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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/Premie...arity_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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/Premie...arity_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

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.