New TV deal - Eleven Sports to bid?

[3pm]

This all sounds a bit more promising for the next deal regardless of who wins the bid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6288497/Eleven-Sports-set-challenge-rights-live-Scottish-football.html

[bingo70]

This all sounds a bit more promising for the next deal regardless of who wins the bid.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6288497/Eleven-Sports-set-challenge-rights-live-Scottish-football.html

Doncaster will soon talk them out of it 😉

[The_Exile]

Newcomers Eleven Sports are poised to go head-to-head with BT Sport and Sky for the rights to show live Scottish football.The SPFL are inviting broadcasters to bid for the biggest television deal in Scottish football history this month.BT Sport and Sky Sports currently pay around £21million a year to share 60 SPFL league games and both now want to go it alone.

However, Premiership chairmen hope competition from Eleven Sports will see clubs double their money through a £40m-a-year deal when the current agreement ends in 2020.Founded by Leeds United owner Andrea Radrizziani, Eleven has risen to prominence this year by winning exclusive rights to show Serie A, La Liga and the US PGA Championship in the United Kingdom and Ireland.And a source close to the broadcaster told Sportsmail they would not rule out a bid for the rights to the SPFL, branding it an 'interesting property'.Amazon and Facebook have also held preliminary discussions with league chief executive Neil Doncaster.And Premiership clubs hope to tie-up a new contract by April next year when the broadcast giants divert their attentions to a new Champions League broadcasting deal.The previous record broadcasting deal for Scottish football remains a £31m-a-year contract signed with Setanta a decade ago.BT Sport and Sky Sports have already wined and dined SPFL club chairmen in London in a quest to show their commitment to the game north of the border.

And Eleven Sports, which operates as a streaming platform, are keen to confirm their status as growing players in the British market despite ruffling feathers within the Football Association and SFA by breaching a long-standing agreement to keep live football off the nation's screens between 2.45pm and 5.15pm on a Saturday.The broadcaster has agreed to stop broadcasting La Liga games 'for the time being,' but vowed to challenge the ruling in court.In a statement Eleven said: 'The blackout is one of the biggest generators of piracy in the UK. These games are very easily accessed on illegal sites online and it is naive to think that fans do not watch them because they are not shown on legitimate platforms, except betting sites. It is irresponsible to leave the market in the hands of criminals.'

[Diclonius]

Anyone but Sky Sports please. Prefer if BT Sport got exclusive rights.

[Bishop Hibee]

While I'm happy if Eleven Sports drives up the bidding, I hope they don't win the contract. Their existing coverage isn't available on any TV platform at present. I think BTSport will pull out all the stops to get exclusive coverage. They'd better as if they lost the rights I'd be cancelling the sport I get via Virgin Media.

[Billy Whizz]

Another competitor can drive up our TV deal, but the fans will have to pay another subscription

[Bishop Hibee]

Another competitor can drive up our TV deal, but the fans will have to pay another subscription

Eleven Sports currently show some games free-to-air via Facebook but you have to pay a subscription to get the full package.

[cabbageandribs1875]

BT Sport and Sky Sports have already wined and dined SPFL club chairmen in London in a quest to show their commitment to the game north of the border.



yup, they're that commited they couldn't get off of their fat erkys to wine and dine in the country where the games actually take place :agree:


take the eleven sports deal :)

[heid the baw]

Eleven sports is a Setanta deal 2 in the making.

[Godsahibby]

Watched some of the Spanish games this season and the PGA Golf earlier in the year was pretty impressed. Would be delighted if it moved away from Sly. BT Sports or Eleven would be good.

[Brummie_Hibs]

£39M between 2 teams, £1M distributed to the rest.

[Eyrie]

Another competitor can drive up our TV deal, but the fans will have to pay another subscription

That was my take on the headline as well.

I watch a range of sports, which already means having to pay for Sky, BT and NFL Gamepass. The thought of adding a fourth subscription has so far put me off Premier Sports, so a fifth with Eleven is a non-starter.

[R'Albin]

We should be looking for more than 40 million IMO. Our deal was crap years ago and given how the market has inflated and our game has improved - I reckon we are worth more.

[A Hi-Bee]

We should be looking for more than 40 million IMO. Our deal was crap years ago and given how the market has inflated and our game has improved - I reckon we are worth more.

Just keep donkey doncaster away from and put our Rod onto them.

[Jack Hackett]

We should be looking for more than 40 million IMO. Our deal was crap years ago and given how the market has inflated and our game has improved - I reckon we are worth more.

The problem lies with the ignorance of the english effwits leaving comments on that article. You can practically guarantee that not one of them has actually watched one of our games

[theonlywayisup]

Wonder they will share out the money? The English Premier League is as follows for 2017/18 season.

The 2017/18 Premier League earnings have been announced and, despite claiming the title, newly crowned champions Manchester City haven’t come out on top.The country’s top 20 teams split a pot of £2.42 BILLION this season, with the biggest clubs earning just under £150m each while the bottom feeders settled for a measly £94m.

THE FIGURES ARE BROKEN DOWN AS FOLLOWS:

Each club is ranked by the total payment they received – a number that is made up of merit money, facility fees, domestic TV, overseas TV and central commercialisation.

Merit money is very simple as it is based solely on each club’s finishing position in the league.

Bottom of the table West Brom received £1,931,268 in merit money, while every other club received an extra £1,931,268 for every position higher they finished.

Second bottom Stoke received £3,862,536 (2 x £1,931,268), third bottom Swansea received £5,793,804 (3 x £1,931,268) and so on.

Facility fees are based on how many of each club's games were selected and aired on live TV.

To even things out, every side gets a guaranteed £12,312,666, even if fewer than ten of their games were chosen for live TV. The rest get an extra £1,129,879 for each game over ten.

For example, Huddersfield had under ten matches on live TV and so collected the £12,312,666, however Manchester United ended up with £32,650,495 as they had an extra 18 matches shown live.

Domestic TV, overseas TV and central commercialisation numbers are all equal for each club. All 20 sides receive £34,812,558 for domestic TV income, £40,771,108 for overseas TV income and £4,838,892 for central commercialisation (such as sponsors).

[Michael]

Eleven sports is a Setanta deal 2 in the making.

Probably, but even just having them in the mix should help the price we get.

[The Spaceman]

Hope this starts a bidding war, Sky lose miserably and BT Sports come out on top. BT have been brilliant for raising the profile of our game. They make a real effort to analyse and learn the game up here, as well as giving the credit our game deserves. We are a mere filler for Sky and for that they can completely **** off.

[cleanyman]

I love BT

Long may their coverage continue

[04Sauzee]

Not a fan of Sky and much prefer the BT coverage. I would think though that if Sky were to win the bidding they would have to give the Scottish game more coverage and and more credit than they currently do.

[Montford]

SKY just buy Scottish football to keep it in the shadows and mitigate any competition to the EPL... when was the last time they showed a 2pm or 4pm game?

[DavieRoy]

Hope this starts a bidding war, Sky lose miserably and BT Sports come out on top. BT have been brilliant for raising the profile of our game. They make a real effort to analyse and learn the game up here, as well as giving the credit our game deserves. We are a mere filler for Sky and for that they can completely **** off.

I have not seen one bit of Scottish football on BT this week and nothing is scheduled. Sky and BBC have had material on. Even on social media, BT have had nothing. Nothing about Jim McIntyre at Dundee or Hearts injury situation. I saw interviews with McIntyre and Levein on BBC and Sky. Just an example of perception that BT give the game bigger profile is a myth to me. Their coverage on a matchday is good but they do nothing at any other time. If they don’t have a live game, they don’t cover anything. They would have to massively increase their coverage daily to get to Sky and BBC output.

Scottish football may get saturated on Sky but it doesn’t mean they don’t do anything and BBC have plenty on radio.

If BT or ElevenSports get it, they will have to pay more as the advertising revenue will drop as they don’t have the exposure that BBC or Sky do.

[CMurdoch]

We should be looking for more than 40 million IMO. Our deal was crap years ago and given how the market has inflated and our game has improved - I reckon we are worth more.

A few months ago I checked the deals that the leagues of countries of similar size to ours were getting and formed the opinion that we should be going for £40 million a season from the next deal. We are probably worth more but doubling the present deal would be a great start and see us catching up on the likes of the Scandinavian countries. Don't know how much of the extra money we would see at Hibs but it would be a massive help in helping us to compete in Europe again against the likes of Molde whose Norwegian league get £35 million a season TV rights.

The TV deal that got me was the £385 million a year Turkish football gets!!!
20 times what we get. No wonder they kick our asses in Europe.

[Dashing Bob S]

I have every confidence in the muppets who run Scottish football, despite the favorable circumstances, to able to fashion an uninspiring deal from this, and if they perform as we know they can, a totally disastrous one.

[DavieRoy]

I have every confidence in the muppets who run Scottish football, despite the favorable circumstances, to able to fashion an uninspiring deal from this, and if they perform as we know they can, a totally disastrous one.

They did 10 years ago when conditions were good. Setanta offered £35 million per season and Sky offered £32.5 million, they went with Setanta, didn’t do their due diligence and look where we are.

[CMurdoch]

They did 10 years ago when conditions were good. Setanta offered £35 million per season and Sky offered £32.5 million, they went with Setanta, didn’t do their due diligence and look where we are.

That was a £130 million **** up!
Breathtaking

[wallpaperman]

The TV deal that got me was the £385 million a year Turkish football gets!!!
20 times what we get. No wonder they kick our asses in Europe.

Sounds a lot but it's not really disproportionate to the size of the country. Turkey's population is bigger than the UK i think, well over 70 million, that's
a lot of consumers for advertisers.

We should be aiming for the Norway type deal, that would be completely reasonable.

[Northernhibee]

We should be looking for more than 40 million IMO. Our deal was crap years ago and given how the market has inflated and our game has improved - I reckon we are worth more.

We’re only worth what people are willing to pay, no way we’d get £40m.

[Tinribs]

Personally I hope Amazon get the rights, it would give me something to watch on the prime video that I never use.

[CropleyWasGod]

Personally I hope Amazon get the rights, it would give me something to watch on the prime video that I never use.Personally, I hope that the Amazon drones rebel and shoot the **** out of their distribution centres.

But that's the effect of watching too much Black Mirror [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ringothedog]

We’re only worth what people are willing to pay, no way we’d get £40m.

You are probably right, but I genuinely believe we should be getting closer to 50m a year

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the tired old formula of just showing whichever OF team is away from home needs looked at. It's ridiculous that our game on Saturday, 2nd v 3rd in front of a full house isn't on but the spine tinglingly exciting Hamilton v New Huns, 9th vs 6th in a half built stadium is.

Plus OF fans get almost all their home games 3pm on a Saturday. The rest of us are shunted around all over the place.

[JimBHibees]

I think the tired old formula of just showing whichever OF team is away from home needs looked at. It's ridiculous that our game on Saturday, 2nd v 3rd in front of a full house isn't on but the spine tinglingly exciting Hamilton v New Huns, 9th vs 6th in a half built stadium is.

Plus OF fans get almost all their home games 3pm on a Saturday. The rest of us are shunted around all over the place.

Totally agree absolute nonsense the scheduling with virtually all their away games live many of which are very one sided. Don't see it changing though. Why not aim for 100m as the league is strong as it has been for years.

[bingo70]

We’re only worth what people are willing to pay, no way we’d get £40m.

Bit of a false economy that though from the TV providers.

Give us the £40m and we could attract better players and then you may get a league worth the sums you’re talking about. Give us pennies so we are competing with non league clubs in England and we will have a standard which reflects that, although I think we do pretty well given the resources provided to us.

[heid the baw]

The TV deal that got me was the £385 million a year Turkish football gets!!!
20 times what we get. No wonder they kick our asses in Europe.

Istanbul alone has a population 3 times that of Scotland. Turks are far more fanatical fans too. All round a much easier tv commodity to sell

[CMurdoch]

Istanbul alone has a population 3 times that of Scotland. Turks are far more fanatical fans too. All round a much easier tv commodity to sell

I get the population aspect of your argument but you are wrong to state that Turks are far more fanatical.
Last season the average attendance in the top Scottish League was 20% higher than the so called Turkish Super League.
Given our population that is a remarkable fact.
Scotland is far more fanatical than the rest of Europe about football.
We love it!

[Lago]

BT Sport and Sky Sports have already wined and dined SPFL club chairmen in London in a quest to show their commitment to the game north of the border.



yup, they're that commited they couldn't get off of their fat erkys to wine and dine in the country where the games actually take place :agree:


take the eleven sports deal :)
Yup, but bet it was the SPFL guys who wanted to get their fat erkys to London on a good old away day jollie:agree:

[Ozyhibby]

We’re only worth what people are willing to pay, no way we’d get £40m.

Rugby league gets £40m a year from sky and their viewing figures are lower than the SPFL’s. We get 225,000 average per game to their 200,000 per game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMurdoch]

Rugby league gets £40m a year from sky and their viewing figures are lower than the SPFL’s. We get 225,000 average per game to their 200,000 per game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good factoid :aok:

[Jack Hackett]

I get the population aspect of your argument but you are wrong to state that Turks are far more fanatical.
Last season the average attendance in the top Scottish League was 20% higher than the so called Turkish Super League.
Given our population that is a remarkable fact.
Scotland is far more fanatical than the rest of Europe about football.
We love it!

The SPL has the highest per capita attendance in Europe

[Hibbyradge]

£39M between 2 teams, £1M distributed to the rest.

It hasn't been like that for years.

[Montford]

Istanbul alone has a population 3 times that of Scotland. Turks are far more fanatical fans too. All round a much easier tv commodity to sell

Are they???
Strange how Scotland has a far greater average attendance than them.
12000 compared to the SPL’s 16000 (approx)
Hibs are only out-attended by 4 clubs
Hibs have a better average attendance than 14 of Turkeys 18 top flight clubs
A quick analysis shows the league isn’t as attractive as perceived
You only really get capacity crowds in big euro games or the odd derby
Celtic and Rangers absolutely blow any of their big teams out the water when it comes to league attendances
Our league is seriously undervalued

[Ozyhibby]

Are they???
Strange how Scotland has a far greater average attendance than them.
12000 compared to the SPL’s 16000 (approx)
Hibs are only out-attended by 4 clubs
Hibs have a better average attendance than 14 of Turkeys 18 top flight clubs
A quick analysis shows the league isn’t as attractive as perceived
You only really get capacity crowds in big euro games or the odd derby
Celtic and Rangers absolutely blow any of their big teams out the water when it comes to league attendances
Our league is seriously undervalued

I agree. We tend to undersell ourselves badly in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wallpaperman]

Are they???
Strange how Scotland has a far greater average attendance than them.
12000 compared to the SPL’s 16000 (approx)
Hibs are only out-attended by 4 clubs
Hibs have a better average attendance than 14 of Turkeys 18 top flight clubs
A quick analysis shows the league isn’t as attractive as perceived
You only really get capacity crowds in big euro games or the odd derby
Celtic and Rangers absolutely blow any of their big teams out the water when it comes to league attendances
Our league is seriously undervalued

Great post, totally agree.

However, I don't think the Turkish tv deal is outlandish because it will be based on potential viewers, the amount of fans at the games is almost irrelevant.

[Montford]

Great post, totally agree.

However, I don't think the Turkish tv deal is outlandish because it will be based on potential viewers, the amount of fans at the games is almost irrelevant.

That’s the crux of the matter
However, when you compare to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria; some of those countries get 3 or 4 times as much as Scotland
Same populations. Absolutely paltry attendances in comparison
The SPL has the 8th or 9th highest average attendance in Europe
Better than Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Russia, Poland, Turkey and the above mentioned countries
Has some fantastic footballing environments
Major interest from Ireland (mostly north) and 3 or 4 million Scots ancestry in England
Plus the old firms curiosity value all around Europe
It’s absolutely staggering that our entire league is worth 1/5 of Huddersfield’s or Bournemouth’s TV money
In any other industry the chief executive would be hounded out

[heid the baw]

Are they???
Strange how Scotland has a far greater average attendance than them.
12000 compared to the SPL’s 16000 (approx)
Hibs are only out-attended by 4 clubs
Hibs have a better average attendance than 14 of Turkeys 18 top flight clubs
A quick analysis shows the league isn’t as attractive as perceived
You only really get capacity crowds in big euro games or the odd derby
Celtic and Rangers absolutely blow any of their big teams out the water when it comes to league attendances
Our league is seriously undervalued
Fanaticism and attendance are not necessarily linked. Football is prohibitively expensive for many average turks but football on TV is a bigger deal than it is here.

[green&left]

Regarding TV and TV deals, do other countries have the same problem (well other countries outside Scotland, Wales, N.I and R.o.I) were-by you'll have thousands if not hundreds of thousands completely by-passing any interest in their own domestic football leagues and focusing on a foreign league, i.e the english premier league?

In Denmark would a pub show Dortmund v Hertha Berlin over FC Copenhagen v someone? Would you struggle to watch Boavista v Sporting as everyone prefers to watch La Liga etc etc? Wonder if the fact plenty Scots choose the Premier League over Scottish football has any bearing on TV deals?

Regarding Eleven Sports i'd be happy if they got some rights along with BT. The experts obviously think streaming is the future, the DAZN $365m 10 fight boxing deal kinda proves that!

[Montford]

Regarding TV and TV deals, do other countries have the same problem (well other countries outside Scotland, Wales, N.I and R.o.I) were-by you'll have thousands if not hundreds of thousands completely by-passing any interest in their own domestic football leagues and focusing on a foreign league, i.e the english premier league?

In Denmark would a pub show Dortmund v Hertha Berlin over FC Copenhagen v someone? Would you struggle to watch Boavista v Sporting as everyone prefers to watch La Liga etc etc? Wonder if the fact plenty Scots choose the Premier League over Scottish football has any bearing on TV deals?

Regarding Eleven Sports i'd be happy if they got some rights along with BT. The experts obviously think streaming is the future, the DAZN $365m 10 fight boxing deal kinda proves that!

The best games (Brondby, Copenhagen) attract approx 100,000
Danish TV games average under 80,000 viewers
SPL games average 220,000 viewers
Danish Supliga gets approx 2 1/2 times more money than the SPFL

[dp00]

Got to be BT sports , there shows are a hundred times better than sky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavieRoy]

Got to be BT sports , there shows are a hundred times better than sky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their match coverage is decent but they do nothing during the week. They have no Scottish output unless it is a live game. That is not really promoting the product. Sky had Kamberi on as their main guest tonight. Decent show.

[California-Hibs]

I love BT Sport, they're fantastic at promoting our game! Really just hope this raises the price and they remain

[McD]

SKY just buy Scottish football to keep it in the shadows and mitigate any competition to the EPL... when was the last time they showed a 2pm or 4pm game?



Yes, there’s a machevellian scheme to keep Scottish football down :rolleyes:

[Montford]

Yes, there’s a machevellian scheme to keep Scottish football down :rolleyes:

It was a ex (Scottish) Sky executive that said it on an interview
He felt strongly enough to out them for it
Think it was talksport

[Montford]

It was a ex (Scottish) Sky executive that said it on an interview
He felt strongly enough to out them for it
Think it was talksport
His words were along the lines that they absolutely did not want any competition to the EPL as that was central to their business model and it was cheaper just to pay a nominal fee for Scottish football than to prevent a rival broadcaster getting it

[Jack Hackett]

His words were along the lines that they absolutely did not want any competition to the EPL as that was central to their business model and it was cheaper just to pay a nominal fee for Scottish football than to prevent a rival broadcaster getting it

Bit like sellicks transfer model then? Totally believe it

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-scottish-football-no-longer-10130604


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavieRoy]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-scottish-football-no-longer-10130604


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is not as if Richard Keys has a grudge right enough!

Also, when they lost the league in 2002, they still had the Cup and internationals, so it did exist.

Plus they bid £120 million for the rights in 2008 but they were knocked back as the League went with Setanta.

The chairman and the league need to get this right, the companies will bid what they want, the league needs to pick the right deal.

If they want kick off times, amount of games live at each ground, money distribution, is all up to the league and hence clubs.

[theonlywayisup]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-scottish-football-no-longer-10130604


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Refuse to click on that website.

[McD]

It was a ex (Scottish) Sky executive that said it on an interview
He felt strongly enough to out them for it
Think it was talksport


His words were along the lines that they absolutely did not want any competition to the EPL as that was central to their business model and it was cheaper just to pay a nominal fee for Scottish football than to prevent a rival broadcaster getting it



So ‘someone’ said it, on talksport you ‘think’? And his words were ‘along the lines of’? The detail is great.

And yet, the ‘along the lines of’ statement, is exactly the situation as things stand - another broadcaster does have it, in tandem with sky.

[Eaststandee]

There may not be a "machevellian scheme" to hinder Scottish football, but there is without a doubt strong disdain for Scottish football that comes from South of the border, you don't see this same contempt for the WPL, NIFL or IPD. When Scottish football gets any type of recognition or attention in online media from English Centric media, you see swarms of English football fans feeling the need to have a dig at our game, and IMO this does hinder our game.

[Lancs Harp]

There may not be a "machevellian scheme" to hinder Scottish football, but there is without a doubt strong disdain for Scottish football that comes from South of the border, you don't see this same contempt for the WPL, NIFL or IPD. When Scottish football gets any type of recognition or attention in online media from English Centric media, you see swarms of English football fans feeling the need to have a dig at our game, and IMO this does hinder our game.




Last week on a bus in Bangkok I was greeted with a manc accent giving it "you dont see many of them", a reference to my Hibs top. Followed by the usual pub football jibes. I enquired which team he supported, he replied FC United...... I just pissed in my pants it was the only response I could think of.

[Montford]

So ‘someone’ said it, on talksport you ‘think’? And his words were ‘along the lines of’? The detail is great.

And yet, the ‘along the lines of’ statement, is exactly the situation as things stand - another broadcaster does have it, in tandem with sky.

Do you want me to quote verbatim?
I gave the general gist of the conversation
And his words only reinforced what my own perception was of Sky’s relationship with Scottish football was
And it seems, should you visit any Scottish teams forums debating this subject the general consensus
BT got the scraps from the table that Sky didn’t want
Sky could only really be half arsed with the Old Firm games and even then never promoted them beyond a mid day kick off. Even a Place v Leicester game would get a 2pm kick off ahead of the old Firm game
Sky only paid a pittance

[McD]

Do you want me to quote verbatim?
I gave the general gist of the conversation
And his words only reinforced what my own perception was of Sky’s relationship with Scottish football was
And it seems, should you visit any Scottish teams forums debating this subject the general consensus
BT got the scraps from the table that Sky didn’t want
Sky could only really be half arsed with the Old Firm games and even then never promoted them beyond a mid day kick off. Even a Place v Leicester game would get a 2pm kick off ahead of the old Firm game
Sky only paid a pittance


Verbatim? No.
Actual facts, yes. So far, you’ve given no name, no quotes, no venue for this conversation/statement apart from ‘talksport you think’. It’s hearsay and your opinion that you’ve provided.

Also, what your quoted post above says is different to what you initially claimed. None of what you’ve just said is evidence of ‘sky keeping Scottish football in the shadows to mitigate competition from the English premier league’, which was what you said at first. Now what your describing is that sky aren’t interested in Scottish football much, and even then mostly old firm games.

I suspect that most old firm game kickoffs being midday is more likely to be at the insistence of police Scotland rather than any tv broadcaster, but never mind. Also, there tends to be adverts and talking head promotion of old firm games for weeks in advance.

Its fine though, you’ve told us your opinion, which youre perfectly entitled to have and to share here. I feel like this is now a sidetrack to the main point of the thread, so I’m out.

[Sylar]

Sky, BT, Amazon, Eleven, Prime, YouTube Prime...where does it end?

It used to be that one subscription of £20 got you access to follow all of the games/teams/sports you wanted to watch. Now, to be able to watch everything, you need a £22 subscription to Sky, £20 subscription to BT, a £6 subscription to Eleven Sports, a £9.99 monthly Amazon Prime subscription...

For armchair sports fans, the televised market for sport has become increasingly unaffordable, and the free outlets such as the BBC continue haemorrhaging their sport coverage on a year on year basis.

[Juniper Greens]

Sky, BT, Amazon, Eleven, Prime, YouTube Prime...where does it end?

It used to be that one subscription of £20 got you access to follow all of the games/teams/sports you wanted to watch. Now, to be able to watch everything, you need a £22 subscription to Sky, £20 subscription to BT, a £6 subscription to Eleven Sports, a £9.99 monthly Amazon Prime subscription...

For armchair sports fans, the televised market for sport has become increasingly unaffordable, and the free outlets such as the BBC continue haemorrhaging their sport coverage on a year on year basis.

I'd quite like eleven sports to get it. I could scale down my Virgin Media to remove Sky and BT Sports. I don't care too much about Bournemouth v Watford and the likes. Eleven Sports for £6pm sounds ideal!

[Ozyhibby]

I'd quite like eleven sports to get it. I could scale down my Virgin Media to remove Sky and BT Sports. I don't care too much about Bournemouth v Watford and the likes. Eleven Sports for £6pm sounds ideal!

I’m the same. Not really interested in EPL so happy to just get whatever subscription the spfl is on. Can see EPL on Match of the Day anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lucky]

Sky, BT, Amazon, Eleven, Prime, YouTube Prime...where does it end?

It used to be that one subscription of £20 got you access to follow all of the games/teams/sports you wanted to watch. Now, to be able to watch everything, you need a £22 subscription to Sky, £20 subscription to BT, a £6 subscription to Eleven Sports, a £9.99 monthly Amazon Prime subscription...

For armchair sports fans, the televised market for sport has become increasingly unaffordable, and the free outlets such as the BBC continue haemorrhaging their sport coverage on a year on year basis.

Here lies the problem with more companies bidding and winning TV contracts. Ultimately it’s the fans that pay. Like many I have BT and Sky sports, I’m not sure I’d be willing to pay for another channel. Especially as I rarely watch Scottish football on tv. I’m a ST holder and go to away games so paying to watch our rivals play does not really interest me.

[green&left]

Sky, BT, Amazon, Eleven, Prime, YouTube Prime...where does it end?

It used to be that one subscription of £20 got you access to follow all of the games/teams/sports you wanted to watch. Now, to be able to watch everything, you need a £22 subscription to Sky, £20 subscription to BT, a £6 subscription to Eleven Sports, a £9.99 monthly Amazon Prime subscription...

For armchair sports fans, the televised market for sport has become increasingly unaffordable, and the free outlets such as the BBC continue haemorrhaging their sport coverage on a year on year basis.

Was it really though?

I can't recall one provider having rights to EPL, La Liga, Serie A, SPL and Bundesliga not to mention UFC, boxing, NFL, NBA, rugby etc etc etc?

I watched The Milan Derby last night on Eleven Sport. Coverage was good, quality was on-par with HD Sky/BT. If they added SPFL to go with La Liga and Serie A I'd happily sign up at 6 quid a month.

[Wilson]

Was it really though?

I can't recall one provider having rights to EPL, La Liga, Serie A, SPL and Bundesliga not to mention UFC, boxing, NFL, NBA, rugby etc etc etc?

I watched The Milan Derby last night on Eleven Sport. Coverage was good, quality was on-par with HD Sky/BT. If they added SPFL to go with La Liga and Serie A I'd happily sign up at 6 quid a month.

Certainly, in the 90s, Sky Sports had the EPL, Scottish football, La Liga, Boxing, Pool, Golf. You got the Italian football (channel 4) and formula one on terrestrial. Good times to be a sports fan and you didn't need 3 or 4 separate subscriptions.

[Hibs Class]

I think the tired old formula of just showing whichever OF team is away from home needs looked at. It's ridiculous that our game on Saturday, 2nd v 3rd in front of a full house isn't on but the spine tinglingly exciting Hamilton v New Huns, 9th vs 6th in a half built stadium is.

Plus OF fans get almost all their home games 3pm on a Saturday. The rest of us are shunted around all over the place.


:agree: Unless this changed I wouldn't be spending money on a subscription to watch Scottish football.

[Sylar]

Was it really though?

I can't recall one provider having rights to EPL, La Liga, Serie A, SPL and Bundesliga not to mention UFC, boxing, NFL, NBA, rugby etc etc etc?

I watched The Milan Derby last night on Eleven Sport. Coverage was good, quality was on-par with HD Sky/BT. If they added SPFL to go with La Liga and Serie A I'd happily sign up at 6 quid a month.

You're right - there's a bit of exaggeration in my post, but certainly one subscription used to get you a LOT more than currently - popularity of different sports, personal preference will say some channels/packages are better than others, but on the whole, Sky Sports used to be FAR better for many that it is currently. The monopoly isn't good for anyone, as it means Sky have you over a barrel to a degree, but to my mind, the current overall model is a mess - half of the SPL games being on Sky, the other half on BT...

I'd much rather we move to a pay-per-view type model that allows you to chose the sports/leagues that you want to watch without having to fork out for 3 or 4 subscriptions just to tie it all together. Sky's idea of channels for specific sports is a step toward that, but if I passionately want to be able to watch the SPL, La Liga, NFL, Pro-14 and odd golf tournament, I need to pay Sky, BT, Eleven Sports and Premier Sports at a hellishly large premium. The current model really isn't friendly for customers.

[blackpoolhibs]

Is it any wonder more and more folk (not me) :wink: are just paying a one off fee for iptv, and getting the lot? :greengrin

[Godsahibby]

Football aside. News today that from 2020 sky may be now losing the Golf as well. PGA are to launch their on streaming service.

[Ryan69]

Verbatim? No.
Actual facts, yes. So far, you’ve given no name, no quotes, no venue for this conversation/statement apart from ‘talksport you think’. It’s hearsay and your opinion that you’ve provided.

Also, what your quoted post above says is different to what you initially claimed. None of what you’ve just said is evidence of ‘sky keeping Scottish football in the shadows to mitigate competition from the English premier league’, which was what you said at first. Now what your describing is that sky aren’t interested in Scottish football much, and even then mostly old firm games.

I suspect that most old firm game kickoffs being midday is more likely to be at the insistence of police Scotland rather than any tv broadcaster, but never mind. Also, there tends to be adverts and talking head promotion of old firm games for weeks in advance.

Its fine though, you’ve told us your opinion, which youre perfectly entitled to have and to share here. I feel like this is now a sidetrack to the main point of the thread, so I’m out.

They are only interested in Old Firm games like.

Thats why every Ugly Sisters away game so far this season...has been live.

Its like back in the day when it was the same...so not too affect their attendances.
And 50% of revenue...rest being split amongst the rest.

Why do clubs even agree too this madness?
Surely its not just me thats noticed the away game thing,and the impact it must have on every other team.

[green&left]

They are only interested in Old Firm games like.

Thats why every Ugly Sisters away game so far this season...has been live.

Its like back in the day when it was the same...so not too affect their attendances.
And 50% of revenue...rest being split amongst the rest.

Why do clubs even agree too this madness?
Surely its not just me thats noticed the away game thing,and the impact it must have on every other team.

The average amount of games televised at home is 4-6. OF generally have 4 games televised at home. Us, Aberdeen and Hearts generally 6.

Prize money is based on league positions. Aberdeen earned more money last season than Rangers - despite Rangers being on TV about 15 times more than them.

[Bristolhibby]

Rugby league gets £40m a year from sky and their viewing figures are lower than the SPFL’s. We get 225,000 average per game to their 200,000 per game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Big Aussie market for that also.

J

[Ryan69]

The average amount of games televised at home is 4-6. OF generally have 4 games televised at home. Us, Aberdeen and Hearts generally 6.

Prize money is based on league positions. Aberdeen earned more money last season than Rangers - despite Rangers being on TV about 15 times more than them.

Its Ugly Sister orientated though.

Every away game of theirs...has been on!
None at home.

[green&left]

Its Ugly Sister orientated though.

Every away game of theirs...has been on!
None at home.

Course it is. They have a fanbase more than the rest of the country combined.

If you want the maximum return for TV rights, you've got to have the maximum amount of viewers tuning in. And like it or not that comes from OF Fans.


The less Hibs games on tele the better for me.

[Ozyhibby]

I actually think that if we really want to sell the game to broadcasters then we need to stop televising games from the smaller stadiums. It looks amateur and put people of watching.
That means more games from Parkhead, Ibrox, Easter road, Tynecastle and Pittodrie but could result in a lot bigger deal. I would stop protecting the 3pm slot on Saturday as well. A lot of broadcasters would love to be able to show games then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ryan69]

Course it is. They have a fanbase more than the rest of the country combined.

If you want the maximum return for TV rights, you've got to have the maximum amount of viewers tuning in. And like it or not that comes from OF Fans.


The less Hibs games on tele the better for me.

The point you are missing here is that they dont show the home ones...so not too affect their home revenue.
But happy to play with every other teams revenue.

Against either 2,it was previously always a sell out.
Now its not sell out for most teams...probably due to being on tv.
So a loss of money too!

Anything to appease the unwashed.

[Eyrie]

The point you are missing here is that they dont show the home ones...so not too affect their home revenue.
But happy to play with every other teams revenue.

Against either 2,it was previously always a sell out.
Now its not sell out for most teams...probably due to being on tv.
So a loss of money too!

Anything to appease the unwashed.

Any sensible TV deal has to give the home team a fee for hosting a live game.

[Ryan69]

Any sensible TV deal has to give the home team a fee for hosting a live game.

It seems its position based.
If not
A few teams lose maybe 2000 fans for poxy money.
Plus old firm get revenue...for EVERY away game.

Is it not obvious..its corrupt as ***

[Ringothedog]

It seems its position based.
If not
A few teams lose maybe 2000 fans for poxy money.
Plus old firm get revenue...for EVERY away game.

Is it not obvious..its corrupt as ***
What money do the old firm get for every away game?

[Ozyhibby]

Hibs being on TV is good for Hibs in the long run. We should welcome the cameras as much as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

What money do the old firm get for every away game?

They don't.

[PatHead]

What money do the old firm get for every away game?

Neither of the home nor away team get any money for a league game. Different for Cup matches.

[Ringothedog]

They don't.

I knew that, but obviously some on here don’t 👍

[Ringothedog]

Neither of the home nor away team get any money for a league game. Different for Cup matches.

Thanks for confirming 👍

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The point you are missing here is that they dont show the home ones...so not too affect their home revenue.
But happy to play with every other teams revenue.

Against either 2,it was previously always a sell out.
Now its not sell out for most teams...probably due to being on tv.
So a loss of money too!

Anything to appease the unwashed.

Surely its to maximise rheir viewing figures, nothing to do with revenue. Most of their fans are st holders anyway so it wouldnt make any difference.

Televise celtic at home, and you discount 50,000 people from watching. Televise them away, and you have just added most of those 50k (minus the away support) to your viewing figures.

[bingo70]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sky-set-outbid-bt-sport-13553192.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently Sky set to win the new tv deal.

Think they are a dreadful broadcaster for Scottish Football so although the new financial deal looks good I hope they revamp their coverage completely. Get rid of Andy Walker and bring in Chris Sutton would be the first obvious change I would make.

[Gloucester Hibs]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sky-set-outbid-bt-sport-13553192.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently Sky set to win the new tv deal.

Think they are a dreadful broadcaster for Scottish Football so although the new financial deal looks good I hope they revamp their coverage completely. Get rid of Andy Walker and bring in Chris Sutton would be the first obvious change I would make.

As long as it's just Sky then that works for me. Having the games split between the 2 broadcasters is a bit of a pain in the bum. IMO the fragmentation of fitba TV coverage has led to the consumer losing out - paying more for a lesser product. Agree Re: Sutton though.

[DavieRoy]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sky-set-outbid-bt-sport-13553192.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently Sky set to win the new tv deal.

Think they are a dreadful broadcaster for Scottish Football so although the new financial deal looks good I hope they revamp their coverage completely. Get rid of Andy Walker and bring in Chris Sutton would be the first obvious change I would make.

I don’t understand the BT love in. They do one game every two weeks and that is all they have, they don’t do anything else if they don’t have a live game. If that is caring and promoting the game then it is not a good a the perception they push.

If Sky pay more and much more than BT, then why wouldn’t the clubs go with it. Also, again, if BT care that much, they would pay the money. It shows how easy people are swayed by perception. BT have nowhere near the Scottish content that Sky (or BBC in Radio) do and are no willing to pay the money. Hardly caring.

[bingo70]

I don’t understand the BT love in. They do one game every two weeks and that is all they have, they don’t do anything else if they don’t have a live game. If that is caring and promoting the game then it is not a good a the perception they push.

If Sky pay more and much more than BT, then why wouldn’t the clubs go with it. Also, again, if BT care that much, they would pay the money. It shows how easy people are swayed by perception. BT have nowhere near the Scottish content that Sky (or BBC in Radio) do and are no willing to pay the money. Hardly caring.

I just think they appear to show more interest and come across far more knowledgeable about teams other than the old firm. The old firm games are really the only ones Sky care about. You also have to take into account their social media presence, chris Sutton and Michael Stewart are always on twitter defending our game and promoting it as well as they can. Sky wheel out Andy Walker and Charlie Nicholas for an opinion whenever anything significant happens and neither could come across less enthusiastic if they tried, in fact I’d be interested to find out the last time Charlie Nicholas went to a Scottish game that didn’t include the old firm.

As you say though if Sky are offering the best financial deal then it’s a no brainier, id like to think though they would also pay attention to the feedback that BT are a far more popular broadcaster and look at ways to improve coverage.

[JimBHibees]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sky-set-outbid-bt-sport-13553192.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Apparently Sky set to win the new tv deal.

Think they are a dreadful broadcaster for Scottish Football so although the new financial deal looks good I hope they revamp their coverage completely. Get rid of Andy Walker and bring in Chris Sutton would be the first obvious change I would make.

Not sure about dreadful however yes they could do better. As you say Walker and also Provan for international games really are so negative and do my head in. Someone like Sutton at least trys to talk the game up instead of kicking it at every opportunity. Like Ian Crocker as a commentator also.

Is there a significant increase money wise?

[bingo70]

Not sure about dreadful however yes they could do better. As you say Walker and also Provan for international games really are so negative and do my head in. Someone like Sutton at least trys to talk the game up instead of kicking it at every opportunity. Like Ian Crocker as a commentator also.

Is there a significant increase money wise?

Yeah, according to that article the new deal will go from £20m a year to £40m a year so that’s great news.

I just hope they look at ways to improve the coverage as well, not just throw more money at it.

[Weegreenman]

If Sky do end up winning the contract then it’ll leave a lot of people with dilemma whether or not to cancel BT sport I must say I’d miss the midweek Champions League & Europa Cup games but with no Scottish Football it’s a much less attractive package for me.

[DavieRoy]

I just think they appear to show more interest and come across far more knowledgeable about teams other than the old firm. The old firm games are really the only ones Sky care about. You also have to take into account their social media presence, chris Sutton and Michael Stewart are always on twitter defending our game and promoting it as well as they can. Sky wheel out Andy Walker and Charlie Nicholas for an opinion whenever anything significant happens and neither could come across less enthusiastic if they tried, in fact I’d be interested to find out the last time Charlie Nicholas went to a Scottish game that didn’t include the old firm.

As you say though if Sky are offering the best financial deal then it’s a no brainier, id like to think though they would also pay attention to the feedback that BT are a far more popular broadcaster and look at ways to improve coverage.

I know where you are coming from but you look at BT’s social media and you see little about Scottish football. They don’t go to any of the media conferences. Sky, for all their faults, have Scottish material on social media and the news channel every day.

If Sky have paid more and much more then you can’t blame the league and hence the clubs, plus, if BT were as bothered as people think, why haven’t they paid the money? Do they really care or was that just marketing against Sky?

[green&left]

If they're prepared to pump £40m in hopefully they can pay someone who knows the difference between a Killie badge and a Dundee badge :greengrin > https://imgur.com/a/t0paEJT


Not fussed who gets it as long as they pay top dollar, although when watching a 'neutral game' I do prefer BT and their pundits over Boyd, Miller and Commons etc.

Wonder if they'll do away with Friday night slots? Hope not as I quite enjoy them, much better than early Sunday games. Also hope we have set kick-off times and if it is Sky they won't just chuck is in at any old time to suit other leagues/sports.

[CorrieHibs]

The Sun (I know) are saying it’s only £30 million!

[CB_NO3]

Sky Sports is basically Old Firm TV. Would rather anyone but them.

[Humo]

The Sun (I know) are saying it’s only £30 million!Think it's 30 million a season

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[CorrieHibs]

Think it's 30 million a season

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Why does the DR have £40 million? I think £30 million, is pretty low tbh

[zlatan]

£31m is the record deal so will have to be beyond that. Considering Sky have 2 football channels and a main event channel the least they could do with exclusivity is let post match broadcasts last longer than 5 minutes. Briefing their pundits to not denounce it at every opportunity would also work well for them.

[Diclonius]

**** off Sky. They'll stick all their games on Sky Sports Football which BT customers don't even ****ing get, AND it'll be ridiculous kick off times because the Premier League takes priority in everything. They might as well go the whole hog and do the stupid "och aye the noo its Scoatish fitba so we'll play the bagpipes" intro they used to have.

[green&left]

Why does the DR have £40 million? I think £30 million, is pretty low tbh


£31m is the record deal so will have to be beyond that. Considering Sky have 2 football channels and a main event channel the least they could do with exclusivity is let post match broadcasts last longer than 5 minutes. Briefing their pundits to not denounce it at every opportunity would also work well for them.

Sun are saying £100m for three seasons so would take it just under £2m more than the Setenta deal.

£33.3m is a decent increase but still less than TV deals for Norway, Denmark and Greece.

[bingo70]

**** off Sky. They'll stick all their games on Sky Sports Football which BT customers don't even ****ing get, AND it'll be ridiculous kick off times because the Premier League takes priority in everything. They might as well go the whole hog and do the stupid "och aye the noo its Scoatish fitba so we'll play the bagpipes" intro they used to have.

I wonder how it’ll compare to the money clubs in league 1 and 2 in England get?

[oldbutdim]

I wonder if it will be the usual format - no cameras at Ibrox or Parkhead apart from when the Bigot Bros play each other, televise all their away games, and give the lion's share of the cash to them too.

I expect so.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Even though Murdoch is gone I will never subscribe to SKY. The damage it has done to sport and politics in this country cannot be over estimated

So if its on Sky only then I wont be watching SPFL on TV other than the delayed "live" games on Alba. Looks like my Gaelic will improve.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181108/d191c45ef6d3e312dfc22ca3dff88350.jpg

£30m is still too low considering the viewers we have for SPFL football. Doncaster will probably take it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lucky]

The tv deal is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Hopefully the supposed Sky deal will start an auction and others will outbid them

[bingo70]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181108/d191c45ef6d3e312dfc22ca3dff88350.jpg

£30m is still too low considering the viewers we have for SPFL football. Doncaster will probably take it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once BT Sports were out the running though anynstrength we had during negotiations have gone.

Neil Doncaster is terrible at his job and shouldn’t be involved in Scottish football, I have some sympathy with him here though. If BT Sports drop out negotiations at say £30m, Sky offer say £35m (sun saying £30m dailynrecord saying £40m), what could he possibly do to get them up more? Risking losing a tv deal altogether would be catastrophic for the clubs.

Sounds to me like bids were invited, the market has been tested and this is the best we could get from the two credible bidders. I hope there’s more to it than just an improved financial deal and I hope there’s a genuine desire to improve the coverage, I won’t hold my breath though.

[DavieRoy]

Sky Sports is basically Old Firm TV. Would rather anyone but them.

I did a bit of research and Sky showed 9 non Old Firm games last season from 30 league games, up from 5 in the previous season.

If BT cared, they would pay the money. Sky have more subscribers and more viewers hence the league can attract bigger sponsorship with Sky than they would with BT.

I like BT’s match coverage but they don’t do enough apart from that.

Sky did a great Edinburgh Derby day build-up all day, in March. They did bespoke programmes on the fixtures coming out and before the season started, they were live at every club.

BT are not visible enough. They played this ‘we care more’ card but on average would do one game every two weeks and no other programming around the league apart from a highlights show that they buy in and don’t produce. Just looking at both sides to the story.

[MyJo]

We should see if Amazon are interest in broadcasting our live games and highlights via Amazon Prime. They do this with some NFL games in America.

[GreenOnions]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181108/d191c45ef6d3e312dfc22ca3dff88350.jpg

£30m is still too low considering the viewers we have for SPFL football. Doncaster will probably take it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence would suggest that teams from all these leagues perform better in European competition than Scottish teams. That could well imply that the product is superior.

If that is the case surely it makes sense that the price of their product to a tv company is higher?

I don't think Neil Doncaster is good at his job but feel he's got a tough gig selling Scottish football.

[bingo70]

I did a bit of research and Sky showed 9 non Old Firm games last season from 30 league games, up from 5 in the previous season.

If BT cared, they would pay the money. Sky have more subscribers and more viewers hence the league can attract bigger sponsorship with Sky than they would with BT.

I like BT’s match coverage but they don’t do enough apart from that.

Sky did a great Edinburgh Derby day build-up all day, in March. They did bespoke programmes on the fixtures coming out and before the season started, they were live at every club.

BT are not visible enough. They played this ‘we care more’ card but on average would do one game every two weeks and no other programming around the league apart from a highlights show that they buy in and don’t produce. Just looking at both sides to the story.

I don’t think it’s a case of BT not caring because they didn’t bid more, they’ll have budget constraints as well and have probably spent more on the champions league than they would have wanted too.

As for their coverage outside of matchdays, they don’t really have the platform that sky do with sky sports news.

They weren’t perfect though but there are things sky can learn from them. Luke Shanley promotes our game but who else on Sky does? I think Kris Boyd is a decent pundit tbh, kris commons isn’t great but he’s got the Celtc connection they are looking for, Hayley McQueen is terrible and it’s nothing to do with her being a female.

If I was to find out tomorrow that sky had won this deal and were changing their panel of experts to include Darryl Currie, Luke Shanley, Kris Boyd, Chris Sutton, Michael Stewart, Tam McManus and Simon Ferry I’d be delighted. They won’t though, they’ll continue with Andy Walker, Davie Provan, Kris Boyd, Hayley McQueen and Kris commons. None of whom do anything to promote our game in a positive light.

I know I’ve put Boyd in both lists, I think he would work well in the current BT sports set up.

[PatHead]

Evidence would suggest that teams from all these leagues perform better in European competition than Scottish teams. That could well imply that the product is superior.

If that is the case surely it makes sense that the price of their product to a tv company is higher?

I don't think Neil Doncaster is good at his job but feel he's got a tough gig selling Scottish football.
Much as it pains me to say it we do have the Old Firm as a selling point. Not many of the smaller countries have that. In addition Steven Gerrard is a massive draw.

That should make our league more attractive.

[adhibs]

Evidence would suggest that teams from all these leagues perform better in European competition than Scottish teams. That could well imply that the product is superior.

If that is the case surely it makes sense that the price of their product to a tv company is higher?

I don't think Neil Doncaster is good at his job but feel he's got a tough gig selling Scottish football.

The products superior because the TV deal also is. The standard has completely failed over the years getting us a comparable deal to other European countries.

[Ozyhibby]

Evidence would suggest that teams from all these leagues perform better in European competition than Scottish teams. That could well imply that the product is superior.

If that is the case surely it makes sense that the price of their product to a tv company is higher?

I don't think Neil Doncaster is good at his job but feel he's got a tough gig selling Scottish football.

TV companies pay for viewers. We supply more viewers for TV companies than many of the leagues above.
The SPFL has more viewers than Rugby league in England but they got a £200m 5 year deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GloryGlory]

I did a bit of research and Sky showed 9 non Old Firm games last season from 30 league games, up from 5 in the previous season.

If BT cared, they would pay the money. Sky have more subscribers and more viewers hence the league can attract bigger sponsorship with Sky than they would with BT.

I like BT’s match coverage but they don’t do enough apart from that.

Sky did a great Edinburgh Derby day build-up all day, in March. They did bespoke programmes on the fixtures coming out and before the season started, they were live at every club.

BT are not visible enough. They played this ‘we care more’ card but on average would do one game every two weeks and no other programming around the league apart from a highlights show that they buy in and don’t produce. Just looking at both sides to the story.

The SPFL could (I stress COULD) put stipulations about the level of coverage for ALL clubs, not just accept them as afterthoughts in a jamboree for the OF. They could (I stress COULD) put a maximum number of live appearances per club per season, to avoid the automatic The Rangers away one week, Celtic away next week being transmitted every week and the rest getting a look in now and again. They could (I stress COULD) stipulate having a reasonable highlights show that doesn't concentrate on the OF games every week and show the rest in about two minutes at the end of the show.

[bingo70]

The products superior because the TV deal is

Yeah, I’ve always had a bit of a tin foil hat theory that it’s in Sky’s interest to drive down the interest in our game in order to push people towards the premiership where the real money is.

Give us a piddly wee tv deal to keep us happy and keep our games on the tele but make the value of it so low that we can’t compete with English clubs, the result being people end up ditching Scottish football to follow English clubs instead. It’s worked to an extent as I know loads of people who show more interest in English football than Scottish football, there’s been a resurgence in recent years as there’s been a broadcaster promoting our game positively, I hope Sky continues this but I won’t hold my breath.

I think Richard Keys backed this theory up as well but his credibility is undermined as he obviously has an axe to grind with Sky.

[IWasThere2016]

Regardless of any deal .. additional cash is always to be welcomed

Can the SPL not charge a "membership fee" - say a % of turnover and re-distribute this within the other SPL clubs?

A tiered model would be needed with the aim of a hefty steal from the Biscuit Tims :cb .. to benefit all others would be good :greengrin even the skint Hun wouldn't vote against it Shirley!

[MyJo]

Evidence would suggest that teams from all these leagues perform better in European competition than Scottish teams. That could well imply that the product is superior.

If that is the case surely it makes sense that the price of their product to a tv company is higher?

I don't think Neil Doncaster is good at his job but feel he's got a tough gig selling Scottish football.

The TV companies don't care about the quality of the product on the pitch, they are only concerned with the size of the market, potential for advertisement sales and so on.

The issue is that the amount of money a league and teams get from their television deal directly impacts on the quality of teams in that league as they have more money to buy better players and so on.

Realistically, we should be pulling in more money than many of the other leagues in northern Europe but the combination of the Setanta disaster, Sky holding a grudge and having us over a barrel with no real competitors for our product and donkeys like Neil Doncaster at the helm has set us back about ten years.

If we can get a deal worth £35m to £40m a season for the next few years it will be a big step towards improving Scottish football as a whole and increasing the interest in our game but we are playing catch-up.

[bingo70]

I remember looking forward to an episode of SPFL matters last season and it ended up not being shown as people playing computer games over ran. Was eventually shown at about midnight instead.

To me that’s how much SPFL matters to Sky.

[adhibs]

Yeah, I’ve always had a bit of a tin foil hat theory that it’s in Sky’s interest to drive down the interest in our game in order to push people towards the premiership where the real money is.

Give us a piddly wee tv deal to keep us happy and keep our games on the tele but make the value of it so low that we can’t compete with English clubs, the result being people end up ditching Scottish football to follow English clubs instead. It’s worked to an extent as I know loads of people who show more interest in English football than Scottish football, there’s been a resurgence in recent years as there’s been a broadcaster promoting our game positively, I hope Sky continues this but I won’t hold my breath.

I think Richard Keys backed this theory up as well but his credibility is undermined as he obviously has an axe to grind with Sky.

Not that unbelievable u unfortunaty.

[ED Hibee]

Regardless of any deal .. additional cash is always to be welcomed

Can the SPL not charge a "membership fee" - say a % of turnover and re-distribute this within the other SPL clubs?

A tiered model would be needed with the aim of a hefty steal from the Biscuit Tims :cb .. to benefit all others would be good :greengrin even the skint Hun wouldn't vote against it Shirley!


Is it always the case that additional cash is always welcome? Surely the details of the deal are much more important? If the majority of it is going to the Rangers and Celtic then the difference in £30m from BT Sport and £35m from Sky is not going to be huge for likes of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, particularly if it results in the continuation of Sky poor coverage our game while also giving them free reign in terms of the scheduling of games, which could impact on our gates.

I would be very concerned if the SPL were going all in with Sky given their poor coverage of our game to date.

[IWasThere2016]

Is it always the case that additional cash is always welcome, surely the details of the deal are much more important? If the majority of it is going to the Rangers and Celtic then the difference in £30m from BT Sport and £35m from Sky is not going to be huge for likes of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, particularly if it results in the continuation of Sky poor coverage our game then we will not be much better off and giving them free reign in terms of the scheduling of games, which could impact on our gates. I would be very concerned if the SPL were going all in with Sky given their poor coverage of our game to date.

I was talking about a fee based on turnover .. so the share of TV isn't as vital.

My suggestion is Cellic are charged a huge sum to be a member and this is share among others to level things out.

Cellic always moan about the lack of competition :wink: so they'd surely be in favour :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Is it always the case that additional cash is always welcome? Surely the details of the deal are much more important? If the majority of it is going to the Rangers and Celtic then the difference in £30m from BT Sport and £35m from Sky is not going to be huge for likes of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, particularly if it results in the continuation of Sky poor coverage our game while also giving them free reign in terms of the scheduling of games, which could impact on our gates.

I would be very concerned if the SPL were going all in with Sky given their poor coverage of our game to date.

The distribution model is already set. This is just about how much the deal is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wilson]

I remember looking forward to an episode of SPFL matters last season and it ended up not being shown as people playing computer games over ran. Was eventually shown at about midnight instead.

To me that’s how much SPFL matters to Sky.

You are quite dismissive of 'people playing computer games' but I'm assuming it was a live event if it overran.

I would expect, in most cases, a live event finishing would take precedence over pre-taped fare. We would be furious if injury time in a live derby, for example, was cut in favour of a scheduled 'filler' program.

[bingo70]

You are quite dismissive of 'people playing computer games' but I'm assuming it was a live event if it overran.

I would expect, in most cases, a live event finishing would take precedence over pre-taped fare. We would be furious if injury time in a live derby, for example, was cut in favour of a scheduled 'filler' program.

They’ve got about 8 different channels, I can’t remeber the schedule that night but there was other stuff they could have moved to put it on if they wanted to.

But yes, I don’t think people playing computer games should be considered a sport and shouldn’t be on sports channels IMO. In fairness I’m not sure if it still is shown on Sky sports but it was then.

[PatHead]

I take it eleven sports are not bidding.

[Wilson]

They’ve got about 8 different channels, I can’t remeber the schedule that night but there was other stuff they could have moved to put it on if they wanted to.

But yes, I don’t think people playing computer games should be considered a sport and shouldn’t be on sports channels IMO. In fairness I’m not sure if it still is shown on Sky sports but it was then.

I'm not disagreeing but then I'd say the same thing about many actual sports I have no interest in watching.

E-sports (gaming) is getting bigger. If it has its market they'll show it. I'm fairly sure you can bet on it as well!

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not disagreeing but then I'd say the same thing about many actual sports I have no interest in watching.

E-sports (gaming) is getting bigger. If it has its market they'll show it. I'm fairly sure you can bet on it as well!

I have two kids and can confirm there is definitely a market for televised computer gaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SirDavidsNapper]

So will this new TV deal signal the influx of better players like the last time? Or just make it less likely our top players will sign for Salford City? I guess with the stupid money going around down south it'll be all relative and much the same.

[matty_f]

Yeah, I’ve always had a bit of a tin foil hat theory that it’s in Sky’s interest to drive down the interest in our game in order to push people towards the premiership where the real money is.

Give us a piddly wee tv deal to keep us happy and keep our games on the tele but make the value of it so low that we can’t compete with English clubs, the result being people end up ditching Scottish football to follow English clubs instead. It’s worked to an extent as I know loads of people who show more interest in English football than Scottish football, there’s been a resurgence in recent years as there’s been a broadcaster promoting our game positively, I hope Sky continues this but I won’t hold my breath.

I think Richard Keys backed this theory up as well but his credibility is undermined as he obviously has an axe to grind with Sky.

I think Sky would have preferred to be able to showcase two great leagues, rather than just the one.

Keys said that Sky turned on Scottish football when the TV deal was knocked back, and in those circumstances your theory probably stands up to more scrutiny.

I can't see the sense in them rubbishing a league that they're showing now, though.

[WhileTheChief..]

The SPFL could (I stress COULD) put stipulations about the level of coverage for ALL clubs, not just accept them as afterthoughts in a jamboree for the OF. They could (I stress COULD) put a maximum number of live appearances per club per season, to avoid the automatic The Rangers away one week, Celtic away next week being transmitted every week and the rest getting a look in now and again. They could (I stress COULD) stipulate having a reasonable highlights show that doesn't concentrate on the OF games every week and show the rest in about two minutes at the end of the show.

They could, but no one wants to watch most of the other teams.

I know it’s not popular to say it on here but I’d far rather watch Rangers or Celtic against Motherwell than Dundee against them for example.

When taking our game to the whole of the UK, Sky have to think of their audience and whether you like it or not they know that people are interested in the old firm. Hamilton or St Mirren not so much.

Anyways it’s always been like this, why would think it should change now? At least we all get an equal share of the cash.

[flash]

Still peanuts when you consider how much Sky spend down south. Anyone who saw Huddersfield V Fulham on Monday night will certainly agree provided they have come out of their coma successfully.

[WhileTheChief..]

I was talking about a fee based on turnover .. so the share of TV isn't as vital.

My suggestion is Cellic are charged a huge sum to be a member and this is share among others to level things out.

Cellic always moan about the lack of competition :wink: so they'd surely be in favour :greengrin

So basically you want every other club to get a handout from Celtic?

Their fans will be delighted knowing that their season ticket money is being used to help other teams do better against them!!

Mind you, it is in the spirit of charity and Celtic like that kinda thing so maybe it’s a goer!

[lord bunberry]

Sky’s commitment to Scottish football is and always has been bigger than BT. The problem is that the content they put out is beyond dull when it comes to watching a game. Boyd and Commons sitting in a studio, then Andy Walker doing the commentary is enough to make you drop off to sleep. Sky do much more during the week on their news channel, but it does tend to get a bit lost in amongst the almost total premiership coverage.
If Sky were to revamp its match coverage to something like excellent BT show then I’d be quite happy. It’s not like BT are doing anything cutting edge, they’ve got a group of pundits standing by the side of the pitch talking about Scottish football.

[DavieRoy]

Yeah, I’ve always had a bit of a tin foil hat theory that it’s in Sky’s interest to drive down the interest in our game in order to push people towards the premiership where the real money is.

Give us a piddly wee tv deal to keep us happy and keep our games on the tele but make the value of it so low that we can’t compete with English clubs, the result being people end up ditching Scottish football to follow English clubs instead. It’s worked to an extent as I know loads of people who show more interest in English football than Scottish football, there’s been a resurgence in recent years as there’s been a broadcaster promoting our game positively, I hope Sky continues this but I won’t hold my breath.

I think Richard Keys backed this theory up as well but his credibility is undermined as he obviously has an axe to grind with Sky.

What Keys forgot to mention was Sky still had the Scottish Cup and Scotland internationals in that period. I think he mixed up Scottish football with the then SPL. Sky had an issue with the SPL, who knocked back the same money Sky were already paying and then had to take a much lower offer from BBC when nobody else wanted it. Did anyone slag off the BBC for taking advantage as Sky did in 2009.

Sky are easy targets. They deserve some of the stick but look at the clubs, SPFL executive and what happened in 2008.

Sky offered £30 million a year in 2008, only Aberdeen, Celtic and Arangers voted for it, the rest went with Setanta. They went bust. That was not Sky’s fault. Why would they come back in a year later with no competition and bid the same amount? The league made a mess of it.

Rangers went bust and Sky and ESPN could have walked away and they didn’t, despite no Old Firm games being broadcast for 4 years in the league.

How much would that £30 million Sky bid in 2008 be worth now?

Just a bit of perspective and balance rather than the lazy ‘BT care more’ arguement.

[DavieRoy]

I don’t think it’s a case of BT not caring because they didn’t bid more, they’ll have budget constraints as well and have probably spent more on the champions league than they would have wanted too.

As for their coverage outside of matchdays, they don’t really have the platform that sky do with sky sports news.

They weren’t perfect though but there are things sky can learn from them. Luke Shanley promotes our game but who else on Sky does? I think Kris Boyd is a decent pundit tbh, kris commons isn’t great but he’s got the Celtc connection they are looking for, Hayley McQueen is terrible and it’s nothing to do with her being a female.

If I was to find out tomorrow that sky had won this deal and were changing their panel of experts to include Darryl Currie, Luke Shanley, Kris Boyd, Chris Sutton, Michael Stewart, Tam McManus and Simon Ferry I’d be delighted. They won’t though, they’ll continue with Andy Walker, Davie Provan, Kris Boyd, Hayley McQueen and Kris commons. None of whom do anything to promote our game in a positive light.

I know I’ve put Boyd in both lists, I think he would work well in the current BT sports set up.

Just as Sky do on the Premier League, BT spent billions on the Champions League and Europa League but can’t find £30 million odd for the SPFL? They obviously don’t want the league deal as much as they make out.

I agree that we have Hibernian/Scottish football fans in the media and at Sky meaning we get a good bit of coverage like that Edinburgh Derby day and loads of archive game.

Sky need to up there game though, more content, archive games, better preview shows etc.

The other issue is the clubs, will they give the broadcaster the access to film more interviews etc. It seems a much bigger arguement than the promotion and cash rights.

[bingo70]

What Keys forgot to mention was Sky still had the Scottish Cup and Scotland internationals in that period. I think he mixed up Scottish football with the then SPL. Sky had an issue with the SPL, who knocked back the same money Sky were already paying and then had to take a much lower offer from BBC when nobody else wanted it. Did anyone slag off the BBC for taking advantage as Sky did in 2009.

Sky are easy targets. They deserve some of the stick but look at the clubs, SPFL executive and what happened in 2008.

Sky offered £30 million a year in 2008, only Aberdeen, Celtic and Arangers voted for it, the rest went with Setanta. They went bust. That was not Sky’s fault. Why would they come back in a year later with no competition and bid the same amount? The league made a mess of it.

Rangers went bust and Sky and ESPN could have walked away and they didn’t, despite no Old Firm games being broadcast for 4 years in the league.

How much would that £30 million Sky bid in 2008 be worth now?

Just a bit of perspective and balance rather than the lazy ‘BT care more’ arguement.

Removing the sky and Bt sport element for a second and looking at the individuals involved.

Do you agree that Chris Sutton, Michael Stewart and Darryl Currie do more to promote our game in a positive light than the likes of Hayley McQueen, Kris Commons or Andy Walker?

If sky are successful with their bid then I don’t think they need to reinvent the wheel, I just think they need to get pundits and people involved that will try to promote the game and talk it up at every opportunity.

Perception is everything as they say and the perception is that Bt sport care more, that imo has come about because they shout from the rooftops everything that is positive about our game. Sky maybe do more of the things you mentioned previously but all that good work is undone when they put the likes of Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas and Hayley McQueen forward as the representatives of the Scottish game.

Social media is a massive and hugely influential thing these days, Sky actually tweet some positive stuff to be fair but imo that just comes across as an advert, they need the individuals to be promoting it as well.

[Smartie]

Removing the sky and Bt sport element for a second and looking at the individuals involved.

Do you agree that Chris Sutton, Michael Stewart and Darryl Currie do more to promote our game in a positive light than the likes of Hayley McQueen, Kris Commons or Andy Walker?

If sky are successful with their bid then I don’t think they need to reinvent the wheel, I just think they need to get pundits and people involved that will try to promote the game and talk it up at every opportunity.

Perception is everything as they say and the perception is that Bt sport care more, that imo has come about because they shout from the rooftops everything that is positive about our game. Sky maybe do more of the things you mentioned previously but all that good work is undone when they put the likes of Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas and Hayley McQueen forward as the representatives of the Scottish game.

Social media is a massive and hugely influential thing these days, Sky actually tweet some positive stuff to be fair but imo that just comes across as an advert, they need the individuals to be promoting it as well.

I think Commons is good, and surprisingly I really like Kris Boyd too.

Sky do need to be careful though when they cover Scottish football so that they don't have the likes of Charlie Nicholas talking our game down.

People with the over-inflated EPL or nothing attitude should not be covering Scottish football.

Chris Sutton manages to cover English football but still retain sufficient passion, interest and enthusiasm for Scottish football to make him worth watching.

[flash]

First thing Sky should do is poach Sutton from BT.Aye he sometimes talks before he thinks but the one thing he does do is talk the Scottish game up relentlessly.

[JeMeSouviens]

Is it always the case that additional cash is always welcome? Surely the details of the deal are much more important? If the majority of it is going to the Rangers and Celtic then the difference in £30m from BT Sport and £35m from Sky is not going to be huge for likes of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, particularly if it results in the continuation of Sky poor coverage our game while also giving them free reign in terms of the scheduling of games, which could impact on our gates.

I would be very concerned if the SPL were going all in with Sky given their poor coverage of our game to date.

Aberdeen have had more tv money than Sevco for the last 2 seasons.

[davhibby]

The point about sky showing more during the week etc is pretty pointless imo because most people will only be watching when there's a game on. That's why people believe BT have more of an interest as that's what people pay most attention to. For example Sky will maybe be on half an hour before if you're lucky then they usually just about manage enough time for an interview after the game. For the derby last week BT were on for a full hour and 15 minutes before kick off and they're always on for half an hour after. Couple that with them having more/better pundits and it's not hard to see why people believe BT care more. It's all well and good sky showing some stuff on the news channel or on demand but the thing most people care about is the game coverage and Sky are a long long way behind on that.

[DavieRoy]

The point about sky showing more during the week etc is pretty pointless imo because most people will only be watching when there's a game on. That's why people believe BT have more of an interest as that's what people pay most attention to. For example Sky will maybe be on half an hour before if you're lucky then they usually just about manage enough time for an interview after the game. For the derby last week BT were on for a full hour and 15 minutes before kick off and they're always on for half an hour after. Couple that with them having more/better pundits and it's not hard to see why people believe BT care more. It's all well and good sky showing some stuff on the news channel or on demand but the thing most people care about is the game coverage and Sky are a long long way behind on that.

Not really, there is promoting the product and promoting a live event. I did some digging. Sky last season did the majority of games as 30 minutes build up but the off-air was erratic. This season, every game has been 30 minutes in the league.

BT do their extra show then at least 15 minutes, mainly 30 on the game too. Post match varies between 15-30 minutes.

[ancient hibee]

Aberdeen have had more tv money than Sevco for the last 2 seasons.
And the four seasons before that:greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

The league has to do more to promote itself as well. The rule of 4 games from each stadium does nothing to promote the game in a good light. Televised games from new Douglas park make the league look Mickey Mouse to viewers and potential commercial partners. We need to make the televised games from Easter road, Tynecastle, Pittodrie, Celtic Park and Ibrox as much as possible.
We need to have more Friday night games and really show case the big games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavieRoy]

Removing the sky and Bt sport element for a second and looking at the individuals involved.

Do you agree that Chris Sutton, Michael Stewart and Darryl Currie do more to promote our game in a positive light than the likes of Hayley McQueen, Kris Commons or Andy Walker?

If sky are successful with their bid then I don’t think they need to reinvent the wheel, I just think they need to get pundits and people involved that will try to promote the game and talk it up at every opportunity.

Perception is everything as they say and the perception is that Bt sport care more, that imo has come about because they shout from the rooftops everything that is positive about our game. Sky maybe do more of the things you mentioned previously but all that good work is undone when they put the likes of Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas and Hayley McQueen forward as the representatives of the Scottish game.

Social media is a massive and hugely influential thing these days, Sky actually tweet some positive stuff to be fair but imo that just comes across as an advert, they need the individuals to be promoting it as well.

Currie is excellent. Stewart is good, I don’t know if Sky would take him although he did his first games with them.

Sutton was a shock jock when he started. He splits opinion.

[McD]

**** off Sky. They'll stick all their games on Sky Sports Football which BT customers don't even ****ing get, AND it'll be ridiculous kick off times because the Premier League takes priority in everything. They might as well go the whole hog and do the stupid "och aye the noo its Scoatish fitba so we'll play the bagpipes" intro they used to have.


They’re hardly going to out to put it on the Sky Sports Cricket channel are they? Every football match that’s not EPL is broadcast on that channel, with a few exceptions, that’s the purpose of the channel. It’s been like that for over a year I think. It also means a customer only needs to pay for the sport they want to watch (ie, pay for the football channel without needing to pay for golf or cricket or F1 etc). Having the Scottish football all on that channel would be cheaper than having to pay sky and bt.

I doubt theyll be interested much in whether BT sports customers get the channel, it’s a reason for a potential customer to come to them rather than BT.

[ekhibee]

While I'm happy if Eleven Sports drives up the bidding, I hope they don't win the contract. Their existing coverage isn't available on any TV platform at present. I think BTSport will pull out all the stops to get exclusive coverage. They'd better as if they lost the rights I'd be cancelling the sport I get via Virgin Media.
Do you really need to? BT Sport is free on Virgin anyway. It is for me anyway.

[hibbydad]

Free on Virgin for me too

[BoomtownHibees]

It will be Sky from 2020. £100m over 5 years

Betfred Cup will be on Premier Sports.

[3pm]

It will be Sky from 2020 👍🏼

Hopefully they freshen the coverage up.

[CapitalGreen]

Hopefully they freshen the coverage up.

If they didn’t bother while competing directly with BT, they’re probably unlikely too now.

[HH81]

It will be Sky from 2020. £100m over 5 years

Betfred Cup will be on Premier Sports.

20 million a year? What's the current deal?


Doesn't seem a lot.

[BoomtownHibees]

20 million a year? What's the current deal?


Doesn't seem a lot.

Just under £19m per season but don’t know what we will be getting from the likes of Premier Sports for the cup games

[bingo70]

It will be Sky from 2020 👍🏼

To announce the deal sky sports put a picture of Brendan Rodgers and Stevie Gerrard up. Sums them up.

I’m actually really gutted about this, if I thought they’d learned lessons from BT sports then I’d be a bit more positive but they won’t, they’ll continue to wheel out Charlie Nicholas and Andy Walker as experts, Hayley McQueen as presenter and be all about the old firm.

Still though, they’ll now give us enough money to let us compete with the English 14th division, great.

[bingo70]

If they didn’t bother while competing directly with BT, they’re probably unlikely too now.

They don’t give a monkeys about our game or promoting it properly, they just want the 4 old firm games a season.

[HH81]

Just under £19m per season but don’t know what we will be getting from the likes of Premier Sports for the cup games

I don't think it is that good a deal then.

[CB_NO3]

Horrendous deal tbh

[B.H.F.C]

They don’t give a monkeys about our game or promoting it properly, they just want the 4 old firm games a season.

They still offered the best financial package though so maybe the others don’t care as much as has been made out?

[GlesgaeHibby]

It will be Sky from 2020. £100m over 5 years

Betfred Cup will be on Premier Sports.

Sun reporting it as £100m over 3 years which is a significant increase in the £21m a season SKY and BT currently pay for broadcast rights. If it's £100m over 5 years that is ****ing scandalous.

[ShadesLongThrow]

Oh well, that’s some money being saved on BT Sports. Not interested in CL.

[bingo70]

Just under £19m per season but don’t know what we will be getting from the likes of Premier Sports for the cup games

Wonder how much the clubs in English league Three gets in tv money?

[Danderhall Hibs]

To announce the deal sky sports put a picture of Brendan Rodgers and Stevie Gerrard up. Sums them up.

I’m actually really gutted about this, if I thought they’d learned lessons from BT sports then I’d be a bit more positive but they won’t, they’ll continue to wheel out Charlie Nicholas and Andy Walker as experts, Hayley McQueen as presenter and be all about the old firm.

Still though, they’ll now give us enough money to let us compete with the English 14th division, great.

:agree: really disappointing that BT didn’t put their money where their mouth is.

[bingo70]

They still offered the best financial package though so maybe the others don’t care as much as has been made out?

I think the recruitment at BT sports was spot on, not necessarily the company itself.

If sky were to poach Darrell Currie, Chris Sutton, Ally Mccoist, Michael Stewart and possibly even Steven Craigan id probably tuck my bottom lip in and give them a chance. These guys are genuinely experts on Scottish football imo.

They won’t though, they’ll continue with Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas, Davie Provan and people like that, folk that haven’t been to a game in Scotland not involving the old firm in years.

At a guess they’ll probably throw in some patronising bagpipes music in the intro music as well as a few clips of sliding tackles to show what a tough league it is.

[BoomtownHibees]

Sun reporting it as £100m over 3 years which is a significant increase in the £21m a season SKY and BT currently pay for broadcast rights. If it's £100m over 5 years that is ****ing scandalous.

This from Sky Sports:

“Sky Sports has agreed a new five-year partnership with the Scottish Professional Football League”

[Danderhall Hibs]

This from Sky Sports:

“Sky Sports has agreed a new five-year partnership with the Scottish Professional Football League”

And this on the SPFL website:

Sky Sports will exclusively broadcast up to 48 Ladbrokes Premiership live matches per season, as well as up to six Premiership / Championship play-off matches, in each case for five seasons from 2020/21

[stoneyburn hibs]

Doncaster must have rang the Brexit negotiating team for tips in securing that deal, it's horrendous.

[Paul1642]

Gutted about this.

[Paul1642]

The fact that the EFL sign a £600mil deal on the same day rubs it in how worthhess our game is viewed to be

[The 90+2]

What a ****ing joke.

[CB_NO3]

So what we get for the whole country in 5 years, Huddersfield get in one season?

[B.H.F.C]

The only figure mentioned so far seems to be The Sun saying 100m but they were saying it was over 3 years, when the contract is actually for 5.

At first glance I was thinking it looked like a bit of a shocker, but it’s hard to be too critical when you don’t know the actual figures.

[K.Marx]

Doncaster says they’re not in a position to reveal the exact figures. Why? EPL and EFL figures are always common knowledge. Assuming Sky don’t want people to know how little they’re paying?

[BlackSheep]

Daily Record reporting it as £33M per season.

No matter what it is, it’s not sounding great for Scottish football.... currently we see 60 matches a season on Sky/BT.... 30 each.

This new deal will see Sky showing SPFL football exclusively and showing 48 matches.

If it turns out to be £100M over 5 years then it actually works out as less than what we currently get for less games!!

What the heck are the SPFL thinking???

[lucky]

Why are the SPLF not releasing the actual figures if they are so great? Both deals in England have been published but Donkey Doncaster does not feel the need to inform fans of the deal.

[BlackSheep]

Doncaster says they’re not in a position to reveal the exact figures. Why? EPL and EFL figures are always common knowledge. Assuming Sky don’t want people to know how little they’re paying?

More like Doncaster doesn’t want everyone to know how much he has been bent over by Sky!!!

[GreenOnions]

I think the recruitment at BT sports was spot on, not necessarily the company itself.

If sky were to poach Darrell Currie, Chris Sutton, Ally Mccoist, Michael Stewart and possibly even Steven Craigan id probably tuck my bottom lip in and give them a chance. These guys are genuinely experts on Scottish football imo.

They won’t though, they’ll continue with Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas, Davie Provan and people like that, folk that haven’t been to a game in Scotland not involving the old firm in years.

At a guess they’ll probably throw in some patronising bagpipes music in the intro music as well as a few clips of sliding tackles to show what a tough league it is.

I sometimes wonder if the Steven Craigen they have on BT Sports is just someone who looks like the footballer Steven Craigan. He seems to know so little about football it's difficult to believe he's the guy who actually played it professionally.

He's right up there with the most clueless IMHO.

If Sky are serious they'll definitely go for Mikey Stewart though. Chris Sutton is okay - at least he's not scared to criticise. The rest mentioned above are all forgettable. We must have better than this in Scotland - surely??????

[B.H.F.C]

Daily Record reporting it as £33M per season.

No matter what it is, it’s not sounding great for Scottish football.... currently we see 60 matches a season on Sky/BT.... 30 each.

This new deal will see Sky showing SPFL football exclusively and showing 48 matches.

If it turns out to be £100M over 5 years then it actually works out as less than what we currently get for less games!!

What the heck are the SPFL thinking???

If they’re getting more money for showing less then that’s a good thing.

I don’t think the 100m over 5 years is accurate.

[Winston Ingram]

They still offered the best financial package though so maybe the others don’t care as much as has been made out?

My thoughts exactly

[B.H.F.C]

My thoughts exactly

I wrote that as someone who much prefers the match coverage from BT.

But if Sky are paying more than they wanted to offer then that says a lot.

[BoomtownHibees]

There is a bit of confusion around the numbers but if we assume:

Current Deal - £19m per season for 60 games (£317k per game)

New Deal - £20m per season for 48 games (£417k per game) plus what we will also receive from BBC and Premier Sports for the cup games

I don’t know why the would pay £100m over 3 years for a 5 year deal. Makes no sense to me however it is the SPFL so anything is possible

[BlackSheep]

If they’re getting more money for showing less then that’s a good thing.

I don’t think the 100m over 5 years is accurate.

Just look at other leagues tv deals... year on year they get more money for more games, and in no trend....

The TV deal is in part for the fans... so while yes, showing less games but paying the same seems like good business, but it’s really not as good when you look at the bigger picture.

[BlackSheep]

I wrote that as someone who much prefers the match coverage from BT.

But if Sky are paying more than they wanted to offer then that says a lot.

I have a feeling that BT were unable to wrestle the old firm exclusive rights away from Sky.... that may have been the deal breaker.

On a side note STV have just tied up a deal with Eleven Sports to show LaLiga and Serie A on the STV Player... starting with Atletico v Barcelona this weekend... for free.

[B.H.F.C]

Just look at other leagues tv deals... year on year they get more money for more games, and in no trend....

The TV deal is in let for the fans... so while yes, showing less games but paying the same seems like good business, but it’s really not as good when you look at the bigger picture.

Not sure I follow?

Selling less but getting the same (or more) in return is undoubtedly bette business. .

Less games on TV means more games on 3pm on a Saturday which everybody wants.

There is no point in comparing against down south etc. Broadcasters simply aren’t going to pay close to those figures, presumably because they won’t get the same return on their investment.

[Blaster]

Not sure I follow?

Selling less but getting the same (or more) in return is undoubtedly bette business. .

Less games on TV means more games on 3pm on a Saturday which everybody wants.

There is no point in comparing against down south etc. Broadcasters simply aren’t going to pay close to those figures, presumably because they won’t get the same return on their investment.

Less games on the telly is not what shirt sponsors will want

[BlackSheep]

Not sure I follow?

Selling less but getting the same (or more) in return is undoubtedly bette business. .

Less games on TV means more games on 3pm on a Saturday which everybody wants.

There is no point in comparing against down south etc. Broadcasters simply aren’t going to pay close to those figures, presumably because they won’t get the same return on their investment.

At the end of the day our game is thriving just now so deserves more and better coverage not less, whichever way you cut it.

[Diclonius]

Can't wait for 2023 when Forest Green Rovers can offer double our wages for players and Doncaster negotiates yet another deal with Sky that's worth less than the one we're on.

[SirDavidsNapper]

Personally couldn't give a monkeys about BT's coverage of St Mirren v Hamilton. If Sky represents the best financial deal for Hibs then that's fine with me.

[B.H.F.C]

At the end of the day our game is thriving just now so deserves more and better coverage not less, whichever way you cut it.

I do agree with that. But I think if you asked the clubs whether they wanted revenue or coverage they’d go with revenue.

If the SPFL were transparent about the actual deal then it would be a lot easier to form a proper argument on how good or bad the deal actually is.

[Hibernian Verse]

I'm gutted that BT sports won't be showing the games but seriously disappointed in them for losing to Sky. I really thought they valued our game the most.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[bingo70]

Personally couldn't give a monkeys about BT's coverage of St Mirren v Hamilton. If Sky represents the best financial deal for Hibs then that's fine with me.

Why does it need to be one or the other?

Bt sport didn’t do anything revolutionary, they employed people that talked positively about our game, promoted it at every opportunity, including social media which is a big thing now and they showed all clubs competing the same level of respect.

Sky won’t do that and they’re tweet announcing the deal with a picture of Rodgers and Gerrard just sets the tone for what lies ahead.

I’ve got sympathy for Doncaster as once BT Sports dropped out he had no power in the negotiations and we had to take whatever scraps were being offered. My beef with this deal isn’t anything to do with money, it’s the poor coverage that’s bound to follow.

Has Andy walker been wheeled out yet to tell us what a good deal it is?

[BoomtownHibees]

I’ve got sympathy for Doncaster as once BT Sports dropped out he had no power in the negotiations and we had to take whatever scraps were being offered. My beef with this deal isn’t anything to do with money, it’s the poor coverage that’s bound to follow.


These “scraps” were obviously more than whatever BT were offering. I can imagine what folk would be saying if Doncaster knocked back Sky and took less money from BT just because folk prefer their coverage/commentators better

[Winston Ingram]

Just look at other leagues tv deals... year on year they get more money for more games, and in no trend....

The TV deal is in part for the fans... so while yes, showing less games but paying the same seems like good business, but it’s really not as good when you look at the bigger picture.

The thing is, Sky is a business and need to make a profit.

There are only 5 million people in Scotland. How many of those are Sky Sports subscribers? I’d be surprised if it’s even 1 million.

I doubt that there is much profit to be made for them here.

[bingo70]

These “scraps” were obviously more than whatever BT were offering. I can imagine what folk would be saying if Doncaster knocked back Sky and took less money from BT just because folk prefer their coverage/commentators better

I agree.

I think this news is terrible for our game, and I know why we had to take it, but I still think it’s really bad news.

What broadcaster is going to defend our game and promote the recent resurgence in our league? Bt Sport have done that terrifically well recently. Certainly nobody at Sky will.

The only person employed by SKY with a social media presence promoting our game is Luke Shanley, occasionally Mark Benstead too. I know I’ve mentioned social media a couple of times now but it’s a massive deal in the current market, perception is everything as they say and the perception from the ignorant down south is that our league is a pub league, Chris Sutton for example has got involved in some high profile arguments defending our game, who at Sky is going to do that?

If Sky come out and announce how they’re going to revamp their coverage I’d be delighted, they won’t though.

We should go the whole Hogg and sell the radio rights to talk sport.

[flash]

Some amount of mince on this thread. Maybe we should have given BT the rights for nothing.

[SRHibs]

Can't wait for 2023 when Forest Green Rovers can offer double our wages for players and Doncaster negotiates yet another deal with Sky that's worth less than the one we're on.

Even if the £20m per year is true (many are saying £33m), it’s for less games so it’s an objectively better deal. If it’s £33m per season then it’s a significant improvement.

[B.H.F.C]

I agree.

I think this news is terrible for our game, and I know why we had to take it, but I still think it’s really bad news.

What broadcaster is going to defend our game and promote the recent resurgence in our league? Bt Sport have done that terrifically well recently. Certainly nobody at Sky will.

The only person employed by SKY with a social media presence promoting our game is Luke Shanley, occasionally Mark Benstead too. I know I’ve mentioned social media a couple of times now but it’s a massive deal in the current market, perception is everything as they say and the perception from the ignorant down south is that our league is a pub league, Chris Sutton for example has got involved in some high profile arguments defending our game, who at Sky is going to do that?

If Sky come out and announce how they’re going to revamp their coverage I’d be delighted, they won’t though.

We should go the whole Hogg and sell the radio rights to talk sport.

I’ve said elsewhere that I prefer the BT match coverage. But I think it’s pushing it to say it’s really bad news for our game.

Chris Sutton talking is up or an extra few hundred grand in the bank. I know what the clubs will prefer.

Those down south will always be ignorant to our game. What does it really matter what they think? Us that actually watch our game can see it’s in a better place than a couple of years back and if this deal brings more money in to improve it further then it can’t be that bad a deal.

[bingo70]

I’ve said elsewhere that I prefer the BT match coverage. But I think it’s pushing it to say it’s really bad news for our game.

Chris Sutton talking is up or an extra few hundred grand in the bank. I know what the clubs will prefer.

Those down south will always be ignorant to our game. What does it really matter what they think? Us that actually watch our game can see it’s in a better place than a couple of years back and if this deal brings more money in to improve it further then it can’t be that bad a deal.

I’m not suggesting we should have accepted a lesser deal, I am saying that it’s bad news that BT Sports never stumped up a fair amount of cash.

In terms of our pundits promoting our game I think that’s massively important. There’s no end to English pundits promoting their game, and quite rightly so. Why is it so hard for them to employ pundits for our game that’ll do the same? I think it’s important for the credibility of our game that it’s promoted and defended properly.

Why choose Andy Walker and Davie Provan who are both door Scotsman that couldn’t be more negative about our game? Why wheel out Charlie Nicholas to talk Scottish football? Again, another negative git. Hayley McQueen? Nothing to do with her being a woman but she is terrible.

When were the last time any of these people were at a Scottish Premiership game not involving the old firm?

I would probably be a bit more relaxed about the deal and have a bit more faith in them if they didn’t launch this deal with a picture of Gerrard and Rodgers as well as cutting down the amount of games shown, that’s not promoting our game, they just want to promote the four old firm games a season.

[cleanyman]

Sigh.

Here we go again.

BT has been simple but great these past few years. I've never been a SKY subscriber and just don't fancy the move. Shame for our game.

[green&left]

Even if the £20m per year is true (many are saying £33m), it’s for less games so it’s an objectively better deal. If it’s £33m per season then it’s a significant improvement.

It's the same money though for the individual clubs is it not?

Will still be the same model as before you'd think. You'll have 17 Rangers away games and 17 Celtic away games, then the 4 OF games and the 4 Edinburgh Derbies is 42 games. Hibs and Hearts on TV at Aberdeen once each leaves 4 "filler" games.

If it was a record breaking £33m you'd think they'd go public with it, the fact they've hidden the figures to me makes me think the deal is as ***** as £20m a season.

[hfc rd]

I’m acrually suprised why Sky even bothered bidding for the rights. As some folk have already mentioned, they hardly put any effort or show interest in the Scottish game as their main footballing focus is the PL. Surely I felt they would have kept that money aside and put it towards trying to get the CL back or even go for the French & German leagues.

BT Sports, I can’t see surviving much longer tbh and if they lose both the French & German leagues as well as the CL (all 3 deals expire in 2021) then it’s curtains. I’m tempted to cancel my subscription. With Amazon Prime wanting to enter into the footballing market and Eleven Sports already in the market, I don’t know if BT will continue pursuing the footballing market any longer with the competition around. It’s not just them and Sky anymore.

[The Spaceman]

**** Sky Sports and **** Neil Doncaster. Tool.

Absolute joke. I will stick to streaming my football for free, not giving money to those parasites.

[bingo70]

It's the same money though for the individual clubs is it not?

Will still be the same model as before you'd think. You'll have 17 Rangers away games and 17 Celtic away games, then the 4 OF games and the 4 Edinburgh Derbies is 42 games. Hibs and Hearts on TV at Aberdeen once each leaves 4 "filler" games.

If it was a record breaking £33m you'd think they'd go public with it, the fact they've hidden the figures to me makes me think the deal is as ***** as £20m a season.

That’s utterly depressing reading that.

[flash]

That’s utterly depressing reading that.

Why? He has made all that up.

[Blaster]

In a statement released by the SPFL, chief executive Neil Doncaster said that each of the deals were a "major increase" on the existing agreements

[green&left]

Why? He has made all that up.

Course I have. However what else do you think its going to be?

[flash]

Course I have. However what else do you think its going to be?

No idea.

[bingo70]

Why? He has made all that up.

It’s not been announced yet so of course it’s made up, it’s a prediction of what’s to come.

I find it depressing because it’s likely to be true.

[O'Rourke3]

Unless all clubs share the tv money equally, less games simply means more to the cheeks.

Sent from my KFTBWI using Tapatalk

[PatHead]

**** Sky Sports and **** Neil Doncaster. Tool.

Absolute joke. I will stick to streaming my football for free, not giving money to those parasites.
and what does that make you?

[lord bunberry]

I think the current deal includes the Scottish Cup. When you add in what we will be getting for the cup during this deal it will be a significant increase on what we’re currently getting.

[bingo70]

I think the current deal includes the Scottish Cup. When you add in what we will be getting for the cup during this deal it will be a significant increase on what we’re currently getting.

Why not tell us that then?

Michael Stewart has questioned the timing of the bids as one of the main bidders is without a CEO just now.

I’m guessing that’s BT Sport and I would agree with him, would seem strange timing if that’s the case, what’s the rush?

[lord bunberry]

Why not tell us that then?

Michael Stewart has questioned the timing of the bids as one of the main bidders is without a CEO just now.

I’m guessing that’s BT Sport and I would agree with him, would seem strange timing if that’s the case, what’s the rush?
I’m presuming that the Scottish cup deal hasn’t been finalised or officially announced yet.

[bingo70]

I’m presuming that the Scottish cup deal hasn’t been finalised or officially announced yet.

They could tell us this deal doesn’t include that and explain why this deal is better deal because of that.

They could actually promote our game and the ‘deal’ we’ve just got. If it’s a good deal then shout it from the roof tops, get people excited about it.

[Col2]

Looks like a 65% increase if you compare deals and number of games.

That’s pretty good given BT were not willing to get the big Cheque book out.

[bingo70]

Looks like a 65% increase if you compare deals and number of games.

That’s pretty good given BT were not willing to get the big Cheque book out.

Why are you taking into account the number of games?

Surely that’s largely irrelevant and is a worse thing when it comes to attracting sponsorship?

[flash]

Why are you taking into account the number of games?

Surely that’s largely irrelevant and is a worse thing when it comes to attracting sponsorship?

Why are you getting so steamed up about this?

[bingo70]

Why are you getting so steamed up about this?

There’s a number of reasons.

I am really enjoying the revival of Scottish football and think this will set it back.

I enjoy having pundits talking positively about our game, I think this will set it back.

I take a lot of pride in Scottish football, I think our broadcaster should as well.

I hate the old firm centric coverage you get from Sky and their tweet announcing the deal with a photo of Rodgers and Gerrard really really annoyed me.

It annoys me that the deal we get is equivalent to about the 8th league in English football (I’m exaggerating I know)

I can not stand Hayley Macqueen, Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas and Davie Provan

I’m bored and there’s very little else hibs related news to talk about.

[Hibernian Verse]

There’s a number of reasons.

I am really enjoying the revival of Scottish football and think this will set it back.

I enjoy having pundits talking positively about our game, I think this will set it back.

I take a lot of pride in Scottish football, I think our broadcaster should as well.

I hate the old firm centric coverage you get from Sky and their tweet announcing the deal with a photo of Rodgers and Gerrard really really annoyed me.

It annoys me that the deal we get is equivalent to about the 8th league in English football (I’m exaggerating I know)

I can not stand Hayley Macqueen, Andy Walker, Charlie Nicholas and Davie Provan

I’m bored and there’s very little else hibs related news to talk about.There was a match recently not involving rangers where Hayley McQueen repeatedly reffered to one of the teams as Rangers. Complete farce.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Lago]

They could tell us this deal doesn’t include that and explain why this deal is better deal because of that.

They could actually promote our game and the ‘deal’ we’ve just got. If it’s a good deal then shout it from the roof tops, get people excited about it.

They could try treating us as ADULTS!!

[poulton hibs]

**** Sky Sports and **** Neil Doncaster. Tool.

Absolute joke. I will stick to streaming my football for free, not giving money to those parasites.

So you will give your money to an IPTV provider who contributes zero to the game. Might not be the best deal but BT were not interested. Who's the parasite?

[B.H.F.C]

I am really enjoying the revival of Scottish football and think this will set it back.


I agree with many of your points but I don’t get this thought.

If there is more money being brought in to the game as a result of this, I’m not sure how it’s setting the game back?

I like BT’s coverage but I think it’s being exaggerated how much they do for the game. How often do they have Scottish football content on their channels? Once a week, every second week perhaps?

[Gmack7]

The 4 home game rule is total crap.the biggest games need to be on the box.if that means more Rangers and Celtic home games v hibs.hearts and Aberdeen so be it

[B.H.F.C]

The 4 home game rule is total crap.the biggest games need to be on the box.if that means more Rangers and Celtic home games v hibs.hearts and Aberdeen so be it

Agreed. That would market the game and show it in a better light more than any amount of positive chat from pundits.

[bingo70]

I agree with many of your points but I don’t get this thought.

If there is more money being brought in to the game as a result of this, I’m not sure how it’s setting the game back?

I like BT’s coverage but I think it’s being exaggerated how much they do for the game. How often do they have Scottish football content on their channels? Once a week, every second week perhaps?

Before games which I think is when people want it.

Having it on a Tuesday night or something I don’t think is much interest, imo people would rather have a decent pre game build up.

Bt sport weren’t perfect and I agree how good they are has been exaggerated, especially as they’ve only offered us a pittance as well by the sounds of it.

I don’t think the increase in tv money will positively effect our game that much, we compete with lower league clubs in England for players and it sounds like they’ve just had an increased tv deal as well. They’re shouting their deal from the rooftops though so I’m guessing they’ve got a better increase than us.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Why are you taking into account the number of games?

Surely that’s largely irrelevant and is a worse thing when it comes to attracting sponsorship?

If less on TV, potentially more of the favoured 3pm Sat kick-off.

Every cloud and all that.

[Austinho]

BT haven't been completely impartial in their coverage either to be fair:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F45bc448c-b502-11e7-bd81-0feeb2b41cb4.jpg?crop=1008%2C567%2C22%2C35&resize=685

Trying to think of positives for Sky coverage, I guess the games will be available to a wider audience - I know some of my English mates are more likely to stick on an SPL game if it's on Sky, as most of them have it as opposed to BT.

[Gmack7]

The 4 home game rule( or whatever it is) is total crap.the biggest games need to be on the box.if that means more Rangers and Celtic home games v hibs.hearts and Aberdeen so be it

[neil7908]

Does anyone know the split in the income i.e. How much Hibs would get out of this?

The money is absolutely chicken feed and once again the administrators of our game have failed spectacularly in selling our league as a product.

[Smartie]

BT Sport aren't being left with much, are they?

I can't see them keeping many subscriptions.

There must be trouble round the corner for someone in this ultra-competitive field......

[B.H.F.C]

Before games which I think is when people want it.

Having it on a Tuesday night or something I don’t think is much interest, imo people would rather have a decent pre game build up.

Bt sport weren’t perfect and I agree how good they are has been exaggerated, especially as they’ve only offered us a pittance as well by the sounds of it.

I don’t think the increase in tv money will positively effect our game that much, we compete with lower league clubs in England for players and it sounds like they’ve just had an increased tv deal as well. They’re shouting their deal from the rooftops though so I’m guessing they’ve got a better increase than us.

For all the talk of talking our game up, it inevitably comes back to a comparison with England in some way. We need to forget England, it’s an irrelevance to us really. They get substantially more and always will, probably because the broadcasters make substantially more from English based subscriptions and more people wanting to watch English games.

I’m not saying we should just have taken any old increase and been delighted with it, far from it. Given Doncaster was leading the process who even knows if we got the best possible deal. If the demand isn’t there from the competitors there is only so much you can do though.

[B.H.F.C]

Does anyone know the split in the income i.e. How much Hibs would get out of this?

The money is absolutely chicken feed and once again the administrators of our game have failed spectacularly in selling our league as a product.

Usually based on league position I think.

[BOB MARLEYS DUG]

Didn’t the OF vote against us getting the biggest TV deal ever for Scottish football only a few years ago? Can’t remember why they voted against it, but no doubt it was because it never suited them... usual.

[Smartie]

Didn’t the OF vote against us getting the biggest TV deal ever for Scottish football only a few years ago? Can’t remember why they voted against it, but no doubt it was because it never suited them... usual.

Although - is this not now the biggest tv deal? People don't seem to be overly happy with it - what would the reaction be if Celtc and Rangers kicked this deal out?

[Nutmegged]

Didn’t the OF vote against us getting the biggest TV deal ever for Scottish football only a few years ago? Can’t remember why they voted against it, but no doubt it was because it never suited them... usual.

The Old Firm and Aberdeen voted against Setanta's bid which was the biggest bid the SPL ever recieved, SKY offered the same koney (£125m) but they offered it ocer 5 years compared to Setanta's four years,the Old Firm and Aberdeen were defeated but ultimately proven correct


This deal is apparently worth £170m pver five years

[DavieRoy]

What we see today is that BT don’t ‘care’ about Scottish football, while we all look at the league deal, they have lost the league cup too. They have built up a niche of making out they care, they should have put their money where their mouth is.

Also on this issue, if they didn’t have a live game, they never did any of Scottish football programmes, nothing. They could have done a preview show from London but they only did extended build-up on a live game.

Sky will need to up their game when they get exclusive rights. I like what they did with Edinburgh Derby day in March, a whole day doing live stuff in the city. They did a good fixtures day and went around the clubs before the season started, they can do it when they want to.

More money and less games on TV, fair enough.

[JimBHibees]

The 4 home game rule is total crap.the biggest games need to be on the box.if that means more Rangers and Celtic home games v hibs.hearts and Aberdeen so be it

Totally agree.

[Winston Ingram]

Why not tell us that then?

Michael Stewart has questioned the timing of the bids as one of the main bidders is without a CEO just now.

I’m guessing that’s BT Sport and I would agree with him, would seem strange timing if that’s the case, what’s the rush?

They still have a board in place.

They’ve recently lost Serie A as well so losing Scottish Football has left their cupboard fairly bare.

This wasn’t an expensive deal for them and chose not to bother.

I’m not annoyed at Sky for getting this. I’m more annoyed at BT for all that tub thumping about how important Scottish Football was to them and when it came to the crunch they showed how much it really meant to them.

The only positive for me is that it’s not gone anywhere else and I don’t need to subscribe to another channel

[The 90+2]

Is the 4 home games a season thing still going to be in place? If so the good news is 2 massive games guaranteed (if we make too 6) on a Saturday afternoon.

[SQHib]

Is the 4 home games a season thing still going to be in place? If so the good news is 2 massive games guaranteed (if we make too 6) on a Saturday afternoon.

Yeah apparently the unpopular rule will still Be in place ...ugly sisters don't wantlots of their
Home games on sky as it affects their sign ups for their in house tv offering
From All their supporters abroad or using vpn

[BoomtownHibees]

Chris McLaughlin on Twitter:

New SPFL broadcast deal (Sky/BBC/Premier Sports) worth around £160 million in total. Sky deal est at around £26 million a year. BT offer described to me as ‘woeful’ and ‘derisory’. Combined deal up around 20% on last contract.

[The 90+2]

Yeah apparently the unpopular rule will still Be in place ...ugly sisters don't wantlots of their
Home games on sky as it affects their sign ups for their in house tv offering
From All their supporters abroad or using vpn

Oh well, no derbies at Tynie on the telly then. That will be an utter shanner.

[Gatecrasher]

good enough reason to drop BT after next season, wont be picking up premier sports though. I think the SPFL have done decent enough this time around. its not their fault BT didnt put together a decent package.

[matty_f]

What we see today is that BT don’t ‘care’ about Scottish football, while we all look at the league deal, they have lost the league cup too. They have built up a niche of making out they care, they should have put their money where their mouth is.

Also on this issue, if they didn’t have a live game, they never did any of Scottish football programmes, nothing. They could have done a preview show from London but they only did extended build-up on a live game.

Sky will need to up their game when they get exclusive rights. I like what they did with Edinburgh Derby day in March, a whole day doing live stuff in the city. They did a good fixtures day and went around the clubs before the season started, they can do it when they want to.

More money and less games on TV, fair enough.

I don't think it's that BT didn't care, I think the stark reality is that there just isn't that big a market for Scottish football outside of the small market that is Scotland.

Sky and BT will both know what revenue can be generated from Scottish games, and will have pitched their offers accordingly.

Like when Sky lost the Champions League to BT - Sky knew the viewing figures and had a ceiling as to what they'd offer for it. BT felt there was value there to get a foothold in the subscription TV market so over-paid relevant to the value of the product.

I know that some non-Glasgow televised games have been lucky to get into the tens of thousands of viewers on both Sky and BT - particularly if there's an English game competing for the viewers.

The SPFL had to take the biggest offer, even £1m/year split between the clubs will make a huge difference to the smaller teams in the league, so when it's many times more than that then the decision is a no-brainer.

Sky have to decide whether they're going to showcase Rangers and Celtc and play to a market that they already have, or showcase the whole league and try and get more viewers interested in it.

I'd put my house on them doing the former - there's very little incentive for them to invest more money into production for Scottish games, the harsh reality is that outside of Scotland, there aren't loads of folk who really care about watching Scottish football.

[Winston Ingram]

I don't think it's that BT didn't care, I think the stark reality is that there just isn't that big a market for Scottish football outside of the small market that is Scotland.

Sky and BT will both know what revenue can be generated from Scottish games, and will have pitched their offers accordingly.

Like when Sky lost the Champions League to BT - Sky knew the viewing figures and had a ceiling as to what they'd offer for it. BT felt there was value there to get a foothold in the subscription TV market so over-paid relevant to the value of the product.

I know that some non-Glasgow televised games have been lucky to get into the tens of thousands of viewers on both Sky and BT - particularly if there's an English game competing for the viewers.

The SPFL had to take the biggest offer, even £1m/year split between the clubs will make a huge difference to the smaller teams in the league, so when it's many times more than that then the decision is a no-brainer.

Sky have to decide whether they're going to showcase Rangers and Celtc and play to a market that they already have, or showcase the whole league and try and get more viewers interested in it.

I'd put my house on them doing the former - there's very little incentive for them to invest more money into production for Scottish games, the harsh reality is that outside of Scotland, there aren't loads of folk who really care about watching Scottish football.

I think yer bang on here.

People are looking at this thinking cos the Premier League gets X - we should get X

The Premier League generates huge profits for Sky for the amount they pay and that’s where it gets it’s value.

The population of Scotland is 5 million as opposed to 55 million in England.

I’d be surprised if there are even 1 million Sky Sports subscribers in Scotland. That it’s not going to generate much profit and therefore disctates the value of their bid.

[WhileTheChief..]

I take it that those of you saying Sky put no effort into Scottish football don’t have Sky?

They have plenty of other coverage on top of the games. There’s highlights, web content, interviews and specials from around the grounds and all sorts of other stuff.

BT’s coverage is great but they don’t do much else.

I’ve never seen an interview with Neil lennon on it or them broadcasting from East Mains or similar for example.

Anyways, more money is good. Well done Doncaster.

[Lago]

Just listening to a report on radio re new deal for EFL. Some pretty unhappy clubs in the championship because they feel deal under values them. Leagues 1 & 2 now worried about a championship break away.
Guess you can't please all the people all the time.