Better SPFL TV deal

[Turnberry18 3,204]

This is probably the best we could have got here. It is a sad example of the disparity in football finances that this is a "blockbuster" deal when it would be a miniscule amount to even some clubs.

[JograBear 1,074]

10m over 6 years is embarrassing...

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

Is this an Ashley company the SPFL negotiated with?

[Orange Persson 548]

Quote

 When you compare the viewing figures between super league and Scottish football how in the fuck do they make 20 times more revenue from Sky than we do?

  The value of a product and payment are complex though aren't they? How does a train driver get more than some airline pilots? A window cleaner more than some tradesmen.

    Sky may pay for foot in the door with rugby as they envisage a growth area. Rugby in England does not compete with EPL. It is also a fresh market that is not saturated. The viewers may not overlap. The sponsorship in rugby seems to be corporate big business, insurance, investment banking etc.  Viewers are worth what you can get out of them and although our viewing numbers could be comparable, it is what they are worth to companies that counts. Hidden values I think.We may all pay a similar Sky viewing fee but that is not their total income. Scrap metal dealers and local plumbers billboards don't equate to attraction for big tv deals.

 So, not how many are watching, but how many spin off's come from it and what you are competing with.

 Never a level playing field in business..............despite the numbers. All IMO.  Sky and all else would know better.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

11 hours ago, theclothmonster said:

You can't compare the SPFL and the EPL no but how about comparing it to super league which has comparable viewing figures. Super league clubs agreed a five year deal worth £200 million, £146 million of that goes directly to the super league teams. £14.5 million is spread amongst the Championship clubs, that's the second tier for rugby league. You heard that right, the second tier of rugby league get paid more than the new deal for Scottish football. 

That must mean the super league has massive viewing figures over Scottish football right? Well the latest super league viewing figures I could find is for 2015. The highest viewing count for a match was Wigan v St Helens with a count of 237,000(only two matches broke 200k) which was equal to the Aberdeen v Celtic match this month. The Rangers v Cowdenbeath cup match had 244k viewers ffs, with the Rangers v Hibs clash hitting 273K. When you compare the viewing figures between super league and Scottish football how in the fuck do they make 20 times more revenue from Sky than we do?

 

Sources

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v7-SRaa3ZYZbCyk68v1g74Ubf3o6XLsKAvaI2SYyPg8/edit#gid=0

http://www.totalrl.com/ins-outs-super-leagues-lucrative-new-tv-deal/

 

Try to be less selective. What are the SPFL figures excluding Old Firm matches? I also note that you ignored the first comment stating that 1.3M watched a match on BBC. I would imagine that the averages of SPFL/Super League would not make pretty reading from a Scottish poiny of view.

[theclothmonster 1,716]

1 hour ago, Corky True Legend said:

Try to be less selective. What are the SPFL figures excluding Old Firm matches? I also note that you ignored the first comment stating that 1.3M watched a match on BBC. I would imagine that the averages of SPFL/Super League would not make pretty reading from a Scottish poiny of view.

I provided links for viewing figures for all Scottish football games, I also provided the viewing figures for all the super league games on Sky. The viewing figures for the BBC are irrelevant as these people don't pay a subscription to sky and don't impact on the tv deal or increase their revenue from advertisement. The comparison I am making is the tv deals involving Sky, SPFL and Super League and the viewing figures they get. If you want to say that the BBC should be paying the Super League far more than Scottish Football then I will agree with you. If you look at the links I provided you will see that only two super league matches broke 200k viewers on Sky. 

In regards to matches excluding the Old Firm who is being selective now? The super league is very similar to Scottish football in that most of their televised matches involve one of the top two supported teams St Helens and Wigan. Rangers and Celtic are the main selling points of Scottish football in terms of viewing figures and even without the guaranteed Old Firm games every year they still manage to get higher figures than Super league on Sky. However you would be right in saying that matches excluding the Old Firm would give a higher average viewer count to the Super league but nowhere near enough of a disparity to justify a 20 times larger tv deal. The fact of the matter is that Super League and the SPFL are very comparable in terms of viewing figures on Sky yet one deal is massively overpaid/underpaid depending on which way you want to look at it.

 

Edit

I'd also like to add that Scottish football isn't shown on BBC in England or Wales. How many of that 1.3M that watched a super league game on the BBC watched it because there was fuck all else on or just because it was sport on terrestrial tv. It's fair to say that out of that 1.3M the vast majority of them are not willing to pay for a Sky subscription.

[theclothmonster 1,716]

2 hours ago, Orange Persson said:

  The value of a product and payment are complex though aren't they? How does a train driver get more than some airline pilots? A window cleaner more than some tradesmen.

    Sky may pay for foot in the door with rugby as they envisage a growth area. Rugby in England does not compete with EPL. It is also a fresh market that is not saturated. The viewers may not overlap. The sponsorship in rugby seems to be corporate big business, insurance, investment banking etc.  Viewers are worth what you can get out of them and although our viewing numbers could be comparable, it is what they are worth to companies that counts. Hidden values I think.We may all pay a similar Sky viewing fee but that is not their total income. Scrap metal dealers and local plumbers billboards don't equate to attraction for big tv deals.

 So, not how many are watching, but how many spin off's come from it and what you are competing with.

 Never a level playing field in business..............despite the numbers. All IMO.  Sky and all else would know better.

Of course it's not as simple as I have put it in my first post and that there will be other factors. My point is that when the viewing figures are very comparable and even taking in outside considerations into account, how can you justify a disparity that equates to super league recieving 20 times more than the SPFL. Either Sky is paying way way way over the odds for Super league or the people negotiating on behalf of Scottish clubs are incompetent, I suspect it's somewhere in the middle but closer to the latter. 

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

3 hours ago, theclothmonster said:

I provided links for viewing figures for all Scottish football games, I also provided the viewing figures for all the super league games on Sky. The viewing figures for the BBC are irrelevant as these people don't pay a subscription to sky and don't impact on the tv deal or increase their revenue from advertisement. The comparison I am making is the tv deals involving Sky, SPFL and Super League and the viewing figures they get. If you want to say that the BBC should be paying the Super League far more than Scottish Football then I will agree with you. If you look at the links I provided you will see that only two super league matches broke 200k viewers on Sky. 

In regards to matches excluding the Old Firm who is being selective now? The super league is very similar to Scottish football in that most of their televised matches involve one of the top two supported teams St Helens and Wigan. Rangers and Celtic are the main selling points of Scottish football in terms of viewing figures and even without the guaranteed Old Firm games every year they still manage to get higher figures than Super league on Sky. However you would be right in saying that matches excluding the Old Firm would give a higher average viewer count to the Super league but nowhere near enough of a disparity to justify a 20 times larger tv deal. The fact of the matter is that Super League and the SPFL are very comparable in terms of viewing figures on Sky yet one deal is massively overpaid/underpaid depending on which way you want to look at it.

 

Edit

I'd also like to add that Scottish football isn't shown on BBC in England or Wales. How many of that 1.3M that watched a super league game on the BBC watched it because there was fuck all else on or just because it was sport on terrestrial tv. It's fair to say that out of that 1.3M the vast majority of them are not willing to pay for a Sky subscription.

If you look at average attendances for 2014, SPFL PL had only 4 teams averaging over 5K whereas Super League had only 2 under 5K and both of them were 4K+, nowhere near the 3K- of Hamilton. Therefore the POTENTIAL audience is perceived to be greater and thus worth a better investment.

[theclothmonster 1,716]

1 hour ago, Corky True Legend said:

If you look at average attendances for 2014, SPFL PL had only 4 teams averaging over 5K whereas Super League had only 2 under 5K and both of them were 4K+, nowhere near the 3K- of Hamilton. Therefore the POTENTIAL audience is perceived to be greater and thus worth a better investment.

The bottom line for Sky is viewing figures which gives them higher subscription income and bargaining power to set their price for advertising and the viewing figures between SPFL and super league are very comparable. Other than creating a good atmosphere for the live game Sky couldn't give a monkeys how many are in attendance if they are getting the viewing figures. Lets not forget that Sky is one of the major contributing factors in the attendance decline in Scottish football. Regardless, none of the points you have given explain the disparity to the tune of 20 times the difference between SPFL and Super league. You simply cannot justify a difference of 200Million to 10Million taking viewing figures or attendance figures into account and this is my main point.

Edit

The total attendance for every match in Super league in 2015 was 1.8M. The Scottish premier league had a total attendance of 1.7M pretty much identical, with the Scottish Championship adding another 1.3M people attending games. Average attendance for Rugby league was 9,997 with an average attendance for the Scottish Prem 8,666 with the Championship having 7,447. The fact that Rangers are carrying the attendance figures in the Championship and that should we get promoted then the Scottish Prem should dwarf Super League attendance and average attendances next season. Now given these figures please point out the justification for Rugby League clubs earning 20 times more through its tv deals.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

30 minutes ago, theclothmonster said:

The bottom line for Sky is viewing figures which gives them higher subscription income and bargaining power to set their price for advertising and the viewing figures between SPFL and super league are very comparable. Other than creating a good atmosphere for the live game Sky couldn't give a monkeys how many are in attendance if they are getting the viewing figures. Lets not forget that Sky is one of the major contributing factors in the attendance decline in Scottish football. Regardless, none of the points you have given explain the disparity to the tune of 20 times the difference between SPFL and Super league. You simply cannot justify a difference of 200Million to 10Million taking viewing figures or attendance figures into account and this is my main point.

You cannot disregard potential. You have to speculate to accumulate. Scottish football is dying whereas Rugby League is growing. To be honest, I would much prefer if football did not have to rely on TV cash but then, we do not live in an ideal world.

[denya 1,661]

When does this deal to show it in 102 countries come into place? Next season? I live in Colombia and it will most likely be put on the cable TV network DirecTV here and then chucked on a delayed time at 2am or something since nobody here will watch it apart from maybe any Old Firm games. People here are only interested in La Liga and the Champions League and obsessed with Real Madrid and Barcelona. 

[theclothmonster 1,716]

Just now, Corky True Legend said:

You cannot disregard potential. You have to speculate to accumulate. Scottish football is dying whereas Rugby League is growing. To be honest, I would much prefer if football did not have to rely on TV cash but then, we do not live in an ideal world.

I edited my post you quoted before you replied that shows both attendance figures and average attendace figures between Super League and SPFL are very comparable. I'm still waiting for you to post figures or evidence that shows Super League has 20 times the support either on tv or through match attendance to justify the disparity in the tv deals. 

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

1 minute ago, theclothmonster said:

I edited my post you quoted before you replied that shows both attendance figures and average attendace figures between Super League and SPFL are very comparable. I'm still waiting for you to post figures or evidence that shows Super League has 20 times the support either on tv or through match attendance to justify the disparity in the tv deals. 

They are not. Can't be bothered to post figures which are readily available if anyone is interested, We are where we are and there is fuck all you or I can do about it. I am not letting it spoil my evening or take over my life, however, unlike you so goodnight and enjoy your moan.

[theclothmonster 1,716]

Just now, Corky True Legend said:

They are not. Can't be bothered to post figures which are readily available if anyone is interested, We are where we are and there is fuck all you or I can do about it. I am not letting it spoil my evening or take over my life, however, unlike you so goodnight and enjoy your moan.

Why you getting all upset? I made a point that two franchises were comparable in viewing figures and in attendance figures but one is paid 20 times the amount of the other one. I posted figures to back up that point.. Why would a discussion on a forum spoil your night? Have I called you any names? Or insulted you? 

Here is the attendance figures for 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

26 minutes ago, theclothmonster said:

Why you getting all upset? I made a point that two franchises were comparable in viewing figures and in attendance figures but one is paid 20 times the amount of the other one. I posted figures to back up that point.. Why would a discussion on a forum spoil your night? Have I called you any names? Or insulted you? 

Here is the attendance figures for 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Where did I say I was upset? You're the one crying into his milk. Do you have a Sky subscription? I don't so I don't subsidise English prima donnas. If Scottish fans stopped their subscriptions, the situation might change.

[theclothmonster 1,716]

11 minutes ago, Corky True Legend said:

Where did I say I was upset? You're the one crying into his milk. Do you have a Sky subscription? I don't so I don't subsidise English prima donnas. If Scottish fans stopped their subscriptions, the situation might change.

You are upset and anyone with a grasp of the English language can see from your last two posts that you are. Crying into my milk? You are the one making insults not me. I posted an OPINION about our tv deal in a thread about our tv deal, I backed up that opinion with facts and figures. Lets not forget that the cycle of posting is you replying to me and not the other way around with you being the first one to reply. Am I not then allowed to respond to any reply you make that disagrees with my posts? You know if my posting is getting to you then you can just block me or gasp.......just ignore it. 

I'm not going to reply to you any further so I guess you can claim the victory. I wish you the best of mental health  good sir and hope you can get back to enjoying your evening.