Sky Tv deal

[billythebear1986 303]

With our reluctance to engage with them and stalling out the signing off the new deal, this post should be relevant enough about Rangers. (Put in general sport if not)

What would be a fair deal for us, Surely with 2 teams in champions league, guarantee of 4 old firms a season, the edinburgh derby and too some what us v aberdeen , hibs and hearts away games, likewise with the scum. Thats some tasty viewing. 
 

seems like the dross in our league are happy just to lick up the scraps from skys table, keeping themselves down in the process. 
 

my opinion is 50 million a year with no extra games would he acceptable but by no means optimal. 

[The Dude 20,026]

19 minutes ago, billythebear1986 said:

With our reluctance to engage with them and stalling out the signing off the new deal, this post should be relevant enough about Rangers. (Put in general sport if not)

What would be a fair deal for us, Surely with 2 teams in champions league, guarantee of 4 old firms a season, the edinburgh derby and too some what us v aberdeen , hibs and hearts away games, likewise with the scum. Thats some tasty viewing. 
 

seems like the dross in our league are happy just to lick up the scraps from skys table, keeping themselves down in the process. 
 

my opinion is 50 million a year with no extra games would he acceptable but by no means optimal. 

This is going to be a long international break

[esquire8 42,862]

[The Dude 20,026]

Nobody is offering more than sky. The last time someone did compete with sky, they offered considerably less than sky. Outside Scotland, nobody gives a fuck about the SPFL hence why nobody is willing to pay.

[JimmyCR1 1,503]

.

[AGM_72 3,644]

46 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Nobody is offering more than sky. The last time someone did compete with sky, they offered considerably less than sky. Outside Scotland, nobody gives a fuck about the SPFL hence why nobody is willing to pay.

From what was said in the deloitte report commissioned, they thought we were only marginally undervalued by Sky's TV deal. It was other revenue streams we were failing dramatically with, IIRC?

[MadSasa 245]

Bring back setanta 

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, AGM_72 said:

From what was said in the deloitte report commissioned, they thought we were only marginally undervalued by Sky's TV deal. It was other revenue streams we were failing dramatically with, IIRC?

Pretty much. Things like streaming & international broadcast rights were a bigger focus than domestic TV rights.

[STEPPS BOY 74,000]

Apparently we’ve asked to move to Sky Box Office when we sign Adam Garmson.

 

[.Williamson. 82,402]

Bring back old posters not masquerading as new ones 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

As I understand it the current deal still has 3 years to run so no need to sign a 4 year extension right now.

Don't get me started on the TV deals for comparably sized countries.

[Craiggybear 6,192]

Walking into the forum during international break

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, GersInCanada said:

As I understand it the current deal still has 3 years to run so no need to sign a 4 year extension right now.

Don't get me started on the TV deals for comparably sized countries.

Do any of those countries share a primary domestic broadcast partner with another domestic league?

[MadSasa 245]

16 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Bring back old posters not masquerading as new ones 

You live and breathe for me. Funny for me I suppose but tragic for you.

[East Enclosure Row N 2,823]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Nobody is offering more than sky. The last time someone did compete with sky, they offered considerably less than sky. Outside Scotland, nobody gives a fuck about the SPFL hence why nobody is willing to pay.

Nobody else is offering anything, because they weren't given the chance to.

Rangers beef is not with Sky, nor with this individual offer. They are unhappy that the SPFL did not go out to tender so couldn't even listen to other offers. They popped along to Sky only and accepted what they were offered.

In business terms - it's negligence of duty. In the real world - it's such a stupid fucking move that it's unbelievable.

This information was only given to member clubs after Rangers did more investigation and asked for clarification on the tender process. There was no tender process.

[ZZed 4,510]

Doncaster being trusted to make TV deals, is where it went wrong. Sorry, Doncaster being hired is where it went wrong.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

Do any of those countries share a primary domestic broadcast partner with another domestic league?

No idea if we are getting less than other countries with similar standing in the game, but what difference does it make if we share a domestic broadcast partner?

I assume you are saying that this is a negative? If so, then surely looking to do a deal with someone else, meaning we don't "share a primary domestic broadcast partner" would be something we should be investigating to increase revenue.

Personally I don't see what difference it makes, but I just don't follow the logic of your point.

[Goofy The Scot 586]

Football fans outside of Scotland only pay attention to Old Firm matches, they don't care about Edinburgh derby's etc. I'm sure Sky's viewing figures will tell their own story, and consequently determine their valuation.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

No idea if we are getting less than other countries with similar standing in the game, but what difference does it make if we share a domestic broadcast partner?

I assume you are saying that this is a negative? If so, then surely looking to do a deal with someone else, meaning we don't "share a primary domestic broadcast partner" would be something we should be investigating to increase revenue.

Personally I don't see what difference it makes, but I just don't follow the logic of your point.

Yes it can make a pretty major difference. We're second in the pecking order (third probably if you add the EFL into the mix) when it come to domestic football on Sky. The fact we also share a domestic TV market with several other leagues means that, for any broadcaster, Scottish football only really appeals to fairly small segment of the audience.

As long as we only appeal to a small % of the overall audience, we'll get paid buttons. Sky and BT aren't going to throw cash at the SPFL for the domestic rights and the only real chance there is would be a new start-up looking to try and grab some live rights.

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yes it can make a pretty major difference. We're second in the pecking order (third probably if you add the EFL into the mix) when it come to domestic football on Sky. The fact we also share a domestic TV market with several other leagues means that, for any broadcaster, Scottish football only really appeals to fairly small segment of the audience.

As long as we only appeal to a small % of the overall audience, we'll get paid buttons. Sky and BT aren't going to throw cash at the SPFL for the domestic rights and the only real chance there is would be a new start-up looking to try and grab some live rights.

 

But I still don't understand the logic when it was specified into leagues from equivalent size to Scotland.

Yes we get buttons compared to EPL teams. I don't think anyone is expecting us to match their terms.

We are however appealing to a small % of a fucking massive audience.

I'm not sure why that means we should get less automatically than a league from a c5m pop country who happens to have a big % of a tiny audience.

Surely the only thing that should determine the value of the deal is the profitability per customer watching.

If we have 250k people watching a game, then this should probably be worth the same as say what Finland gets when 250k are watching one of their games.

We should probably get more than say Croatia per game if we have the same number of viewers as I doubt Croatians are paying £60 a month to watch it.

In my opinion, Scottish folk are getting ripped off a fair bit by the sports deal. We are subsidising the English in many ways. *

If you have no interest in watching the EPL then you are paying over the odds to watch the Scottish Game.

It would be fairer for either us to get more money from the deal (on the basis I assume other countries of similar size are getting more cash while paying less to watch), or a new provider takes over and charges Scottish fans equivalent to what these other leagues are charging.

 

* On the basis that other league are indeed getting more for broadcasting than us, which I have no idea about, but seems to be the line of argument, so I assume you are all in agreement this is true!

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

But I still don't understand the logic when it was specified into leagues from equivalent size to Scotland.

Yes we get buttons compared to EPL teams. I don't think anyone is expecting us to match their terms.

We are however appealing to a small % of a fucking massive audience.

I'm not sure why that means we should get less automatically than a league from a c5m pop country who happens to have a big % of a tiny audience.

Surely the only thing that should determine the value of the deal is the profitability per customer watching.

If we have 250k people watching a game, then this should probably be worth the same as say what Finland gets when 250k are watching one of their games.

We should probably get more than say Croatia per game if we have the same number of viewers as I doubt Croatians are paying £60 a month to watch it.

In my opinion, Scottish folk are getting ripped off a fair bit by the sports deal. We are subsidising the English in many ways. *

If you have no interest in watching the EPL then you are paying over the odds to watch the Scottish Game.

It would be fairer for either us to get more money from the deal (on the basis I assume other countries of similar size are getting more cash while paying less to watch), or a new provider takes over and charges Scottish fans equivalent to what these other leagues are charging.

 

* On the basis that other league are indeed getting more for broadcasting than us, which I have no idea about, but seems to be the line of argument, so I assume you are all in agreement this is true!

Because in broadcasting terms, we're not a c5m pop country, we're a c67million country and Sky/BT etc take our viewing figures as such when paying up for rights.

You're not wrong to say we subsidise the english - much more of your sky sports sub will go to the PL than the SPFL and as long as the PL makes up the lions share of the viewing figures  (and ad revenue), they'll continue to offer us chump change because we're little more than filler on their schedules. For the Finnish TV company, having domestic football on their channel will be far more important than for a uk-wide broadcaster to have the SPFL rights.

However with only BBC Scotland or STV broadcasting with a Scottish focus rather than a Britain wide one, there's no real alternatives availabe in terms of traditional broadcasters.

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Because in broadcasting terms, we're not a c5m pop country, we're a c67million country and Sky/BT etc take our viewing figures as such when paying up for rights.

You're not wrong to say we subsidise the english - much more of your sky sports sub will go to the PL than the SPFL and as long as the PL makes up the lions share of the viewing figures  (and ad revenue), they'll continue to offer us chump change because we're little more than filler on their schedules. For the Finnish TV company, having domestic football on their channel will be far more important than for a uk-wide broadcaster to have the SPFL rights.

However with only BBC Scotland or STV broadcasting with a Scottish focus rather than a Britain wide one, there's no real alternatives availabe in terms of traditional broadcasters.

 

But this is where I don't follow the logic.

You say we are subsidising the EPL.

Finland get a better deal as they are not splitting a broadcaster with a massive neighbour.

You also say we can't possibly get more money than from Sky, the company we are purely a filler for that we subsidise their main league.

Surely if we market the league correctly, then we should be looking to do what Finland are doing and go to a broadcaster who value our product, and therefore earn money equivalent to Finland?

I don't understand why you are saying we are being underpaid due to sharing a broadcaster and yet you are also saying that sticking with this broadcaster is the best option.

If we are getting less than equivalent leagues, then we should be looking to leave sky and get a better deal. If we are getting more than the equivalent sized leagues then I can see the benefit in staying with Sky.

[The Dude 20,026]

29 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

But this is where I don't follow the logic.

You say we are subsidising the EPL.

Finland get a better deal as they are not splitting a broadcaster with a massive neighbour.

You also say we can't possibly get more money than from Sky, the company we are purely a filler for that we subsidise their main league.

Surely if we market the league correctly, then we should be looking to do what Finland are doing and go to a broadcaster who value our product, and therefore earn money equivalent to Finland?

I don't understand why you are saying we are being underpaid due to sharing a broadcaster and yet you are also saying that sticking with this broadcaster is the best option.

If we are getting less than equivalent leagues, then we should be looking to leave sky and get a better deal. If we are getting more than the equivalent sized leagues then I can see the benefit in staying with Sky.

Like who? BT have already shown they don’t value the league as highly as Sky do so we can probably rule them out. After that? Premier? BBC and STV aren’t interested. There’s nothing in the league beyond the Old Firm that would carry much interest for the likes of Apple or Amazon. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Like who? BT have already shown they don’t value the league as highly as Sky do so we can probably rule them out. After that? Premier? BBC and STV aren’t interested. There’s nothing in the league beyond the Old Firm that would carry much interest for the likes of Apple or Amazon. 

Well this is where it is the fucking job of those in power to get us a deal on par with fucking Finland or the likes.

Again, im not expecting EPL money, but if we are just to sit and accept that we are to be paid less than leagues of equivalent size then there is setting fucking wrong. 

We do have the Old Firm which is massive. I don't think Finland have this benefit. If we can't get equivalent money to other leagues of our size whilst having this advantage them we are doing something wrong.

My entire argument is that we should be getting a fair amount, similar money to leagues of a similar standing. I'm not asking for much more, just not much less.

If the current lot can't get this then they are not performing IMO. Maybe we have to move away from Sky purely so they realise how much revenue they will lose. It might be worth just trying something different purely to get a better long term result.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Well this is where it is the fucking job of those in power to get us a deal on par with fucking Finland or the likes.

Again, im not expecting EPL money, but if we are just to sit and accept that we are to be paid less than leagues of equivalent size then there is setting fucking wrong. 

We do have the Old Firm which is massive. I don't think Finland have this benefit. If we can't get equivalent money to other leagues of our size whilst having this advantage them we are doing something wrong.

My entire argument is that we should be getting a fair amount, similar money to leagues of a similar standing. I'm not asking for much more, just not much less.

If the current lot can't get this then they are not performing IMO. Maybe we have to move away from Sky purely so they realise how much revenue they will lose. It might be worth just trying something different purely to get a better long term result.

From a quick look, it appears that we ARE on a par with Finland and the likes - we get a little bit less than the austrian premier league each season.

That said; on a per-game basis, we seem to have one of the best TV deals anywhere in the world (£550,000 per game)