If You Were In Charge of Sky Sports

[Guess The Crowd]

Much has been made of the Sky deal.

Ann Budge’s statement makes it clear this is the biggest factor in the top division clubs apparently voting Hearts out of the league.

If I’m in charge of Sky Sports, given the entirely unexpected scenario of the current season not completing, I would want the following included - at the very least - whenever the deal did eventually commence

 

-          Four Hearts-Hibs games

-          Any visit by Celtic or Rangers to the wonderfully atmospheric Tynecastle Park

 

In other words, the Sky deal should be a major reason AGAINST this unfair expulsion, not in favour of it. Indeed I would be making this point strongly in and forthcoming ‘discussions’.

 

Am I missing something? Comments welcome

[Seymour M Hersh]

**** Sky Sports. 

[OTT]

I think Sky should issue a statement just making clear that 14 clubs in the topflight offers no material change to the agreement and would therefore still stand in the event of reconstruction.

 

Its whats killed reconstruction. The SPFL should have immediately sought clarity on this when the group was formed (Ann should have pushed for a clear answer on this and embarrassed the SPFL further if an answer was not forthcoming). 

[colinmaroon]

The Uglies are all they're really interested in - despite one Hearts v Hibs drawing the largest UK audience.

 

 

[redjambo]

Sky Sports could have come out when all this surfaced and said that they would be fine with reconstruction if a reasonable option for such was proposed to them.

 

They didn't.

[Fort Vallance]

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Just remember - if you subscribe to Sky you are funding the duopoly. 

Sorry. 

[Fort Vallance]

Just now, redjambo said:

Sky Sports could have come out when all this surfaced and said that they would be fine with reconstruction if a reasonable option for such was proposed to them.

 

They didn't.

I'd imagine they would wait and see what was proposed first. Everybody seems to be lining up and blaming Sky for everything that's wrong in our game. They aren't blameless by any means but don't let the real culprits deflect their guilt  by blaming Sky.

[Midloth_Iain]

 

[Smoked-Glass]

4 hours ago, jonesy said:

Just remember - if you subscribe to Sky you are funding the duopoly. 

If Scottish football was all they showed you'd have a point but people buy sky sports for the whole product.   Overall it is good TV if your sports daft and not just all the football. 

 

Boxing

Darts 

Cricket 

Golf

Pool

To name a few

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

5 hours ago, Guess The Crowd said:

Much has been made of the Sky deal.

Ann Budge’s statement makes it clear this is the biggest factor in the top division clubs apparently voting Hearts out of the league.

If I’m in charge of Sky Sports, given the entirely unexpected scenario of the current season not completing, I would want the following included - at the very least - whenever the deal did eventually commence

 

-          Four Hearts-Hibs games

-          Any visit by Celtic or Rangers to the wonderfully atmospheric Tynecastle Park

 

In other words, the Sky deal should be a major reason AGAINST this unfair expulsion, not in favour of it. Indeed I would be making this point strongly in and forthcoming ‘discussions’.

 

Am I missing something? Comments welcome

Absolutely, what other games apart from the uglies derbies create good viewing figures? Rangers v Aberdeen is the only other game that I can think of. Depending  on what happens with us being demoted they could be well get added to my own boycott list.

[Pasquale for King]

3 hours ago, Ruud Krol said:

 

I remember seeing this at the time and it reality annoyed me, who the **** is he anyway? Hidden away in the morning. Typical sneering attitude of too many down south to our game and country in general.

[Deevers]

Dumped my Sky subscription two years ago. They really are a big part of the problem.

[Diadora Van Basten]

Why on earth was there a clause about league reconstruction in the Sky contract.

 

I doubt that the SPFL have spoke with Sky, Doncaster will have just suggested that it might not be the best time to approach them as the economy may reduce the value of the deal.

 

What really needed to happen was Sky’s position to be established or even better not to agree to that clause in the first place.

[LarrysRightFoot]

Sky should take the lead here and give the fans what they want - because let’s face it, what they say goes. 
 

They just need to say to the SPFL we want a bigger division and as by magic it will happen. I think they would get a lot of good will from it from fans.  

[Guess The Crowd]

16 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Sky should take the lead here and give the fans what they want - because let’s face it, what they say goes. 
 

They just need to say to the SPFL we want a bigger division and as by magic it will happen. I think they would get a lot of good will from it from fans.  

 

Indeed, and we’re still a big draw.

 

Even our many enemies concede that ours is the best ground, with the atmosphere it provides being perfectly suited for TV.

 

I can’t believe Sky couldn’t see that.

[His name is]

I'm surprised that sky didn't put a bit of pressure of hearts to stay in the top league

[tian447]

17 hours ago, His name is said:

I'm surprised that sky didn't put a bit of pressure of hearts to stay in the top league

 

Sky don't give a shiny **** about the SPFL, never mind about Hearts staying in it.

 

They make more money from fake Premiership supporters watching Brighton versus Norwich than they do from people watching a Hearts game.

 

Their shitey Scottish TV deal, and the pathetic amount of money they "generously" give us shows that.

[Mysterion]

Sky’s business model was built on paying for an Entertainment package to access a sports pack. To get access you had to pay for some awful channels first.

 

In Scotland the bulk of supporters who follow Glasgow clubs don’t go, they offer those of a diverse range of incomes the ability to see their club or their enemy weekly. The rest of the league doesn’t matter, provided they can hook the subscribers who follow Rangers and a Celtic they can justify the costs.

 

Till such time that people cancel Sky in huge numbers across (generally) the West of Scotland they will remain their priority. 

[Smoked-Glass]

Tbf skysports can be good value if several people in a household are watching it, especially the other sports besides football. 

 

When I had a flat mate in my 20s we agreed to add it cause was only another £12-£15 each a month.  

 

And yes I know they are evil.. 😁

 

p.s. was always cancelled in May and not added till August saving us about 2 and a half months subscription per year. 🙂

Edited May 12, 2020 by Smoked-Glass

[number-16]

The folk on here that subscribe to Sky should maybe start getting in touch with Sky and threatening to cancel their subscriptions if Sky don't distance themselves from this nonsense.

If enough folk bring it up then it'll need to get addressed by those higher up in Sky. 

[Tokyo Drifter]

On 11/05/2020 at 15:05, Guess The Crowd said:

Much has been made of the Sky deal.

Ann Budge’s statement makes it clear this is the biggest factor in the top division clubs apparently voting Hearts out of the league.

If I’m in charge of Sky Sports, given the entirely unexpected scenario of the current season not completing, I would want the following included - at the very least - whenever the deal did eventually commence

 

-          Four Hearts-Hibs games

-          Any visit by Celtic or Rangers to the wonderfully atmospheric Tynecastle Park

 

In other words, the Sky deal should be a major reason AGAINST this unfair expulsion, not in favour of it. Indeed I would be making this point strongly in and forthcoming ‘discussions’.

 

Am I missing something? Comments welcome

 

I've been thinking that as well. After the Ugly Sisters, the Edinburgh Derby is the biggest TV draw, so the value of Sky's package is somewhat denuded if the Famous aren't in the top flight.

[sac]

The OF sook up most of the Sky boaby income whilst the rest fight over the scraps. ST & gate money will be more important than ever for us for the next couple of years & maybe some Ben e factor dosh as well. 
Hearts First & redirection of away day cash will help.

[Guess The Crowd]

22 minutes ago, Tokyo Drifter said:

 

I've been thinking that as well. After the Ugly Sisters, the Edinburgh Derby is the biggest TV draw, so the value of Sky's package is somewhat denuded if the Famous aren't in the top flight.

 

Exactly. In the light of what’s happened, any SPL Chief Exec worth his salt should have proactively contacting Sky to suggest that a temporary reconstruction would be in everyone’s interests.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Guess The Crowd

[hmfcbilly]

I cancelled my sky sports 3 weeks ago. Mainly due to being sickened at the attitude of the premier league "all stars" during this current worldwide crisis tbh. I also cancelled my movies but kept the other channels as its handy for recording series and kids shows. Bill is now £30 instead of £60 a month though. 250,000 jambos were on the streets when we won the cup in 98, if 10% of them have sky and do what I've done that would cost sky £9million a year in lost subscriptions. If they cancelled completely it would be £18m. Still not close to what they give for EPL rights but you would imagine a big enough sum of money to at least hurt them slightly. Food for thought, especially if you through in some other disgruntled scottish football subscribers.

[Jambo92]

Sky probably have no clue they have even bought Scottish football, it's a valid argument though, if it was my money I would be asking for a refund, outwith the old firm our games bring in the highest viewing figures (albeit not very high)

[Jambof3tornado]

I'd love to get a wee read of the contract with sky to see exactly what it says. Transparency from Doncaster would be required. Still dont believe a word snake tongue comes out with!!

[Kiwidoug]

I'd be right in thinking Sky don't give a toss about any other club.

[Last Laff]

Sky would rather have Celtic at Hamilton than a Edinburgh derby.  

[JJ93]

On 11/05/2020 at 17:10, Ruud Krol said:

 

Apparently the chap he is speaking to rebuffed him. Any footage?

[JJ93]

To be fair to Sky Sports Soccer Sunday (why is it called Soccer?), Jeff Sterling is a great guy and always speaks fondly and knowledgeably about Hearts.

[jbee647]

3 hours ago, JJ93 said:

To be fair to Sky Sports Soccer Sunday (why is it called Soccer?), Jeff Sterling is a great guy and always speaks fondly and knowledgeably about Hearts.

Jeff I’m sure is a lovely guy, but he will know naff all about Hearts, I’ll guarantee it’s his researchers feeding him any info

Edited May 13, 2020 by jbee647

[jollyjams]

On 11/05/2020 at 19:26, Smoked-Glass said:

If Scottish football was all they showed you'd have a point but people buy sky sports for the whole product.   Overall it is good TV if your sports daft and not just all the football. 

 

Boxing

Darts 

Cricket 

Golf

Pool

To name a few

 

 

Spot on. the F1 coverage is excellent

[letsalldothebeattie]

If I was in charge of Sky Sports Scottish football coverage I’d hire the BT Sport team and just let them run the product because the job they did during the time they had the coverage was excellent

[soonbe110]

9 hours ago, hmfcbilly said:

I cancelled my sky sports 3 weeks ago. Mainly due to being sickened at the attitude of the premier league "all stars" during this current worldwide crisis tbh. I also cancelled my movies but kept the other channels as its handy for recording series and kids shows. Bill is now £30 instead of £60 a month though. 250,000 jambos were on the streets when we won the cup in 98, if 10% of them have sky and do what I've done that would cost sky £9million a year in lost subscriptions. If they cancelled completely it would be £18m. Still not close to what they give for EPL rights but you would imagine a big enough sum of money to at least hurt them slightly. Food for thought, especially if you through in some other disgruntled scottish football subscribers.

Their revenue last year was £18bn.  It’s doubtful they would even notice £18m disappearing. It’s lost in the rounding of their annual subscription increase. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, letsalldothebeattie said:

If I was in charge of Sky Sports Scottish football coverage I’d hire the BT Sport team and just let them run the product because the job they did during the time they had the coverage was excellent

It’s amazing how opinions differ. I stopped my BT because of Craigan, Stewart and Sutton. 

[vegas-voss]

They don't give a flying **** about anything other than Rangers and Celtic

[MCW1976]

On 11/05/2020 at 15:11, Seymour M Hersh said:

**** Sky Sports. 

Agreed.

 

We want our game back. So do most English clubs.

[letsalldothebeattie]

2 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

It’s amazing how opinions differ. I stopped my BT because of Craigan, Stewart and Sutton. 

Agree sometimes they can be very overbearing but I was more meaning the overall way they treat the game up here. Scottish Football Extra at least a half hour show sometimes more, plenty build up to live games unlike sky which is 5 mins before kick off unless it’s the old firm

[Locky]

As far as Scottish football is concerned, Sky only really care about the OF. They show the Edinburgh derby which certainly brings in a lot more viewers than any other match not involving the OF, but probably a lot less than the OF, sadly.

 

How much they care about Scottish football coverage is epitomised by the fact that the likes of Hearts vs Aberdeen, Aberdeen vs Hibs etc. Aren't televised often, but Hamilton vs Celtic, Livi vs Rangers are. Why would anyone of a neutral persuasion want to watch the latter? I mean, the former aren't exactly steeped in quality, which even the OF can't boast now, but at least these matches are competitive and aren't played in front of shan atmospheres where the away fans outnumber there hosts by 3 to 1. 

[gowestjambo]

There is a point most are missing in this debate. There should be NO refund to ether Sky or BT Sport, in fact the clubs should continue to receive TV money whether Football is played or not!

 

There would only be one reason for them not to continue, and that would be if Subscribers cancel their contract. Sky & BT will continue to receive 90% of their income whether there are games played or not. They may miss out on Advertising, but this would be offset against a huge saving by not having to transport equipment and Broadcasters wages.

 

In fact I believe Scottish Football should receive a percentage of the monthly subscriptions. At this moment in time their costs are almost zero, whilst still receiving a healthy income.

 

The SPFL should be making this point loud and clear to the TV companies!!

[David McCaig]

If I was in charge of Sky Sports and the SPFL were telling me that they can play behind closed doors from the end of July, I would be wanting to show the games I have paid for for this season before even thinking about paying extra to show the games from next season.

 

As I posted yesterday, August is a 5 Saturday month, so you can wrap up the remaining 8 games in August alone.

[William H. Bonney]

Their golf coverage is superb though so for that reason alone I’ll always subscribe. 

[Stuart Lyon]

Thinking about cancelling my Sky Sports don't see why I should support them if they are directing the future of our game.

[IveSeenTheLight]

On 11/05/2020 at 15:11, OTT said:

I think Sky should issue a statement just making clear that 14 clubs in the topflight offers no material change to the agreement and would therefore still stand in the event of reconstruction.

 

Its whats killed reconstruction. The SPFL should have immediately sought clarity on this when the group was formed (Ann should have pushed for a clear answer on this and embarrassed the SPFL further if an answer was not forthcoming). 

 

I thought the reason reconstruction was inconceivable was that there was a split between permanent and temporary options, meaning neither garnered sufficient support to promote forward.

[Ribble]

1 hour ago, gowestjambo said:

There is a point most are missing in this debate. There should be NO refund to ether Sky or BT Sport, in fact the clubs should continue to receive TV money whether Football is played or not!

 

There would only be one reason for them not to continue, and that would be if Subscribers cancel their contract. Sky & BT will continue to receive 90% of their income whether there are games played or not. They may miss out on Advertising, but this would be offset against a huge saving by not having to transport equipment and Broadcasters wages.

 

In fact I believe Scottish Football should receive a percentage of the monthly subscriptions. At this moment in time their costs are almost zero, whilst still receiving a healthy income.

 

The SPFL should be making this point loud and clear to the TV companies!!

 

Both BT and Sky have allowed subscribers to pause or cancel their sports subscriptions (this offer has been taken up by a huge number) so both have taken a financial hit. Their payments are to broadcast games, if those games don't happen then they have very right to claim refunds. 

 

The savings from the OB costs are nowhere near to covering the lost advertising revenue.

[Brick Tamland]

If I was in charge of SkySports I would get 2 or 3 of the best investigative journalists I could find and blow the whole SFA/SPFL apart and turn it into a sports based documentary. It would make dynamic watching and would get more viewers than any game they could show up here. 

[manaliveits105]

Sky should have someone wander round bars in holiday resorts when an old firm game is on - nobody gives a flying feck - in Spain there will be a Spanish game on the tv even if its a rerun or Gillingham v Melchester Rovers or any English game but unless some drunk weegie asks an empty bar to put it on there is zero interest 

[3fingersreid]

Delighted to say I’ve never subscribed knowingly to anything that is or was owned by that parasite and union hating ******* Murdoch. If I did have something connected to him it was cancelled sharpish . 

Obviously it’s not just football in certain packages people have, but I’d be interested to see if there was a reaction to a sudden cancellation of subscribers , especially if when asked why , the reason was given from a Hearts point of view , even more so if it was the same answer given each time . 

[John mcCartney]

1 hour ago, Furious Styles said:

Their golf coverage is superb though so for that reason alone I’ll always subscribe. 

I only subscribe to the golf when a championship Im interested in takes place.Il take out a weeks pass and that will do it.
early in the season,Masters,the Open,US Open...that will do altho it does leave a bad taste still having to deal with those rats.
 

[JJ93]

9 hours ago, jbee647 said:

Jeff I’m sure is a lovely guy, but he will know naff all about Hearts, I’ll guarantee it’s his researchers feeding him any info

Hmm not so sure. He's of the generation that wil know more. He will have been a grown man when Hearts were beating Atletico Madrid and Bayern Munich deep into the European Cup. That's hard to ignore. You could be right though.