Jump to content

SPFL clubs invest in independent advice on strategic review


Carl Fredrickson

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:


Why not both? Why do we have to be dictated to by Sky what away OF match we watch at 12 on a Saturday?
 

The clubs should come together and host their individual club channels and social media content on 1 platform. Let fans stream away games only (the type of fan who will try cheat the system wouldn’t have any intention of going to the game anyway)

 

Sky can still get their OF love in with a pundit from each side of Glasgow and we can watch what we want, when we want it.

 

Its taking nothing away from what Sky do so why would they be bothered about a rival streaming platform?

 

Chances are the SPFL would need to outsource the broadcasting infrastructure to them anyway. Might even be a win-win. 

The problem with SKY is the lions share of games and monies is given to the OF. But they (SKY) have the money, and so can dictate what they want (4 OF games per season=crap league set up). To oust SKY (or at least change how TV is run), we would require a deal well in excess of their 125 mill.

I love the idea of clubs hosting their own channels, we've shown the quality of what can be achieved over the last 18 months. However, if for instance, JA & Amazon were to come in and offer 300/400 or 500 mill... then they would also be in a strong position to 'add strings'. Like 'only if it's an 18 team league' or 'only if there is an equal share of televised games and monies'... the OF wouldn't like it, but I'm sure everyone else would. But I feel it would have to be funding of the like we've never seen before... it would have to be of the amount where by, if the OF 'block' the proposal using our ridiculous voting system, everyone else can say fine, GIRFUY we all resign... and leave the OF to lick their wounds.

Ok, pie-in-the-sky stuff, I know... but until our voting structure is changed, it's going to take an obscene amount of £££s to make any real changes, and SKY will continue to dictate.

But we have to start somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rogue Daddy

    30

  • GinRummy

    14

  • Smith's right boot

    12

  • John Findlay

    11

28 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:


Why not both? Why do we have to be dictated to by Sky what away OF match we watch at 12 on a Saturday?
 

The clubs should come together and host their individual club channels and social media content on 1 platform. Let fans stream away games only (the type of fan who will try cheat the system wouldn’t have any intention of going to the game anyway)

 

Sky can still get their OF love in with a pundit from each side of Glasgow and we can watch what we want, when we want it.

 

Its taking nothing away from what Sky do so why would they be bothered about a rival streaming platform?

 

Chances are the SPFL would need to outsource the broadcasting infrastructure to them anyway. Might even be a win-win. 

 

Why away games only? Seems mad to limit our revenue when undertaking an attempt to do the opposite.

 

People like going to games, they'll still go to games even if they could stream it instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the replies on this thread it's clear there is a lot of wariness and cynicism surrounding this, all completely justified.

However perhaps a leap of faith is required to push for changes? Covid shutdowns/playing behind closed doors no doubt exposed the fragility of the game up here hence this move.

What does seem apparent is the lack of trust in the existing structures and administrative personnel. 

This could get interesting...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Why away games only? Seems mad to limit our revenue when undertaking an attempt to do the opposite.

 

People like going to games, they'll still go to games even if they could stream it instead. 

Also what if for whatever reason you can't physically attend a home game but would like to see it anyway?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. The only way the non-OF teams in the SPFL could even think about driving through change was by forming some sort of bloc, and this looks to be the first salvo, public anyway, in this process. As someone else pointed out though, the voting structure should have been changed when the new Rangers entity were languishing in the lower leagues and we couldn't even sort that out - it will be very difficult to do that now and many possible changes hinge on it. The SPFL can, and very possibly will, ignore the results of any independent advice, but at least we and the other clubs involved are giving them food for thought and the results of the advice may put them in a spotlight that they won't relish being in. It's very much only a first step.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Why away games only? Seems mad to limit our revenue when undertaking an attempt to do the opposite.

 

People like going to games, they'll still go to games even if they could stream it instead. 

 

Fair point. It was more to head off the inevitable argument that it will affect season ticket sales.  I'd rather put a premium on the season ticket of say £80 to get a years access to the platform.  I get not everyone would want that though. I'm 100% certain that a good outcome can be reached though.

 

If you look at something like Apple News and how the revenue works for that.  There will be ways to slice and dice revenue so that it is in everyone's interest.  Clubs can bring their own sponsors and advertisers and benefit from that, but also benefit from centralised advertisers based on the number of fans they bring to the platform.  SPFL also take their cut for prize money.

 

The technology all exists to make this work and isn't prohibitive, just need some clever, driven people at the top to make it happen.  Hopefully the Americans have contacts with exactly those types of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boris said:

Going by the replies on this thread it's clear there is a lot of wariness and cynicism surrounding this, all completely justified.

However perhaps a leap of faith is required to push for changes? Covid shutdowns/playing behind closed doors no doubt exposed the fragility of the game up here hence this move.

What does seem apparent is the lack of trust in the existing structures and administrative personnel. 

This could get interesting...

The biggest thing for me is if the clubs commissioning the review come into conflict or disagreement with the old firm after the review is completed.

 

To be frank, I’m wary of backsliding and double crossing. I’m obviously talking about a hypothetical situation that may never occur but I don’t trust any of them whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
19 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

The problem with SKY is the lions share of games and monies is given to the OF. But they (SKY) have the money, and so can dictate what they want (4 OF games per season=crap league set up). To oust SKY (or at least change how TV is run), we would require a deal well in excess of their 125 mill.

I love the idea of clubs hosting their own channels, we've shown the quality of what can be achieved over the last 18 months. However, if for instance, JA & Amazon were to come in and offer 300/400 or 500 mill... then they would also be in a strong position to 'add strings'. Like 'only if it's an 18 team league' or 'only if there is an equal share of televised games and monies'... the OF wouldn't like it, but I'm sure everyone else would. But I feel it would have to be funding of the like we've never seen before... it would have to be of the amount where by, if the OF 'block' the proposal using our ridiculous voting system, everyone else can say fine, GIRFUY we all resign... and leave the OF to lick their wounds.

Ok, pie-in-the-sky stuff, I know... but until our voting structure is changed, it's going to take an obscene amount of £££s to make any real changes, and SKY will continue to dictate.

But we have to start somewhere.

 

I still don't see why we can't do this, it wouldn't take anything like £300 mill to get it off the ground.

 

I assume there will potentially be exclusivity clauses but the EPL seem to be able to deal with those.  Sky coverage is essentially OF tv so I don't see how they can stand in front of people trying to better themselves and say we can't do this or that.

 

How much per season do teams actually get from the tv money?  If Hearts had 10,000 fans paying £12 a month for access to a platform and could drive advertising revenue on top of that, and maintain the Sky money.  Surely that's worthwhile?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

This is why I think there is something else at play here... and not just another 'review', I get the feeling this is going somewhere.... but why inform the SPFL? Well, I guess they would look like they have something to hide if they didn't endorse it 🤷‍♂️. One things for sure, it's clear nobody rates dungcaster.... and he can't hide up liewell's arse any longer - makes me wonder if this has something to do with Dominic McKay's departure from shellick?

4 pages already ! Don't have time to read every post but there is some sensible input from many , and other stuff 

I see this as a direct attack on Doncaster . Many have commented on the dreadful deals he has made (Hearn etc)

This has possibly been initiated by American owners but , pretty sure , Budge and Anderson would have been involved from the start .

Interesting THEY (of) are not involved but I'm going to assume that is a good thing .

Doncaster's incompetent handling of recent events has , I think , helped to bring this about . 

Optimistic changes will follow 

Nothing personal Neil 

(that's a lie)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boris said:

Also what if for whatever reason you can't physically attend a home game but would like to see it anyway?

 

 

I live in England and make 3 or 4 games a year at most. If I could watch all our games on tv via something like Amazon Prime or an equally good service then I absolutely would. I'd still want to attend the 3 or 4 games I get to though in addition!

 

7 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

Fair point. It was more to head off the inevitable argument that it will affect season ticket sales.  I'd rather put a premium on the season ticket of say £80 to get a years access to the platform.  I get not everyone would want that though. I'm 100% certain that a good outcome can be reached though.

 

If you look at something like Apple News and how the revenue works for that.  There will be ways to slice and dice revenue so that it is in everyone's interest.  Clubs can bring their own sponsors and advertisers and benefit from that, but also benefit from centralised advertisers based on the number of fans they bring to the platform.  SPFL also take their cut for prize money.

 

The technology all exists to make this work and isn't prohibitive, just need some clever, driven people at the top to make it happen.  Hopefully the Americans have contacts with exactly those types of people.

 

 

I guess there is a balance to be had. Some may we'll drop their season ticket to watch on tv but I doubt it wouldn't be offset by 'new' viewers. If people wanted to sit at home and watch footbal rather than go to the games then I'm sure they would already do that but people support Hearts and (for me at least) a bit part of that appeal is going to Tynecastle. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I reckon you'd gain more than you'd lose from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Are you surprised.

We only have to turn the clock back Eighteen months to remember what a gallery of rogues are those that are on the SPFL board.

This is SPFL sanctioned I hear you cry.

So what say I. 

SPFL sanctioned to me is no different to a government inquiry, where the government know the outcome before they announce the inquiry.

For me the SPFL endorsed this in the full knowledge that they intend to keep the status quo, imho.

I personally feel it is nigh impossible to have a bloodless coup in Scottish football.

What club chairpersons say to you in private is completely different to how they behave at vote time.

If this review comes up with serious recommendations and they are not acted upon, then Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs and both Dundee clubs have to go public and say this was blocked by whoever, and if it is the gruesome twosome we have to publicly shame them and let everyone know that these two clubs have no interest whatsoever in the betterment of Scottish football and they are aided and abetted by both the SFA and SPFL. 

Bear in mind these two clubs have been wanting to get out of Scottish football for the last twenty five years. Ideally the want South of the border, not for footballing reasons but solely for the television money on offer.

Please also bear in mind that Sky television now push their coverage of the WSL more than they do the SPL.

I find it no accident that SKY and the WSL never went public with the amount they are paying for coverage of the WSL. The cynic in me says this was to save Neil Doncaster embarrassment, with the truly awful deal along with Peter Lawell that was negotiated for SPL football.

I further believe that it is Heart of Midlothian that are the driving force behind this review and that we have the stomach for the fight ahead, but I am not convinced that others do and I include Aberdeen, Hibernian, and both Dundee clubs in that statement.

I sincerely hope that all of the board at Heart of Midlothian have learned the most important lesson. That when it comes to Scottish football you trust mo one, especially from the West.

 

The SPFL "BOARD/DONCASTER" have publicly accepted it because they/he have been forced into a corner.   Doncaster's coat peg has never been shooglier. 

 

This is not an SPFL review and Deloitte will work to the brief they've been given by the 5 clubs, just as they do with all their clients.  Don't blame them if they've given previous customers what they wanted.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, south morocco said:

Interesting there is nothing on hubs official website or social media regarding this. Wonder why that is?

 

Personally, if I had been involved with this, I would have ensured that all the participating clubs announced it on their websites at the same time, thus reinforcing the solidity and seriousness of the group. But there you go...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I live in England and make 3 or 4 games a year at most. If I could watch all our games on tv via something like Amazon Prime or an equally good service then I absolutely would. I'd still want to attend the 3 or 4 games I get to though in addition!

 

 

 

I guess there is a balance to be had. Some may we'll drop their season ticket to watch on tv but I doubt it wouldn't be offset by 'new' viewers. If people wanted to sit at home and watch footbal rather than go to the games then I'm sure they would already do that but people support Hearts and (for me at least) a bit part of that appeal is going to Tynecastle. Maybe I'm overly optimistic but I reckon you'd gain more than you'd lose from it.

 

Absolutely agree.  Your situation being the perfect example.  Even though I am Edinburgh based, I don't buy a season ticket any more as I've got young kids and missing half the games due to stupid kick off times and other commitments.  I still go to as many games as I can and that wouldn't stop if I could stream the games properly. Know plenty folk in the same boat who would happily pay if we knew the lions share was going direct to the club and not in to tv execs or the OF coffers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Personally, if I had been involved with this, I would have ensured that all the participating clubs announced it on their websites at the same time, thus reinforcing the solidity and seriousness of the group. But there you go...

I was thinking the same, who knows!

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

The biggest thing for me is if the clubs commissioning the review come into conflict or disagreement with the old firm after the review is completed.

 

Would not surprise me at all if there was a "difference of opinion" at the end of this.

 

35 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

 

To be frank, I’m wary of backsliding and double crossing. I’m obviously talking about a hypothetical situation that may never occur but I don’t trust any of them whatsoever.

 

Again, we are once bitten and as such fully concur with what you say.

 

I wonder if this is a way to get rid of the Brechin City's of this world from the decision making process?

 

I've been catching up with the BBC's "The Rise of the Premier League" and feel this is a wee bit like the opening salvos of that.

 

If, and it's a big if, it does lead to an OF v the Rest stand-off, then it really would get interesting and would show exactly where the power lies (and as such highlight where it should lie).

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Would not surprise me at all if there was a "difference of opinion" at the end of this.

 

 

Again, we are once bitten and as such fully concur with what you say.

 

I wonder if this is a way to get rid of the Brechin City's of this world from the decision making process?

 

I've been catching up with the BBC's "The Rise of the Premier League" and feel this is a wee bit like the opening salvos of that.

 

If, and it's a big if, it does lead to an OF v the Rest stand-off, then it really would get interesting and would show exactly where the power lies (and as such highlight where it should lie).

Re your last paragraph. Backhanded bribes and short termism would rule the day. It’s good the clubs are trying to do something though. I’m maybe coming over as pessimistic but nothing will change unless someone tries to change it. Whether it comes to anything or not, it’s better to have tried then hopefully keep trying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
13 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Would not surprise me at all if there was a "difference of opinion" at the end of this.

 

 

Again, we are once bitten and as such fully concur with what you say.

 

I wonder if this is a way to get rid of the Brechin City's of this world from the decision making process?

 

I've been catching up with the BBC's "The Rise of the Premier League" and feel this is a wee bit like the opening salvos of that.

 

If, and it's a big if, it does lead to an OF v the Rest stand-off, then it really would get interesting and would show exactly where the power lies (and as such highlight where it should lie).

 

I'm hoping this at the very least.  Albion Rovers not wanting to pay for a bus and a packed lunch to Brora influencing multi million pound turnover clubs is a complete and utter joke.

 

These clubs should play in competitive and well run regionalised leagues.  They should run initiatives like Edinburgh City where they aim to become 2nd teams of locals who don't travel to away games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

I love the idea of clubs hosting their own channels, we've shown the quality of what can be achieved over the last 18 months. However, if for instance, JA & Amazon were to come in and offer 300/400 or 500 mill... then they would also be in a strong position to 'add strings'. Like 'only if it's an 18 team league' or 'only if there is an equal share of televised games and monies'... the OF wouldn't like it, but I'm sure everyone else would. But I feel it would have to be funding of the like we've never seen before... it would have to be of the amount where by, if the OF 'block' the proposal using our ridiculous voting system, everyone else can say fine, GIRFUY we all resign... and leave the OF to lick their wounds.

 

Why would Amazon want to take over coverage of a league while demanding it reduced the number of big games and equal coverage for all teams?  All the while paying more than twice the current price.

 

I mean, I agree such a setup would be better but it wouldn't make more money.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamboinglasgow said:

 

We are doing it help ourselves. We benefit greatly if more money comes into the league, the reputation of the league improves (meaning more players and better sponsorship,) etc. The difficulty will always be in getting things voted through, show more money in the league and the smaller clubs will be on board, I also think if you show changes to the SPFL then Rangers would be on board. 

 

It may fail (such has sadly been the history of Scottish football) but we can either shrug our shoulders, moan that nothing will change, do nothing and nothing happens, or we can at least try to do something which could happen.

Exactly.

 

"Scottish football is shite" "Why are we trying to change?" Mental attitude.

 

My big hope was that Hearts would lead or be right in the middle of a push for change. A wake-up call that our governance is unacceptable.

 

We are.

 

Good.

 

An  independent commission like this is a necessary tool. You can't just turn up with a gag packet saying Doncaster needs to go, and how come Denmark have a better TV deal than us!

 

This is a starting point. Running alongside it needs to be very good PR. If the OF oppose this,getting the press onside is going to be hard. Doing so - and getting the punters on board - will be vital.

 

Our game needs change.

 

There were some words in there that jumped out but none moreso than "competition". Not saying it'll ever happen, but do you give us a better or worse chance of the dream title win as it is, or in an 18 team league? Surely we want that?

 

People saying we shouldn't play ball because of our demotion!!!! Christ, if our demotion wasn't a reason Hearts should want to ruffle spfl feathers, what was?!?!

 

Another point. 3or4 million more a season won't hugely affect the OF but would make a huge difference to us and I'd suggest, spent well, close the gap. Like, their recruitment pool will be about the same,but we'd move up a rung or two in who we could bring in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

I still don't see why we can't do this, it wouldn't take anything like £300 mill to get it off the ground. - you're right, it wouldn't cost the earth. FFS even Alloa had a streaming service, so it certainly could be provided by clubs (although we would probably get differing levels of quality.) Re. the 300mill, this is (IMO only) what it would take to 1. Change clubs minds without worrying about the OF pound 2. To oust SKY and make changes for the better ie. fairer.

 

I assume there will potentially be exclusivity clauses but the EPL seem to be able to deal with those.  Sky coverage is essentially OF tv so I don't see how they can stand in front of people trying to better themselves and say we can't do this or that. - yeah,  cant answer that either, although (and don't quote me on this) I think there is some UEFA rule that restricts broadcasting 3pm kick offs 🤷‍♂️(relaxed during covid, I would assume)

 

How much per season do teams actually get from the tv money?  If Hearts had 10,000 fans paying £12 a month for access to a platform and could drive advertising revenue on top of that, and maintain the Sky money.  Surely that's worthwhile? - It would certainly be worth thinking about. Or even a Scottish football subscription channel but to get to, say, £300 mill over 5 years (more than double SKY) we would require 250,000 subscribers at £20 per month - but that would be for 'SPFL TV' ie. our own Scottish football channel.

 

...I'm coming at this from a 'get rid of SKY' point of view as I think they're a big part of the problem in Scotland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Why would Amazon want to take over coverage of a league while demanding it reduced the number of big games and equal coverage for all teams?  All the while paying more than twice the current price.

 

I mean, I agree such a setup would be better but it wouldn't make more money.  

 

Football is the carrot to entice an amazon sub.  Once you have that then you may subscribe to all the other shiny stuff they have available on their platform.  You'd also get Prime, so you start ordering day to day stuff through that.

 

It's like sky.  Football was the bait and allowed it to expand and diversify.

 

That said, Scottish football may only be enticing to Scottish fans!  Hence the need to really market and sell the product to a global audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else read the first paragraph as:

 

SPFL Member Clubs, Aberdeen, Dundee united with Celtic, Dundee United, Heart of Midlothian and Hibernian, with the endorsement of the SPFL, have commissioned independent advisers to assist in a strategic and holistic review of the SPFL, with the primary focus on identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues for the benefit of all in professional Scottish club football.

 

How we can sit round a table with Dundee knowing Celtic will be told every single thing that's discussed, is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Why would Amazon want to take over coverage of a league while demanding it reduced the number of big games and equal coverage for all teams?  All the while paying more than twice the current price.

 

I mean, I agree such a setup would be better but it wouldn't make more money.  

I'm only using Amazon as an example as JA has (or did have) close ties with them. I'm also trying to make the point that with such an offer, it should allow them input to a more competitive and fairer set up in the Scottish game. It may not benefit them initially, but hopefully they have a lot of minds smarter than the SPFL - and can come up with some decent ideas to promote our game. I keep hearing it's being undersold - but we have a lot to offer.... maybe, just maybe, someone can see worth in our game. As for the 300mill.... it could just as easily be 150mill or 175 mill... I just plucked a figure out of the air. But I am of the opinion that SKY are holding us back. Most of the games are OF, thereby most of the money goes to the OF, the league is set up to suit 4 televised OF games. 

Like I said, whatever the figure, we just hope that someone out there can see value in our game ... even although it's blighted with OF bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Football is the carrot to entice an amazon sub.  Once you have that then you may subscribe to all the other shiny stuff they have available on their platform.  You'd also get Prime, so you start ordering day to day stuff through that.

 

It's like sky.  Football was the bait and allowed it to expand and diversify.

 

That said, Scottish football may only be enticing to Scottish fans!  Hence the need to really market and sell the product to a global audience.

Correct!  And the bit in bold is exactly what the review is about... the first step. It's good to see clubs taking things into their own hands as the SPFL are clearly, completely incapable. We can only hope that this takes us to a better place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Old Tolbooth

So Abergreen have finally grown a spine instead of jumping into bed with Celtic when they had the chance to put a nail in their coffin when Rangers were in the lower leagues then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Spellczech said:

My father always said that a consultant is someone you pay a lot of money to tell you what you already know...

 

They can also be useful for disseminating information and speaking out in a way that no one else feels comfortable doing. Interesting that this is endorsed by the SPFL, you'd have thought that the highly paid Chief Executive of that organization might have an idea or two but sadly he seems unable to find his arse with both hands...shameful yet obvious that the change can't come from within.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
33 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

...I'm coming at this from a 'get rid of SKY' point of view as I think they're a big part of the problem in Scotland.

 

I get that. I just don't think it's realistic for Amazon to chuck in £300 million for no return.  Setting up our own SPFL tv platform (like NFL Game Pass) but just not making the game SKY are covering available for 24/48 hours doesn't affect Sky's coverage.  The mere existence of the platform and people subscribing to it would be enough to bring Sky in to line to make changes to the league structure etc.  I think that is more realistic than asking Amazon for hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

Sky act they way they do towards our game because they can and they know they have the game by the gonads.  That is the fault of Doncaster and the member clubs of the SPFL, not Sky.  Why should they fork out way over the odds for something just to be nice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboinglasgow
12 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Exactly.

 

"Scottish football is shite" "Why are we trying to change?" Mental attitude.

 

My big hope was that Hearts would lead or be right in the middle of a push for change. A wake-up call that our governance is unacceptable.

 

We are.

 

Good.

 

An  independent commission like this is a necessary tool. You can't just turn up with a gag packet saying Doncaster needs to go, and how come Denmark have a better TV deal than us!

 

This is a starting point. Running alongside it needs to be very good PR. If the OF oppose this,getting the press onside is going to be hard. Doing so - and getting the punters on board - will be vital.

 

Our game needs change.

 

There were some words in there that jumped out but none moreso than "competition". Not saying it'll ever happen, but do you give us a better or worse chance of the dream title win as it is, or in an 18 team league? Surely we want that?

 

People saying we shouldn't play ball because of our demotion!!!! Christ, if our demotion wasn't a reason Hearts should want to ruffle spfl feathers, what was?!?!

 

Another point. 3or4 million more a season won't hugely affect the OF but would make a huge difference to us and I'd suggest, spent well, close the gap. Like, their recruitment pool will be about the same,but we'd move up a rung or two in who we could bring in.

 

Great post.

 

On the second last paragraph, its maddening. No one is saying we should forget what other clubs and organisations did to us. But isolating ourselves is not the answer either.  I think Hearts were savy getting McKinley in as Chief executive as he worked in SFA, because we want change but someone who knows how it works on the inside allows us to figure out how we get change actually done. Thats whats needed, we want change, we want things better from Hearts so we should go the best way that gets that.

 

On the last paragraph. Completely agree. An extra 3 or 4 million means that Scottish clubs could qualify for the group stages of European qualification (which brings in more money.) It can mean teams have better finances where they can hold out for larger transfer fees. It could allow clubs to invest more in the infrastructure of the club and bring grounds up to spec. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

I get that. I just don't think it's realistic for Amazon to chuck in £300 million for no return.  Setting up our own SPFL tv platform (like NFL Game Pass) but just not making the game SKY are covering available for 24/48 hours doesn't affect Sky's coverage.  The mere existence of the platform and people subscribing to it would be enough to bring Sky in to line to make changes to the league structure etc.  I think that is more realistic than asking Amazon for hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

Sky act they way they do towards our game because they can and they know they have the game by the gonads.  That is the fault of Doncaster and the member clubs of the SPFL, not Sky.  Why should they fork out way over the odds for something just to be nice?

Not totally disagreeing with you, the more ideas and points of view we have, just goes to show little the SPFL are trying IMO.  See Boris' post above for a reason for Amazon to get involved but it all comes down to how our game is marketed and promoted... or not, as the case may be, hence this review.

You're right regarding SKY having us by the gonads - dungcaster seen to that by pissing off BT (and the BBC I think)... so now we have all our eggs in one SKY basket... with a crap deal. And the reason the deal is crap is because there is no competition (and they have our gonads!) So change IS needed... maybe SKY would fall into line if there was another avenue to pursue, maybe if SKY had competition (Amazon, AppleTV.... whoever) might help. I've plucked 300mill out of the air... it could be anything (more) than we already have. I've mentioned Amazon because of JAs links with them, but they do also have a television platform... but I get they would want/need something more.... how about each SPFL team having an online shop on their website? Who knows. I'm no marketing guru as you can probably tell, just ideas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
3 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Not totally disagreeing with you, the more ideas and points of view we have, just goes to show little the SPFL are trying IMO.  See Boris' post above for a reason for Amazon to get involved but it all comes down to how our game is marketed and promoted... or not, as the case may be, hence this review.

You're right regarding SKY having us by the gonads - dungcaster seen to that by pissing off BT (and the BBC I think)... so now we have all our eggs in one SKY basket... with a crap deal. And the reason the deal is crap is because there is no competition (and they have our gonads!) So change IS needed... maybe SKY would fall into line if there was another avenue to pursue, maybe if SKY had competition (Amazon, AppleTV.... whoever) might help. I've plucked 300mill out of the air... it could be anything (more) than we already have. I've mentioned Amazon because of JAs links with them, but they do also have a television platform... but I get they would want/need something more.... how about each SPFL team having an online shop on their website? Who knows. I'm no marketing guru as you can probably tell, just ideas. 

 

We're saying the same thing just from slightly different angles in how to get to the same end point. Interesting discussion.

 

The bit in bold hits the nail on the head and hopefully this move by the clubs pushes us further down the right path.  The more people call out the issues in our game, the more chance something will get done about it eventually.

 

We might not be an EPL money machine in the making but we're definitely way way short of where we should be.  If we do things right we could attract a decent proportion of English audience that are sick to the back teeth of the plastic nature of the EPL.  They've gone too far the other way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

We're saying the same thing just from slightly different angles in how to get to the same end point. Interesting discussion.

 

The bit in bold hits the nail on the head and hopefully this move by the clubs pushes us further down the right path.  The more people call out the issues in our game, the more chance something will get done about it eventually.

 

We might not be an EPL money machine in the making but we're definitely way way short of where we should be.  If we do things right we could attract a decent proportion of English audience that are sick to the back teeth of the plastic nature of the EPL.  They've gone too far the other way.

 

 

🤣 absolutley! 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperstarSteve

Just convince 40 of the 42 clubs to share gate receipts. Only 2 will refuse I reckon and when they do. Breakaway and leave them to play each other. Tongue in cheek of course. 
 

Likely to lead to nowhere this but it’s nice to see clubs trying for change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot
3 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

The problem with SKY is the lions share of games and monies is given to the OF. But they (SKY) have the money, and so can dictate what they want (4 OF games per season=crap league set up). To oust SKY (or at least change how TV is run), we would require a deal well in excess of their 125 mill.

I love the idea of clubs hosting their own channels, we've shown the quality of what can be achieved over the last 18 months. However, if for instance, JA & Amazon were to come in and offer 300/400 or 500 mill... then they would also be in a strong position to 'add strings'. Like 'only if it's an 18 team league' or 'only if there is an equal share of televised games and monies'... the OF wouldn't like it, but I'm sure everyone else would. But I feel it would have to be funding of the like we've never seen before... it would have to be of the amount where by, if the OF 'block' the proposal using our ridiculous voting system, everyone else can say fine, GIRFUY we all resign... and leave the OF to lick their wounds.

Ok, pie-in-the-sky stuff, I know... but until our voting structure is changed, it's going to take an obscene amount of £££s to make any real changes, and SKY will continue to dictate.

But we have to start somewhere.

 

 

I get your point, but that £125m needs a deep dive. 

 

Almost Half of it goes to the of. 

So You're down to £65m over five years (?) between the other 10 clubs. 

 

So any deal would only need to worth about £7m a season between all 10 teams to benefit them. 

 

Half any top line figure as the OF get that from any deal currently. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

...I'm coming at this from a 'get rid of SKY' point of view as I think they're a big part of the problem in Scotland.

Sky are not the only broadcaster that has shown Scottish football in recent years, but the problem has always been the same. They (the TV company) are only interested in two teams 

Link to post
Share on other sites
gorgie rd eh11

They were willing to sacrifice Hearts for their own short term gain. Ron Gordon is only interested in his “investment” tell him and the rest of the American speculators to do one. They have zero interest in Scottish football, only money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot
1 hour ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Just noticed this little nugget from Tom English....

 

"The prospect of a breakaway league has been mentioned as a last ditch scenario, an emergency measure to be re-examined more closely if they feel they are getting nowhere."

 

...could get interesting!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58565111

 

 

Basically, The guy on £400k a year cannot do his ****ing job. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboinglasgow
19 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

Just noticed this little nugget from Tom English....

 

"The prospect of a breakaway league has been mentioned as a last ditch scenario, an emergency measure to be re-examined more closely if they feel they are getting nowhere."

 

...could get interesting!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58565111

 

Interesting from Tom English (the whole thing not just that sentence) especially when he talks the difference in mentality from the traditional Scottish owners and the American ones. Certainly there has been a prevailing attitude of dont rock the boat, all the matters is the next few weeks for finance, as long as we have that then everything is fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jamboinglasgow said:

 

Interesting from Tom English (the whole thing not just that sentence) especially when he talks the difference in mentality from the traditional Scottish owners and the American ones. Certainly there has been a prevailing attitude of dont rock the boat, all the matters is the next few weeks for finance, as long as we have that then everything is fine. 

It's probably been a right eye-opener for them! While I am a bit dubious over foreign owners, at least they haven't been tarred with an old firm brush. They're from outside that bigotted bubble.

Edited by Rogue Daddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

I get your point, but that £125m needs a deep dive. 

 

Almost Half of it goes to the of. 

So You're down to £65m over five years (?) between the other 10 clubs. 

 

So any deal would only need to worth about £7m a season between all 10 teams to benefit them. 

 

Half any top line figure as the OF get that from any deal currently. 

 

 

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me in the slightest... I keep saying, it's not even a level playing-field before a ball is kicked each season. TV revenue is only a part the 'Of bias' problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Sky are not the only broadcaster that has shown Scottish football in recent years, but the problem has always been the same. They (the TV company) are only interested in two teams 

The same message is continually trotted out that the OF is Scottish football. Until this is challenged we will get nowhere. The product is sold to world as the bigotfest, with no promotion of anyone else. Its like a media vacuum, where people get their insite from the Daily Record. Remember last season when the fixtures were shoehorned to allow the OF game at the last possible moment as they tried to get fans in for this spectacle (after Lennons subtle demand for a favourable time slot). And the fixture scheduler was quite happy to declare that there were few slots to place the OF match. It cannot be held on week1 as you cannot not have a flag unfurling in this fixture. FFS it is a competition for 12 teams, there should be no preferential treatment for any clubs... but if course in Scotland this is accepted by all as normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

I get your point, but that £125m needs a deep dive. 

 

Almost Half of it goes to the of. 

So You're down to £65m over five years (?) between the other 10 clubs. 

 

So any deal would only need to worth about £7m a season between all 10 teams to benefit them. 

 

Half any top line figure as the OF get that from any deal currently. 

 

 

 

Doesn't half of it go to the Premier League and half that goes to the Old Firm?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboinglasgow
13 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

It's probably been a right eye-opener for them! While I am a bit dubious over foreign owners, at least they haven't been tarred with an old firm brush. They're from outside that bigotted bubble.

 

Thats true. I can imagine that when you come from a sports culture which has every single bit of it sponsored and marketed to an inch of its life, coming into a country where the top league for the most popular sport struggles to get a good league sponsor deal (after seasons without one) where the company who broadcasts the league often gets things wrong and there is almost no marketing done of the league, seeing owners who shrug and its fine must be infuriating. 

Edited by jamboinglasgow
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boris said:

That said, Scottish football may only be enticing to Scottish fans!  Hence the need to really market and sell the product to a global audience.

Perhaps we just need to lean into the hate and bigotry? Like, really go for it. Perhaps if the Glasgow clubs can cater to the Christian market, us and Hibs could try the Muslim angle, and go for the Sunni / Shi'ite divide. Hibs have always been shi'ite anyway, so it wouldn't take much of a leap for them. Aberdeen - tied to the past, arrogant, weird accent... AberZion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperstarSteve

I remember an article in the times. Roughly last summer which stated the 125 million sky deal will be the last and Clubs would cut them out the deal and directly broadcast to their own subscribers. can’t remember who wrote the article but I’m sure it was an ex board member. Looks like he was maybe on to something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Perhaps we just need to lean into the hate and bigotry? Like, really go for it. Perhaps if the Glasgow clubs can cater to the Christian market, us and Hibs could try the Muslim angle, and go for the Sunni / Shi'ite divide. Hibs have always been shi'ite anyway, so it wouldn't take much of a leap for them. Aberdeen - tied to the past, arrogant, weird accent... AberZion. 

Hahaha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boris said:

Hahaha.

St Mirren - minority Aztecs. Used to laying down when their god (Celtic) comes a-calling. Also, not convinced that child sacrifice is completely unheard of in contemporary Paisley. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LarrysRightFoot

You would think in this woke and esg age tv companies and sponsors would be turning away from the OF. Scottish footballs hierarchy just keep promoting them as ‘Scottish football’ though. 
 

Time for something positive and fresh, equitable and competitive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...