Tv deal

[Donegal Hibby]

Reading there today Aberdeen chairman urging clubs to accept TV DEAL worth 150 million over the next 5 years .30 million a season .He's says Scotland are getting a higher value per game than some other leagues in Europe. Rangers managing director says the rights being under sold and sweden were getting double what Scotland where even though Sweden sold rights to more games to be shown.only Livingston and rangers to agree .Also said that it's rumoured that rangers won't agree anything till they get apologies for Cinch carry on. Surely if it's the only deal or biggest one financially it's worth taking?or is our game being under sold? Two reports of this in Scottish sun and Scotsman.

[Helensburghhibs]

Unless i misunderstand his argument is completely false. Hes claiming the deal is for 40 odd games and is value for money. The reality is its for all the games although the will only broadcast 40 odd.

[Donegal Hibby]

Unless i misunderstand his argument is completely false. Hes claiming the deal is for 40 odd games and is value for money. The reality is its for all the games although the will only broadcast 40 odd.
Ones saying it's a great deal for clubs . The other saying it's being under sold . Meeting this week about it .surprised Livingston haven't agreed with it yet.

[Helensburghhibs]

Ones saying it's a great deal for clubs . The other saying it's being under sold . Meeting this week about it .surprised Livingston haven't agreed with it yet.

Yeah but the Aberdeen gaffers claims are based on the number of games broadcast. The problem is we cant sell theother games. Thus making the price per game argument void

[Eyrie]

Yeah but the Aberdeen gaffers claims are based on the number of games broadcast. The problem is we cant sell theother games. Thus making the price per game argument void

Do the clubs want to sell all the games? The Ugly Sisters are remarkably resistant to their home games being on TV as it is.

[Donegal Hibby]

Yeah but the Aberdeen gaffers claims are based on the number of games broadcast. The problem is we cant sell theother games. Thus making the price per game argument void
For me it's a poor deal 150 million over 5 years when you consider a English premier team gets relegated They get something like 160 or 180 million parachute payment. Though I suppose something's better than nothing though does feel like we are living of crumbs.

[Donegal Hibby]

Yeah but the Aberdeen gaffers claims are based on the number of games broadcast. The problem is we cant sell theother games. Thus making the price per game argument void
Why you think that is ? Poorer games ? Or incompetent people running our league? Or maybe both?

[Hibbyradge]

Why you think that is ? Poorer games ? Or incompetent people running our league? Or maybe both?

Very few people outside of Scotland are interested in our football. We have a tiny audience and adverisers are interested in volume.

The reason Sweden gets twice the TV money is simply because they have twice the population, ergo twice the audience to sell to.

[SChibs]

Very few people outside of Scotland are interested in our football. We have a tiny audience and adverisers are interested in volume.

The reason Sweden gets twice the TV money is simply because they have twice the population, ergo twice the audience to sell to.

Exactly. People outside of Scotland just aren't interested in Scottish football just like most people outside Sweden aren't interested in Swedish football. Unfortunately due to our proximity to England we are forever compared to them which is apples and oranges.

[Donegal Hibby]

Very few people outside of Scotland are interested in our football. We have a tiny audience and adverisers are interested in volume.

The reason Sweden gets twice the TV money is simply because they have twice the population, ergo twice the audience to sell to.
Makes a lot of sense when you put it like that .Though I do think Scottish football is very underrated and not getting what it should financially wise .Think we will take the deal during the week as it's probably our only option.

[Torto7]

Very few people outside of Scotland are interested in our football. We have a tiny audience and adverisers are interested in volume.

The reason Sweden gets twice the TV money is simply because they have twice the population, ergo twice the audience to sell to.

The number quoted was for domestic UK rights. Certain SPL games draw impressive ratings including the Edinburgh derby. Seeing Livi with their awful gates siding with the bigots doesnt surprise me its a win win for their dodgy outfit.

[Dmas]

Makes a lot of sense when you put it like that .Though I do think Scottish football is very underrated and not getting what it should financially wise .Think we will take the deal during the week as it's probably our only option.

Isn’t this part of the problem as well that this deal stops the rights going to bidding? If that’s the case then how will we ever know if someone else wants it more, I think the rangers on this occasion are right sky are buying up 200+ games and broadcasting a maximum of 48 i believe the last 2 seasons they didn’t even show that amount, we could sell them 48 of their choosing and sell the rest via club channels like during Covid or we could set up the spfl tv thing and see how it goes with the other 160 odd games, we could even as unimaginable as it may sound broadcast the lower league on spfl tv

[Helensburghhibs]

The deal is poor because it stops us reselling games. So when sky choose not to show hibs at ibrox for instance because they want to savr the quota for the bigotfest it would be beneficial to be able to sell that game and make extra revanue.

[Billy Whizz]

The deal is poor because it stops us reselling games. So when sky choose not to show hibs at ibrox for instance because they want to savr the quota for the bigotfest it would be beneficial to be able to sell that game and make extra revanue.

That money would go to Rangers though

[green day]

This guy is worth a read on twitter -

https://twitter.com/grantrussell_/status/1574054868116918272?s=20&t=kurw12kCAPHhjdTYhmrBvQ

One of the points he makes is that the

"actual "value per game" on rights sold is £109,649. Not £520,833 as claimed.

Half the amount of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden. Not "more than double".

[Helensburghhibs]

That money would go to Rangers though

In the ppv days it would billy, but that would depend on any future deals terms. There is also the opportunity for an spfl tv style approach, which again would work on a pre arranged distribution.

[lucky]

Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. When it comes commercial deals I doubt Ron Gordon is going to sell us short

[Donegal Hibby]

Isn’t this part of the problem as well that this deal stops the rights going to bidding? If that’s the case then how will we ever know if someone else wants it more, I think the rangers on this occasion are right sky are buying up 200+ games and broadcasting a maximum of 48 i believe the last 2 seasons they didn’t even show that amount, we could sell them 48 of their choosing and sell the rest via club channels like during Covid or we could set up the spfl tv thing and see how it goes with the other 160 odd games, we could even as unimaginable as it may sound broadcast the lower league on spfl tv
Probably is part of the problem though as other poster said people outside Scotland aren't as keen on our league so would we get a bidding war for our league ? I'd very much doubt it.For me I think Sky's been really clever here .Buying enough of the games to monopolies our league while just offering our league enough money to fend of any competitors.Do I think it's a good deal ? Not really it feels like we are living of Crumbs from Sky but if it's the best deal on the table then we have to take it imo .A piece of cake is better than no cake at all. I've have another issue with the TV deal and I know its a bit mad on my behalf and doesn't make financial sense but here goes sky insist on 4 old firm games as part of any TV deal ,for me Scottish footballs been choked to death as teams are playing each other to many times .I remember a few years back we played Motherwell 6 times in the season .Too many imo.The leagues to small imo too .Big fear factor for clubs going down maybe stopping them playing more open football .look at the league table now .A 3 game swing could have you from 3rd to 11th or vice versa. In a ideal world I'd rather a 14 or 16 team league . Play a team home and away and that's it.

[Winston Ingram]

For me it's a poor deal 150 million over 5 years when you consider a English premier team gets relegated They get something like 160 or 180 million parachute payment. Though I suppose something's better than nothing though does feel like we are living of crumbs.

Comparing it with the EPL it's not even remotely realistic. That league blows every league away and they're able to get that money becuase there is the demand for it and it's very profitable for Sky.

There isn't the demand to watch the SPFL. If there were there would be more broadcasters coming to the table.

[Pretty Boy]

The revenue per game deal is a daft argument that stands up to no scrutiny, it's essentially Cormack treating fans like idiots.

The Sky deal is for all the games, they then select 48 to broadcast within the parameters of the deal. The clubs and the league don't then get the rights back to the 400 or whatever games aren't chosen for broadcast. They aren't available for resell to an alternative market thus Sky have a monopoly on every game and the deal is reflective of that.

He actually makes a valid point about the potential for lost revenue if every game was broadcast on TV, we arguably saw the impact of that with our home crowds when games were available on HibsTV in the UK last year. Just be honest about it though. 'The Sky deal is the only one on the table, it's the best we can currently attract, if we sold the rights with the option to broadcast more games live then it would hit our match day revenue for more than the increased TV money'. The revenue per game stuff is the deadest of dead cats.

[Donegal Hibby]

Comparing it with the EPL it's not even remotely realistic. That league blows every league away and they're able to get that money becuase there is the demand for it and it's very profitable for Sky.

There isn't the demand to watch the SPFL. If there were there would be more broadcasters coming to the table.
Get what your saying though wasn't trying to compare leagues just making a point how crazy things are like Scottish leagues getting 150 million over 5 years yet some mediocre club in England goes down and they instantly get a payment of more . Unfair world we live in.And while your right that league blows all others away imo you take out top 6 maybe 8 teams there's some awful dross in it too. You could be sitting waiting for the "super Sunday" match of Fulham v Bournemouth .Hardly gets the old football juices flowing imo.Good marketing and Sky pumping a unseen amount of money has boasted there league no end . Just wish we had a bit more to boast our league rather than living off the bear minimum which Sky give .

[Lago]

Get what your saying though wasn't trying to compare leagues just making a point how crazy things are like Scottish leagues getting 150 million over 5 years yet some mediocre club in England goes down and they instantly get a payment of more . Unfair world we live in.And while your right that league blows all others away imo you take out top 6 maybe 8 teams there's some awful dross in it too. You could be sitting waiting for the "super Sunday" match of Fulham v Bournemouth .Hardly gets the old football juices flowing imo.Good marketing and Sky pumping a unseen amount of money has boasted there league no end . Just wish we had a bit more to boast our league rather than living off the bear minimum which Sky give .
The basic problem is, outwith Scotland, there is effectively zero interest in Scottish football, the top league and probably the championship down south have world wide appeal.

[NAE NOOKIE]

As others have said our league is a tough sell and unfortunately SKY know it. The fact is nobody outside of two teams has won it in 40 years and it's simply not attractive for viewers in the rest of the UK to watch Celtic cuffing Ross County away or Sevco putting Motherwell to the sword at Fir Park etc etc etc week in week out.

Outside of the Uglies playing each other the only games that might attract some interest to lunchtime viewers outside of Scotland are the Edinburgh derby and possibly when the Uglies visit Easter Road, Tynecastle and Pittodrie, but that's about it.

I've been watching the Friday night championship games on the BBC Scotland channel this season and I have to say I've enjoyed every one of them, there's something rather nostalgic and wholesome about watching Ayr United take on ICT at Somerset Park .. Nae fitba tourists, nae flouncing superstars, just guid auld fashioned blood and thunder fitba.

[Groathillgrump]

This article on the BBC Sport website explains the argument between Dave Cormack and Stewart Robertson and has some interesting facts and figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63027632

[nonshinyfinish]

when you consider a English premier team gets relegated They get something like 160 or 180 million parachute payment


Scottish leagues getting 150 million over 5 years yet some mediocre club in England goes down and they instantly get a payment of more

Where are you seeing these numbers for the parachute payments? Think it's more in the region of £40m in the first season and then less in the following two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_parachute_and_solidarity_payments

(The latest figures there are for season 19/20 – it may be a bit higher now as it increases proportionally with TV income, but nothing like £160m.)

[Dmas]

Probably is part of the problem though as other poster said people outside Scotland aren't as keen on our league so would we get a bidding war for our league ? I'd very much doubt it.For me I think Sky's been really clever here .Buying enough of the games to monopolies our league while just offering our league enough money to fend of any competitors.Do I think it's a good deal ? Not really it feels like we are living of Crumbs from Sky but if it's the best deal on the table then we have to take it imo .A piece of cake is better than no cake at all. I've have another issue with the TV deal and I know its a bit mad on my behalf and doesn't make financial sense but here goes sky insist on 4 old firm games as part of any TV deal ,for me Scottish footballs been choked to death as teams are playing each other to many times .I remember a few years back we played Motherwell 6 times in the season .Too many imo.The leagues to small imo too .Big fear factor for clubs going down maybe stopping them playing more open football .look at the league table now .A 3 game swing could have you from 3rd to 11th or vice versa. In a ideal world I'd rather a 14 or 16 team league . Play a team home and away and that's it.

Totally agree with the 4 games and size of the league, I think clubs would see an increase in gates if there was only 1 opportunity to see hibs v whoever at home a season more fans would travel as well I’d think but as you say seems to be no appetite for it at boardroom level to eager to stay as is so no risk to top flight status etc

[Tyler Durden]

Very few people outside of Scotland are interested in our football. We have a tiny audience and adverisers are interested in volume.

The reason Sweden gets twice the TV money is simply because they have twice the population, ergo twice the audience to sell to.

That’s a massive over simplification. The reason is actually because they have more product on offer - every game being live.

The league (Ron Gordon must be complicit along with Cormack here) have shown nothing to give any confidence that they have properly explored the options. Or that we’ve challenged the way Sky want to structure the deal.

The optimal approach is surely to give Sky their 50 odd games and then the rights for the rest remain available for the club’s individually (or as a league) to sell.

The data on impacts to crowds is already there from last year when PPV was available. Or by looking at the likes of the Dutch leagues where crowds haven’t been negatively impacted

[Spudster]

As someone above said it's apples and orange with SPFL and EPL. If there's one league in the world we should be looking not to compare ourselves with it's England

[Donegal Hibby]

Where are you seeing these numbers for the parachute payments? Think it's more in the region of £40m in the first season and then less in the following two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_parachute_and_solidarity_payments

(The latest figures there are for season 19/20 – it may be a bit higher now as it increases proportionally with TV income, but nothing like £160m.)
I had read it awhile back in a paper when someone like Bournemouth went down maybe I read it wrong and it was split between clubs.what you put up is pretty conclusive and I stand corrected:aok:

[Hibbyradge]

That’s a massive over simplification. The reason is actually because they have more product on offer - every game being live.

The league (Ron Gordon must be complicit along with Cormack here) have shown nothing to give any confidence that they have properly explored the options. Or that we’ve challenged the way Sky want to structure the deal.

The optimal approach is surely to give Sky their 50 odd games and then the rights for the rest remain available for the club’s individually (or as a league) to sell.

The data on impacts to crowds is already there from last year when PPV was available. Or by looking at the likes of the Dutch leagues where crowds haven’t been negatively impacted

The reason every game is shown live somewhere is because they have the audience. There is no audience for the majority of SPFL games outwith the clubs' own supporters and maybe a small interested niche.

[Donegal Hibby]

As someone above said it's apples and orange with SPFL and EPL. If there's one league in the world we should be looking not to compare ourselves with it's England
It was me that brought up the EPL and I really don't mean we should compare the two cause it's night and day the difference .Though SPFL should definitely be looking at them to see if there's anyways of improving our game.Sadly with what Sky's offering is pretty poor imo and is below value for the Scottish game .probably no competitors for TV deal so just offer them the minimum.Other thing I think is leagues becoming stale , It's to small and teams are playing each other to much and yet again nothing can be done as Sky demand there 4 old firm.We are stuck in a rut and Sky has us by the buster browns.Know it won't happen but if Sky paid more money which they should that would improve league , better players , stadium upgrades etc etc and in the long run might attract a bigger audience to view the Scottish game .Win Win for Sky too.

[GreenGray]

The reason every game is shown live somewhere is because they have the audience. There is no audience for the majority of SPFL games outwith the clubs' own supporters and maybe a small interested niche.

And who’s fault is that? There is no appetite to advertise our game by those in charge. We have a decent product but we’re happy just being viewed as the “worse alternative to English football”. Which isn’t a fair comparison when you look at the money involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

And who’s fault is that? There is no appetite to advertise our game by those in charge. We have a decent product but we’re happy just being viewed as the “worse alternative to English football”. Which isn’t a fair comparison when you look at the money involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't have a decent product though.

St Johnstone v Ross County attracted 3355 fans.

Livingston v Killie 2253.

Motherwell v The Famous just over 6k.

Who is going to pay to watch these games on TV?

[Tyler Durden]

The reason every game is shown live somewhere is because they have the audience. There is no audience for the majority of SPFL games outwith the clubs' own supporters and maybe a small interested niche.

Even if that were the case, we are obviously not maximising the revenue from that audience.

Your argument re country size falls down very quickly. Let's look at Denmark - they have roughly 10% higher population than Scotland but their tv deal brings in 100% more revenue than in Scotland. Is there a massive audience for Danish football outside of their borders? Is there more worldwide interest in Brondby than Celtic?

The SPFL are accepting a poor deal and showing no ambition or innovation to improve. I can't believe that Deloitte's analysis endorsed blindly sticking with Sky.

[GreenGray]

We don't have a decent product though.

St Johnstone v Ross County attracted 3355 fans.

Livingston v Killie 2253.

Motherwell v The Famous just over 6k.

Who is going to pay to watch these games on TV?

Why does the attendance mean the product is bad? Our country has a good percentage of fans attending considering our size.

We’re just not very good at advertising our game and never have been, something that English football seems to excel at. I’ve been to a few Newcastle games in the last year, the standard and entertainment value is barely better than up here, they just know how to market it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Even if that were the case, we are obviously not maximising the revenue from that audience.

Your argument re country size falls down very quickly. Let's look at Denmark - they have roughly 10% higher population than Scotland but their tv deal brings in 100% more revenue than in Scotland. Is there a massive audience for Danish football outside of their borders? Is there more worldwide interest in Brondby than Celtic?

The SPFL are accepting a poor deal and showing no ambition or innovation to improve. I can't believe that Deloitte's analysis endorsed blindly sticking with Sky.

I think there's huge interest in Scandinavian football in the other Scandinavian countries, but I take your point.

However, I can't believe that there are no hard nosed business negotiators in Scottish football who would push to get the maximum possible. It's in no-one's interest to meekly accept less than we think we can achieve.

[Hibbyradge]

Why does the attendance mean the product is bad? Our country has a good percentage of fans attending considering our size.

We’re just not very good at advertising our game and never have been, something that English football seems to excel at. I’ve been to a few Newcastle games in the last year, the standard and entertainment value is barely better than up here, they just know how to market it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the product was good, more people would attend.

Where should we advertise these games?

Do you think many folk in Scotland would watch FC Flora v Kuressaare in the Estonian league if they advertised it more vigorously?

Given the amount of football on offer, the appeal of the Scottish game is very limited. Advertising it would just cause expense.

That's my view. If I'm wrong, I'm certain that someone else will see the potential you do and grab the opportunities it presents.

[chippy]

Yeah but the Aberdeen gaffers claims are based on the number of games broadcast. The problem is we cant sell theother games. Thus making the price per game argument void
No it doesn’t. It means Sky have bought the rights to all the league games, but will only show 40 or so. They prohibit the SPFL from selling the rights to all the other games, whether by individual clubs on PPV or as job lots to other broadcasters

[chippy]

We don't have a decent product though.

St Johnstone v Ross County attracted 3355 fans.

Livingston v Killie 2253.

Motherwell v The Famous just over 6k.

Who is going to pay to watch these games on TV?

That’s not the whole story though is it. You’ve just selected some, low attendance games. What about Hibs vs Aberdeen, Killie. Or all Hearts home games. They’ll likely average 18k and us about 17k, Aberdeen maybe 15k , United maybe 7/8k. Smaller clubs at home vs old firm crowds are not bad. Of course then add in all the old firm home games- not many of them televised live

[Winston Ingram]

Get what your saying though wasn't trying to compare leagues just making a point how crazy things are like Scottish leagues getting 150 million over 5 years yet some mediocre club in England goes down and they instantly get a payment of more . Unfair world we live in.And while your right that league blows all others away imo you take out top 6 maybe 8 teams there's some awful dross in it too. You could be sitting waiting for the "super Sunday" match of Fulham v Bournemouth .Hardly gets the old football juices flowing imo.Good marketing and Sky pumping a unseen amount of money has boasted there league no end . Just wish we had a bit more to boast our league rather than living off the bear minimum which Sky give .


I’m not even sure there is some awful dross in it. I agree I’m not fancying watching a Bournemouth game but that’s more down to them being a really small club with a tiny support.

Outside the top 8 there are some unbelievable squads with superb players like Wolves, Newcastle, Villa, Palace, Leeds and Brighton.

The scariest thing about the PL is the domestic TV deal is not their biggest earner. The international rights have overtaken that.

[Winston Ingram]

That’s not the whole story though is it. You’ve just selected some, low attendance games. What about Hibs vs Aberdeen, Killie. Or all Hearts home games. They’ll likely average 18k and us about 17k, Aberdeen maybe 15k , United maybe 7/8k. Smaller clubs at home vs old firm crowds are not bad. Of course then add in all the old firm home games- not many of them televised live

They are the lower attendance ones but their isn’t the interest in the rest of the UK in those games bar perhaps the Edinburgh derby. They aren’t really going to attract viewers outside of Scotland.

Re attendances England have clubs in League 1 that’d dwarf those attendances. Also those attendances are very generous. Take the OF games and the derby out, you could hack 5k off each of them minimum.

[GreenGray]

If the product was good, more people would attend.

Where should we advertise these games?

Do you think many folk in Scotland would watch FC Flora v Kuressaare in the Estonian league if they advertised it more vigorously?

Given the amount of football on offer, the appeal of the Scottish game is very limited. Advertising it would just cause expense.

That's my view. If I'm wrong, I'm certain that someone else will see the potential you do and grab the opportunities it presents.

I don’t think using attendances given the cost of living crisis and other factors is a good indicator, as I said previously we have a high percentage of our population attending football games, one of the highest in Europe I believe?

Less money should be spent on the wages of Doncaster etc. and more towards experts on advertising and marketing etc. Eddie Hearn came up here a few years back and said that if those who worked at the SPFL worked for him they’d be sacked due to being inept. There’s someone who’s an expert in selling sport realising that those in charge up here are drastically underselling our game and are out of their depth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreenGray]

They are the lower attendance ones but their isn’t the interest in the rest of the UK in those games bar perhaps the Edinburgh derby. They aren’t really going to attract viewers outside of Scotland.

Re attendances England have clubs in League 1 that’d dwarf those attendances. Also those attendances are very generous. Take the OF games and the derby out, you could hack 5k off each of them minimum.

England is a much bigger country, it isn’t a fair comparison at all when it comes to attendances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

No it doesn’t. It means Sky have bought the rights to all the league games, but will only show 40 or so. They prohibit the SPFL from selling the rights to all the other games, whether by individual clubs on PPV or as job lots to other broadcasters

I assume therefore the ‘exclusivity’ element is also priced in and if we were to say to Sky here’s your 40 but we are packaging up the rest to sell elsewhere then the Sky price would be less.

Maybe it’s possible that the price offered for the total rights but only show 40 is actually the most effective way of getting to the same figure?

I’ve no idea what the value of a SPFL TV deal should be but if most of the club Chairmen including the likes of Ron and the Aberdeen dude reckon this is a good deal then maybe it actually is, despite it appearing rather paltry versus some comparisons (which in turn could be apples v oranges!)

[Lago]

They are the lower attendance ones but their isn’t the interest in the rest of the UK in those games bar perhaps the Edinburgh derby. They aren’t really going to attract viewers outside of Scotland.

Re attendances England have clubs in League 1 that’d dwarf those attendances. Also those attendances are very generous. Take the OF games and the derby out, you could hack 5k off each of them minimum.
But it's not just the rest of the UK beyond the UK there's no TV audience for Scottish football, it's wishful thinking to believe you can make it happen with some advertising.

[GreenGray]

But it's not just the rest of the UK beyond the UK there's no TV audience for Scottish football, it's wishful thinking to believe you can make it happen with some advertising.

Was there an audience for English football overseas 30 years ago? Look at it now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

That’s not the whole story though is it. You’ve just selected some, low attendance games. What about Hibs vs Aberdeen, Killie. Or all Hearts home games. They’ll likely average 18k and us about 17k, Aberdeen maybe 15k , United maybe 7/8k. Smaller clubs at home vs old firm crowds are not bad. Of course then add in all the old firm home games- not many of them televised live

Apart from Rantic home games, SPFL attendances are roughly equivalent to what they get in the English League One. I doubt wall to wall advertising would make many of those games unmissible.

I'm absolutely certain that if there was a TV audience for our games, they'd be televised.

But, it's a moot point.

[Hibbyradge]

I didn't think I had anything to add, but I just thought that there is a limit to how many football matches a viewer can watch.

Even if we think that Scottish football is much better than it's reputation suggests, how many people are going to switch over from Arsenal v Spurs, or PSG v Marseille, or Bayern v Dortmund to watch Hibs v Dundee United?

More importantly, which broadcaster is going to drop their current offering for a 2 horse league?

[GreenGray]

Apart from Rantic home games, SPFL attendances are roughly equivalent to what they get in the English League One. I doubt wall to wall advertising would make many of those games unmissible.

I'm absolutely certain that if there was a TV audience for our games, they'd be televised.

But, it's a moot point.

There’s some big clubs in League 1, big clubs in a much bigger country than ours.

Advertisement in the Prem managed to make games like Burnley vs Southampton unmissable for some.

Would even a bit of effort to try advertise our game as something else other than just Celtic vs Rangers be a bad thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

There’s some big clubs in League 1, big clubs in a much bigger country than ours.

Advertisement in the Prem managed to make games like Burnley vs Southampton unmissable for some.

Would even a bit of effort to try advertise our game as something else other than just Celtic vs Rangers be a bad thing?




No, it wouldn't be a bad thing.l. It would be pointless, but certainly not a bad thing, if you ignore the waste of money.

[ancient hibee]

Nobody is trying to trump the deal. Tells you everything.

[GreenGray]

No, it wouldn't be a bad thing.l. It would be pointless, but certainly not a bad thing, if you ignore the waste of money.

Pointless how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

There’s some big clubs in League 1, big clubs in a much bigger country than ours.

Advertisement in the Prem managed to make games like Burnley vs Southampton unmissable for some.

Would even a bit of effort to try advertise our game as something else other than just Celtic vs Rangers be a bad thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think what you are actually talking about it branding not advertising.

The EPL effectively branded itself as the top national league in Europe and the TV money enabled it to attract some of the top players in the world.

Scottish Football could indeed improve its branding and look to carve some sort of niche but it’s really a folly to suggest it can compete against the top leagues in Europe. There is a reason we don’t see much outside of Italy, Germany and Spain beyond the EPL…most people really just don’t care no matter what the product is branded as.

Add in the fact that the league itself is a perennial two horse race and that half the games are played in front of a few thousand at best then even the best branding in the planet is not going to make the product much more attractive to outsiders.

And that’s before you even consider what a game televised from Ross County or the like looks like with sub optimal TV sight lines etc.

The investment needed to present a cohesive SPFL global brand to a worldwide TV audience just isn’t going to happen as the business case just doesn’t stack up.

That’s not to say there can’t and shouldn’t be improvements but there is a natural limit, especially from a TV revenue perspective.

[Hibee Daft]

I much prefer watching Scottish football to EPL

Altho if it doesnt include Hibs, Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Dundee United or Aberdeen i dont have much interest in watching.

English game is soulless and devoid of real fans.

[Keith_M]

So what;s the real reason The Rangers are refusing to agree to the deal?


Have they come up with a better alternative, or are they just being their usual awkward selves?

[Tyler Durden]

I assume therefore the ‘exclusivity’ element is also priced in and if we were to say to Sky here’s your 40 but we are packaging up the rest to sell elsewhere then the Sky price would be less.

Maybe it’s possible that the price offered for the total rights but only show 40 is actually the most effective way of getting to the same figure?

I’ve no idea what the value of a SPFL TV deal should be but if most of the club Chairmen including the likes of Ron and the Aberdeen dude reckon this is a good deal then maybe it actually is, despite it appearing rather paltry versus some comparisons (which in turn could be apples v oranges!)

It may be the best deal but it’s difficult to have any faith in the likes of Cormack when his update yesterday so woefully missed the mark.

If they want the fans invested in this, they need to have some transparency.

[Tyler Durden]

I think most people continue to miss the point that even if we are looking at domestic viewers only, this is not a good deal. It’s not about people in Europe watching Ross County vs St Mirren

[Hibbyradge]

Pointless how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wouldn't increase the SPFLs income.

[Glory Lurker]

Ich nichten lichten

[RyeSloan]

I think most people continue to miss the point that even if we are looking at domestic viewers only, this is not a good deal. It’s not about people in Europe watching Ross County vs St Mirren

Not being funny but what’s the workings behind you saying it’s not a good deal (I have no idea either way to be honest!)?

[Hibbyradge]

English game is soulless and devoid of real fans.

That's just silly.

[GreenGray]

I think what you are actually talking about it branding not advertising.

The EPL effectively branded itself as the top national league in Europe and the TV money enabled it to attract some of the top players in the world.

Scottish Football could indeed improve its branding and look to carve some sort of niche but it’s really a folly to suggest it can compete against the top leagues in Europe. There is a reason we don’t see much outside of Italy, Germany and Spain beyond the EPL…most people really just don’t care no matter what the product is branded as.

Add in the fact that the league itself is a perennial two horse race and that half the games are played in front of a few thousand at best then even the best branding in the planet is not going to make the product much more attractive to outsiders.

And that’s before you even consider what a game televised from Ross County or the like looks like with sub optimal TV sight lines etc.

The investment needed to present a cohesive SPFL global brand to a worldwide TV audience just isn’t going to happen as the business case just doesn’t stack up.

That’s not to say there can’t and shouldn’t be improvements but there is a natural limit, especially from a TV revenue perspective.

I’m not once claiming we should be competing with the top leagues, but we could be doing better than we are no doubt about it.

You talk about us being a two horse league, French and Germany are dominated by one team. Prem is basically two horse these days, as is La Liga.

It’s how you brand yourself outside of those teams that’s important, you wouldn’t know that other teams exist in Scotland outside the old firm because of the way we brand ourselves.

Some of the best games I’ve seen are between Hibs and Motherwell etc. but these aren’t the sort of games that get televised due to a **** TV deal. The only games that get shown are an old firm team playing against a team on a fraction of the budget who sit in all game and look to see out a result, and these are the games that people use to form their opinions on our game, it’s a rotten advertisement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreenGray]

That's just silly.

Is it? Go to Anfield, Emirates, The Etihad. The atmosphere is terrible, filled with tourists who don’t care about the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

I much prefer watching Scottish football to EPL

Altho if it doesnt include Hibs, Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Dundee United or Aberdeen i dont have much interest in watching.

English game is soulless and devoid of real fans.

The issue is you and I and countless others on here are the converted.

Most of us are football fans. Domestically the EPL largely caters to fans but internationally it is aimed at football consumers, same with the Champions League. By that I mean people with no familial or historical connection to a club but they will buy a strip, a TV subscription and engage on social media and the like.

It becomes a vicious cycle. The demand and thus revenue is largely driven by the global appeal of Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and probably Manchester City as well now. The trickle down effect of that then makes Bournemouth v Brentford, 2 clubs with a fraction of the heritage and pedigree of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, into a 'Super Sunday' blockbuster.

I was a semi regular attendee at Newcastle until recently and can't say I was ever blown away by the EPL, either quality of football or atmosphere. That was me having seen games involving Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd and Spurs over the years. Give me Raith v Partick on a Friday night anyday. Sadly though I'm a minority. Someone in Seoul, Addis Ababa, Kingston and Toronto wants to watch Bournemouth v Brentford, the same just isn't true of almost any Scottish game outside the OF derby.

[Hibbyradge]

Is it? Go to Anfield, Emirates, The Etihad. The atmosphere is terrible, filled with tourists who don’t care about the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it's very silly and you're totally mistaken.

For example, there's almost a lifetime wait for season tickets at Anfield. Liverpool fans register their kids as soon as they're born. That is, on the limited occasions that the list is open. The atmosphere there is terrific.

There may be some tourists, usually in the crap front rows, but 99% of the crowd, if not more, are regular fans.

[Wilson]

Deal approved.

Breaking news on BBC.

[GreenGray]

Yes it's very silly and you're totally mistaken.

For example, there's almost a lifetime wait for season tickets at Anfield. Liverpool fans register their kids as soon as they're born. That is, on the limited occasions that the list is open. The atmosphere there is terrific.

There may be some tourists, usually in the crap front rows, but 99% of the crowd, if not more, are regular fans.

You’re totally mistaken, there literally a group of fans opening a new singing section fan group in the Anfield Road stand as they recognise that the atmosphere is poor and needs to be improved. I’ve seen countless Liverpool fans complaining about the atmosphere. You’ll never walk alone is brilliant at the start then it all goes quiet.

Of course it’s still good for the really big games but that applies anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chippy]

I think most people continue to miss the point that even if we are looking at domestic viewers only, this is not a good deal. It’s not about people in Europe watching Ross County vs St Mirren

Good points. The domestic market includes many potential viewers who have never been to nor never will go to a live match at a stadium. I’m thinking about older folks, disabled, shielding ( me). Add to that folks who’d never or very rarely attend their teams away matches. I’d love to be able to subscribe to see every Hibs away match

[ScottB]

Our underlying, unique problem is that we are in the UK.

No, not bringing in politics here, fear not!

All the other, small leagues that may or may not get much higher amounts of cash for their deals exist inside their own broadcast market. Sweden’s version of Sky is most interested in showing Swedish football, then if it wants it can pick up cheaper rights to show English / Spanish / Italian / wherever games to its audience if they want it.

We exist in a market with the ‘biggest’ league in the world. All the broadcasters in our market are fighting to show that and the vast majority of audiences want to watch it. In a sense it’d be like comparing our TV deal to whatever Sweden’s 2nd or 3rd tier get.

If we had our own broadcast market, with Scottish football the thing the majority of the audience wanted, and much cheaper foreign access rights to the English game, things would maybe be different.

[Hibbyradge]

You’re totally mistaken, there literally a group of fans opening a new singing section fan group in the Anfield Road stand as they recognise that the atmosphere is poor and needs to be improved. I’ve seen countless Liverpool fans complaining about the atmosphere. You’ll never walk alone is brilliant at the start then it all goes quiet.

Of course it’s still good for the really big games but that applies anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The poster said that English football is "devoid of real fans".

If some fans think the atmosphere is lacking, it's nothing to do with visiting fans. There aren't thousands of tourists who don't care about the game in the Kop. I doubt there are any.

I was at Elland Road recently. The atmosphere was great, (even if I can't stand some of the their songs!)

PB mentioned Newcastle. Are we saying that all those fans aren't "real"?

Let's face it, if we could sell a couple of thousand, or even hundred, tickets to tourists every week, we'd be delighted.

[Hibbyradge]

Good points. The domestic market includes many potential viewers who have never been to nor never will go to a live match at a stadium. I’m thinking about older folks, disabled, shielding ( me). Add to that folks who’d never or very rarely attend their teams away matches. I’d love to be able to subscribe to see every Hibs away match

I'm sure that applies to fans of every club in those circumstances.

[GreenCastle]

The issue is you and I and countless others on here are the converted.

Most of us are football fans. Domestically the EPL largely caters to fans but internationally it is aimed at football consumers, same with the Champions League. By that I mean people with no familial or historical connection to a club but they will buy a strip, a TV subscription and engage on social media and the like.

It becomes a vicious cycle. The demand and thus revenue is largely driven by the global appeal of Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and probably Manchester City as well now. The trickle down effect of that then makes Bournemouth v Brentford, 2 clubs with a fraction of the heritage and pedigree of Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen, into a 'Super Sunday' blockbuster.

I was a semi regular attendee at Newcastle until recently and can't say I was ever blown away by the EPL, either quality of football or atmosphere. That was me having seen games involving Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd and Spurs over the years. Give me Raith v Partick on a Friday night anyday. Sadly though I'm a minority. Someone in Seoul, Addis Ababa, Kingston and Toronto wants to watch Bournemouth v Brentford, the same just isn't true of almost any Scottish game outside the OF derby.

I’m not sure even many fans out with the Old Firm fans want to watch them play abroad. Usually just fans from either team who live abroad / who are on holiday.

[Donegal Hibby]

I’m not even sure there is some awful dross in it. I agree I’m not fancying watching a Bournemouth game but that’s more down to them being a really small club with a tiny support.

Outside the top 8 there are some unbelievable squads with superb players like Wolves, Newcastle, Villa, Palace, Leeds and Brighton.

The scariest thing about the PL is the domestic TV deal is not their biggest earner. The international rights have overtaken that.
When I said awful dross I ment some of the matches can be quite poor and not great entertainment . sorry . Some average players playing in it too though over all there's probably more really good players than not. Look at Scotland players down in it at the minute Mcginn, Tierney , Robertson ,Christie all a product from the Scottish premier that's why I can't understand why Sky doesn't invest more in Scottish premier it would benefit them and the and the English premier to have a good quality Scottish premier Win win for all parties.McCormck says it's a good deal 150million over 5years .I think it is poor deal with sky controlling all rights to Scottish football . If you look at when rangers had Defoe on loan I'm sure I read Bournemouth had him on 130'000 a week ,A club with a ground capacity under12'000 I think .Sky will punt as much money as they can down in England yet our own leagues on the crumbs they offer us

[Winston Ingram]

But it's not just the rest of the UK beyond the UK there's no TV audience for Scottish football, it's wishful thinking to believe you can make it happen with some advertising.

Totally agree. It’s more than wishful. I think the Mainstream media think that as the Uglies are ‘global’ they think the demand is global and therefore more attractive. It’s not. The uglies global fan base is 99% ex-pats from Scotland and Ireland.

[Winston Ingram]

Is it? Go to Anfield, Emirates, The Etihad. The atmosphere is terrible, filled with tourists who don’t care about the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been to all of them. That’s just not true. There are some but they are comfortably in the minority.

[RyeSloan]

I’m not once claiming we should be competing with the top leagues, but we could be doing better than we are no doubt about it.

You talk about us being a two horse league, French and Germany are dominated by one team. Prem is basically two horse these days, as is La Liga.

It’s how you brand yourself outside of those teams that’s important, you wouldn’t know that other teams exist in Scotland outside the old firm because of the way we brand ourselves.

Some of the best games I’ve seen are between Hibs and Motherwell etc. but these aren’t the sort of games that get televised due to a **** TV deal. The only games that get shown are an old firm team playing against a team on a fraction of the budget who sit in all game and look to see out a result, and these are the games that people use to form their opinions on our game, it’s a rotten advertisement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said I don’t disagree that we could be doing better and that the league could and should be branding itself better…I literally said that in my post.

My response was mainly to you suggesting we advertise more and I was trying(but maybe failing!) to highlight that I think you were meaning more branding than advertising. They are related but two rather different things.

But my other point still stands though that even a successful rebrand has natural limits and that’s how our league would still compare against all the other ‘competitors’ for the TV and sponsors dollar. And that I don’t think that natural limit is anywhere near as high as maybe you or others would like to think it is.

But I’m not gonna pretend I’m any expert and will happily admit you may well be more right and me more wrong on that limit.

There is another angle though…what you and others are really asking for is more commercialisation. The driving of revenues by shaping the brand and product to be more attractive to a wider audience.

We’ve seen plenty on here already since Ron arrived about how even a modicum of that can lead to people feeling disconnected or complaining about traditional kick off times not being a thing anymore or bemoaning a focus on match day experience etc so even if the league did go all out on this then it may well be just as unpopular a move than the ‘crap’ TV deal currently is!!

[GreenGray]

The poster said that English football is "devoid of real fans".

If some fans think the atmosphere is lacking, it's nothing to do with visiting fans. There aren't thousands of tourists who don't care about the game in the Kop. I doubt there are any.

I was at Elland Road recently. The atmosphere was great, (even if I can't stand some of the their songs!)

PB mentioned Newcastle. Are we saying that all those fans aren't "real"?

Let's face it, if we could sell a couple of thousand, or even hundred, tickets to tourists every week, we'd be delighted.

You’ve picked out Elland Road, the best atmosphere in the Prem!

Go to St Mary’s, Etihad, Bournemouth’s stadium, it’s poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

are the filthy buns getting an apology then :rolleyes:

[Lago]

I much prefer watching Scottish football to EPL

Altho if it doesnt include Hibs, Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Dundee United or Aberdeen i dont have much interest in watching.

English game is soulless and devoid of real fans.
Having lived and worked in Stevenage I can assure you my next door neighbour was an avid Arsenal fan, I worked with Spurs and QPR fans, they were all as"real" and committed to their various clubs as any Hibs fans I've sat beside at ER.

[GreenGray]

As I said I don’t disagree that we could be doing better and that the league could and should be branding itself better…I literally said that in my post.

My response was mainly to you suggesting we advertise more and I was trying(but maybe failing!) to highlight that I think you were meaning more branding than advertising. They are related but two rather different things.

But my other point still stands though that even a successful rebrand has natural limits and that’s how our league would still compare against all the other ‘competitors’ for the TV and sponsors dollar. And that I don’t think that natural limit is anywhere near as high as maybe you or others would like to think it is.

But I’m not gonna pretend I’m any expert and will happily admit you may well be more right and me more wrong on that limit.

There is another angle though…what you and others are really asking for is more commercialisation. The driving of revenues by shaping the brand and product to be more attractive to a wider audience.

We’ve seen plenty on here already since Ron arrived about how even a modicum of that can lead to people feeling disconnected or complaining about traditional kick off times not being a thing anymore or bemoaning a focus on match day experience etc so even if the league did go all out on this then it may well be just as unpopular a move than the ‘crap’ TV deal currently is!!

I suppose we will never know the true natural limit until our game is advertised/branded better than it currently is! It’s no use comparing ourselves to England which is a completely different beast!

My main gripe is with those who genuinely believe this deal is the best we can get, and that those in charge can’t do any better than they currently are.

I saw someone say “well no one else came in and bid” that’s because they weren’t able to! The deal isn’t up for another year yet the SPFL and the clubs decided to take the offer that was on the table anyway! That just seems bizzare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Helensburghhibs]

The reason every game is shown live somewhere is because they have the audience. There is no audience for the majority of SPFL games outwith the clubs' own supporters and maybe a small interested niche.

This is interesting. What therefore makes paying for hobs, hearts aberdeen etc viable? There would be the same demand from oversees supporters plus any extra demand from domestic ones

[Helensburghhibs]

No it doesn’t. It means Sky have bought the rights to all the league games, but will only show 40 or so. They prohibit the SPFL from selling the rights to all the other games, whether by individual clubs on PPV or as job lots to other broadcasters

His argument is we got paid x amount for 48 games. We didnt we got paid x amount for circa 500 games

[Hibbyradge]

You’ve picked out Elland Road, the best atmosphere in the Prem!

Go to St Mary’s, Etihad, Bournemouth’s stadium, it’s poor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are they all devoid of real fans, then?

[Tommy75]

I don’t think using attendances given the cost of living crisis and other factors is a good indicator, as I said previously we have a high percentage of our population attending football games, one of the highest in Europe I believe?

Less money should be spent on the wages of Doncaster etc. and more towards experts on advertising and marketing etc. Eddie Hearn came up here a few years back and said that if those who worked at the SPFL worked for him they’d be sacked due to being inept. There’s someone who’s an expert in selling sport realising that those in charge up here are drastically underselling our game and are out of their depth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Rangers and Celtic inflate the figures so much so that I never think the 'attendance per population' argument is a very good one. We only have about 5 teams who could take 15k to a cup final.

[GreenGray]

Are they all devoid of real fans, then?

Of course not, you don’t think the guy you replied to was being slightly hyperbolic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreenGray]

I think Rangers and Celtic inflate the figures so much so that I never think the 'attendance per population' argument is a very good one. We only have about 5 teams who could take 15k to a cup final.

I’m fairly certain I saw a statistic that showed even without Celtic and rangers we are still up there, could be wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chippy]

His argument is we got paid x amount for 48 games. We didnt we got paid x amount for circa 500 games

228 games for premier plus play offs

[Donegal Hibby]

It's been said that the Scottish premier isn't very appealing and that Football Fans outside Scotland haven't any interest in it . Surely with proper investment improving all aspects of the league would create a larger audience for viewing the games and would be in Sky's interest too? The meeting about it is this week .Have a feeling rangers won't back the deal which would leave Livingston with deciding vote that's if it's still 11-1 to get the deal passed? Last question here we have heard of rangers views on it and Aberdeen though has anything been said from our camp on the deal yet?

[bigwheel]

It's been said that the Scottish premier isn't very appealing and that Football Fans outside Scotland haven't any interest in it . Surely with proper investment improving all aspects of the league would create a larger audience for viewing the games and would be in Sky's interest too? The meeting about it is this week .Have a feeling rangers won't back the deal which would leave Livingston with deciding vote that's if it's still 11-1 to get the deal passed? Last question here we have heard of rangers views on it and Aberdeen though has anything been said from our camp on the deal yet?

They’ve all approved it now

[Donegal Hibby]

They’ve all approved it now
Thanks .Still think it's not really a good deal but if it's the only one on the table we had to take it I suppose .As they say beggars cant be Choosey :greengrin

[GreenGray]

Thanks .Still think it's not really a good deal but if it's the only one on the table we had to take it I suppose .As they say beggars cant be Choosey :greengrin

It was the only deal on the table because there was still a year left on the ordinal deal! Which meant no other broadcasters could bid! SPFL could have waited a year and put it out to tender but they didn’t because Sky have them bent over a barrel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Helensburghhibs]

228 games for premier plus play offs

Apologies was a typo

[Donegal Hibby]

It was the only deal on the table because there was still a year left on the ordinal deal! Which meant no other broadcasters could bid! SPFL could have waited a year and put it out to tender but they didn’t because Sky have them bent over a barrel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cheers . Didn't realize there was a year left.

[superfurryhibby]

I think Rangers and Celtic inflate the figures so much so that I never think the 'attendance per population' argument is a very good one. We only have about 5 teams who could take 15k to a cup final.

You might need to recalculate the 5 clubs that could take 15k plus to a cup final statement. Dundee Utl , St Johnstone and Ross County have all had crowds in excess of 45,000 at recent finals, Falkirk v Inverness had over 37,000.

[Keith_M]

So are the The Rangers gonna go in the huff now they've been outvoted?

[Donegal Hibby]

So are the The Rangers gonna go in the huff now they've been outvoted?
They are walking away it's the rangers way :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Of course not, you don’t think the guy you replied to was being slightly hyperbolic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, he double downed on it when I said it was silly.

He was blaming poor atmospheres on tourists but we're always moaning about atmosphere and we're not "devoid of real fans".

Anyway, this has gone offtrack so enough.

[JOD]

They are walking away it's the rangers way :greengrin

I didn't think think they did walking away. 🤔

[Donegal Hibby]

I didn't think think they did walking away. 🤔
All started for them on 2016 :greengrin

[poolman]

So are the The Rangers gonna go in the huff now they've been outvoted?



I'm sure there will be a statement coming shortly

[lucky]

I'm not getting how people are saying this is a poor deal. Sky was the only offer on the table, BT previously offered a lot less and when the league switched to Setanta it then fell apart. If Scottish football was such a great buy for a Tv company then surely Premier Sports would have invested more? Many have criticised RG for the decisions he's made since he came into Hibs but he is a Tv executive and commercially savvy. Scottish football is not popular outside of Scotland, the majority of football fans in the rest of the Uk just don't rate it and aren't interested in it apart from the Old Firm.

[Helensburghhibs]

I'm not getting how people are saying this is a poor deal. Sky was the only offer on the table, BT previously offered a lot less and when the league switched to Setanta it then fell apart. If Scottish football was such a great buy for a Tv company then surely Premier Sports would have invested more? Many have criticised RG for the decisions he's made since he came into Hibs but he is a Tv executive and commercially savvy. Scottish football is not popular outside of Scotland, the majority of football fans in the rest of the Uk just don't rate it and aren't interested in it apart from the Old Firm.

Sky was the only offer allowed as the contract wasnt up.

[GreenGray]

I'm not getting how people are saying this is a poor deal. Sky was the only offer on the table, BT previously offered a lot less and when the league switched to Setanta it then fell apart. If Scottish football was such a great buy for a Tv company then surely Premier Sports would have invested more? Many have criticised RG for the decisions he's made since he came into Hibs but he is a Tv executive and commercially savvy. Scottish football is not popular outside of Scotland, the majority of football fans in the rest of the Uk just don't rate it and aren't interested in it apart from the Old Firm.

Read roughly 10 posts up for my answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil MaGlass]

Maybe we shouldn't be renegotiating a year before the end of a contract, hopefully its out of the new contract?

[Spudster]

Your argument re country size falls down very quickly. Let's look at Denmark - they have roughly 10% higher population than Scotland but their tv deal brings in 100% more revenue than in Scotland. Is there a massive audience for Danish football outside of their borders? Is there more worldwide interest in Brondby than Celtic?

And for that deal Denmark broadcast 250 games a season compared to Scotland's 48. If we were to broadcast that many it would annihilate gate receipts which is the main revenue source for Scottish clubs. That shows in the average attendances to: Denmark top flight 5,871 vs Scotland 15,929.

[chippy]

And for that deal Denmark broadcast 250 games a season compared to Scotland's 48. If we were to broadcast that many it would annihilate gate receipts which is the main revenue source for Scottish clubs. That shows in the average attendances to: Denmark top flight 5,871 vs Scotland 15,929.
Other countries like Sweden and Netherlands report that streaming all matches has led to growing numbers of fans attending live matches. I do understand the anti live TV concept but over exposure doesn’t seem to have harmed other leagues, indeed it seems to help in several cases. I do note that every club in this deal are able to stream 5 of their home matches on PPV at at times outwith the Sky schedule. It seems that conservatism has won out and that they are taking baby steps. Am i alone in having the view that I’d love to have a PPV subscription for all Hibs away games? In not streaming live games we are ignoring the market of armchair fans who can’t attend live due to disability, distance or simply those who’ll never attend live ever. The Live game experience is so different and better for a fan as to be not comparable and I don’t think think live games will reduce gates at all. Historically I think the idea of TV stopping fans attending was based of the mass use of TV from the late 50s and 60s when the post war attendance boom collapsed. It wasn’t even football on TV , it was anything. There does seem to be a way to grow TV revenues substantially, maintain attendances. Increased revenue can lead to better players and a virtuous cycle can continue

[Hibs90]

Mental to think Dungcaster is on 400k a year.

Need to ping him out the game

[Tyler Durden]

And for that deal Denmark broadcast 250 games a season compared to Scotland's 48. If we were to broadcast that many it would annihilate gate receipts which is the main revenue source for Scottish clubs. That shows in the average attendances to: Denmark top flight 5,871 vs Scotland 15,929.

Chippy has answered this one for me.

The evidence suggests a move to more streaming would not annihilate gate receipts.

[Tyler Durden]

Not being funny but what’s the workings behind you saying it’s not a good deal (I have no idea either way to be honest!)?

Few points on why many feel it's a poor deal

* It's massively lower than similar benchmarked leagues - Denmark, Norway etc (the argument on why is on this thread)
* It appears the league have jumped the gun here, taking an offer from Sky 2 years before the current deal expires. No indication they have really explored other options properly. What have we really gained by taking this now?
* It's a minimal % increase on the prior deal. When the prior deal was agreed in 2018, the league suggested that they expected TV revenue to double to £40m by 2023. Now we won't even reach that figure by 2029.
* The lack of any real innovation. We're locked in to this Sky model until 2029 when the market will continue to evolve. Surely there should have been scope for teams to sell more of their games directly to streaming?

It does seem that Deloitte's report suggested we go down this route, which I do find surprising. It just smacks of teams wanting the safe option and some certainty to help planning. Understandable but it's a missed opportunity IMO.

[Donegal Hibby]

The Scotsman has a article up today pros and cons of sky TV deal .Haven't read it myself yet

[RyeSloan]

Few points on why many feel it's a poor deal

* It's massively lower than similar benchmarked leagues - Denmark, Norway etc (the argument on why is on this thread)
* It appears the league have jumped the gun here, taking an offer from Sky 2 years before the current deal expires. No indication they have really explored other options properly. What have we really gained by taking this now?
* It's a minimal % increase on the prior deal. When the prior deal was agreed in 2018, the league suggested that they expected TV revenue to double to £40m by 2023. Now we won't even reach that figure by 2029.
* The lack of any real innovation. We're locked in to this Sky model until 2029 when the market will continue to evolve. Surely there should have been scope for teams to sell more of their games directly to streaming?

It does seem that Deloitte's report suggested we go down this route, which I do find surprising. It just smacks of teams wanting the safe option and some certainty to help planning. Understandable but it's a missed opportunity IMO.

Appreciate the response and maybe your right…I’d suggest that you last thought is probably the crux of it to be honest. Very much a bird in the hand approach.

[McD]

It was me that brought up the EPL and I really don't mean we should compare the two cause it's night and day the difference .Though SPFL should definitely be looking at them to see if there's anyways of improving our game.Sadly with what Sky's offering is pretty poor imo and is below value for the Scottish game .probably no competitors for TV deal so just offer them the minimum.Other thing I think is leagues becoming stale , It's to small and teams are playing each other to much and yet again nothing can be done as Sky demand there 4 old firm.We are stuck in a rut and Sky has us by the buster browns.Know it won't happen but if Sky paid more money which they should that would improve league , better players , stadium upgrades etc etc and in the long run might attract a bigger audience to view the Scottish game .Win Win for Sky too.


why ‘should’ sky (or any other company) pay more? They’re a business, looking to maximise their profit. they’ll offer what they think they can get the spfl negotiation team to accept, and be prepared to wiggle a little bit.

They offer a deal, which they’ll believe has a fair price for what they’re asking for. If our league/organisation thinks it can do better, then they should go out and get a better deal, but it’s a nonsense to say that sky ‘should’ pay us more. They have no reason to pay us more.

what you’ve described, that more money equals improved league, better players and better stadiums is not rational at all, look at hearts, they’ve had more money than most for the past 20 plus years and they fail every one of those better criteria. Sky would be taking a massive gamble that what you’ve said could come to pass, and their owners would rightly ask for the proof that a greater outlay on their part would even increase the money sky gets back in advertising and subscriptions etc, never mind a return on investment.


for the record, I do think it’s not a great deal, and that we should be looking at more radical ways of maximising our tv/streaming/viewing generated income, but I don’t think we should or can be looking to sky and saying they ‘should’ be providing more funding. It’s up to us to force them to up their offers. They’ll have the numbers of what they can expect to earn from selling the content abroad, and they’ll have numbers telling them the expected increase of income for them if they were to simply increase their financial input (leading to a possible better product as predicted by some on this thread). Sky have been making good profits for a long time by knowing their business and markets well, that’s why they stopped bidding for the champions league, because they felt it wasn’t worth the money BT were willing to throw at it. They won’t simply throw money at something without doing their homework and making sure it’ll work for them. The onus is on the spfl to do something to change that dynamic

[A Hi-Bee]

Just been reading the q&A on the bbc website and it would seem that our very own main man was very instrumental in getting this deal done with sky along with donkey, can someone please remind me how Ron made his initial millions.
With the hun still being the spoilt brat and demanding not just an apology from donkey and his crew but they also want money, they are a bit short it appears, dont know what they do with it all, but this is the deal thats one the table and now signed, they say that all clubs will be better off, so that is not to like about that, perhaps it could have been more but the negotiators certainly know a bit more about the business than most.

[Billy Whizz]

Does this mean that Hibs, or any other team can move their fixtures from Saturday 3pm, so they can sell PPV
If this is the case going to be a lot of disruption for fans

“All cinch Premiership clubs being able to sell Pay Per View streams within the UK and Ireland of up to five league home games per season, with immediate effect, subject to certain conditions including no matches during blocked hours”

[Helensburghhibs]

Does this mean that Hibs, or any other team can move their fixtures from Saturday 3pm, so they can sell PPV
If this is the case going to be a lot of disruption for fans

“All cinch Premiership clubs being able to sell Pay Per View streams within the UK and Ireland of up to five league home games per season, with immediate effect, subject to certain conditions including no matches during blocked hours”

I wonder if blocked hours means 3pm or hours that sky are showing a game

[Billy Whizz]

I wonder if blocked hours means 3pm or hours that sky are showing a game

Blocked hours are 3pm on a Saturday

[chippy]

Blocked hours are 3pm on a Saturday

Are you sure it’s just that ? I think the Aberdeen v Hibs games is being moved to a Friday night which I reckon will be for live streaming.

[Eyrie]

Does this mean that Hibs, or any other team can move their fixtures from Saturday 3pm, so they can sell PPV
If this is the case going to be a lot of disruption for fans

“All cinch Premiership clubs being able to sell Pay Per View streams within the UK and Ireland of up to five league home games per season, with immediate effect, subject to certain conditions including no matches during blocked hours”

The home club will want to pick games which will attract as many PPV viewers as possible and, since Sky will show the Ugly Sisters away games, that means that it'll be visits from us, Aberdeen and Hearts that should be the most popular choices.

That suits me as someone who doesn't go to away games but I have some sympathy for those that do go and will have the disruption.

[Billy Whizz]

Are you sure it’s just that ? I think the Aberdeen v Hibs games is being moved to a Friday night which I reckon will be for live streaming.

All I meant was pre and post Covid, you couldn’t live stream in the UK, 3pm kick offs at 3pm Saturday
Scottish Cup semi finals etc, had 12.15pm kick offs, so they would finish before 3pm

[Donegal Hibby]

Interesting read in Scotsman . Doncaster has his say on TV deal .

[Keith_M]

"Neil Doncaster claims Rangers were going to vote for new Sky TV deal but only if SPFL apologised for cinch row"


https://www.hibs.net/newreply.php?p=7112063&noquote=1

[CapitalGreen]

I wonder if blocked hours means 3pm or hours that sky are showing a game

Both I’d imagine.

[Donegal Hibby]

Missed chance. Rangers chief Bisgrove names five other broadcasting companies SFA could have gone for. Story in Scottish sun .

[H18 SFR]

Missed chance. Rangers chief Bisgrove names five other broadcasting companies SFA could have gone for. Story in Scottish sun .

Are the SFA involved in a deal between the SPFL and broadcasters?

[Donegal Hibby]

Are the SFA involved in a deal between the SPFL and broadcasters?
Sorry my mistake should have been SPFL . :aok:

[HH81]

Missed chance. Rangers chief Bisgrove names five other broadcasting companies SFA could have gone for. Story in Scottish sun .

If it's in the sun it's absolute bollocks. The sun newspaper can GTF.

[Since452]

Missed chance. Rangers chief Bisgrove names five other broadcasting companies SFA could have gone for. Story in Scottish sun .

Two reasons why it will be a load of bollocks.

[Donegal Hibby]

Two reasons why it will be a load of bollocks.
Not denying anything coming out of two aren't a load of bollocks btw. Scotsman has also went with story only it's 4 instead of 5 .also have story up now that the Scottish league has there strongest financial results on record in there 132 years of the league due to ' Cinch and Sky deals .

[hibee-boys]

I’m not really up to speed on what the new contract conditions are but are this would votes through by the clubs from what I understand, are we in any doubt that the likes of Ron Gordon, and fellow financial directors, are going to sanction a deal unless they are sure it’s not the best we can come up with.

[Wilson]

I’m not really up to speed on what the new contract conditions are but are this would votes through by the clubs from what I understand, are we in any doubt that the likes of Ron Gordon, and fellow financial directors, are going to sanction a deal unless they are sure it’s not the best we can come up with.

Reading Martindale's comments I think we've collectively gone for the right deal rather than the best we can come up with. He described this as a good deal but not a great one.

Given that we are just through a pandemic and with the costs starting to bite it is no surprise we've gone for certainty and security rather than being a bit adventurous.

[Lago]

:top marks
Reading Martindale's comments I think we've collectively gone for the right deal rather than the best we can come up with. He described this as a good deal but not a great one.

Given that we are just through a pandemic and with the costs starting to bite it is no surprise we've gone for certainty and security rather than being a bit adventurous.

[1875Sean]

Missed chance. Rangers chief Bisgrove names five other broadcasting companies SFA could have gone for. Story in Scottish sun .

It’s phrased like they were interested however if you read the article he is just naming broadcasting companies, big difference from them being interested or making a offer

[Donegal Hibby]

It’s phrased like they were interested however if you read the article he is just naming broadcasting companies, big difference from them being interested or making a offer
Yeah typical rangers though trying to stir things up cause they didn't get what they wanted .Thought what Martindale said about it was on the money . Not a great deal but a good deal . Probably cause it was only one on offer too.

[xyz23jc]

If it's in the sun it's absolute bollocks. The sun newspaper can GTF.

Did they no run a story recently about the 'Old Filth'c. possibly being in the 'Best League In The World#' as a possibility? FFS. :rolleyes:

[xyz23jc]

Reading Martindale's comments I think we've collectively gone for the right deal rather than the best we can come up with. He described this as a good deal but not a great one.

Given that we are just through a pandemic and with the costs starting to bite it is no surprise we've gone for certainty and security rather than being a bit adventurous.

In the current political/economic/social climate seems reasonable enough, IMHO!

[Donegal Hibby]

Theres footage up in the Scotsmans marking a 150 years of the Scottish game for anyone that wants to watch it?

[Donegal Hibby]

It was short and quick but interesting all the same.That was some goal btw ,wonder what year and against who?