Sky Tv deal

[ElBufalo20 8,160]

Looking forward to all the fans who moan that it’s only the old firm teams on sky see their clubs move kick off times to put their games on ppv when it’s against us.

[Brackley 1,412]

58 minutes ago, MayboleLoyal_atb said:

Love the “upto 60 games” bit 😂😂🤦🏻

With scope to add more during the length of the contract!!!

Does that scope come with more payment or has Doncaster given them the opportunity to increase to 80 games without further payment. 

[Brubear 2,973]

5 hours ago, The Dude said:

That’s what exclusive means.

Exclusive could have referred to the 60 games they are showing, ie no one else can show these games. My point is Cormack comparing the cost per game for Scotland with Sweden is comparing apples with oranges unless he does it based on the 228 games not the 60. 

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, Brubear said:

Exclusive could have referred to the 60 games they are showing, ie no one else can show these games. My point is Cormack comparing the cost per game for Scotland with Sweden is comparing apples with oranges unless he does it based on the 228 games not the 60. 

If another broadcaster is showing Premiership games, they can't say they have exclusive rights to show the Premiership.

228 games aren't broadcast in Scotland so it wouldn't make any sense to compare the figures per game for 228 games.

[esquire8 45,272]

Specky wank.

[esquire8 45,272]

How many years have we had the same tv deal? Yet this fanny can't get his head round it.

[Brubear 2,973]

52 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If another broadcaster is showing Premiership games, they can't say they have exclusive rights to show the Premiership.

228 games aren't broadcast in Scotland so it wouldn't make any sense to compare the figures per game for 228 games.

On your second point I beg to differ. Surely it is the number of games that are being tied up in the deal and not available to be contracted elsewhere that is the important figure regardless if the number shown. So if SKY offerred 4m a year to show only the 4 Old Firm games that would be 1m per game so in your logic that would be a better deal than 30m a year for 60 games, 1/2m per game, meaning the other 224 games couldnt be sold to anyone else. 

[The Dude 20,027]

6 minutes ago, Brubear said:

On your second point I beg to differ. Surely it is the number of games that are being tied up in the deal and not available to be contracted elsewhere that is the important figure regardless if the number shown. So if SKY offerred 4m a year to show only the 4 Old Firm games that would be 1m per game so in your logic that would be a better deal than 30m a year for 60 games, 1/2m per game, meaning the other 224 games couldnt be sold to anyone else. 

Well yes. If they offered 4m to broadcast 4 games, that would be 1m per game broadcast. Clubs have retained the rights to five PPV games each too so that would be a further 60 games to take from potential number of 228.

 

18 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

How many years have we had the same tv deal? Yet this fanny can't get his head round it.

Man City are paying Chelsea on Sky Sports at the same time

[esquire8 45,272]

6 minutes ago, Brubear said:

On your second point I beg to differ. Surely it is the number of games that are being tied up in the deal and not available to be contracted elsewhere that is the important figure regardless if the number shown. So if SKY offerred 4m a year to show only the 4 Old Firm games that would be 1m per game so in your logic that would be a better deal than 30m a year for 60 games, 1/2m per game, meaning the other 224 games couldnt be sold to anyone else. 

Who is buying these 160ish nonsense games?

[ElBufalo20 8,160]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Well yes. If they offered 4m to broadcast 4 games, that would be 1m per game broadcast. Clubs have retained the rights to five PPV games each too so that would be a further 60 games to take from potential number of 228.

 

Man City are paying Chelsea on Sky Sports at the same time

It is a bit of a nonsense though. They could easily put the chelsea game on main event and an SPFL game on the football channel.

Sky have no football anymore apart from the English and Scottish leagues and the German games which they’ve destroyed compared to bt so they should be putting plenty of the Scottish games on

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, ElBufalo20 said:

It is a bit of a nonsense though. They could easily put the chelsea game on main event and an SPFL game on the football channel.

Sky have no football anymore apart from the English and Scottish leagues and the German games which they’ve destroyed compared to bt so they should be putting plenty of the Scottish games on

They could but I'll refer back to what I said earlier in the thread, we're just filler for Sky. They'll have whatever it is they call the midweek version of soccer saturday on Main Event because there's a full card of carabao cup games on (it'll likely do better numbers than any SPFL game that's on) and have City v Chelsea on Football.

[esquire8 45,272]

2 minutes ago, ElBufalo20 said:

It is a bit of a nonsense though. They could easily put the chelsea game on main event and an SPFL game on the football channel.

Sky have no football anymore apart from the English and Scottish leagues and the German games which they’ve destroyed compared to bt so they should be putting plenty of the Scottish games on

They could do but main event is meant to be a combination of all their channels into one. 

Also which SPFL game do you pick out of that to bring in the viewers whilst 2 of the biggest clubs in europe are on the other channel?

[ElBufalo20 8,160]

10 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

They could do but main event is meant to be a combination of all their channels into one. 

Also which SPFL game do you pick out of that to bring in the viewers whilst 2 of the biggest clubs in europe are on the other channel?

That’s not the point though it’s about choice. You will get viewers and if it’s not on no one will pay any interest ever. If it’s a 7.15 ko for example you will get people there will overlap.

My point is though if you’re investing you may as well show the games. You don’t even need a big production just a commentator 5 mins before the game starts for certain matches.

[esquire8 45,272]

Just now, ElBufalo20 said:

That’s not the point though it’s about choice. You will get viewers and if it’s not on no one will pay any interest ever. If it’s a 7.15 ko for example you will get people there will overlap.

My point is though if you’re investing you may as well show the games. You don’t even need a big production just a commentator 5 mins before the game starts for certain matches.

Still only have Motherwell vs them as a possible choice. Certainly won't waste the home game rule on us vs hearts.

[Brubear 2,973]

4 hours ago, esquire8 said:

Who is buying these 160ish nonsense games?

For at start Rnagers could show our games on RTV to the UK market. That would bring in income from PPV or increase RTV subscriptions.