Jump to content

SPFL clubs invest in independent advice on strategic review


Carl Fredrickson

Recommended Posts

On 20/09/2021 at 13:17, WageThief said:

 

Yeah it's different I think.  I think the different countries are very different tbf.  Scotland has a league with massive, big, medium, small, and diddy clubs put together.  The only thing that really changes is the diddy teams.  

 

Dunfermline could feasibly switch places with St Johnstone as they are comparable clubs, but they are in a different league to us.  The only thing in Scotland that is exciting is the thing we could expect to be exciting.  Who makes up the diddy teams?  Is it Livi, Raith, Dunfermline, Hamilton, or?

 

Anyhoo, in the same time that only two teams have won the Scottish league:

 

Italy: Napoli, Lazio, Roma, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Sampdoria

 

England: Leeds, Liverpool, Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City

 

Netherlands: Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, FC Twente, AZ Alkmar

 

Belgium: Brugge, Genk, Gent, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Lierse

 

Throw in Denmark and Sweden who have had 6 different winners in past 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rogue Daddy

    31

  • GinRummy

    14

  • Smith's right boot

    14

  • John Findlay

    13

John Findlay
16 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58658987

 

...Ron Gordon update. Not much in it to be fair - lots of SPFL clubs on board and meetings with SKY!

 

Now, if I were Neil Dungcaster, I would be royally embarrassed that clubs have taken it upon themselves to try and make our game better, when this is surely his remit. He won't be, of course, because he just carries out the will of the clubs.

 

 I'll repeat for the gazillionth time on these threads... HOW THE DUCK IS THIS TWAT STILL IN A JOB!?

I think Ron is going to learn the hard way, that what clubs say to him in one to one conversations, and then when it comes to voting, do something completely different.

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

I think Ron is going to learn the hard way, that what clubs say to him in one to one conversations, and then when it comes to voting, do something completely different.

The irony is he'll start moaning about self interest when clubs vote against it 

Wasn't bothered about it when voting us down.  

 

Edited by Auldbenches
Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think Ron is going to learn the hard way, that what clubs say to him in one to one conversations, and then when it comes to voting, do something completely different.

 

Add in that at the moment all they are saying is they are happy with a review that has promised more money. None of them are actually agreeing with any proposals at this stage.

 

Not sure an American talking about trickle down economics would fill me confidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonnothejambo

Heard that twat Richard Foster saying that Aberdeen were the third biggest club in Scotland with one of the reasons being the way they were run financially. 

 

Without taking a breath he then admitted that he didn't know anything about the finances of Hearts or Hibs.

 

Yet another slavering ersepiece being given air time and talking out of his faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hearts1975
10 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

Heard that twat Richard Foster saying that Aberdeen were the third biggest club in Scotland with one of the reasons being the way they were run financially. 

 

Without taking a breath he then admitted that he didn't know anything about the finances of Hearts or Hibs.

 

Yet another slavering ersepiece being given air time and talking out of his faster.

Tbh I have always thought that they were punching well above their weight whilst they had McInnes in charge 

 

I expect and sometime very soon they are going to realise that it was nothing more than a flash in the pan 

 

Stephen Glass and his wee minder “broony” - Oh, ma sides 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jonnothejambo
42 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

Tbh I have always thought that they were punching well above their weight whilst they had McInnes in charge 

 

I expect and sometime very soon they are going to realise that it was nothing more than a flash in the pan 

 

Stephen Glass and his wee minder “broony” - Oh, ma sides 

 

👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisyboy7

This will be a good thing and you can clearly see that our game is sold short when contracts are signed....Sky should invest more and make our game more attractive and competitive....They did this in England and the rest is history...Ron is not a dafty as some on here think....Just because he is at our rivals doesn't mean we should not support his efforts.. Scottish football has some very good intelligent people involved now.....This could be a blessing for all..

The more money generated the better and it should increase every year....Doncaster has royally fked up our game....He can lock the door on his way out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo

Another article on the review on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58699735

Most of it isn't new, although a reasonable summary.

 

On statement from the author (not the owners) jumped out at me.

Quote

the price paid per game is a lot higher than many comparable leagues in Europe, who attract greater TV investment by selling more matches.

 

I've often wondered about the stats share about comparable leagues. I've been of the view that if it really was so simple and Doncaster was doing such a clearly terrible job on such a clear metric that the clubs would get rid of him. I think Doncaster is an annoying clown, but the clubs have stuck with him. This statement, which unfortunately the author doesn't provided data or a source for, might explain the answer. So far we haven't been willing to offer TV a package comparable to what they are paying for elsewhere. So could part of the 'solution' of this review be to move more games for TV? Dundee and Aberdeen are trialling a Saturday evening kick off. I can imagine this seems like a no brainer to the American owners. I can also see it being more acceptable to fans on the back of covid, as it will feel unusual when games can't be streamed any more.

 

So would you accept a significant increase in games being moved for TV in return for more cash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot

We are setting ourselves up for a two teir system, part time and full time team. 

 

The OF have the clout and teams will vote with them, which will see a further rift appear between the ft teams. 

 

However, no matter what actually happens this is a huge no confidence vote in Doncaster and those that run our game. 

 

Basically, the clubs think they lack initiative, drive, commercially savvy and are holding the league back as they pander to the OF. 

Basically the clubs think the  folk running our game are incompetent. 

 

That is the real  story here and the media are ignoring it. 

 

Whatever happens it's going to be interesting. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot

£8m a game. 

£4m each per game. 

 

Ridiculous. 

 

I hate sky. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboinglasgow
21 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

Another article on the review on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58699735

Most of it isn't new, although a reasonable summary.

 

On statement from the author (not the owners) jumped out at me.

 

I've often wondered about the stats share about comparable leagues. I've been of the view that if it really was so simple and Doncaster was doing such a clearly terrible job on such a clear metric that the clubs would get rid of him. I think Doncaster is an annoying clown, but the clubs have stuck with him. This statement, which unfortunately the author doesn't provided data or a source for, might explain the answer. So far we haven't been willing to offer TV a package comparable to what they are paying for elsewhere. So could part of the 'solution' of this review be to move more games for TV? Dundee and Aberdeen are trialling a Saturday evening kick off. I can imagine this seems like a no brainer to the American owners. I can also see it being more acceptable to fans on the back of covid, as it will feel unusual when games can't be streamed any more.

 

So would you accept a significant increase in games being moved for TV in return for more cash?

 

Its an interesting idea. I do think Scottish football doesn't help itself by only having 48 games televised a season. That might seem a lot but its an average of 1.25 games shown each round of fixtures. With almost all games limited to which ever old firm team is playing away from home, you dont really get the other exciting fixtures in the SPFL except for non-old firm derbies and the odd match. Doesn't really sell the league as mattering outside the old firm.

 

Last season the were a some post-split games that would make fantastic viewing but were not shown as they had used up the allocation.

 

It may even be a way to increase the current TV deal with sky (so go to Sky and offer to double the SPFL games from 48 to 96, for a say 60% increase (Sky wont play full price again midway through a contract.)  So becomes £40m a season.) Use the extra games to really market the league. Sell the excitement. Maybe even look to do an unique time for the second fixture.

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

 

Its an interesting idea. I do think Scottish football doesn't help itself by only having 48 games televised a season. That might seem a lot but its an average of 1.25 games shown each round of fixtures. With almost all games limited to which ever old firm team is playing away from home, you dont really get the other exciting fixtures in the SPFL except for non-old firm derbies and the odd match. Doesn't really sell the league as mattering outside the old firm.

 

Last season the were a some post-split games that would make fantastic viewing but were not shown as they had used up the allocation.

 

It may even be a way to increase the current TV deal with sky (so go to Sky and offer to double the SPFL games from 48 to 96, for a say 60% increase (Sky wont play full price again midway through a contract.)  So becomes £40m a season.) Use the extra games to really market the league. Sell the excitement. Maybe even look to do an unique time for the second fixture.

I can just imagine the times we would be playing these extra games given the current televised English matches. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
24 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I can just imagine the times we would be playing these extra games given the current televised English matches. 

 

Which is pretty much my point. It is all well and good criticising the current deal. But if the option is a 50% better deal and to get that we need to double the number of games shown, with games involving the OF staying in relatively prime time slots, but the extra games not featuring the OF kicking off at 5.30pm on a Friday, 9pm on a Sunday and 6pm on a Monday, then how in favour would other clubs and fans really be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboinglasgow

Barnsley owners talks about investing in Scottish football. He believes with the right investment you could make good money from selling players and using it to challenge the old firm.

 

Wants the SFA to remove the restriction on owners of another club outside Scotland owning a Scottish club.

 

Also nails down the old Firm, says they don't want any real investment to non-old firm clubs as they down want duopoly broken up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10035369/amp/I-break-stranglehold-Celtic-Rangers-says-Barnsley-owner-Paul-Conway.html?__twitter_impression=true

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

Barnsley owners talks about investing in Scottish football. He believes with the right investment you could make good money from selling players and using it to challenge the old firm.

 

Wants the SFA to remove the restriction on owners of another club outside Scotland owning a Scottish club.

 

Also nails down the old Firm, says they don't want any real investment to non-old firm clubs as they down want duopoly broken up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10035369/amp/I-break-stranglehold-Celtic-Rangers-says-Barnsley-owner-Paul-Conway.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

That reads a bit like a 'wide-boy' peddling a get rich quick scheme, methinks. He's quoting a few examples of favourable transfers and a not all that impressive league standing for only one of his clubs whilst missing out, say, Nancy (they of the recently sacked Stendal) who are currently bottom of Ligue 2. I detect something whiffy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Japan Jambo
9 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

Another article on the review on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58699735

Most of it isn't new, although a reasonable summary.

 

On statement from the author (not the owners) jumped out at me.

 

I've often wondered about the stats share about comparable leagues. I've been of the view that if it really was so simple and Doncaster was doing such a clearly terrible job on such a clear metric that the clubs would get rid of him. I think Doncaster is an annoying clown, but the clubs have stuck with him. This statement, which unfortunately the author doesn't provided data or a source for, might explain the answer. So far we haven't been willing to offer TV a package comparable to what they are paying for elsewhere. So could part of the 'solution' of this review be to move more games for TV? Dundee and Aberdeen are trialling a Saturday evening kick off. I can imagine this seems like a no brainer to the American owners. I can also see it being more acceptable to fans on the back of covid, as it will feel unusual when games can't be streamed any more.

 

So would you accept a significant increase in games being moved for TV in return for more cash?

 

I think there is a world of difference between moving the normal Saturday 3.00pm card in it's entirety to say 7.30pm on a Friday (or a Saturday night) with a view to making that a USP versus moving games around randomly across multiple slots. Football for many is a habit and a ritual, the erosion of this seriously impacts on the individuals level of investment/engagement. I have on too many occasions go up early/stayed up late/made plans to watch a game from afar only to find I had been unawares of a scheduling change, back in the day the home and away routine were different but predictably, one way or another, they accounted for my Saturday. Don't know how the rest of you feel but I get quite ticked off if I miss a game by being blindsided by a change or a scheduling conflict. 

In reality what I really care about is being able to access my team live on a stable, reliable, high quality, legal stream week in, week out across all competitions preferably at a predictable time and for that I have for many years bought a subscription from the club (HeartsTV). I would add though that the inability to stream games live down here in London through that platform legally is preposterous and ought to be addressed.

 

If I was a fan of the wider Scottish game I'd probably feel differently. When I lived in the US I habitually watched the NFL games Monday, Thursday and Sunday regardless of who was playing and whether or not the team I notionally 'supported' (they never saw a penny from me beyond a couple of pieces of merchandise) were involved or not. Reality though is I don't have SKY and wouldn't pay them the money even if they did have a better Scottish TV package - I have no interest whatsoever watching Livingston play Motherwell for the umpteenth time or yet another OF derby - if it isn't Hearts I'm out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Japan Jambo
1 hour ago, jamboinglasgow said:

Barnsley owners talks about investing in Scottish football. He believes with the right investment you could make good money from selling players and using it to challenge the old firm.

 

Wants the SFA to remove the restriction on owners of another club outside Scotland owning a Scottish club.

 

Also nails down the old Firm, says they don't want any real investment to non-old firm clubs as they down want duopoly broken up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10035369/amp/I-break-stranglehold-Celtic-Rangers-says-Barnsley-owner-Paul-Conway.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

Interesting article, quite the can of worms!!

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

Barnsley owners talks about investing in Scottish football. He believes with the right investment you could make good money from selling players and using it to challenge the old firm.

 

Wants the SFA to remove the restriction on owners of another club outside Scotland owning a Scottish club.

 

Also nails down the old Firm, says they don't want any real investment to non-old firm clubs as they down want duopoly broken up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10035369/amp/I-break-stranglehold-Celtic-Rangers-says-Barnsley-owner-Paul-Conway.html?__twitter_impression=true

A tweet a few months back claimed these guys approached Hearts but got nowhere. 

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

 

Its an interesting idea. I do think Scottish football doesn't help itself by only having 48 games televised a season. That might seem a lot but its an average of 1.25 games shown each round of fixtures. With almost all games limited to which ever old firm team is playing away from home, you dont really get the other exciting fixtures in the SPFL except for non-old firm derbies and the odd match. Doesn't really sell the league as mattering outside the old firm.

 

Last season the were a some post-split games that would make fantastic viewing but were not shown as they had used up the allocation.

 

It may even be a way to increase the current TV deal with sky (so go to Sky and offer to double the SPFL games from 48 to 96, for a say 60% increase (Sky wont play full price again midway through a contract.)  So becomes £40m a season.) Use the extra games to really market the league. Sell the excitement. Maybe even look to do an unique time for the second fixture.

That's partly true.

This season so far.

Sky have had Hibs away at Motherwell,

Hibs away at Dundee, Hibs away at Hearts, Dundee across the road at United and Aberdeen away at St Mirren.

That's five games not involving the OF.

The weekend just past. The Blue half of the OF were away at Dens, but the live game was Aberdeen at St Mirren.

Those five games have averaged three goals a game, despite two being a 0-0 and a 1-0.

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

I can just imagine the times we would be playing these extra games given the current televised English matches. 

I'm not a huge fan of a noon KO on a Sunday as it is. Would prefer Friday night or Saturday tea time though not great for young kids, though doubt Sky and SPFL would care as its all about the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hagar the Horrible

I am still behind the Sherman tank on this one,  The worst that will happen is we will present a solution that is diferent to what we are doing.  We could get a beer at the stadium.  but I do not think anything esle will make it as there is a bowling club mentality with the other clubs, and the OF want the duopoly to remain.  But it will at least expose the incompetence of the people administering the game and that we have been sold short.  Also it will be a huge advert that the game is indeed only for the benefit of the OF, and perhaps a split away would be a good thing.

 

I have said before the OF are NOT bigger than the game, it is not more important, its mibbies important to more people but no where near as important to me as the Hibs game, or even Falkirk v Dunfermline.  In fact Hearts winning a throw in is so way more important than any OF game.  We need to sell the game not a biggot fest.

 

On TV Hearts games are just as big in the UK as the OF are, and sometimes we outsell them.  The problem is SKY sell the OF games abroad to ex-pats, but we dont get a penny of that.  Crystal Palace v Brighton last night made more money than we get in a season, world wide nobody gives two hoots about either of them.  Its not undersold, its just not sold...criminal.

 

If we start selling the whole game we will improve infrastructure make it more accessible and a good experience to go to games.  better street food, better drink, entertainment before games.  A massive beer tent behind the wheatfield

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2021 at 09:58, brux said:

Football in Scotland needs reviewed from the bottom up, I'm involved in grassroots and there are still far too many guys playing out failed football dreams through their kids.  The win at all costs over development of players is still prevalent in lots of local and community clubs.  Lots of coaches play long ball into the opposition goal keeper hoping for mistakes and "get stuck intae thum" is heard often at 8/9/10 year old.

 

Until its sorted from the bottom up we will never have a product at the level which we all want and crave.

Totally agree with this Brux, it should be about the kids enjoying their football and learning. Both my boys' teams went up a league for the second half as they won all their games in the first half of the year. They weren't learning anything about themselves or improving as they weren't being challenged. 

 

Now a league up we haven't won 1 game, which comes with it's own issues of course but this is down to teams playing in leagues below their ability just to win games. I've had to introduce Individual Payer Development Plans to try and give each player personal targets so they can succeed while losing the actual game. 

 

If we can't get the grassroots levels right, we don't stand a chance with anything above

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

Another article on the review on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58699735

Most of it isn't new, although a reasonable summary.

 

On statement from the author (not the owners) jumped out at me.

 

I've often wondered about the stats share about comparable leagues. I've been of the view that if it really was so simple and Doncaster was doing such a clearly terrible job on such a clear metric that the clubs would get rid of him. I think Doncaster is an annoying clown, but the clubs have stuck with him. This statement, which unfortunately the author doesn't provided data or a source for, might explain the answer. So far we haven't been willing to offer TV a package comparable to what they are paying for elsewhere. So could part of the 'solution' of this review be to move more games for TV? Dundee and Aberdeen are trialling a Saturday evening kick off. I can imagine this seems like a no brainer to the American owners. I can also see it being more acceptable to fans on the back of covid, as it will feel unusual when games can't be streamed any more.

 

So would you accept a significant increase in games being moved for TV in return for more cash?

 

Is that because the games we do sell are valuable?

 

It's quite possible that the broadcaster isn't very interested in many more of the games and certainly not at the same price per game they are currently paying. An old firm game doesn't have the same commercial value as Dundee Vs Ross County for example.

Edited by Taffin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Jambo
1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I am still behind the Sherman tank on this one,  The worst that will happen is we will present a solution that is diferent to what we are doing.  We could get a beer at the stadium.  but I do not think anything esle will make it as there is a bowling club mentality with the other clubs, and the OF want the duopoly to remain.  But it will at least expose the incompetence of the people administering the game and that we have been sold short.  Also it will be a huge advert that the game is indeed only for the benefit of the OF, and perhaps a split away would be a good thing.

 

I have said before the OF are NOT bigger than the game, it is not more important, its mibbies important to more people but no where near as important to me as the Hibs game, or even Falkirk v Dunfermline.  In fact Hearts winning a throw in is so way more important than any OF game.  We need to sell the game not a biggot fest.

 

On TV Hearts games are just as big in the UK as the OF are, and sometimes we outsell them.  The problem is SKY sell the OF games abroad to ex-pats, but we dont get a penny of that.  Crystal Palace v Brighton last night made more money than we get in a season, world wide nobody gives two hoots about either of them.  Its not undersold, its just not sold...criminal.

 

If we start selling the whole game we will improve infrastructure make it more accessible and a good experience to go to games.  better street food, better drink, entertainment before games.  A massive beer tent behind the wheatfield

 

When you say "On TV Hearts games are just as big in the UK as the OF are, and sometimes we outsell them", are you suggesting that a Hearts v Motherwell game might get more fans than a Rangers or Celtic v Motherwell game for example? 

 

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Is that because the games we do sell are valuable?

 

It's quite possible that the broadcaster isn't very interested in many more of the games and certainly not at the same price per game they are currently paying. An old firm game doesn't have the same commercial value as Dundee Vs Ross County for example.

 

I definitely wouldn't expect to get the same price for game if the number of games was increased dramatically. But overall the suggestion seems to be that other similar leagues are achieving more by selling more games at a lower cost per game. Those leagues will have the same issues that some games are much more attractive and get bigger audiences than others, although potentially not quite to the extent as in Scotland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hagar the Horrible
1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

When you say "On TV Hearts games are just as big in the UK as the OF are, and sometimes we outsell them", are you suggesting that a Hearts v Motherwell game might get more fans than a Rangers or Celtic v Motherwell game for example? 

 

Best viewed games appart from one celtic v Rangers game was

 

Hearts v Hibs

Hearts v Celtic

and Hearts v Rangers

 

 

 

Setanta had their PPV figures as we we were outselling both combined, when Vlad was here.

 

So yeah in the UK we are box office, but you would think  its all about them

Link to post
Share on other sites
LarrysRightFoot
On 20/09/2021 at 13:17, WageThief said:

 

Yeah it's different I think.  I think the different countries are very different tbf.  Scotland has a league with massive, big, medium, small, and diddy clubs put together.  The only thing that really changes is the diddy teams.  

 

Dunfermline could feasibly switch places with St Johnstone as they are comparable clubs, but they are in a different league to us.  The only thing in Scotland that is exciting is the thing we could expect to be exciting.  Who makes up the diddy teams?  Is it Livi, Raith, Dunfermline, Hamilton, or?

 

Anyhoo, in the same time that only two teams have won the Scottish league:

 

Italy: Napoli, Lazio, Roma, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Sampdoria

 

England: Leeds, Liverpool, Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City

 

Netherlands: Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, FC Twente, AZ Alkmar

 

Belgium: Brugge, Genk, Gent, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Lierse

I think Everton can be added to English winners post 85

 

Also I know they had major investment but Leicester and Blackburn would probably have been considered small clubs in EPL terms. 

Edited by LarrysRightFoot
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...