The Rangers Trying to Ruin TV Deal.

[Keith_M]

"The SPFL are set to hold an emergency meeting after Rangers failed to respond to a midnight deadline on Sunday to vote on a resolution to extend the current TV deal with Sky Sports."

...

"That led to Hampden chiefs calling an urgent summit with the £30million a year deal now thrown into serious doubt. The report continues that clubs “were also asked to provide a letter of waiver agreeing to let Sky increase the number of home games they show from each ground each season from four to five".

Under the proposed new deal, by season 2028/29 broadcasting giants Sky Sports would increase their payment from £25m to £30m while also having the ability to show a maximum of 60 games – up from 48 – from 2024/25."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-set-emergency-meeting-rangers-27909651

[gbhibby]

"The SPFL are set to hold an emergency meeting after Rangers failed to respond to a midnight deadline on Sunday to vote on a resolution to extend the current TV deal with Sky Sports."

...

"That led to Hampden chiefs calling an urgent summit with the £30million a year deal now thrown into serious doubt. The report continues that clubs “were also asked to provide a letter of waiver agreeing to let Sky increase the number of home games they show from each ground each season from four to five".

Under the proposed new deal, by season 2028/29 broadcasting giants Sky Sports would increase their payment from £25m to £30m while also having the ability to show a maximum of 60 games – up from 48 – from 2024/25."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-set-emergency-meeting-rangers-27909651




Hate to say it but I can see their point. The TV deal is not great Sky are getting it on the cheap

[007]

Bunch of a***holes, shame we can't just kick them out. Should have been punished after all their dossier and non-existant smoking gun nonsense during covid.

[Stuart93]

Let’s face it, the deals absolute **** anyway.

[Lago]

Is there an alternative?

[JJP]

Is the new deal not for less money per game? Can see why they are reluctant.

[GloryGlory]

Hate to say it but I can see their point. The TV deal is not great Sky are getting it on the cheap

Yes I agree. We are seriously underselling our game. £150M for 5 years is lower than most "smaller" leagues in Europe get for their matches.

[HFC93]

It's mad how poor our deal is compared to similar European league's. We massively undersell ourselves.

[gbhibby]

Yes I agree. We are seriously underselling our game. £150M for 5 years is lower than most "smaller" leagues in Europe get for their matches.
I think this deal is less than or similar to what was on offer from SKY nearly 20 years ago

[Diclonius]

Is it because the deal is absolutely ****ing atrocious? If so, fair.

[BlackSheep]

I think you’ll find that a lot of non rangers fans will be of the same opinion on this… our game is getting undersold and those selling it are to cowardly to fight for better.

[Smartie]

It makes me feel filthy for saying it but they’re absolutely right, good on them, hopefully others follow their lead.

We criminally undervalue our own “product” in this country and it needs to stop.

[gbhibby]

It will be interesting to compare the veiwing audience for the old firm game at the weekend and the audience watching Brighton v Leicester. One game is worth £7.5m the other is £500k.

[Eyrie]

My natural reaction to the headline was "bleep Sevco" but having read the story I'm not sure why anyone would blame the bigots.

The Sky deal does look to be them trying to sign up Scottish football long term so that they don't have to bid for a while. BT lost out last time, Premier already have the two cup competitions and we keep hearing that streaming is the future.

[Mikey_1875]

On the face of it I agree that our TV deal looks rubbish and clubs should be making a bigger fight for more.

However, Ron was in the paper not so long ago endorsing the new deal and adding that the Deloitte report also validated it. I’m guessing he will have looked in a lot more detail than the information we get so happy enough to trust him that this is sadly the best we can get.

[Smartie]

The quality of the deal did seem to directly contradict much of the recent rhetoric about growing revenues in our game.

[cabbageandribs1875]

didn't realise the deal ending was £30m over three years, even the top league in Greece gets £57m

for Serie B sky give them £38m

List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_b y_country)

[LaMotta]

didn't realise the deal ending was £30m over three years, even the top league in Greece gets £57m

for Serie B sky give them £38m

List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_b y_country)


Interesting list. The overall money isn't great, but money per game is good - we are 7th in the world for that.

Wee point though, the Sky that give money to Serie B is Sky Sport ( an Italian broadcaster) rather than the Sky Sports over here.

[WhileTheChief..]

Rangers fans are in the record banging on about their board not spending enough.

A few hours later this comes out. They gotta blame someone I guess.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Interesting list. The overall money isn't great, but money per game is good - we are 7th in the world for that.

Wee point though, the Sky that give money to Serie B is Sky Sport ( an Italian broadcaster) rather than the Sky Sports over here.


just out of curiosity are they still part of the Sky group ?


The Greece deal is for 230+ matches* so nearly twice the money for approx 4 times the number of matches so about half the price per match.

*(for season 2021/2022 so imagine similar no. of matches now)


i should have scrolled further down, just noticed that value table, that looks a very poor deal for the top league in Portugal, i see Benfica TV shows 17 home Benfica games and the club gets a mega £152m :shocked:

[LaMotta]

just out of curiosity are they still part of the Sky group ?



Actually think they might be, so ignore my previous comment:greengrin

[Solonleith1]

For once, I actually agree regarding the TV Deal. Sky are getting it on the cheap and that should be challenged. However, don't let that distract from the fact that it is a TV deal, purely to cater to fans of the Glasgow two, at the expense of all other Scottish Football fans, and always have been. Only TV games at Ibrox or Celtic Park are Old firm games, lest it hurt either of their pockets in terms of PPV and ticket sales.

[Bristolhibby]

just out of curiosity are they still part of the Sky group ?




i should have scrolled further down, just noticed that value table, that looks a very poor deal for the top league in Portugal, i see Benfica TV shows 17 home Benfica games and the club gets a mega £152m :shocked:

Is that not because everyone in Portugal supports Benfica?

I imagine Der Hun Would like to negotiate their own Hun TV package.

J

[Stubbsy90+2]

Actually think they might be, so ignore my previous comment:greengrin

They are :agree:

[Sergio sledge]

If the information in that article is correct then I agree with Sevco here.

They are agreeing to an extra £5m per year from season 28/29 yet sky will get 12 extra games per year from next season? That doesn't seem right, hopefully the daily record have got that wrong. If it is right then we are devaluing our current deal for the next 5 seasons in order to get £5m extra per season in 5 years time. Why not wait till closer to renewal time to see what the TV climate is then and invite competitive tenders?

The reality is that in 5 years time £30m per year could be worth the same as £25m per year at the minute if the RPI keeps increasing the way it is just now.

[007]

just out of curiosity are they still part of the Sky group ?




i should have scrolled further down, just noticed that value table, that looks a very poor deal for the top league in Portugal, i see Benfica TV shows 17 home Benfica games and the club gets a mega £152m :shocked:

That's probably the sort of reason Rangers aren't playing ball. No danger are they doing it for the good of the game in Scotland. They'll be wanting to arrange their own separate deal, similar to why they messed cinch around.

[Greencore]

"The SPFL are set to hold an emergency meeting after Rangers failed to respond to a midnight deadline on Sunday to vote on a resolution to extend the current TV deal with Sky Sports."

...

"That led to Hampden chiefs calling an urgent summit with the £30million a year deal now thrown into serious doubt. The report continues that clubs “were also asked to provide a letter of waiver agreeing to let Sky increase the number of home games they show from each ground each season from four to five".

Under the proposed new deal, by season 2028/29 broadcasting giants Sky Sports would increase their payment from £25m to £30m while also having the ability to show a maximum of 60 games – up from 48 – from 2024/25."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-set-emergency-meeting-rangers-27909651





Good on them. The deal is peanuts. Our game is worth more.

[HoboHarry]

That's probably the sort of reason Rangers aren't playing ball. No danger are they doing it for the good of the game in Scotland. They'll be wanting to arrange their own separate deal, similar to why they messed cinch around.
Excellent, let the a*******s go off and play in their own one team league.

[Eyrie]

That's probably the sort of reason Rangers aren't playing ball. No danger are they doing it for the good of the game in Scotland. They'll be wanting to arrange their own separate deal, similar to why they messed cinch around.

Then it's up to the other clubs to point out that without us, they have no-one to play but Celtc.

So if they want Sevco TV they'll have to pony up for the SPFL.

[Ozyhibby]

Fully support the Sevconians on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

It’s worth remembering that clubs will have all sorts of data now available to them on their ppv potential.

The huns will have flogged a lot of telly packages to their own fans throughout covid and might be understandably wary of signing that amount of earning potential away for relative buttons for a fairly long period of time.

[007]

Then it's up to the other clubs to point out that without us, they have no-one to play but Celtc.

So if they want Sevco TV they'll have to pony up for the SPFL.

They should but Rangers get far too easy a ride. Were allowed to mess everyone about with their dossier shenanigans when the focus should have been on how deal with the impact of covid. All because they want rid of Doncaster and (I would speculate) to replace him with a more Rangers minded Chief Exec. Then the cinch deal, made up a spurious reason why they shouldn't be part of it and couldn't back it up with documentary evidence. Were just allowed to opt out and the pot of money fhr all the clubs was just reduced.

Not to mention all the sectarian stuff they get away with week in week out. Rangers will be allowed to throw their weight about because nobody will stand up to them.

They may be right that the deal isn't good enough but I would never believe their motives to be for the benefit of Scottish football.

[matty_f]

**** Rangers.

[Nutmegged]

I felt dirty for it but I was glad someone was standing against this deal, it's a shoddy deal but one the clubs deserve considering what we offer broadcasters.

I can't believe we paid for an independent review just for our clubs to jump in two footed at this.

There's a reason we can't get big deals and it's got nothing to do with the League we're in or the Country we're from and more to do with the lack of access broadcasters get to our clubs.

That said I'm loath to paint Rangers as the good guys in this, they're absolutely not, they want the deal too they're just using it as leverage first to get the SPFL to pay past legal bills.

[neil7908]

**** Rangers.

This. My only critique is they should always be referred to by their correct title - Sevco. Rangers went bust years ago.

[007]

I felt dirty for it but I was glad someone was standing against this deal, it's a shoddy deal but one the clubs deserve considering what we offer broadcasters.

I can't believe we paid for an independent review just for our clubs to jump in two footed at this.

There's a reason we can't get big deals and it's got nothing to do with the League we're in or the Country we're from and more to do with the lack of access broadcasters get to our clubs.

That said I'm loath to paint Rangers as the good guys in this, they're absolutely not, they want the deal too they're just using it as leverage first to get the SPFL to pay past legal bills.

So initially they say it's because they're concerned the SPFL haven't approached anyone else for bids and then later it comes out that they're trying to hold the SPFL to ransom by demanding they (all the clubs) pay their legal fees and Douglas Parks' for the cinch deal fiasco, which was all of their own making. They really are a bunch of shysters.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-cut-rangers-out-new-27915276

[HoboHarry]

**** Rangers.

And the white horse they rode in on.

[Forza Fred]

Is there an alternative?

Exactly!

If that’s all the market is willing to pay, that is what it’s worth.

[cabbageandribs1875]

So initially they say it's because they're concerned the SPFL haven't approached anyone else for bids and then later it comes out that they're trying to hold the SPFL to ransom by demanding they (all the clubs) pay their legal fees and Douglas Parks' for the cinch deal fiasco, which was all of their own making. They really are a bunch of shysters.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-cut-rangers-out-new-27915276


what a shower of pwicks on that Sevco board, get them to **** away from Scottish football, big freakin babies



this could help clubs out .......


A second resolution was also put forward yesterday which, if pushed through, would enable all clubs to sell an additional five pay-per-view matches per season from their home grounds.

[Libby Hibby]

Anyone who thinks Sevco are making a stance other than to benefit Sevco is up a gum tree.

Other clubs may slightly benefit from it but this is 100% about Sevco getting a better deal for themselves.

They haven’t turned into the saviours of our game overnight, they’ll be stalling to get more money for themselves and to heck with what the other clubs want.

I’m my humble opinion of course.

[jacomo]

I felt dirty for it but I was glad someone was standing against this deal, it's a shoddy deal but one the clubs deserve considering what we offer broadcasters.

I can't believe we paid for an independent review just for our clubs to jump in two footed at this.

There's a reason we can't get big deals and it's got nothing to do with the League we're in or the Country we're from and more to do with the lack of access broadcasters get to our clubs.

That said I'm loath to paint Rangers as the good guys in this, they're absolutely not, they want the deal too they're just using it as leverage first to get the SPFL to pay past legal bills.


In what sense?

[Torto7]

I thought 11-1 was adequate meaning newco can flap their gums all they want?

[Nutmegged]

In what sense?

Other Nations similar in size or stature who get massive deals compared to the SPFL do so because they give broadcasters carte blanche, every game from every venue is available, our clubs just point blank refuse to comprehend such deals, gate receipts are the biggest source of income our clubs get and they refuse to make any deals that risk that, they also want full control of the rights to their own home games to see internetionally.

A lot of folk say SKY wouldn't show the full quota even if they had the rights because they only showed 41/48 games last season and they're probably right but the reason they didn't show the full quota of games last season was because their hands are tied in terms of how many times they van broadcast from the same venues, hence why they couldn't come here for the Celtic game last season, our game at Tynecastle wasn't broadcast, think Aberdeen/Celtic at Pittodrie wasn't shown anf neither was Hearts/Rangers.

Broadcasters won't pay top dollar when the organisation are so conservative in what they're willing to sell.

Amazon were really interested in the SPFL in 2018 and from what I was told would've been near triple what SKY offered but they wanted every game every week and the clubs didn't even discuss it, just rejected it point blank

[Stubbsy90+2]

Other Nations similar in size or stature who get massive deals compared to the SPFL do so because they give broadcasters carte blanche, every game from every venue is available, our clubs just point blank refuse to comprehend such deals, gate receipts are the biggest source of income our clubs get and they refuse to make any deals that risk that, they also want full control of the rights to their own home games to see internetionally.

A lot of folk say SKY wouldn't show the full quota even if they had the rights because they only showed 41/48 games last season and they're probably right but the reason they didn't show the full quota of games last season was because their hands are tied in terms of how many times they van broadcast from the same venues, hence why they couldn't come here for the Celtic game last season, our game at Tynecastle wasn't broadcast, think Aberdeen/Celtic at Pittodrie wasn't shown anf neither was Hearts/Rangers.

Broadcasters won't pay top dollar when the organisation are so conservative in what they're willing to sell.

Amazon were really interested in the SPFL in 2018 and from what I was told would've been near triple what SKY offered but they wanted every game every week and the clubs didn't even discuss it, just rejected it point blank

Surely a tv deal that’s triple the size would have negated any lost gate receipts?

I’d love to see us scrap the no football on tv at 3pm rule tbh.

[MrRobot]

Would love to see the league ditch Sky.

[Nutmegged]

So initially they say it's because they're concerned the SPFL haven't approached anyone else for bids and then later it comes out that they're trying to hold the SPFL to ransom by demanding they (all the clubs) pay their legal fees and Douglas Parks' for the cinch deal fiasco, which was all of their own making. They really are a bunch of shysters.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-cut-rangers-out-new-27915276

Yup, just when you think they might be on the right side for once you get a rude awakening for being so naive.

they never fail to let you down.

[Stubbsy90+2]

Would love to see the league ditch Sky.

Same.

They make no real effort with their broadcasting of Scottish football.

Would love to see us go to a streaming service like Amazon tbh although I’d be happy we went anywhere as long as it’s a good deal.

[Winston Ingram]

There's a few things to consider here.

Firstly, all the other clubs have agreed to this, including Celtic. I don't believe for 1 second that they or the likes of ourselves, Hearts and Aberdeen haven't considered the key variables here and I can't see RG signing up to something he didn't see was fair value.

On top of that, Sky appear to be the only bidder. To me the value looks low but value is determined by what people are prepared to pay. The only people who appear to be willing to pay anything is Sky.

[worcesterhibby]

Unlike the majority of leagues in Europe Scottish clubs are mostly financed by gate receipts. All the "small" leagues around Europe getting more for their TV deal basically allow the majority of them to be shown live and their attendances suffer as a consequence. As has been pointed out above, we get a very good rate per game. We have to be careful what we wish for here. To increase revenue on the TV deal, we would have to increase TV audience, to do that would mean live games on Saturdays kicking off at 12.00 3.00 5.30 and then same again on Sunday. How do you think this would effect season ticket sales and the atmosphere in the ground ?

[MartinfaePorty]

I see it's now clear that this is nothing to do with the deal, Rangers are still mumping about the Cinch / Douglas Park carry on. Just like the BBC long-term boycott, they never like to admit that they were ever in the wrong, as they fear their fans won't be happy. Absolutely ridiculous and glad Doncaster is bypassing them through the other clubs.

[chippy]

Unlike the majority of leagues in Europe Scottish clubs are mostly financed by gate receipts. All the "small" leagues around Europe getting more for their TV deal basically allow the majority of them to be shown live and their attendances suffer as a consequence. As has been pointed out above, we get a very good rate per game. We have to be careful what we wish for here. To increase revenue on the TV deal, we would have to increase TV audience, to do that would mean live games on Saturdays kicking off at 12.00 3.00 5.30 and then same again on Sunday. How do you think this would effect season ticket sales and the atmosphere in the ground ?
What’s the evidence for live TV adversely affecting deals abroad ? Is it not conceivable that if the spfl git a deal say 3 times the size of the current deal that each club has a much higher budget to sign better players. The league improves massively . TV audiences increase clubs then perform better in Europe and this again increases revenue for another 2-5 clubs. I don’t see that adversely affecting attendances, I see the opposite . I

[Stubbsy90+2]

This is absolute back off a fag packet calculations, but:

£20 a month SPLTV subscription.

Worldwide subscribers - 150k (although I’d suggest this is majorly conservative with the amount of OF fans).

Total income - £36m per year.

Obviously there’s then the costs of producing the product etc but even if that accounted for £20m a season. over a 5 year period that’s £90m? Means that it’s all done in house and the clubs have way more control over the product.

The sky deal really seems absolutely abysmal.

Surely Ron would have a good idea of this sort of stuff given his background?

[Gloucester Hibs]

When does the current deal expire? If it’s not for a few years then why the big rush to renew with Sky?

[Nutmegged]

Surely a tv deal that’s triple the size would have negated any lost gate receipts?

I’d love to see us scrap the no football on tv at 3pm rule tbh.

It's not just lost gate recipts, it's giving up all rights to all home games, it required all 12 clubs to accept that, heard there was at least four who weren't even willing to discuss it

[Nutmegged]

This is absolute back off a fag packet calculations, but:

£20 a month SPLTV subscription.

Worldwide subscribers - 150k (although I’d suggest this is majorly conservative with the amount of OF fans).

Total income - £36m per year.

Obviously there’s then the costs of producing the product etc but even if that accounted for £20m a season. over a 5 year period that’s £90m? Means that it’s all done in house and the clubs have way more control over the product.

The sky deal really seems absolutely abysmal.

Surely Ron would have a good idea of this sort of stuff given his background?


This is where these ideas fall to bits, SPFL TV is on thr assumption that every fan can watch every game if they so choose wish, that means all clubs would need to be willing to make all their home games available, if that was the case and SKY could show every Celtic and hun game home and away every single week we'd probably be looking at a deal that is around £70-80m a season, I doubt they'd have the appetite to show all 228 Premiership games though. Four Edinburgh derbies, Dundee derbies (if both are in the same league) Aberdeen/Utd maybe too

[Nutmegged]

There's a few things to consider here.

Firstly, all the other clubs have agreed to this, including Celtic. I don't believe for 1 second that they or the likes of ourselves, Hearts and Aberdeen haven't considered the key variables here and I can't see RG signing up to something he didn't see was fair value.

On top of that, Sky appear to be the only bidder. To me the value looks low but value is determined by what people are prepared to pay. The only people who appear to be willing to pay anything is Sky.

Rory Hamilton has been quite vocal about this on Twitter, I'd imagine he might be aware of a desire from Premier Sports that they could've been interested, the bottom line is that unless the SPFL put it out to tender then no-one will know if anyone else is interested.

The deal has over 2.5yrs to run, I don't see what the rush is when Scottish Football is in a pretty good place right now.

[Greenbeard]

Anyone who thinks Sevco are making a stance other than to benefit Sevco is up a gum tree.

Other clubs may slightly benefit from it but this is 100% about Sevco getting a better deal for themselves.

They haven’t turned into the saviours of our game overnight, they’ll be stalling to get more money for themselves and to heck with what the other clubs want.

I’m my humble opinion of course.
Exactly. I see this as a tactic by Sevco to elicit from Sky what value they would place on a TV deal without Sevco, so Sevco can then come back and say "our involvement in the TV deal is worth £X so give us a bigger share".

[superfurryhibby]

This is where these ideas fall to bits, SPFL TV is on thr assumption that every fan can watch every game if they so choose wish, that means all clubs would need to be willing to make all their home games available, if that was the case and SKY could show every Celtic and hun game home and away every single week we'd probably be looking at a deal that is around £70-80m a season, I doubt they'd have the appetite to show all 228 Premiership games though. Four Edinburgh derbies, Dundee derbies (if both are in the same league) Aberdeen/Utd maybe too

Agreed, this is where simple comparisons with other countries deals fall down. The devil is in the detail.

[Stubbsy90+2]

This is where these ideas fall to bits, SPFL TV is on thr assumption that every fan can watch every game if they so choose wish, that means all clubs would need to be willing to make all their home games available, if that was the case and SKY could show every Celtic and hun game home and away every single week we'd probably be looking at a deal that is around £70-80m a season, I doubt they'd have the appetite to show all 228 Premiership games though. Four Edinburgh derbies, Dundee derbies (if both are in the same league) Aberdeen/Utd maybe too

To be fair, its probably about time the teams started considering showing every game.

The difference on the crowd would be negligible with half the league already getting terrible crowds. The difference in the tv money though would be enormous.

Rangers and Celtic would continue to sell out every week, we’d probably continue to get over 10k season tickets, hearts would probably continue to do quite well. You’d also be able to secure higher sponsorship deals as every game would be on tv.

It’s time the SPFL started thinking outside the box a bit and transform our product. Our tv deal leaves us as also rans. A decent tv deal about 3 or 4 times what we currently get would mean our teams could also compete better in Europe, bringing more money in etc. The tv deal is the biggest hindrance to Scottish teams.

You’d probably get 100k people buying a subscription from ROI/NI alone.

[matty_f]

To be fair, its probably about time the teams started considering showing every game.

The difference on the crowd would be negligible with half the league already getting terrible crowds. The difference in the tv money though would be enormous.

Rangers and Celtic would continue to sell out every week, we’d probably continue to get over 10k season tickets, hearts would probably continue to do quite well. You’d also be able to secure higher sponsorship deals as every game would be on tv.

It’s time the SPFL started thinking outside the box a bit and transform our product. Our tv deal leaves us as also rans. A decent tv deal about 3 or 4 times what we currently get would mean our teams could also compete better in Europe, bringing more money in etc. The tv deal is the biggest hindrance to Scottish teams.

You’d probably get 100k people buying a subscription from ROI/NI alone.

I agree, with the caveat that the money needs to be distributed evenly and not only to serve to widen the gap between the Glasgow clubs and the rest of us. For all that they're irrefutably the biggest draw, they need someone else to play against.

The reason the EPL is as successful as it is now is that Sky pumped in enough money that even the smallest of the EPL teams can attract excrement footballers, the Scottish League in its current guise with the existing TV money is nowhere near enough to compete with that, but give everyone now and the standard goes up and the product becomes more marketable as a result.

[Sioux]

This is absolute back off a fag packet calculations, but:

£20 a month SPLTV subscription.

Worldwide subscribers - 150k (although I’d suggest this is majorly conservative with the amount of OF fans).

Total income - £36m per year.

Obviously there’s then the costs of producing the product etc but even if that accounted for £20m a season. over a 5 year period that’s £90m? Means that it’s all done in house and the clubs have way more control over the product.

The sky deal really seems absolutely abysmal.

Surely Ron would have a good idea of this sort of stuff given his background?

I'm not sure that many would be happy to increase their already expensive Sky subscriptions. I certainly wouldn't. The vast majority of Sky subscribers do not subscribe solely for Scottish football.

As regards Ron, I think he'd be well aware of the implication and costs of broadcasting an SPFL channel, and it is noticeable that he hasn't suggested that at anytime, nor have Deloitte, as far as I can see.

Do you really think Rangers and Celtic would not want to take the bulk of SPFL TV subscriptions for themselves, bearing in mind that their support would account for the vast majority of those subs?

[Stubbsy90+2]

I'm not sure that many would be happy to increase their already expensive Sky subscriptions. I certainly wouldn't. The vast majority of Sky subscribers do not subscribe solely for Scottish football.

As regards Ron, I think he'd be well aware of the implication and costs of broadcasting an SPFL channel, and it is noticeable that he hasn't suggested that at anytime, nor have Deloitte, as far as I can see.

Do you really think Rangers and Celtic would not want to take the bulk of SPFL TV subscriptions for themselves, bearing in mind that their support would account for the vast majority of those subs?

I think there would be plenty Scottish football fans would see £20 as a great price for every Scottish game, presumably available on demand and with lots of other Scottish football content on it. I also think there would be loads who would be happy enough to bin their sky subscriptions and reduce their outgoings to £20 a month rather than whatever sky was whilst still being able to get lots of football.

I’m sure Rangers and Celtic would probably be after the lions share of it but the clubs have the power not to agree to that. Rangers and Celtic would still be better off than they are now, even if they didn’t get the bulk of the money as they’d no doubt want.

[chippy]

This is absolute back off a fag packet calculations, but:

£20 a month SPLTV subscription.

Worldwide subscribers - 150k (although I’d suggest this is majorly conservative with the amount of OF fans).

Total income - £36m per year.

Obviously there’s then the costs of producing the product etc but even if that accounted for £20m a season. over a 5 year period that’s £90m? Means that it’s all done in house and the clubs have way more control over the product.

The sky deal really seems absolutely abysmal.

Surely Ron would have a good idea of this sort of stuff given his background?

Most clubs if not all SPFL premier clubs have their own TV set ups, so you’d think the infrastructure required would be minimal

[Sioux]

I think there would be plenty Scottish football fans would see £20 as a great price for every Scottish game, presumably available on demand and with lots of other Scottish football content on it. I also think there would be loads who would be happy enough to bin their sky subscriptions and reduce their outgoings to £20 a month rather than whatever sky was whilst still being able to get lots of football.

I’m sure Rangers and Celtic would probably be after the lions share of it but the clubs have the power not to agree to that. Rangers and Celtic would still be better off than they are now, even if they didn’t get the bulk of the money as they’d no doubt want.

I don't agree that plenty of football would fans would ditch Sky* for an SPFL product. Sky is watched for a myriad of reasons. Spouses, partners and children use it as their principle entertainment media. It might suit a single young male, but most doubtful it would suit the majority of Sky subscribers.

As far as your final point is concerned, its the other way round. Rangers and Celtic collectively have all the power they need. A vote of 11:1 won't be achieved if they don't get the percentage of subs they want.

Another few things, why would a season ticket holder want to pay another £20 per month to watch their team?

And then, would a season ticket holder rather pay £240 per year for a subscription or £420 for a season ticket?

Would fans who have paid your subscription bother to pay the expense of travel and entry to away games when they can sit at home and watch it?

Football is a spectator sport. Having all games televised is likely to reduce attendance, especially for those who take kids to the games. Their monthly saving could be substantial, and the kids don't get the experience of live football, and are therefore not inclined to attend when old enough to go on their own. But that's extending the issue, so I'll go no further.

Sorry, but I just don't see any appetite, nor financial merit for your proposal.

Sky hold the aces because there is no viable alternative.

[chippy]

This is absolute back off a fag packet calculations, but:

£20 a month SPLTV subscription.

Worldwide subscribers - 150k (although I’d suggest this is majorly conservative with the amount of OF fans).

Total income - £36m per year.

Obviously there’s then the costs of producing the product etc but even if that accounted for £20m a season. over a 5 year period that’s £90m? Means that it’s all done in house and the clubs have way more control over the product.

The sky deal really seems absolutely abysmal.

Surely Ron would have a good idea of this sort of stuff given his background?

This is where I thought Ron and the other clubs were headed. I don’t understand why not. Sure the old firm will want a big share so perhaps bonuses could be tied into the nos of subscribers who support a certain club whilst maintaining a general equitable share for each club.

[superfurryhibby]

I agree, with the caveat that the money needs to be distributed evenly and not only to serve to widen the gap between the Glasgow clubs and the rest of us. For all that they're irrefutably the biggest draw, they need someone else to play against.

The reason the EPL is as successful as it is now is that Sky pumped in enough money that even the smallest of the EPL teams can attract excrement footballers, the Scottish League in its current guise with the existing TV money is nowhere near enough to compete with that, but give everyone now and the standard goes up and the product becomes more marketable as a result.

Not so sure that our leagues aren't expert at doing the same :wink:

I wouldn't trust those running our game to ensure that doesn't happen Matty, we have a long history of rolling over for them and there is no way they would settle for fair share of any revenues raised.

[matty_f]

Not so sure that our leagues aren't expert at doing the same :wink:

I wouldn't trust those running our game to ensure that doesn't happen Matty, we have a long history of rolling over for them and there is no way they would settle for fair share of any revenues raised.

I'm sure I've said it before, I hate my phone. Why does it do this to me? :faf:

[I'm Spartacus]

I do agree with them, but also does anyone else wonder what is going on with them? Millions of pounds in income and they've not spent a penny, plus this new £104 4th top being sold via Sports Direct. It's all a bit smelly.

[chippy]

I don't agree that plenty of football would fans would ditch Sky* for an SPFL product. Sky is watched for a myriad of reasons. Spouses, partners and children use it as their principle entertainment media. It might suit a single young male, but most doubtful it would suit the majority of Sky subscribers.

As far as your final point is concerned, its the other way round. Rangers and Celtic collectively have all the power they need. A vote of 11:1 won't be achieved if they don't get the percentage of subs they want.

Another few things, why would a season ticket holder want to pay another £20 per month to watch their team?

And then, would a season ticket holder rather pay £240 per year for a subscription or £420 for a season ticket?

Would fans who have paid your subscription bother to pay the expense of travel and entry to away games when they can sit at home and watch it?


Football is a spectator sport. Having all games televised is likely to reduce attendance, especially for those who take kids to the games. Their monthly saving could be substantial, and the kids don't get the experience of live football, and are therefore not inclined to attend when old enough to go on their own. But that's extending the issue, so I'll go no further.

Sorry, but I just don't see any appetite, nor financial merit for your proposal.

Sky hold the aces because there is no viable alternative.

I don’t think Sky have all the aces. SPFL have a great product and it’s time we realised that. What does a full Sky Ents package cost that includes about 20% of spfl premier mostly Rangers and Celtic? £60 ish? An SPFL streaming service for all games would include all 4 divisions including play offs etc. it would be worth it for by far that majority of Hibs fans simply to be able to see every away game live- £20 a month would be a bargain. It’s apples and pears to compare a season ticket to a monthly subscription. There is no contest between watching a game live at the match and on TV. Hibs live attendances appear to me to be more connected to the type of football played, have we a good chance of winning, etc. Full house for Hearts games usually unless we are dire, tends to drop a bit for old firm unless we’re in with a decent chance of taking them. If streaming all games live gives our clubs at least 2-3 times more TV money I’m all for it. Saturation TV coverage seems to work for other leagues. Why mot Scotland?

[A Hi-Bee]

Perhaps I is missing something here, I am reading that sevco were happy to vote in favour as long as they got an apology and a money payment from the perceived wrongdoers at Hampden.
Blackmail it used to be called, tempted to say this is just that. Any extra money coming into Scottish football must be a good thing, it may not be the best deal ever but we all remember what happened in the past when turning down good money. Surprised that so may on here agree with the great unwashed hordes called sevco.

[Stubbsy90+2]

I don't agree that plenty of football would fans would ditch Sky* for an SPFL product. Sky is watched for a myriad of reasons. Spouses, partners and children use it as their principle entertainment media. It might suit a single young male, but most doubtful it would suit the majority of Sky subscribers.

As far as your final point is concerned, its the other way round. Rangers and Celtic collectively have all the power they need. A vote of 11:1 won't be achieved if they don't get the percentage of subs they want.

Another few things, why would a season ticket holder want to pay another £20 per month to watch their team?

And then, would a season ticket holder rather pay £240 per year for a subscription or £420 for a season ticket?

Would fans who have paid your subscription bother to pay the expense of travel and entry to away games when they can sit at home and watch it?

Football is a spectator sport. Having all games televised is likely to reduce attendance, especially for those who take kids to the games. Their monthly saving could be substantial, and the kids don't get the experience of live football, and are therefore not inclined to attend when old enough to go on their own. But that's extending the issue, so I'll go no further.

Sorry, but I just don't see any appetite, nor financial merit for your proposal.

Sky hold the aces because there is no viable alternative.

Sky Sports is about £40p/m I’m sure. You can still have sky without sky sports for the rest of your family. If you can reduce your spend by say £20p/m by getting rid of sky sports but getting SPFLTV and still getting plenty football then a lot of folk in Scotland would do that imo. Likewise a lot of people would just take on the extra £20p/m. I know I’d consider it as I barely watch English football for example but I have sky sports for the Scottish football.

Football is a whole different thing being at the game. I doubt it would impact that many people and change their preferred method of viewing whether that’s in person or TV. I like watching football I wouldn’t go to on TV such as Hibs away to Aberdeen or something but I wouldn’t pay to go there anyway so they wouldn’t miss out on anything from me. Id imagine the vast majority that do go though would still go for the day out and everything else that comes with being at football in person.

I also wouldn’t miss the games I enjoy going to because they’re on TV. I always go to Hampden and Tynecastle despite the fact I’m already paying for them through my sky subscription as I’m sure many others do. I have my season ticket but that’s a different comparison as it’s a mixture of televised and non televised games.

I’m not sure Sky hold all the aces. There’s no viable alternative because the Scottish clubs don’t offer up enough. Teams are too busy wanting to ensure they’re on tv as little as possible and restricting numbers of games etc. Remove that restriction and I’m sure it would be a much more attractive product capable of bringing in a hell of a lot more money.

[chippy]

Sky Sports is about £40p/m I’m sure. You can still have sky without sky sports for the rest of your family. If you can reduce your spend by say £20p/m by getting rid of sky sports but getting SPFLTV and still getting plenty football then a lot of folk in Scotland would do that imo. Likewise a lot of people would just take on the extra £20p/m. I know I’d consider it as I barely watch English football for example but I have sky sports for the Scottish football.

Football is a whole different thing being at the game. I doubt it would impact that many people and change their preferred method of viewing whether that’s in person or TV. I like watching football I wouldn’t go to on TV such as Hibs away to Aberdeen or something but I wouldn’t pay to go there anyway so they wouldn’t miss out on anything from me. Id imagine the vast majority that do go though would still go for the day out and everything else that comes with being at football in person.

I also wouldn’t miss the games I enjoy going to because they’re on TV. I always go to Hampden and Tynecastle despite the fact I’m already paying for them through my sky subscription as I’m sure many others do. I have my season ticket but that’s a different comparison as it’s a mixture of televised and non televised games.

I’m not sure Sky hold all the aces. There’s no viable alternative because the Scottish clubs don’t offer up enough. Teams are too busy wanting to ensure they’re on tv as little as possible and restricting numbers of games etc. Remove that restriction and I’m sure it would be a much more attractive product capable of bringing in a hell of a lot more money.

Good post, some sensible posts on this subject. I hope Ron is looking in

[Diclonius]

I'm not sure that many would be happy to increase their already expensive Sky subscriptions. I certainly wouldn't. The vast majority of Sky subscribers do not subscribe solely for Scottish football.

As regards Ron, I think he'd be well aware of the implication and costs of broadcasting an SPFL channel, and it is noticeable that he hasn't suggested that at anytime, nor have Deloitte, as far as I can see.

Do you really think Rangers and Celtic would not want to take the bulk of SPFL TV subscriptions for themselves, bearing in mind that their support would account for the vast majority of those subs?

There will be plenty who don't subscribe to Sky who would go for this (myself included), or who would cancel it and take this out instead. I'm done paying £35 a month for like 6p of it to go to my club while the rest funds absolute ***** like Brentford v Brighton.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think there would be plenty Scottish football fans would see £20 as a great price for every Scottish game, presumably available on demand and with lots of other Scottish football content on it. I also think there would be loads who would be happy enough to bin their sky subscriptions and reduce their outgoings to £20 a month rather than whatever sky was whilst still being able to get lots of football.

I’m sure Rangers and Celtic would probably be after the lions share of it but the clubs have the power not to agree to that. Rangers and Celtic would still be better off than they are now, even if they didn’t get the bulk of the money as they’d no doubt want.

It should be possible for subscription to be linked to your club so that the amount given to clubs is related to the number of subscribers. 🤔

[ancient hibee]

Plenty also watch Sky for golf and cricket as well as other sports. What would subscribers get for their £20 during the close season or would they just cancel their direct debits?

[marinello59]

I think there would be plenty Scottish football fans would see £20 as a great price for every Scottish game, presumably available on demand and with lots of other Scottish football content on it. I also think there would be loads who would be happy enough to bin their sky subscriptions and reduce their outgoings to £20 a month rather than whatever sky was whilst still being able to get lots of football.

I’m sure Rangers and Celtic would probably be after the lions share of it but the clubs have the power not to agree to that. Rangers and Celtic would still be better off than they are now, even if they didn’t get the bulk of the money as they’d no doubt want.

I watch multiple sports on Sky so ditching it would never be an option. I wouldn’t subscribe to an SPFL only channel though, I tend to be at the only games I would be interested in watching.

[degenerated]

I'm sure I've said it before, I hate my phone. Why does it do this to me? :faf:Certainly seems to make you talk a lot of crap :hilarious

[superfurryhibby]

I'm sure I've said it before, I hate my phone. Why does it do this to me? :faf:


Fine margins between the old Raphael and excellence


It should be possible for subscription to be linked to your club so that the amount given to clubs is related to the number of subscribers. 🤔

That would suit two teams perfectly.

[matty_f]

Certainly seems to make you talk a lot of crap :hilarious

I'm not sure I can blame the phone for that.

[chippy]

I watch multiple sports on Sky so ditching it would never be an option. I wouldn’t subscribe to an SPFL only channel though, I tend to be at the only games I would be interested in watching.
It’s not aimed at you then , if you’re not interested in the spfl on TV. You’re priority is clearly other sports or other football leagues

[AltheHibby]

Not really relevant, but by comparison Aussie Rules Football seems to be getting a good deal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-06/afl-confirms-unprecedented-4-5-billion-television-broadcast-deal/101410752

[Wilson]

This all sounds very much like the mistake we made last time. We tried to overplay our hand and sky left us in the footballing wilderness for years.

I'd be all for the clubs coming together and forming a mutually beneficial strategy for the longer term. I don't think the best way to do that is to torpedo a live deal with no real plan in place. Especially not at the whim of Rangers.

The trouble is Rangers are only interested in Rangers. Nobody is in it for the greater good of all member clubs. We won't come up with a decent and fair viable alternative because we'd actually have to work together.

We'll scupper the only decent offer on the table and be back where we were when Setanta collapsed.

[Keith_M]

I see it's now clear that this is nothing to do with the deal, Rangers are still mumping about the Cinch / Douglas Park carry on. Just like the BBC long-term boycott, they never like to admit that they were ever in the wrong, as they fear their fans won't be happy. Absolutely ridiculous and glad Doncaster is bypassing them through the other clubs.


As I suspected, then, this is just Rangers being Rangers.

This is the same club that tried to ruin the Cinch sponsorship deal for completely selfish reasons.

[Malthibby]

As I suspected, then, this is just Rangers being Rangers.

This is the same club that tried to ruin the Cinch sponsorship deal for completely selfish reasons.


Would reduce the amount Sky would be willing to pay but I'd love a deal which excluded all Der Hun's fixtures.
Or they could just play with themselves..
Entitled, bullying parasites.