Sky Tv deal

[MadSasa 245]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

More chance of me walking on the moon later this afternoon than that happening.

What can Rangers realistically do if they are opposed to the deal? 

[esquire8 43,609]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

More chance of me walking on the moon later this afternoon than that happening.

10 out of 12 clubs getting zero money 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, MadSasa said:

What can Rangers realistically do if they are opposed to the deal? 

Look at alternative methods to traditional broadcasters and start building the business case for when the next set of rights come up.

I could write a lengthy passage about what I think the future of football broadcasting is going to look like and why we should look to get in early but the long and short of it is, this deal will almost certainly go ahead so it's the next set we need to be properly looking at exploiting.

Traditional TV is dying off. We should be looking at making EVERY game available to view online, even if that means clubs have to suffer some short-term pain in attendances and matchday revenue as the numbers watching online and those going to games level out.

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

10 out of 12 clubs getting zero money 

Pretty much. They'll get a little bit for the Rangers and Celtic games, which in turn will influence what broadcasters would be willing to pay for our games at Ibrox*, but that's it.

 

* Since I know someone will question this, I'm answering in advance. If the other Premiership clubs sell their games to Sky for, say, £10k per game, we couldn't realistically ask for THAT much more at Ibrox as they would just choose to buy the rights to our away games at a much lower price than it would cost to broadcast from Ibrox.

[dummiesoot 16,115]

Some on here seem very happy to accept the 'no point in asking other broadcasters' stance taken by the SPFL CEO because of what happened the last time.

It may not change the outcome but there is a duty to ensure due diligence has been done. Like everything Doncaster does, I am not sure it has.

@The Dudeand @esquire8 I have no interest in your reply to this one so don't bother.

[The Dude 20,026]

13 minutes ago, dummiesoot said:

Some on here seem very happy to accept the 'no point in asking other broadcasters' stance taken by the SPFL CEO because of what happened the last time.

It may not change the outcome but there is a duty to ensure due diligence has been done. Like everything Doncaster does, I am not sure it has.

@The Dudeand @esquire8 I have no interest in your reply to this one so don't bother.

Literally nobody has said this.

[esquire8 43,609]

21 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Literally nobody has said this.

Ssshhhh we've been silenced in this thread now 

[The Dude 20,026]

 

5 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Ssshhhh we've been silenced in this thread now 

 

21 hours ago, dummiesoot said:

You are being a knob. Shut the fuck up and talk about the SKY deal.

[esquire8 43,609]

Well well well.....

Needed 11 votes, looks like the club didn't vote.

[RFC55 110,161]

5 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Well well well.....

Needed 11 votes, looks like either us or Livingston ended up agreeing.

It’s obvious Rangers didn’t and the rules were changed again till they got the outcome they desired 

[STEPPS BOY 75,045]

What a shower that SPFL board are.

[esquire8 43,609]

1 minute ago, RFC55 said:

It’s obvious Rangers didn’t and the rules were changed again till they got the outcome they desired 

The majority of clubs agreed to remove the waiver letter. All they needed to make our refusal to vote, not voting no, pointless.

[dummiesoot 16,115]

Got to love the spfl, the voting rules did not suit so they just change them.

[sassaaaa 11,406]

When Rangers are involved if it doesnt go your way change the rules and vote again........

[BlueKnight87 17,435]

At this point nothing surprises with the SPFL.

[MadSasa 245]

I’m sure Rangers could threaten to refuse SKY entry to Ibrox, hold the SPFL to ransom.

[BlueKnight87 17,435]

 

 

[beararse 6,472]

EDIT: forgot to apply inflation to the current deal. Figures now amended.

The SPFL is run by a bunch of morons.

Basic arithmetic suggests the new Sky deal is shite.

Current deal is worth £25m per year (averaging out at £22.83m once you account for inflation)

New deal worth £30m per year for 5 years starting 24/25. Looks half decent on the face of it, but.....

Inflation currently sits around 10%.

For arguments sake(and being conservative with figures as inflation has averaged at 5%pa over the last 60 years), if you assume inflation falls back to about 5% next year and then runs at 2.5% pa for the remaining years of the deal then £30m in the first season of the deal (24/25) will be worth less than the current deal (ie £24.75m) and by the time you get to season 28/29 £30m is likely to be worth around £21.75m in real terms.

Total up the monies per season after inflation is accounted for (for both current and new deals) and divide by the 5 season term and the new deal averages out at £23.31m per year so the SPFL has agreed to a deal where it values its overall product 2% more than it currently is.

HOWEVER it is for 60 games per season not 48 so it’s dropped from £475,625 per game to around £388,500 which means they have flogged each game for 18.3% less they do at the moment.

Fucking idiots!

[LochendBilly 8,423]

Corrupt to the core!

[born a blue nose 91,034]

 😂

[magic8ball 27,901]

On 23/09/2022 at 09:24, 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.

Biggest problem for me is .Sky should be paying more .2 huge acts of self harm over the years mean Sky are paying less than they should .

Setanta and Voting us down the leagues hurt everyone .We are only now getting to what the Sky deal was before the Setanta days .Staying with Sky would have seen improvements on each new deal .Saying that we would probably still have had Doncaster pushing the product .Reckon he would struggle to get a decent price for bottled water in the Sahara .

[Hadron Collider 31,326]

🤣 Fucksakes! Can’t wait to here from Robertson on this. 

[The Dude 20,026]

15 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Biggest problem for me is .Sky should be paying more .2 huge acts of self harm over the years mean Sky are paying less than they should .

Setanta and Voting us down the leagues hurt everyone .We are only now getting to what the Sky deal was before the Setanta days .Staying with Sky would have seen improvements on each new deal .Saying that we would probably still have had Doncaster pushing the product .Reckon he would struggle to get a decent price for bottled water in the Sahara .

Think that's a pretty fair assessment. The Setanta shambles and then the scramble to renegotiate rights in 2012 set us back a long way. Don't think it's unfair to say that Sky can afford to throw more money at the SPFL compared to others and use that to their advantage when rights do come up. 30m a year to them for something that will fill gaps between their EPL coverage is buttons.

One of the biggest problems is that the SPFL - and I include clubs in that too - are totally terrified to try something different. We're happy to get the leftovers from the EPL table and survive on that.

Let's take a massive fucking gamble and try something new. Use social media or youtube as a global streaming platform and massively reduce some of the costs that would generally come when going it alone - streaming isn't *THAT* hard to do and I can put games out live (with reasonable enough standards) with little more than a camera, laptop, mobile phone and a power supply - I done this last weekend using a camera that cost less than £100 and making all the graphics myself using free software) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

[beararse 6,472]

21 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Biggest problem for me is .Sky should be paying more .2 huge acts of self harm over the years mean Sky are paying less than they should .

Setanta and Voting us down the leagues hurt everyone .We are only now getting to what the Sky deal was before the Setanta days .Staying with Sky would have seen improvements on each new deal .Saying that we would probably still have had Doncaster pushing the product .Reckon he would struggle to get a decent price for bottled water in the Sahara .

Asking for what would amount to the same money for a TV deal where the product and its demand remains broadly the same year on year, seems an equitable position for both parties. To negotiate a deal that's materially worse is self harming. 

[magic8ball 27,901]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Think that's a pretty fair assessment. The Setanta shambles and then the scramble to renegotiate rights in 2012 set us back a long way. Don't think it's unfair to say that Sky can afford to throw more money at the SPFL compared to others and use that to their advantage when rights do come up. 30m a year to them for something that will fill gaps between their EPL coverage is buttons.

One of the biggest problems is that the SPFL - and I include clubs in that too - are totally terrified to try something different. We're happy to get the leftovers from the EPL table and survive on that.

Let's take a massive fucking gamble and try something new. Use social media or youtube as a global streaming platform and massively reduce some of the costs that would generally come when going it alone - streaming isn't *THAT* hard to do and I can put games out live (with reasonable enough standards) with little more than a camera, laptop, mobile phone and a power supply - I done this last weekend using a camera that cost less than £100 and making all the graphics myself using free software) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEXIow-X_Oo

 

 

Something different definitely needs done .The Sky deal isn’t ever going to be what it should be now .Another bug bear is if you want to watch Scottish clubs on TV you need 3 subscriptions now .Premier sports is taking more money from fans than the extra put in the game .Surely taking what Sky would have offered would have been a better idea .

As for something new .Scottish clubs will only opt for what they are guaranteed next year .Not for potential for 5 ,10 20 years plus down the line .