BBC Football Coverage

[BurghHibby]

Haven't seen it noted elsewhere yet but Ralph Topping has been criticising the BBC for the amount they pay to cover Scottish football:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32759210
Not before time, good Hibee anaw.

[Tyler Durden]

Haven't seen it noted elsewhere yet but Ralph Topping has been criticising the BBC for the amount they pay to cover Scottish football:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32759210
Not before time, good Hibee anaw.

He conveniently omits the fact that him and his cronies are the ones who agreed these deals. They weren't forced to accept BBC money.

The BBC isn't a charity. They're quite right to pay the market rate - if that happens to be relatively low then Topping, Doncaster etc are as culpable as anyone. Still this story will no doubt attract plenty of support from those in Scotland who want to attack the BBC at every opportunity

[liamh2202]

I kind of agree with the BBC stance.. You have to ask how many Scottish people watch motd compared to English people watch sportscene.

[Peevemor]

If they were given a 'take it or leave it ' ultimatum by the BBC then what else could they do? However, I see no harm in using the current (and wholly justified IMO) anti-beeb sentiment in Scotland to try to up the ante.

[Geo_1875]

How much does the BBC pay to pundits who spend much of their time extolling the SKY backed Barclays sponsored Premier League as the best league in the world? How much did the "politically neutral" BBC pay towards Al Murray's general election campaign in Thanet? Why should the BBC get away with undervaluing Scottish football when they happily take our licence fee at the same rate as the rest of Britain.?

[high bee]

The BBC have paid the going rate for the football. If it was so unacceptable then they should have been told to bolt and then an alternative offer taken, I suspect their was no other offer.

Just because they are funded by the licence payer doesn't mean they should prop up the Scottish game by giving them some extra cash.

We really need to move away from comparisons with the English game, until we look at how we make our game attractive in its own way, rather than try to copy England, then we are going to keep moving backwards.

[Andy74]

I kind of agree with the BBC stance.. You have to ask how many Scottish people watch motd compared to English people watch sportscene.

Yep. I don't watch sportscene but I do watch MOTD.

[James70]

How much of BBC Scotland's budget is spent on live coverage on BBC Alba I wonder. Also I can understand the millions spent on MOTD but not on the blanket coverage of the lower English Leagues.

[Winston Ingram]

He conveniently omits the fact that him and his cronies are the ones who agreed these deals. They weren't forced to accept BBC money.

The BBC isn't a charity. They're quite right to pay the market rate - if that happens to be relatively low then Topping, Doncaster etc are as culpable as anyone. Still this story will no doubt attract plenty of support from those in Scotland who want to attack the BBC at every opportunity

This

[Tyler Durden]

How much does the BBC pay to pundits who spend much of their time extolling the SKY backed Barclays sponsored Premier League as the best league in the world? How much did the "politically neutral" BBC pay towards Al Murray's general election campaign in Thanet? Why should the BBC get away with undervaluing Scottish football when they happily take our licence fee at the same rate as the rest of Britain.?

The point is that they have not under valued Scottish football. They paid an agreed price, the highest bid on the table.

[liamh2202]

I am happy they spend a portion of my fee on English football because I like to watch it on a Saturday night... So it wouldn't be fair for it to be proportional to population,, think people are just kicking the BBC for the sake of it

[Tyler Durden]

How much of BBC Scotland's budget is spent on live coverage on BBC Alba I wonder. Also I can understand the millions spent on MOTD but not on the blanket coverage of the lower English Leagues.

The English lower league highlights are moving to C5 next season I believe. So clearly the BBC weren't willing to pay over the odds there. Given the football league has a lucrative deal with Sky I'd question how expensive the highlight package was anyway.

[Jack]

I can see both sides.

I think as the public broadcaster the BBC, I'm my opinion, has a duty to be fair and equitable in the way it does deals with regions. Contrary to what they're saying I think the money raised in Scotland has plenty to do with where it should be spent.

On the other hand the Scottish Football Authorities have a history, even going back to black and white days, of being idiots generally, and in this case specifically in dealing with TV companies.

Ralph doing this now, with a year to go on the contract, seems to me to be lazy pre negotiation tactics. The problem is decades of incompetence.

If my thoughts are correct a population/Barnet type split would see Scotland get around £6.8m, three times the record breaking bookies deal that's just been announced.

[Bishop Hibee]

The BBC is not like other broadcasters as it is wholly funded by the license fee. I watch both Scottish and English football but what really annoys me is the money spent on the production values. Surely these should be the same for both programmes? The Sportscene budget is peanuts compared to MOTD. This should be equal at least.

[Hamish]

BBC might be better employed listening to their 'product' on Radio Scotland and endeavouring to improve it.

[Just Alf]

BBC might be better employed listening to their 'product' on Radio Scotland and endeavouring to improve it.

:top marks

[superfurryhibby]

BBC might be better employed listening to their 'product' on Radio Scotland and endeavouring to improve it.

Generally speaking , I think the BBC do a decent job of their radio coverage.

The TV coverage is however, a joke. No arguements, we should be given a BBC sports budget that reflects the revenue raised here via the licence. Maybe, that's a factor that might lead to improved sports broadcasting?

[greenlad]

The English lower league highlights are moving to C5 next season I believe. So clearly the BBC weren't willing to pay over the odds there. Given the football league has a lucrative deal with Sky I'd question how expensive the highlight package was anyway.

C5's offer estimated to be £2m per year, "marginally" more than the BBC offered. Over double what BBC pay for the SPFL, albeit the FL allows a wide spread of coverage - 72 Clubs of "professional" standing and reputable crowds compared with our 22 or so (and thats being being generous) larger clubs before you are basically into amateur football..

Not wanting to open up an Independence debate, but we (Scotland) must be one of the few countries in the world where our state broadcaster, that we fund, is so skewed towards preferring and promoting another country's sporting events at the expense of our own. I realise the BBC have to pay "market rate" to keep the EPL due to the likely competition from ITV at a UK wide level, but its an anomoly that we pay equivalently for what was always a "secondary" league in this country (look back at any Sportscene from the early 90s when English games got 5 mins tacked on the end and that was that!).

In say an independent Scotland, you would maybe find a homegrown SBC that would take EPL highlights, but certainly paying nowhere near the amount "pro-rata" that the BBC currently do, keeping in line with the market forces within that country. Or an independent Scottish cable TV sports channel much like Setanta which still operates in Ireland would cover it all (highlight and live) at a fair price.

[Tyler Durden]

The BBC is not like other broadcasters as it is wholly funded by the license fee. I watch both Scottish and English football but what really annoys me is the money spent on the production values. Surely these should be the same for both programmes? The Sportscene budget is peanuts compared to MOTD. This should be equal at least.

Why? Should River City have the same budget as Eastenders?

[James70]

The only way that Scotland are ever going to get a fair deal from the BBC would be for a British League to be formed but that is never going to happen. Even worse would be if the ugly sisters were ever admitted to the English League set up, tv coverage of the Scottish game would be even less.

[Colr]

Why? Should River City have the same budget as Eastenders?

What's River City?

[Hamish]

Generally speaking , I think the BBC do a decent job of their radio coverage.



The TV coverage is however, a joke. No arguements, we should be given a BBC sports budget that reflects the revenue raised here via the licence. Maybe, that's a factor that might lead to improved sports broadcasting?


We will have to agree to disagree on radio coverage. Quality wise anyway.

[superfurryhibby]

We will have to agree to disagree on radio coverage. Quality wise anyway.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what we could reasonably expect. The quality of punditry is at times cringeworthy, but these are ex players, not philosophers, of the game. Plus I rather enjoy Derek Ferguson's emasculation of grammar as he tries to avoid saying "done" at any costs. That lad's did good for himself, as he's did in the past.

I'm listening to off the ball just now and they are talking about the TV coverage and budget. Lineker salary is twice the total monies given to BBC Scotland's total expenditure on Scottish sports broadcasting. That is wrong!

[Bishop Hibee]

Why? Should River City have the same budget as Eastenders?

That's not comparing like for like. Scottish license fee payers pay more for the rights for EPL highlights fair enough. What I want is first class coverage of our national sport not Micky Mouse coverage as we've been conditioned to expect. You happy with the SPFL coverage?

[jacomo]

How much did the "politically neutral" BBC pay towards Al Murray's general election campaign in Thanet?

Is this a trick question. I think the answer is £0.

By all means debate the BBC but let's not make stuff up.

[Jim44]

Fair enough. I'm not sure what we could reasonably expect. The quality of punditry is at times cringeworthy, but these are ex players, not philosophers, of the game. Plus I rather enjoy Derek Ferguson's emasculation of grammar as he tries to avoid saying "done" at any costs. That lad's did good for himself, as he's did in the past.

I'm listening to off the ball just now and they are talking about the TV coverage and budget. Lineker salary is twice the total monies given to BBC Scotland's total expenditure on Scottish sports broadcasting. That is wrong!

I'm listening to OTB just now as well and they're talking about the Jambos' stadium issue. What annoys me when this is being discussed in the press or on radio, is the way they make it sound as if HOMFC will make the decision about where they will play while their stadium is being upgraded. Easter Road is being considered as an option but they make it sound as if HFC have no say in the matter and will meet their demands if they deign to opt for ER.

[SlickShoes]

I kind of agree with the BBC stance.. You have to ask how many Scottish people watch motd compared to English people watch sportscene.

I watch match of the day because it's on a Saturday and still relevant at that time, if sport scene was on then I'd probably watch that. By the time Sunday rolls around everything is old news, I rarely watch motd2 and never really bother with sports scene unless hibs are on even then I've probably seen the goals online already.

It's a time sensitive broadcasting issue, having football on 36 hours after it happened is way too late to care about for me

[NYHibby]

I'm listening to OTB just now as well and they're talking about the Jambos' stadium issue. What annoys me when this is being discussed in the press or on radio, is the way they make it sound as if HOMFC will make the decision about where they will play while their stadium is being upgraded. Easter Road is being considered as an option but they make it sound as if HFC have no say in the matter and will meet their demands if they deign to opt for ER.

They in no way implied that we have no say in the matter. You are hearing what you want to hear not what they are actually saying.

[superfurryhibby]

They in no way implied that we have no say in the matter. You are hearing what you want to hear not what they are actually saying.

Agreed, they are hypothesising with a Jamboid guest. Nothing more.

Back on to the money issue again...... All agreeing that the total spend is inequitable. BBC give us our money back.

[CockneyRebel]

Agreed, they are hypothesising with a Jamboid guest. Nothing more.

Back on to the money issue again...... All agreeing that the total spend is inequitable. BBC give us our money back.

They can't - it's been spent on Gaelic programmes.

[NYHibby]

The BBC have paid the going rate for the football. If it was so unacceptable then they should have been told to bolt and then an alternative offer taken, I suspect their was no other offer.

Just because they are funded by the licence payer doesn't mean they should prop up the Scottish game by giving them some extra cash.

We really need to move away from comparisons with the English game, until we look at how we make our game attractive in its own way, rather than try to copy England, then we are going to keep moving backwards.


The point is that they have not under valued Scottish football. They paid an agreed price, the highest bid on the table.

These are the two most sensible posts in this thread. There is a market price for TV highlights. If the BBC was underpaying by as much as a few here are suggesting, the rights would have been sold to someone else.

Some here are advocating a weird approach to wasting licence fee payer's money. Why should the BBC pay above the market price with licence fee payers' money for anything?

[superfurryhibby]

These are the two most sensible posts in this thread. There is a market price for TV highlights. If the BBC was underpaying by as much as a few here are suggesting, the rights would have been sold to someone else.

Some here are advocating a weird approach to wasting licence fee payer's money. Why should the BBC pay above the market price with licence fee payers' money for anything?

What about spending some money on making a decent fist of the highlights show. It's about more than just how much they pay to screen the highlights 30 hours and more after the games were played.

[NYHibby]

What about spending some money on making a decent fist of the highlights show. It's about more than just how much they pay to screen the highlights 30 hours and more after the games were played.

I don't disagree with you there. The original post was about the amount the BBC pays the SPFL for the rights.

[bingo70]

One of the reasons our game is so **** compared to English football is the lack of investment from the tv companies.

If the BBC want a programme worth showing they need to provide the funds so we can do that. It'd be like them slashing the budget of eastenders, obviously they'd save money but the quality of the programme would get worse and they'd lose viewers.

[Tyler Durden]

What about spending some money on making a decent fist of the highlights show. It's about more than just how much they pay to screen the highlights 30 hours and more after the games were played.

Seems to be 2 issues for people.

1. A view that its inequitable the amount paid by the BBC to SPFL for a highlights package.
2. The poor quality of the TV program produced

The first point is just plain wrong.

Second point isn't entirely budgetary is it? It's about poor decisions made by the production company - lack of extended highlights, poor choice of pundit and presenter. Sure they could throw a little bit more money at it but why should they when the potential audience is relatively small? Money that could be spent to represent the wishes of license payers who have no interest in sport at all

[superfurryhibby]

Seems to be 2 issues for people.

1. A view that its inequitable the amount paid by the BBC to SPFL for a highlights package.
2. The poor quality of the TV program produced

The first point is just plain wrong.

Second point isn't entirely budgetary is it? It's about poor decisions made by the production company - lack of extended highlights, poor choice of pundit and presenter. Sure they could throw a little bit more money at it but why should they when the potential audience is relatively small? Money that could be spent to represent the wishes of license payers who have no interest in sport at all

The interests of licence payers, that's a can of worms! I pay a licence and have no interest in Graham Norton etc. they have a duty to be diverse and do this admirably, on Radio and in their less commercial TV output. It's my contention that they fail us I terms of how they present TV highlights. It could and should be better.

The programme is pishy breeks, no doubt. The reason for that most likely comes down to budget, that's what determines the choice of presenter and pundit? Maybe the audience would grow a bit with a more appropriate time slot ( like before MOTD on a Saturday night).

[basehibby]

I kind of agree with the BBC stance.. You have to ask how many Scottish people watch motd compared to English people watch sportscene.

The only way I would agree with this leaky argument is if, as a Scot, I was permitted to pay only 10% of the TV license fee. I'm not particularly interested in English Football but I'm compelled by law as the owner of a television set to subsidise it's bloated form.

The BBC cannot have it's cake and eat it - if it wants to continue with the license fee as a means of funding itself then it must also spend it in a way which does not favour one section of the populace over another.

[liamh2202]

C5's offer estimated to be £2m per year, "marginally" more than the BBC offered. Over double what BBC pay for the SPFL, albeit the FL allows a wide spread of coverage - 72 Clubs of "professional" standing and reputable crowds compared with our 22 or so (and thats being being generous) larger clubs before you are basically into amateur football..

Not wanting to open up an Independence debate, but we (Scotland) must be one of the few countries in the world where our state broadcaster, that we fund, is so skewed towards preferring and promoting another country's sporting events at the expense of our own. I realise the BBC have to pay "market rate" to keep the EPL due to the likely competition from ITV at a UK wide level, but its an anomoly that we pay equivalently for what was always a "secondary" league in this country (look back at any Sportscene from the early 90s when English games got 5 mins tacked on the end and that was that!).

In say an independent Scotland, you would maybe find a homegrown SBC that would take EPL highlights, but certainly paying nowhere near the amount "pro-rata" that the BBC currently do, keeping in line with the market forces within that country. Or an independent Scottish cable TV sports channel much like Setanta which still operates in Ireland would cover it all (highlight and live) at a fair price.

What is your argument with us guys who prefer to watch Hibs in the flesh but on a Saturday night I would prefer they paid for English football than ours? I'm glad they spend more money so I can watch man u v arsenal highlights rather than ross county v St mirren

[liamh2202]

The only way I would agree with this leaky argument is if, as a Scot, I was permitted to pay only 10% of the TV license fee. I'm not particularly interested in English Football but I'm compelled by law as the owner of a television set to subsidise it's bloated form.

The BBC cannot have it's cake and eat it - if it wants to continue with the license fee as a means of funding itself then it must also spend it in a way which does not favour one section of the populace over another.

How is the argument leaky? Scottish licence payers don't necessarily want their money spent on Scottish football?

[Jim44]

They in no way implied that we have no say in the matter. You are hearing what you want to hear not what they are actually saying.

That'll be me put in my place then. :greengrin Maybe a wee bit exaggeration on my part about us having no say, but the tone of the guy ( Jambo linked but don't know who) was most definitely one of patronisingly referring to Easter Road as one of their options if the Jambo supporters would accept it. What about if the Hibs supporters would accept it? Would Sevco share a ground with Celtic or vice versa in a similar situation in Weegieland. Would Edinburgh's finest consent to it?

[basehibby]

How is the argument leaky? Scottish licence payers don't necessarily want their money spent on Scottish football?

Well this one most certainly does NOT want it spent on the EPL and Gary Linekar - but that's precisely where it goes in approximately 1000% of the proportion that would be justified by the English population as a proportion of license fee payers.

I'm compelled by law to pay the license fee so there's a very strong argument that the BBC should be compelled by law to spend it in a fair way. If they want to play at market forces then it has to work in both directions - ie we don't have to pay their license fee if we are not happy with the product on offer (that is currently not the case which is why your argument is leaky).

[whiskyhibby]

The BBC is under an obligation to spend taxpayers money wisely and at best value, the SPL is an uncompetitive dog of a league, there is no interest outside the UK for any televised matches or highlights, until they resolve the issue of making the league more competitive then the SPL will continue to attract minuscule sponsorship, the BBC after all should not be a charity, if it's that big an issue then the Scottish government should be giving additional funding....

[SuperAllyMcleod]

The main problem with football coverage in this country is the pundits and ex-players they get on their shows - both radio and TV. I'd say that Pat Nevin, Michael Stewart and Craig Patterson are the only ones that get pass marks..

However, before we start to rip into the BBC, we should all take a minute to remember how much worse it was when STV had the highlights package. Talk about amateur hour!

[jdships]

Surely the if the matter of " live " football coverage is to be looked at it should take in all providers
BT/Sky are just as culpable as BBC in the overall picture
I subscribe to BT sport and find some of their football ( and rugby) pundits fit into the " cringeworthy" bracket but their overall coverage /filming etc is first class
In a Scottish context the part played by Doncastor & Co should be looked at more closely for at the end of the day 'tis them who are signing the TV agreements :rolleyes:

[jdships]

Well this one most certainly does NOT want it spent on the EPL and Gary Linekar - but that's precisely where it goes in approximately 1000% of the proportion that would be justified by the English population as a proportion of license fee payers.

I'm compelled by law to pay the license fee so there's a very strong argument that the BBC should be compelled by law to spend it in a fair way. If they want to play at market forces then it has to work in both directions - ie we don't have to pay their license fee if we are not happy with the product on offer (that is currently not the case which is why your argument is leaky).

10% of population ( approx) of UK live in Scotland , remember !!

[Jack Hackett]

The BBC is not like other broadcasters as it is wholly funded by the license fee. I watch both Scottish and English football but what really annoys me is the money spent on the production values. Surely these should be the same for both programmes? The Sportscene budget is peanuts compared to MOTD. This should be equal at least.

Income for 2013/14 was £5.066 billion, of which £3.7 billion came from license fees. People tend to forget that they get a healthy return from overseas sales...which might now drop a tad given Clarksons departure...which kinda puts the pittance Scottish football gets into perspective

[whiskyhibby]

What is your argument with us guys who prefer to watch Hibs in the flesh but on a Saturday night I would prefer they paid for English football than ours? I'm glad they spend more money so I can watch man u v arsenal highlights rather than ross county v St mirren

Sorry why would I want to watch 60 minutes of the OF "highlights" and then 30 seconds of every other game............until we break the Weedgia's obsession with Celtic and Rangers then I for one don't want any more money pumped into " Scottish football" aka the OF

[liamh2202]

Income for 2013/14 was £5.066 billion, of which £3.7 billion came from license fees. People tend to forget that they get a healthy return from overseas sales...which might now drop a tad given Clarksons departure...which kinda puts the pittance Scottish football gets into perspective


I think it should be more to do with veining figures than income.. Do we know how many licence payers watch motd and football league show compared to sportscene. That might be a better comparison

[emerald green]

He conveniently omits the fact that him and his cronies are the ones who agreed these deals. They weren't forced to accept BBC money.

The BBC isn't a charity. They're quite right to pay the market rate - if that happens to be relatively low then Topping, Doncaster etc are as culpable as anyone. Still this story will no doubt attract plenty of support from those in Scotland who want to attack the BBC at every opportunity

:agree: Topping was of course a prominent "Yes" campaigner during last year's independence referendum. He perhaps has still got a grudge against the BBC and is letting that cloud his judgement.

A BBC spokesperson said: "The SPFL welcomed the current rights agreement with the BBC & other broadcasters when it was announced - Doncaster saying it was great news for fans of Scottish football - and its always been the case that sports rights are negotiated in line with the prevailing market conditions and not according to population quotas.

Ultimately the sports rights market is not controlled by the BBC and we are one of a number of organisations who regularly compete for sports rights. When we negotiate for rights our priority is to get value for money for the licence payer. Negotiation is two way - the SPFL come to the table with their wishes & we decide on how much we can reasonably spend on a package on offer."

The statement then goes on in greater detail for anyone who cares to read it.


If they were given a 'take it or leave it ' ultimatum by the BBC then what else could they do? However, I see no harm in using the current (and wholly justified IMO) anti-beeb sentiment in Scotland to try to up the ante.

No anti-beeb sentiment from me. I happen to think they are one of the best and most highly respected broadcasters in the world.

There didn't seem to be many screams and accusations of bias on the BBC's part during the general election campaign. I wonder why?


These are the two most sensible posts in this thread. There is a market price for TV highlights. If the BBC was underpaying by as much as a few here are suggesting, the rights would have been sold to someone else.

Some here are advocating a weird approach to wasting licence fee payer's money. Why should the BBC pay above the market price with licence fee payers' money for anything?

:agree: see above.


The BBC is under an obligation to spend taxpayers money wisely and at best value, the SPL is an uncompetitive dog of a league, there is no interest outside the UK for any televised matches or highlights, until they resolve the issue of making the league more competitive then the SPL will continue to attract minuscule sponsorship, the BBC after all should not be a charity, if it's that big an issue then the Scottish government should be giving additional funding....

:agree: ditto.

[Jack Hackett]

:agree: Topping was of course a prominent "Yes" campaigner during last year's independence referendum. He perhaps has still got a grudge against the BBC and is letting that cloud his judgement.

A BBC spokesperson said: "The SPFL welcomed the current rights agreement with the BBC & other broadcasters when it was announced - Doncaster saying it was great news for fans of Scottish football - and its always been the case that sports rights are negotiated in line with the prevailing market conditions and not according to population quotas.

Ultimately the sports rights market is not controlled by the BBC and we are one of a number of organisations who regularly compete for sports rights. When we negotiate for rights our priority is to get value for money for the licence payer. Negotiation is two way - the SPFL come to the table with their wishes & we decide on how much we can reasonably spend on a package on offer."

The statement then goes on in greater detail for anyone who cares to read it.



:faf:

....If Donkey says it, it must be true :greengrin

[DavieRoy]

Interesting debate.

As said in previous posts, the rights are only worth what someone is willing to pay regardless of whether the SPFL deserves more or should get more.

Something that people need to remember is Sky and BBC pay good money to the SFA. Quite often people talk about poor TV deals but for the last 15 years, the SFA have had a healthy deal that they improve on every time the contract comes around for renewal.

BBC pay decent money for the Scottish Cup and we get Saturday night Sportscene, longer highlights for the three or four featured games and commentators are actually at the game.

The question should be, why are the SFA able to negotiate good TV deals with Sky, BBC and UEFA but the SPFL can't get the value they want.


Look at it from the BBC's point of view, all these websites like The Sun + Goals and STV have 'rights' for online highlights, more radio stations have commentary rights again too. You could argue the rights have been diluted by the SPFL.

Why should Sky and BT pay fortunes when nobody else is in for them and BBC Alba pick up rights for buttons!

The clubs and the league should look at what they are selling. 86 games over 4 leagues have been shown live this season, before the playoffs, that is far too many.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Interesting debate.

As said in previous posts, the rights are only worth what someone is willing to pay regardless of whether the SPFL deserves more or should get more.

Something that people need to remember is Sky and BBC pay good money to the SFA. Quite often people talk about poor TV deals but for the last 15 years, the SFA have had a healthy deal that they improve on every time the contract comes around for renewal.

BBC pay decent money for the Scottish Cup and we get Saturday night Sportscene, longer highlights for the three or four featured games and commentators are actually at the game.

The question should be, why are the SFA able to negotiate good TV deals with Sky, BBC and UEFA but the SPFL can't get the value they want.


Look at it from the BBC's point of view, all these websites like The Sun + Goals and STV have 'rights' for online highlights, more radio stations have commentary rights again too. You could argue the rights have been diluted by the SPFL.

Why should Sky and BT pay fortunes when nobody else is in for them and BBC Alba pick up rights for buttons!

The clubs and the league should look at what they are selling. 86 games over 4 leagues have been shown live this season, before the playoffs, that is far too many.

I get what you're saying but isn't the crux of the matter here the Beeb is a public broadcaster? So moneys allocated to budget for stuff that is "regionalised" should be proportionate since we all contribute proportionately - kind of like a Barnet formula for tv footie coverage ;)

with sky coverage and instant fixes through social media - isn't e Beeb highlights package / motd becoming less relevant? I don't see why they/we should pay ludicrous amounts for it.

All Empires have their time and crumble How long will we have to wait for this to happen to Sky and The EPL. I love to see Fifa and IOC get an overhaul before too long.

[DavieRoy]

Go back to the creation of the SPL and the first TV rights and coverage between 1998-2002:

Sky Sports - live games at a set kick off time (either 6.05pm on a Sunday or 5.35pm on a Saturday), Inside Scottish Football preview show and Sky Sports News.

BBC Scotland - Saturday night Sportscene highlights with two featured games of around 25 minutes, one other game and two English games plus Friday Sportscene preview show.

STV - Sunday Scotsport with highlights of all SPL games with one featured game of around 25/30 minute highlights plus Extra Time on a Saturday afternoon to preview the action. They also had Football First for all the First Division highlights.

Blanket coverage with lucrative deals.

The SPL clubs voted to take themselves off the gravy train by voting against extending the Sky deal and took much less money from BBC when they had no other options.

Two things that did apart from a drop in cash was, show Sky it didn't necessarily need Scottish football (they kept the Scottish Cup and Internationals but didn't get the SPL back for 7 years) and also BBC stopped Saturday night highlights (apart from the Scottish Cup) meaning we got Match of the Day instead, giving the opportunity to watch English and not Scottish football.

[DavieRoy]

I get what you're saying but isn't the crux of the matter here the Beeb is a public broadcaster? So moneys allocated to budget for stuff that is "regionalised" should be proportionate since we all contribute proportionately - kind of like a Barnet formula for tv footie coverage ;)

with sky coverage and instant fixes through social media - isn't e Beeb highlights package / motd becoming less relevant? I don't see why they/we should pay ludicrous amounts for it.

All Empires have their time and crumble How long will we have to wait for this to happen to Sky and The EPL. I love to see Fifa and IOC get an overhaul before too long.

You could be right as the public service element comes into it. I would love the BBC to throw money at Scottish football but do they not need to keep costs down given the licence fee is frozen? Just playing devils advocate.

You are right re FIFA and IOC. With Sky and the EPL, the EPL have a product that people want to buy.

The SPFL have the right broadcasters, two massive companies with a massive reach in terms of Sky and BT plus the correct terrestrial broadcaster in BBC. Great ways to sell your product.

They need to stop diluting the product thought. Stop the small fry deals with those I mentioned before and make the content more exclusive to the 'big' three.

Don't sell as many games. They used to sell 60 Premiership games (it is now 55 with 15 Rangers games), make it 45 or 40, one a week and a few to spare for big games which also means less games getting moved.


There is currently so much bad feeling from fans to broadcasters, so of which is understandable. I, personally used to love when Hibernian were on TV, and would record it and watch it back after coming back in from the game. The relationship needs working on from all sides. The league need to negotiate a better deal, like the SFA. TV need to consult and think more about kick off times and maybe paying more while fans have to understand and appreciate the benefits of the league getting TV exposure.

[malcolm]

The market price argument and competitiveness over a season of the scottish league kind of miss the point. The bbc are a public service broadcaster and though they have obligations as to how they spend taxpayers money, that does not necessarily mean that they must take an overwhelmingly commercial approach to spending tax payers money - they ought to povide a service to the viewers in the UK.

The problem with the bbc in Scotland is the same as pervades all the media in scotland - the skew towards glasgow that in sport is demonstrated by the obession with the gruesome twosome.

It is not meeting a public service obligation to spend more on keeping Gary Lineker in crispy fried potatoes than paying for showing scottish football on TV. I have given up on bbc radio scotland and to be honest lost the habit of watching the highlights on TV a long time ago. I like the bbc UK version, but the scottish branch office is simply a greater Glasgow local tv and radio service that is predicable parochial and generally pants.:wink:

[basehibby]

10% of population ( approx) of UK live in Scotland , remember !!

I'm well aware of that - but English football gets about 100 times as much money from the BBC - not 10 times - hence 1000% of what they could justifiably claim in comparison to Scotland.

[emerald green]

10% of population ( approx) of UK live in Scotland , remember !!


I'm well aware of that - but English football gets about 100 times as much money from the BBC - not 10 times - hence 1000% of what they could justifiably claim in comparison to Scotland.

As at 2011 census, percentage of UK population was:

England = 83.9%
Scotland = 8.4%
Wales = 4.8%
NI = 2.9%

I read that the SPFL gets £1m pa for TV highlights, and the BBC is paying the EPL £68m pa over the next three years for TV highlights.

[emerald green]

:faf:

....If Donkey says it, it must be true :greengrin

Not trying to defend Doncaster, but he would have been speaking on behalf of the SPFL, of which Topping is/was the chairman.

[basehibby]

As at 2011 census, percentage of UK population was:

England = 83.9%
Scotland = 8.4%
Wales = 4.8%
NI = 2.9%

I read that the SPFL gets £1m pa for TV highlights, and the BBC is paying the EPL £68m pa over the next three years for TV highlights.

I stand corrected - so if you were doing things on the basis of proportion of license fee payers then the equitable cut from a £69m pa pot would be:
England - £57.891m pa
Scotland -£5.796m pa
Wales - £3.312m pa
NI - £2.001m pa

You can only conclude that Scottish Football does get an extremely raw deal from the Beeb who continue to throw cash about like confetti when it comes to the EPL.

[Jack Hackett]

Not trying to defend Doncaster, but he would have been speaking on behalf of the SPFL, of which Topping is/was the chairman.

Not having a dig at you eg. I just find it hilarious that the bbc would quote a man the majority of Scots fans would gladly send homeward tae think again. A fine example of just how far out of touch they are with us

[Geo_1875]

The BBC is under an obligation to spend taxpayers money wisely and at best value, the SPL is an uncompetitive dog of a league, there is no interest outside the UK for any televised matches or highlights, until they resolve the issue of making the league more competitive then the SPL will continue to attract minuscule sponsorship, the BBC after all should not be a charity, if it's that big an issue then the Scottish government should be giving additional funding....

They should be spending the licence payers money wisely but seldom do. Sports programmes in general are reporting events yet they spend fortunes actively promoting the EPL.

[whiskyhibby]

They should be spending the licence payers money wisely but seldom do. Sports programmes in general are reporting events yet they spend fortunes actively promoting the EPL.

Like it or not that's the going rate for the EPL and instead of whining about it the SPFL should be looking at ways to making our game more competitive and saleable,............

[emerald green]

Not having a dig at you eg. I just find it hilarious that the bbc would quote a man the majority of Scots fans would gladly send homeward tae think again. A fine example of just how far out of touch they are with us

OK Jack, I didn't take it as a dig. It's easy for things to get lost in translation sometimes on a forum like this. Don't worry, I've got a fairly thick skin. You need it on here! :greengrin

[basehibby]

Like it or not that's the going rate for the EPL and instead of whining about it the SPFL should be looking at ways to making our game more competitive and saleable,............

One way of doing that is for clubs to have a better budget to spend in the transfer market......one reason the EPL has become such a saleable commodity is the fortunes that even a smallish club has to spend on players through TV cash - chicken an egg scenario.

[bingo70]

Like it or not that's the going rate for the EPL and instead of whining about it the SPFL should be looking at ways to making our game more competitive and saleable,............

One of the ways to do that would be to put the tv companies under pressure to give us as much money as possible. About time we started sticking up for ourselves.

[whiskyhibby]

One way of doing that is for clubs to have a better budget to spend in the transfer market......one reason the EPL has become such a saleable commodity is the fortunes that even a smallish club has to spend on players through TV cash - chicken an egg scenario.

Yes that's a consequence of the EPL being more marketable, but ultimately the product needs to be saleable, which means competition

[whiskyhibby]

One of the ways to do that would be to put the tv companies under pressure to give us as much money as possible. About time we started sticking up for ourselves.

Sorry don't buy that, unless the league structure changes and the league is more than a 1 or 2 horse race then it's not going to attract any sort of meaningful sponsorship and to suggest chucking money broadly at the problem will cure it is naive

[bingo70]

Sorry don't buy that, unless the league structure changes and the league is more than a 1 or 2 horse race then it's not going to attract any sort of meaningful sponsorship and to suggest chucking money broadly at the problem will cure it is naive

Fair points.

Money's obviously important and I do think we're right to start putting pressure on the BBC but you're absolutely right in that we need to be addressing the other issues as well.

[Eyrie]

One way to address the lack of competitiveness is to share the existing money more equitably.

Someone posted a breakdown of the prize money the other day and Septic get twice as much for winning the top league as the team that finishes fifth (and of course being the winners gives them access to the lucrative Champions League). That is a clear area to be fixed.

Additionally I'd like to see some of the TV money used to compensate the home team (eg £20k per fixture) to reflect the lower gate due to the game being on the TV. On that subject, there should be set times for the TV games eg 7:45pm on a Friday evening and 12:30pm on Sunday rather than the random times and days at present.

[worcesterhibby]

The BBC isn't a charity. They're quite right to pay the market rate - if that happens to be relatively low then Topping, Doncaster etc are as culpable as anyone. Still this story will no doubt attract plenty of support from those in Scotland who want to attack the BBC at every opportunity

There is some truth in that, although if they even spent a fraction of the money the spend on English football they could have bought the rights to all the live games by out bidding BT etc.

The other thing is the money they actually spend on producing the program..crap pundits, crap studio, poor coverage. If buying the rights is cheap then they should have MORE to spend on the production values and getting decent pundits, not treat the whole thing as a bargain basement piece of crap.

[jacomo]

I think it should be more to do with veining figures than income.. Do we know how many licence payers watch motd and football league show compared to sportscene. That might be a better comparison

Sportscene is almost invisible unless you live in Scotland. It's also a weak show. I think viewing figures across UK would improve if it was easier to access and presented better.

[liamh2202]

Sportscene is almost invisible unless you live in Scotland. It's also a weak show. I think viewing figures across UK would improve if it was easier to access and presented better.

I doubt that very much.. In the rest of the UK our league is dismissed... On a side note.. What about Welsh football highlights? Are these available anywhere?

[Nutmegged]

I kind of agree with the BBC stance.. You have to ask how many Scottish people watch motd compared to English people watch sportscene.

That's not even comparable to be honest, Match of the Day is sent out Nation Wide while Sportscene is regional (region being Scotland)

regardless, if you pay a crap amount of money to a certain product over a number of years while paying absolute top dollar to something else then gradually the thing you pay more for is going to appeal to more people year on year while the thing you pay the absolute minimum for will lose its appeal.

Topping is an absolute joke though, this statement should have been written a few years ago after we knocked back the BBC's then offer, we could have let fans know exactly why we refused, however we accepted it, then Doncaster with his cheesy BS tells us how great the deal is for our game, 100% wrong.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Why do we allow the live broadcast of foreign football matches that clash with the Scottish league programme anyway .... We should threaten to pull the plug on SKY, BT or BBC matches that begin between 12 noon and 7pm on a Saturday .... Lets see if that threat gets us more money :greengrin