pay what they wanted, and the BBC were the same.

There is also no brand or demand for Scottish football outside Scotland, living down South it is very passive as to our game, apart from Celtic and Rangers.

My memory is not great, but wasn't Lex Gold the top guy when the deal was signed - ex Hibs chairman ?

7062
12-04-2015, 08:42 AM
Is it not SKY or BT Sports we should really be moaning about? It's them that show the live games and I guess pay the vast majority of TV money. BBC have only been showing highlights and recently a few games on ALBA for years.

DarlingtonHibee
12-04-2015, 08:44 AM
Is it not SKY or BT Sports we should really be moaning about? It's them that show the live games and I guess pay the vast majority of TV money. BBC have only been showing highlights and recently a few games on ALBA for years.

7062 - as per previous post, i would imagine Sky were mightly pissed off when they went with Setanta, after that failed Sky could name their price - lets be honest they only wanted the Old firm games.

hibbytam
12-04-2015, 08:49 AM
What annoys me most is the lowest leagues in England get better coverage than the top league in Scotland. A large problem is presentation. If there's only 1or 2 camea angles, if the play isn't analysed in detail, and if the presenters struggle to put 2 words together, it makes the game look rubbish. If the game looks rubbish, fewer people will watch.
And the reverse is also true. There are enough games that are as exciting as any in the world, we're just selling ourselves short.

DarlingtonHibee
12-04-2015, 08:53 AM
What annoys me most is the lowest leagues in England get better coverage than the top league in Scotland. A large problem is presentation. If there's only 1or 2 camea angles, if the play isn't analysed in detail, and if the presenters struggle to put 2 words together, it makes the game look rubbish. If the game looks rubbish, fewer people will watch.
And the reverse is also true. There are enough games that are as exciting as any in the world, we're just selling ourselves short.

Chicken and egg - you need a brand. That costs money - serious money, EPL in a much stronger position with global brands like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc... regrettably we dont have that, and never will. Its almost like Sky / BT are only covering games to placate us.

superfurryhibby
12-04-2015, 09:09 AM
Working on that comparison there's really only about 4 or 5 leagues in the world worth watching.

And of course part of the reason our league is 'pish' compared to England is the massive, amd still growing, disparity in TV revenue.

Agreed, the money changed everything. Even though it's awash with dosh there are still plenty of turgid games in the EPL. Increasingly, I have no interest in watching any tv football, what was once novel is now overly familiar.

Pretty Boy
12-04-2015, 09:13 AM
Agreed, the money changed everything. Even though it's awash with dosh there are still plenty of turgid games in the EPL. Increasingly, I have no interest in watching any tv football, what was once novel is now overly familiar.

Pretty much where I'm at. I got rid of Sky Sports as a hell of a lot of what I watched from the EPL was average at best. The EPL is a huge success because of the slick marketing as much as the quality imo. I just wasn't watching enough football to justify Sky Sports.

If it's Hibs then I'm usually at the game. If there's a TV game I really want to watch I'll go to the pub. Thats twice a month max so it still works out cheaper than paying for Sky Sports.

superfurryhibby
12-04-2015, 09:15 AM
Chicken and egg - you need a brand. That costs money - serious money, EPL in a much stronger position with global brands like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc... regrettably we dont have that, and never will. Its almost like Sky / BT are only covering games to placate us.

We have two teams with a degree of profile that is easily greater than say teams from Poland, Sweden, Hungary. You have to ask why our tv deal is so rubbish when compared to other less sellable footballing countries. I'm sure I read that we are punching way below our weight by comparison.

I really hope the bubble bursts, football has changed beyond recognition and not for the better. These global brands are like factory feed foie gras duck. They are tethered and force fed until fit to burst then slaughtered for our delectation. Fortunately for me I eat no meat

hibbytam
12-04-2015, 09:19 AM
Chicken and egg - you need a brand. That costs money - serious money, EPL in a much stronger position with global brands like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc... regrettably we dont have that, and never will. Its almost like Sky / BT are only covering games to placate us.

The thing is some people will watch anything, so if we build up some positive feeling, and get people watching, we'll have something better to sell. There's so much the scottish authorities could and should be doing. But instead we get 'armageddon', and people talking the game down. If that's coming from the top, why would anyone else talk it up.

CockneyRebel
12-04-2015, 09:29 AM
To me the biggest mistake was going with Setanta, who offered more than Sky, but a risk assesment had not been done. If I rememember correctly Sky had bid what we previously had. Soon as Setanta went tits up, Sky could pay what they wanted, and the BBC were the same.

There is also no brand or demand for Scottish football outside Scotland, living down South it is very passive as to our game, apart from Celtic and Rangers.


Pretty much self inflicted then.

frazeHFC
12-04-2015, 09:29 AM
Baseline

Beefster
12-04-2015, 09:29 AM
Folk are acting as if the BBC are a charity whose job it is to fund Scottish football.

Broadcasters pay what they need to to get the rights for any football. In England, there is competition from various sources. In Scotland, not so much.

Scottish football has been mismanaged for decades. Politicians wouldn't get so much publicity and digs at perceived British/English institutions by blaming the the Scottish SPFL/SFA/SPL/SFL etc though.

hibbytam
12-04-2015, 09:34 AM
Folk are acting as if the BBC are a charity whose job it is to fund Scottish football.

Broadcasters pay what they need to to get the rights for any football. In England, there is competition from various sources. In Scotland, not so much.

Scottish football has been mismanaged for decades. Politicians wouldn't get so much publicity and digs at perceived British/English institutions by blaming the the Scottish SPFL/SFA/SPL/SFL etc though.

But the BBC doesn't work on a commercial basis, that's the whole point.
What I would like to see is them increasing the money spent on the show, get them a decent sized studio, increase the amount and quality of analysis, and send more cameras. Basic things like that.

itslegaltender
12-04-2015, 09:42 AM
Folk are acting as if the BBC are a charity whose job it is to fund Scottish football.

Broadcasters pay what they need to to get the rights for any football. In England, there is competition from various sources. In Scotland, not so much.

Scottish football has been mismanaged for decades. Politicians wouldn't get so much publicity and digs at perceived British/English institutions by blaming the the Scottish SPFL/SFA/SPL/SFL etc though.


Hansen was getting paid more than what Scottish football was getting from the Beeb. Would also like to know how much they paid Oxford and Cambridge for the rights to the boatrace they announced recently.

Pretty Boy
12-04-2015, 09:52 AM
I still think we could help ourselves by moving the start of our season forward a few weeks. Not full on summer football but just 3 or 4 weeks.

It would have the benefit of given our teams a competitive game or 2 before competing in Europe. That's been an ongoing problem as we have started entering at earlier and earlier stages and we come up against match fit Swedes, Norwegians etc.

Secondly Sky are depserate for football to show at that time of year. Hence we get the spectactle of coverage of West Ham v The Szechuan Province Maoists, Everton v The Gold Coast Koala Baiters and Colmans mustard presents the folks from the sticks challenge trophy featuring Nowrwich v Tennessee Roadkill Humpers. If we provided competitive football in that 3 or 4 week period we would have a product to sell. The added bonus is it would allow us to gave our national trophy final in the spotlight as opposed to it being swamped by coverage of the FA Cup, Champions League and Play Off finals.

It's an idea not without it's problems and obviously there's an element of bowing to TV but I don't think it's without it's merits.

ScottB
12-04-2015, 09:56 AM
But the BBC doesn't work on a commercial basis, that's the whole point.
What I would like to see is them increasing the money spent on the show, get them a decent sized studio, increase the amount and quality of analysis, and send more cameras. Basic things like that.

It might not work on a strictly commercial basis, but it certainly has to justify what it spends, and shelling out an extra £4million a year or whatever on a poor quality product that has limited appeal even within Scotland, never mind the wider UK, is a non starter. I would think they'd simply not bother, and nobody else would either.

I don't watch Sportscene because the football is invariably **** and they spend much of the show discussing the Old Firm, you could throw all the production value increases in the world at the format and that won't change, plus the money increase up to population share equivalence with England would probably work out to the salary of one or two players per club; it's not going to radically change the game.

hibbytam
12-04-2015, 10:12 AM
It might not work on a strictly commercial basis, but it certainly has to justify what it spends, and shelling out an extra £4million a year or whatever on a poor quality product that has limited appeal even within Scotland, never mind the wider UK, is a non starter. I would think they'd simply not bother, and nobody else would either.

I don't watch Sportscene because the football is invariably **** and they spend much of the show discussing the Old Firm, you could throw all the production value increases in the world at the format and that won't change, plus the money increase up to population share equivalence with England would probably work out to the salary of one or two players per club; it's not going to radically change the game.

But more people would watch it if it was made to a higher standard. Which could be done without spending much more money.
And I do think people beyond Scotland would watch it if it were on. Like I find myself watching the highlights of the English lower leagues, just because it is on.

Beefster
12-04-2015, 10:16 AM
But the BBC doesn't work on a commercial basis, that's the whole point.

It's not a charity either. I might understand the sentiment if we were talking about kids' sport, poverty or something similar.

What we're actually talking about is the BBC funding football clubs so that they can pay a bit more to better footballers. All the while, folk continually moan about the price of football. So football supporters don't want to pay more to fund the clubs but the TV licence fee payer should?

hibbytam
12-04-2015, 10:33 AM
It's not a charity either. I might understand the sentiment if we were talking about kids' sport, poverty or something similar.

What we're actually talking about is the BBC funding football clubs so that they can pay a bit more to better footballers. All the while, folk continually moan about the price of football. So football supporters don't want to pay more to fund the clubs but the TV licence fee payer should?
My main point is that the program the bbc makes is pish, and while not entirely down to money, there are minor and relatively cheap things they could do to improve the product, which in turn would help promote Scottish football. Is it too much to ask to have an extra couple cameras, so we can see an offside, for example. Or some more analysis of the tactics used, to get away from pundits saying 'and he's just kicked it, and it's gone in'. Or getting rid of idiots like chick young, who are there just because they've always been there.
Or even just getting rid of the farce that is open all mics would be an improvement.

steakbake
12-04-2015, 10:51 AM
How much would you invest in something where the managers of the product have been talking it down since 2012? How does anyone think the negotiations went, given the fact they've singularly failed to find a sponsor for their league?

emerald green
12-04-2015, 11:18 AM
Because the SFA are god awful when it comes to adding value to our game. Nothing to do with the BBC at all despite what some conspiracy theorists would like you to know, our game is just run by idiots who have stripped all value from the product with decades of mismanagement.

:agree: :aok:

ScottB
12-04-2015, 11:24 AM
But more people would watch it if it was made to a higher standard. Which could be done without spending much more money.
And I do think people beyond Scotland would watch it if it were on. Like I find myself watching the highlights of the English lower leagues, just because it is on.

So having it in a flashier studio would increase viewership? I'm not convinced, as long as the football on offer is crap, on bare pitches in empty stadiums, you're not going to get any meaningful increase.

As for down south, nobody cares, even the Old Firm barely get a mention in newspaper coverage now, there's no shortage of their own game to consume, and our top league is probably comparable to League 1 on a very good day now.

SunshineOnLeith
12-04-2015, 12:09 PM
But the BBC doesn't work on a commercial basis, that's the whole point.
What I would like to see is them increasing the money spent on the show, get them a decent sized studio, increase the amount and quality of analysis, and send more cameras. Basic things like that.

However, the SPFL does work on a commercial basis, and it's up to them to handle negotiations with broadcasters to get the best deal.

There's plenty of folk in Scotland who'd remove the word 'only' from the question posed in the thread title, why should the publicly funded BBC be giving a million pounds to Scottish Football at all? If they didn't buy the rights, would anyone else pay the same or more?

ScottB
12-04-2015, 12:53 PM
However, the SPFL does work on a commercial basis, and it's up to them to handle negotiations with broadcasters to get the best deal.

There's plenty of folk in Scotland who'd remove the word 'only' from the question posed in the thread title, why should the publicly funded BBC be giving a million pounds to Scottish Football at all? If they didn't buy the rights, would anyone else pay the same or more?

Exactly. They are a public broadcaster, so they have to produce local news and the like, plus some Gaelic content, but that's about it. Showing Scottish football is certainly not part of that remit, nor would paying way over the odds for it.

Just Alf
12-04-2015, 04:13 PM
Exactly. They are a public broadcaster, so they have to produce local news and the like, plus some Gaelic content, but that's about it. Showing Scottish football is certainly not part of that remit, nor would paying way over the odds for it.

Agree, I genuinely think that THIS time around Sky will have some competition from BT, and if industry chat is true, even Virgin Media in tandem with an American broadcaster ...... That'll push "our" money up..... Big question is by how much ......,

Stonewall
12-04-2015, 06:54 PM
To me the biggest mistake was going with Setanta, who offered more than Sky, but a risk assesment had not been done. If I rememember correctly Sky had bid what we previously had. Soon as Setanta went tits up, Sky could pay what they wanted, and the BBC were the same.

There is also no brand or demand for Scottish football outside Scotland, living down South it is very passive as to our game, apart from Celtic and Rangers.

If I recall correctly some years before that (when McLeish was manager) Scottish Football had a pretty decent Sky contract. When it was up for renegotiation there was a proposal to form SPL TV and this was voted through only for Rangers (and Celtic too?) to pull the plug. Sky then told the SPL to get raffled and they were forced to go cap in hand to the BBC and accepted a pittance to cover Scottish football. The Setanta business came later so the damage had been done by that time.

ancient hibee
12-04-2015, 07:08 PM
Doesn't the fact that a football club manager gets a cut of a transfer fee for players being sold to another club they're about to play in a cup final tell you why the broadcast media doesn't take Scottish football seriously?