SKY TV Deal

[NAE NOOKIE]

Apart from the damaging effect their obvious obsession with the uglies has on our game and their bizarre choice of games to cover at the erse end of the Scottish season, which would have any normal football association thumping the table in frustration, there's something else the SPFL has to start thinking about now.

Rupert Murdoch's lot have just been forced to ante up not far off a billion dollars in the US after their FOX News fascist pish channel had to own their lies. There's a case pending for a far larger amount from another company they have defamed, with every chance it will be settled out of court for another billion or even more.

Even a business as big as Murdoch's is will be looking at where to cut costs after such a massive hit and it will be hard to see their Scottish football coverage not being on the radar ..... IMO the SPFL have until 2029 to source a new broadcaster and if they don't start that process now with no thought of an offer from SKY being on the table they really are as terminally stupid as we all think they are.

[nonshinyfinish]

Don't think there's any connection between Murdoch/Fox and Sky anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/26/rupert-murdochs-sky-reign-to-end-as-fox-sells-all-shares-to-comcast

[Ringothedog]

Don't think there's any connection between Murdoch/Fox and Sky anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/26/rupert-murdochs-sky-reign-to-end-as-fox-sells-all-shares-to-comcast

Not for about 5 years

[Pretty Boy]

I was quite interested to hear Neil Doncaster say that Ron Gordon played a big part in the negotiations for the new TV deal and was a big support to him in the fall out after the deal was announced.

Given RGs background in sports broadcasting and just broadcasting in general I can't imagine he would have settled for such a deal easily. Maybe there just has to be an acceptance that Scottish football is a pretty niche product and there isn't a huge demand for the rights to it. BT Sports were quite rightly praised for their Scottish football output but when it came down to it they weren't willing to stump up the cash that Sky were to either keep the shared rights or go it alone.

I'm just not sure where we go looking for a new broadcaster. The only other obvious option is Viaplay and they are even more OF centric than Sky.

[Trinity Hibee]

I was quite interested to hear Neil Doncaster say that Ron Gordon played a big part in the negotiations for the new TV deal and was a big support to him in the fall out after the deal was announced.

Given RGs background in sports broadcasting and just broadcasting in general I can't imagine he would have settled for such a deal easily. Maybe there just has to be an acceptance that Scottish football is a pretty niche product and there isn't a huge demand for the rights to it. BT Sports were quite rightly praised for their Scottish football output but when it came down to it they weren't willing to stump up the cash that Sky were to either keep the shared rights or go it alone.

I'm just not sure where we go looking for a new broadcaster. The only other obvious option is Viaplay and they are even more OF centric than Sky.

It won’t happen as they don’t have the funds but it would be great if BBC Scotland could cover some of the league games. The Friday night championship slot is very good i think. Even if it was just a couple of games a month. Make it accessible to people

[NAE NOOKIE]

Don't think there's any connection between Murdoch/Fox and Sky anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/26/rupert-murdochs-sky-reign-to-end-as-fox-sells-all-shares-to-comcast

I stand corrected.

It still leaves questions about the current deal though .... the choice of what games to cover and them not even taking up their full allocation has to lead to some sort of discussion between the league and them. They are doing nothing to promote a wider view of our game, especially when they ignore what in Scottish football terms are matches that are incredibly attractive .... I would rather watch St Johnstone fighting a last gasp battle with Kilmarnock with a place in the playoffs for the loser than Celtic play anybody in what could be a dead rubber.

[Ringothedog]

I stand corrected.

It still leaves questions about the current deal though .... the choice of what games to cover and them not even taking up their full allocation has to lead to some sort of discussion between the league and them. They are doing nothing to promote a wider view of our game, especially when they ignore what in Scottish football terms are matches that are incredibly attractive .... I would rather watch St Johnstone fighting a last gasp battle with Kilmarnock with a place in the playoffs for the loser than Celtic play anybody in what could be a dead rubber.

How many games will they have shown?

[Dmas]

I think we need a subscription model fans can pay and get access to all games use the fan tv model for games and see if we can partner with sunset and vine productions for the game of the week do it gets a better level of coverage, we could then have our own highlights programme talk shows and round ups/build up shows through out the week to keep people using the service with high numbers subscribed they can sort advertisements and really start trying to show case the full game instead of just the top league and 2 teams in it.
I’m pretty sure I read that if sky lose the EFL rights to dazn then it would end the 3pm blackout we could be broadcasting every game if that’s the case

[Torto7]

I was quite interested to hear Neil Doncaster say that Ron Gordon played a big part in the negotiations for the new TV deal and was a big support to him in the fall out after the deal was announced.

Given RGs background in sports broadcasting and just broadcasting in general I can't imagine he would have settled for such a deal easily. Maybe there just has to be an acceptance that Scottish football is a pretty niche product and there isn't a huge demand for the rights to it. BT Sports were quite rightly praised for their Scottish football output but when it came down to it they weren't willing to stump up the cash that Sky were to either keep the shared rights or go it alone.

I'm just not sure where we go looking for a new broadcaster. The only other obvious option is Viaplay and they are even more OF centric than Sky.

It isn't. The Old firm game rates higher than all but the biggest EPL games. Hibs vs Hearts rates similar to lower end Prem/Bigger Championship games. The ratings are very good, higher than Super League, women's football etc. One problem is the associated ad revenues. Corporations in the UK view Scotland as a remote region and have little interest in targeting their products at the SPL audience. It's perception quite frankly and prejudice.

[gbhibby]

Don't think there's any connection between Murdoch/Fox and Sky anymore: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/26/rupert-murdochs-sky-reign-to-end-as-fox-sells-all-shares-to-comcast
Missed Fox News when Sky dropped it from its channel list,missed its high quality in depth impartial journalism.
😁😁😁😁

[Michael]

I asked Chat GPT to estimate the numbers of a subscription service:

To calculate the number of subscribers needed at £15 per month, let's first determine the annual revenue and costs based on the information provided earlier.


1. Annual revenue from the existing TV deal: Approximately £32 million.


2. Annual costs of maintaining the streaming platform: This is more challenging to estimate, but let's assume the ongoing annual costs are around £3 million (within the £1 million to £5 million range mentioned earlier).


Now, let's calculate the annual revenue per subscriber. Since the subscription price is £15 per month, the annual revenue per subscriber is:


£15 * 12 months = £180 per subscriber


Next, we'll calculate the total annual revenue required to cover both the TV deal revenue and the streaming platform's costs:


Total annual revenue required = Annual TV deal revenue + Annual costs
Total annual revenue required = £32 million + £3 million = £35 million


Finally, we'll divide the total annual revenue required by the annual revenue per subscriber to find the number of subscribers needed:


Number of subscribers = Total annual revenue required / Annual revenue per subscriber
Number of subscribers = £35,000,000 / £180 ≈ 194,444 subscribers


Therefore, at £15 per month, the SPFL would need approximately 194,444 subscribers to make the streaming platform viable, covering both the revenue from the existing TV deal and the costs of maintaining the platform. Please note that these calculations are based on rough estimates, and the actual figures could vary.

[wookie70]

I asked Chat GPT to estimate the numbers of a subscription service:

To calculate the number of subscribers needed at £15 per month, let's first determine the annual revenue and costs based on the information provided earlier.


1. Annual revenue from the existing TV deal: Approximately £32 million.


2. Annual costs of maintaining the streaming platform: This is more challenging to estimate, but let's assume the ongoing annual costs are around £3 million (within the £1 million to £5 million range mentioned earlier).


Now, let's calculate the annual revenue per subscriber. Since the subscription price is £15 per month, the annual revenue per subscriber is:


£15 * 12 months = £180 per subscriber


Next, we'll calculate the total annual revenue required to cover both the TV deal revenue and the streaming platform's costs:


Total annual revenue required = Annual TV deal revenue + Annual costs
Total annual revenue required = £32 million + £3 million = £35 million


Finally, we'll divide the total annual revenue required by the annual revenue per subscriber to find the number of subscribers needed:


Number of subscribers = Total annual revenue required / Annual revenue per subscriber
Number of subscribers = £35,000,000 / £180 ≈ 194,444 subscribers


Therefore, at £15 per month, the SPFL would need approximately 194,444 subscribers to make the streaming platform viable, covering both the revenue from the existing TV deal and the costs of maintaining the platform. Please note that these calculations are based on rough estimates, and the actual figures could vary.

The footage would surely have sell on potential and there is no reason that advertising/sponsorship cannot be generated within a self contained model

[number9dream]

Maybe it was the best deal on the table, maybe it was the only deal on the table.
The clubs are right to complain about not being able to show PPV when a Sky game is on but it's in the contract they all signed up to.
I find it hard to believe nobody read the small print.
Anyhoo, we're stuck with Sky until 2029. Let's hope there's a bit of room to manoeuvre on PPV but the reality is we're just filling gaps in their schedule. It's even in the women's game now, with the Edinburgh derby on a Saturday night at 19:45 - useless for a family friendly fixture.

[Michael]

The footage would surely have sell on potential and there is no reason that advertising/sponsorship cannot be generated within a self contained model

Yeah, this is true too. I think in-house is the way forward.

[Eyrie]

I asked Chat GPT to estimate the numbers of a subscription service:

To calculate the number of subscribers needed at £15 per month, let's first determine the annual revenue and costs based on the information provided earlier.


1. Annual revenue from the existing TV deal: Approximately £32 million.


2. Annual costs of maintaining the streaming platform: This is more challenging to estimate, but let's assume the ongoing annual costs are around £3 million (within the £1 million to £5 million range mentioned earlier).


Now, let's calculate the annual revenue per subscriber. Since the subscription price is £15 per month, the annual revenue per subscriber is:


£15 * 12 months = £180 per subscriber


Next, we'll calculate the total annual revenue required to cover both the TV deal revenue and the streaming platform's costs:


Total annual revenue required = Annual TV deal revenue + Annual costs
Total annual revenue required = £32 million + £3 million = £35 million


Finally, we'll divide the total annual revenue required by the annual revenue per subscriber to find the number of subscribers needed:


Number of subscribers = Total annual revenue required / Annual revenue per subscriber
Number of subscribers = £35,000,000 / £180 ≈ 194,444 subscribers


Therefore, at £15 per month, the SPFL would need approximately 194,444 subscribers to make the streaming platform viable, covering both the revenue from the existing TV deal and the costs of maintaining the platform. Please note that these calculations are based on rough estimates, and the actual figures could vary.

Simple maths says 70000 howling bigots plus 70000 howling bigots plus 60000 football fans = 200000.

Not convinced that's achievable in the era of firesticks and VPNs.

[lyonhibs]

I stand corrected.

It still leaves questions about the current deal though .... the choice of what games to cover and them not even taking up their full allocation has to lead to some sort of discussion between the league and them. They are doing nothing to promote a wider view of our game, especially when they ignore what in Scottish football terms are matches that are incredibly attractive .... I would rather watch St Johnstone fighting a last gasp battle with Kilmarnock with a place in the playoffs for the loser than Celtic play anybody in what could be a dead rubber.

You and I would certainly, but viewing figures are what TV companies hang their hat on and any Celtic or Rangers game will have higher viewing figures than pretty much any other game in Scottish football

[SHODAN]

Can the non-OF teams negotiate our own deal (i.e. set up our own streaming service) and sell the rights to any of our games v the OF back to Sky on a game-per-game basis?

[keep the faith]

I cancelled sky sports this season and haven't missed it a bit. Hardly any hibs games and Kris Boyd bias every week shows the contempt they have for scottish football. The English stuff has analysis from over inflated pundits which lasts longer than the games themselves!!
No thanks.

[Don Giovanni]

I asked Chat GPT to estimate the numbers of a subscription service:

To calculate the number of subscribers needed at £15 per month, let's first determine the annual revenue and costs based on the information provided earlier.


1. Annual revenue from the existing TV deal: Approximately £32 million.


2. Annual costs of maintaining the streaming platform: This is more challenging to estimate, but let's assume the ongoing annual costs are around £3 million (within the £1 million to £5 million range mentioned earlier).


Now, let's calculate the annual revenue per subscriber. Since the subscription price is £15 per month, the annual revenue per subscriber is:


£15 * 12 months = £180 per subscriber


Next, we'll calculate the total annual revenue required to cover both the TV deal revenue and the streaming platform's costs:


Total annual revenue required = Annual TV deal revenue + Annual costs
Total annual revenue required = £32 million + £3 million = £35 million


Finally, we'll divide the total annual revenue required by the annual revenue per subscriber to find the number of subscribers needed:


Number of subscribers = Total annual revenue required / Annual revenue per subscriber
Number of subscribers = £35,000,000 / £180 ≈ 194,444 subscribers


Therefore, at £15 per month, the SPFL would need approximately 194,444 subscribers to make the streaming platform viable, covering both the revenue from the existing TV deal and the costs of maintaining the platform. Please note that these calculations are based on rough estimates, and the actual figures could vary.

IIRC there was a study done, years ago now, that found in most European countries approximately 1% of the population attended football each weekend.

The number in Scotland was around 2%. We're officially fitbaw daft.

If that remains correct, 2% of ~5M population gives ~100,000 people attending a game each weekend (seems a reasonable guess to me).

There'll be a relatively small number of away fans that over lap but that's approximately 200,000 domestic fans attending each home ground before you even get to those that can't attend but would subscribe, advertising revenue or selling broadcasting rights commercially and overseas.

[Hibbyradge]

IIRC there was a study done, years ago now, that found in most European countries approximately 1% of the population attended football each weekend.

The number in Scotland was around 2%. We're officially fitbaw daft.

If that remains correct, 2% of ~5M population gives ~100,000 people attending a game each weekend (seems a reasonable guess to me).

There'll be a relatively small number of away fans that over lap but that's approximately 200,000 domestic fans attending each home ground before you even get to those that can't attend but would subscribe, advertising revenue or selling broadcasting rights commercially and overseas.

How does 100k turn into 200k?

I don't understand.

[Don Giovanni]

Home attendances.

People that regularly go to games that *might* subscribe.

[Brummie_Hibs]

Nobody wants to buy a s**t product, and the SFA/SPL make it a s**t product

Until that changes, and we can market a great product, then that is it.

The Scottish Premier League was once Golden Wonder Ready Salted, Cheese & Onion and Salt £ Vinger.

They are still Golden Wonder, but now everybody wants Walkers Sensations, Popadoms and other regular varieties. And with Lays, it is a European flavours - Paprika!!

Scotland is still Ready Salted, Cheese & Onion, etc.

[ScottB]

Fragmentation of entertainment streaming is the new problem. Originally the message to consumers was ‘ditch your expensive TV deal, Netflix is only a tenner a month!’

But now we’ve got Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Apple and more, the total monthly cost is more than the previously considered expensive, TV deal.

I’m sure there’s plenty sports out there thinking something similar; ditch your expensive sports package, watching just us will be way cheaper, F1 already does it in some markets, but the problem that will come is much the same as the entertainment space is going through now; when every sport wants their £10 - £15 a month, suddenly consumers start cutting back…

I’m sure an SPFL streaming service would make some money, as long as it works on the relevant devices, smart TVs etc to stop it being for the tech savvy only, but the question is how it does when people are also being asked to pay directly for English football, Champions League, F1, rugby etc etc etc.

[GreenGray]

Nobody wants to buy a s**t product, and the SFA/SPL make it a s**t product

Until that changes, and we can market a great product, then that is it.

The Scottish Premier League was once Golden Wonder Ready Salted, Cheese & Onion and Salt £ Vinger.

They are still Golden Wonder, but now everybody wants Walkers Sensations, Popadoms and other regular varieties. And with Lays, it is a European flavours - Paprika!!

Scotland is still Ready Salted, Cheese & Onion, etc.

It’s actually a decent product, just run by incompetent people who either don’t know how to market it or don’t want to bother.

We shoot ourselves in the foot with the sky deal, of course the product is deemed badly when they only televise games involving the two cheeks where the opposing team has to defend with 11 men behind the ball to even try and get a result.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

I seen rumours that Amazon and Disney etc were going to be bidding more and more on the EPL rights and sky and BT were going to struggle to compete.

If they do lose the rights, they may become more interested in promoting and paying for the scottish rights

[Not In The Know]

My kids not long back from football and asked if we could put the City v Arsenal game on because they we’re talking about it on Newsround at school.

They watch it everyday at school (in P7) and basically get English footy rammed down their throats when there is a big game on. World cup was a nightmare...

Anyone else’s children “have” to watch English football news at school ?

[Leith Green]

I cancelled sky sports this season and haven't missed it a bit. Hardly any hibs games and Kris Boyd bias every week shows the contempt they have for scottish football. The English stuff has analysis from over inflated pundits which lasts longer than the games themselves!!
No thanks.


Kris boyd could be a decent pundit . But he choses to pander to the Huns , utterly embarrassing biased hun chat all the time , should be giving a neutral analysis of scottish football but is allowed and given the platform to spout his biased pish

[Bristolhibby]

Fragmentation of entertainment streaming is the new problem. Originally the message to consumers was ‘ditch your expensive TV deal, Netflix is only a tenner a month!’

But now we’ve got Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Apple and more, the total monthly cost is more than the previously considered expensive, TV deal.

I’m sure there’s plenty sports out there thinking something similar; ditch your expensive sports package, watching just us will be way cheaper, F1 already does it in some markets, but the problem that will come is much the same as the entertainment space is going through now; when every sport wants their £10 - £15 a month, suddenly consumers start cutting back…

I’m sure an SPFL streaming service would make some money, as long as it works on the relevant devices, smart TVs etc to stop it being for the tech savvy only, but the question is how it does when people are also being asked to pay directly for English football, Champions League, F1, rugby etc etc etc.

I’ve just got rid of BT Sport. Am borrowing my Dads login and only yesterday found out most modern TVs you can download the app and watch it on the Telly. Currently watching the City v Arsenal game.

To even it up I’ve given him my Disney+ login.

J

[Hibbyradge]

I seen rumours that Amazon and Disney etc were going to be bidding more and more on the EPL rights and sky and BT were going to struggle to compete.

If they do lose the rights, they may become more interested in promoting and paying for the scottish rights

They're interested in the advertising they can attract, that's all. That's what they pay for, not the football, regardless of the quality or excitement..

Unless viewing figures for the SPFL increase, the value to TV companies will be low.

[Steven79]

My kids not long back from football and asked if we could put the City v Arsenal game on because they we’re talking about it on Newsround at school.

They watch it everyday at school (in P7) and basically get English footy rammed down their throats when there is a big game on. World cup was a nightmare...

Anyone else’s children “have” to watch English football news at school ?It just lowers the value of our game and it's on purpose.

Just another reason why this "union" only works for one country.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Not In The Know]

It just lowers the value of our game and it's on purpose.

Just another reason why this "union" only works for one country.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


I’m with you. No wonder most of the kids in schools up here are cuttin’ about in Man U and Liverpool shirts.

[O'Rourke3]

Kris boyd could be a decent pundit .

Think you are being far too kind to the bigoted bucky sampling man bunned tosser.

I may have issues.....

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

It isn't. The Old firm game rates higher than all but the biggest EPL games. Hibs vs Hearts rates similar to lower end Prem/Bigger Championship games. The ratings are very good, higher than Super League, women's football etc. One problem is the associated ad revenues. Corporations in the UK view Scotland as a remote region and have little interest in targeting their products at the SPL audience. It's perception quite frankly and prejudice.

Would be amazed if that was the case.

[JimBHibees]

My kids not long back from football and asked if we could put the City v Arsenal game on because they we’re talking about it on Newsround at school.

They watch it everyday at school (in P7) and basically get English footy rammed down their throats when there is a big game on. World cup was a nightmare...

Anyone else’s children “have” to watch English football news at school ?

Think I would be asking a couple of direct questions at parents evening. :greengrin

[Since90+2]

Would be amazed if that was the case.

It's not. Not even close.

[Pretty Boy]

It does seem bizarre that when we have a meaningful battle for 3rd, 4th and 5th along with St Mirren having their first top 6 season in about 100 years (and still being well in the mix for the aforementioned battle) and there being a proper relegation and play off battle at the bottom that Sky and the league have chosen to put the spotlight on 2 of the 3 or 4 teams who have after the 1st weekend of games will likely have nothing to play for. I can't speak for others but I'd much rather watch Kilmarnock v Dundee Utd, Ross County v St Johnstone, Aberdeen v Hearts and Hibs v St Mirren in meaningful games than Celtic go through the motions counting down the days until they can complete their treble then get away on their holidays. The split has actually worked out well this year and ensured a large percentage of teams have something to play for in their final round of fixtures and there has been a willful decision to ignore it.

The OF fan go to card seems to be 'well no one wants to watch a game with loads of empty seats'. Really? I can't say I've ever turned off a game on TV solely because there wasn't a big crowd. Yes it maybe doesn't look great but if it's a meaningful game and there's a bit drama or tension then people will watch it. I'm far more inclined to watch the BBCs Championship output on a Friday night played in front of empty stands or stadiums that look like something from the 1940s than I am to watch Celtic devour the latest fodder they have been served up. 60K crowd or otherwise.

The monetary aspect of the TV deal is neither here nor there in this debate. We need to have more flexibility to allow TV cameras to showcase the games that matter regardless of how many times a team has been on TV at home already. Hearts v Hibs could be a shoot out for 4th on the final day (or even 3rd although it is unlikely) and there will be a TV blackout. The weekend before we will be on TV v Rangers whilst an almost certainly crucial game between St Johnstone and Kilmarnock won't be. Even the weekend before that there is every chance Rangers v Celtic will be a dead rubber but of course it will be shown ahead of Dundee Utd v Ross County where a win could see United safe and County all but down or Aberdeen v Hibs which could see Aberdeen knock us out the race for 3rd with a win or us claw ourselves right back into it assuming we beat St Mirren and they lose at Ibrox. I know it's unrealistic to think the most well known fixture in our game won't be shown but in real terms there is every chance it won't be even close to the most crucial game that weekend.

[Eyrie]

Sky haven't even used their full allocation of fixtures for this season so some* of those games could still be shown if the will was there. All that is needed is a little hype during other matches to encourage interest for neutrals who just want to watch a game with something at stake.


*Not all - there's a limit to how often Sky can show a game from each ground. Think it's four times, rising to five with the new deal.

[JimBHibees]

It's not. Not even close.

Kind of thought that. No one really cares outwith their own bubble despite what both clubs and the media like to think.

[BoomtownHibees]

It's not. Not even close.

It is true. Prob more than folk would think

[Hibbyradge]

Here's a Herald article on the subject;

200 million to watch Old Firm match
10th February 2001
HERALD AND TIMES ARCHIVE




TOMORROW'S crucial Old Firm football clash in Glasgow is set to attract the biggest television audience for a domestic Scottish match.

It is estimated that more than 100 million people in more than 40 countries across the globe will tune in to watch what is likely to be a highly-charged game live from Celtic Park.

But more than 200 million will watch the Celtic and Rangers match when live and screened highlights are taken into consideration, and that number will be increased again by the availability of highlights on the Scottish Premier League website five minutes after the final whistle.

The huge number of potential viewers has come through agreement between the SPL and broadcasters around the world.

''It means, in all, that there is nowhere in the world that people will not be able to see the game,'' said an SPL spokesman.

''We can't be sure of the exact figures because it needs to be accounted afterwards and, with Sky pay-per-view also involved, it takes time to do that.'' The game, which kicks off at 1.15pm, will also be screened live on BBC1.

[BenjiOscar]

Last derby won’t be on PPV.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65412750

[superfurryhibby]

Although it is extremely difficult to estimate how many people actually watched the game due to the fact that some channels do not share their viewership figures, the closest figures conclude that between 50 to 100 million people watch each El Clasico match around the world.

https://topmediadvertising.co.uk/football-viewing-figures/#:~:text=Top%20most-watched%20Premier%20League%20games%3A%201%20Manche ster%20City,Chelsea%20vs%20Manchester%20United%2C% 205%20February%202012%20%283.26million%29

[Hibbyradge]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but Sky did want to show more post split games but a club(s) stopped them.

https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/sky-sports-scuppered-club-ppv-26786290

[BoomtownHibees]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but Sky did want to show more post split games but a club(s) stopped them.

https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/sky-sports-scuppered-club-ppv-26786290

Hearts

[Carheenlea]

It’s certainly a great deal for Old Firm fans who are almost guaranteed every home game to be a 3pm KO in return for their ST. Probably why so many feel the ST is a great buy and travel over from all over Scotland and Ireland every other week.

Can effectively plan their travel logistics and arrange diaries safe in the knowledge there will be no disruption. Very different for everyone else.

[Hibbyradge]

Hearts

The article says it's not them.

[Eyrie]

Could be us as we're showing the Celtc game on PPV.

No issue with that as Sky would only want it because it's an away game for an Ugly Sister.

[Ringothedog]

Could be us as we're showing the Celtc game on PPV.

No issue with that as Sky would only want it because it's an away game for an Ugly Sister.

It would seem that Sky may want our game but we get nothing extra for it being on TV or we say no and sell PPV and make quite a few pounds more. I really hope it was us.

[Since90+2]

Here's a Herald article on the subject;

200 million to watch Old Firm match
10th February 2001
HERALD AND TIMES ARCHIVE




TOMORROW'S crucial Old Firm football clash in Glasgow is set to attract the biggest television audience for a domestic Scottish match.

It is estimated that more than 100 million people in more than 40 countries across the globe will tune in to watch what is likely to be a highly-charged game live from Celtic Park.

But more than 200 million will watch the Celtic and Rangers match when live and screened highlights are taken into consideration, and that number will be increased again by the availability of highlights on the Scottish Premier League website five minutes after the final whistle.

The huge number of potential viewers has come through agreement between the SPL and broadcasters around the world.

''It means, in all, that there is nowhere in the world that people will not be able to see the game,'' said an SPL spokesman.

''We can't be sure of the exact figures because it needs to be accounted afterwards and, with Sky pay-per-view also involved, it takes time to do that.'' The game, which kicks off at 1.15pm, will also be screened live on BBC1.

Theres absolutely no danger any old firm match has had 200 million people watching it.

That's the equivalent of every single man, women and child in the UK watching it plus another 125 million odd around the world. Absolute pie in the sky. As a comparison, the England v Italy Euro 2021 final had 31 million viewers in the UK.

The Superbowl has a viewership of 200 million, when it's the biggest sporting event of the year in a country with 250 million people in it.

[BoomtownHibees]

Theres absolutely no danger any old firm match has had 200 million people watching it.

That's the equivalent of every single man, women and child in the UK watching it plus another 125 million odd around the world. Absolute pie in the sky. As a comparison, the England v Italy Euro 2021 final had 31 million viewers in the UK.

The Superbowl has a viewership of 200 million, when it's the biggest sporting event of the year in a country with 250 million people in it.

Does seem high.

To give some context, the most watched EPL game is normally Liverpool v Man Utd and that has c4.5m Sky viewers in the UK

[Steven79]

Does seem high.

To give some context, the most watched EPL game is normally Liverpool v Man Utd and that has c4.5m Sky viewers in the UKIf they only get so many viewers how do they justify the amounts they pay for rights?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[BoomtownHibees]

If they only get so many viewers how do they justify the amounts they pay for rights?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

4.5m viewers out of the amount of subscribers they have is a decent %. That is only 1 game in isolation as well

[Hibbyradge]

4.5m viewers out of the amount of subscribers they have is a decent %. That is only 1 game in isolation as well

And that's only in the UK. There's hundreds of millions, of football fans around the world.

Go to Asia, for example, and you'll see loads of English football shirts. India is the same.

[Hibbyradge]

Theres absolutely no danger any old firm match has had 200 million people watching it.

That's the equivalent of every single man, women and child in the UK watching it plus another 125 million odd around the world. Absolute pie in the sky. As a comparison, the England v Italy Euro 2021 final had 31 million viewers in the UK.

The Superbowl has a viewership of 200 million, when it's the biggest sporting event of the year in a country with 250 million people in it.

Here's another article from 2015.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13301569.old-firm-clash-to-reach-one-of-scottish-footballs-biggest-worldwide-audiences/

[JimBHibees]

Here's a Herald article on the subject;

200 million to watch Old Firm match
10th February 2001
HERALD AND TIMES ARCHIVE




TOMORROW'S crucial Old Firm football clash in Glasgow is set to attract the biggest television audience for a domestic Scottish match.

It is estimated that more than 100 million people in more than 40 countries across the globe will tune in to watch what is likely to be a highly-charged game live from Celtic Park.

But more than 200 million will watch the Celtic and Rangers match when live and screened highlights are taken into consideration, and that number will be increased again by the availability of highlights on the Scottish Premier League website five minutes after the final whistle.

The huge number of potential viewers has come through agreement between the SPL and broadcasters around the world.

''It means, in all, that there is nowhere in the world that people will not be able to see the game,'' said an SPL spokesman.

''We can't be sure of the exact figures because it needs to be accounted afterwards and, with Sky pay-per-view also involved, it takes time to do that.'' The game, which kicks off at 1.15pm, will also be screened live on BBC1.

Made up crock I think. Probably Chick Young

[archie]

It just lowers the value of our game and it's on purpose.

Just another reason why this "union" only works for one country.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

What's the purpose and who is doing it?

[Paul1642]

Fragmentation of entertainment streaming is the new problem. Originally the message to consumers was ‘ditch your expensive TV deal, Netflix is only a tenner a month!’

But now we’ve got Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Apple and more, the total monthly cost is more than the previously considered expensive, TV deal.

I’m sure there’s plenty sports out there thinking something similar; ditch your expensive sports package, watching just us will be way cheaper, F1 already does it in some markets, but the problem that will come is much the same as the entertainment space is going through now; when every sport wants their £10 - £15 a month, suddenly consumers start cutting back…

I’m sure an SPFL streaming service would make some money, as long as it works on the relevant devices, smart TVs etc to stop it being for the tech savvy only, but the question is how it does when people are also being asked to pay directly for English football, Champions League, F1, rugby etc etc etc.

This is the problem with the SPFL streaming idea being suggested. When you look at it from a stand alone perspective it might seem plausible but factor in everything that people are already subscribing to and £15 per month on top for Scottish football is suddenly a lot. Most Scottish football fans also want English football and some European football for their money. I just can’t see people subscribing to BT or Sky or whatever else and then SPFL on top.

I think the only realistic deal is one similar to what we have now on a platform that shows Scottish football as a product secondary to their bigger deals.

That being said the current deal is pretty terrible both financially and in terms of games shown and we really must find a way to attract better.

[Phil MaGlass]

There are now alot of sports channels out there at the moment, in Holland the top league have just been offered a 10 yr deal for 1.7 billion from ESPN. So, there are companies willing to pay a bit more. Sky has competition. Most leagues in Euope get more tv money than Scotland, its not down to a pi5h product(well, a wee bit) leagues like Sweden get way more than Scotland, they can attract better players, they can invest in a better infrastructure with the extra cash. We on the other hand couldn't attract more money probably due to the old stramash with SKY over Setanta. I firmly believe the domination of SKY is over.

[SHODAN]

Honestly think the non-OF top-flight clubs should just start our own streaming service. I'd gladly pay £10-15 a month for a platform in which the money is wholly distributed to the clubs involved without any middle man. Sky can have their four bigot fests a year and the rest of their games v the other clubs can stay in broadcast hell for all I care.

[Hibbyradge]

Honestly think the non-OF top-flight clubs should just start our own streaming service. I'd gladly pay £10-15 a month for a platform in which the money is wholly distributed to the clubs involved without any middle man. Sky can have their four bigot fests a year and the rest of their games v the other clubs can stay in broadcast hell for all I care.

The Sky deal is for £150m over 4 years.

How would clubs cope if they lost that?

[Paul1642]

Honestly think the non-OF top-flight clubs should just start our own streaming service. I'd gladly pay £10-15 a month for a platform in which the money is wholly distributed to the clubs involved without any middle man. Sky can have their four bigot fests a year and the rest of their games v the other clubs can stay in broadcast hell for all I care.

The loss of income would cripple our game and the already ridiculous gap between the old Firms budget and the other teams would be multiplied several times over.

[007]

The loss of income would cripple our game and the already ridiculous gap between the old Firms budget and the other teams would be multiplied several times over.

But otherwise it's a great idea. 🤔

[Trinity Hibee]

So the derby cannot be shown by hearts on PPV as it will clash with sky showing Celtic. If there is no PPV I presume that means there is no way of seeing the game even via some dodgy stream online?

[Callum_62]

So the derby cannot be shown by hearts on PPV as it will clash with sky showing Celtic. If there is no PPV I presume that means there is no way of seeing the game even via some dodgy stream online?There's always a dodgy stream

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[flash]

So the derby cannot be shown by hearts on PPV as it will clash with sky showing Celtic. If there is no PPV I presume that means there is no way of seeing the game even via some dodgy stream online?

Hibs and Hearts TV will both still be showing the game to overseas subscribers.

[archie]

There are now alot of sports channels out there at the moment, in Holland the top league have just been offered a 10 yr deal for 1.7 billion from ESPN. So, there are companies willing to pay a bit more. Sky has competition. Most leagues in Euope get more tv money than Scotland, its not down to a pi5h product(well, a wee bit) leagues like Sweden get way more than Scotland, they can attract better players, they can invest in a better infrastructure with the extra cash. We on the other hand couldn't attract more money probably due to the old stramash with SKY over Setanta. I firmly believe the domination of SKY is over.

This is a slightly dated summary of broadcasting rights income. The Dutch 10 year deal appears to be a pretty modest increase. https://www.statista.com/statistics/627306/broadcasting-big-five-european-football-league-revenues/

[Phil MaGlass]

This is a slightly dated summary of broadcasting rights income. The Dutch 10 year deal appears to be a pretty modest increase. https://www.statista.com/statistics/627306/broadcasting-big-five-european-football-league-revenues/

Hi there, a bid came in for 2 billion I thought it was 1.7, it works out at roughly an extra 48 million per year for 10 years.

[Nutmegged]

The next deal kicks off at the start of 2024-25 until the end of 2028-29, that includes upto 5 games from each venue (60 games), there's another two blocks of 10 games that Sky have first refusal on but more than likely it'll be Viaplay that will buy those rights.

Of those 10 game blocks, it's one home game from each venue (outwith Celtic and Rangers)

We also have the option of using the PPV facility upto five times a season too, so starting from 2024-25 we will have potentially 12 from our 19 home league games screened live either on Sky/Viaplay/PPV, so that means we'll likely only have 7 Saturday 3pm home a season, if we're involved in European competition that could be reduced even further.