ViaPlay in a bit of financial trouble?

[henryheart]

I subscribe because I like La Liga TV. Anything else they show including Scotland internationals, the League Cup and the Swedish speedway is a bonus. At £59 a year it is a good deal for me and I would be sorry if it folded.

[Daveandal]

1 minute ago, henryheart said:

I subscribe because I like La Liga TV. Anything else they show including Scotland internationals, the League Cup and the Swedish speedway is a bonus. At £59 a year it is a good deal for me and I would be sorry if it folded.

 

I bought a package a few years back when Premier Sport bought the rugby rights (yes I like egg chasing).

 

The coverage of that isn't earth shattering but they show all the games and treat each team the same. 

 

 

[Sooks]

1 hour ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

Folk don't want expensive subscriptions 

 

Folk want better tv deals. 

 

Folk have to realise the two need to marry up.

 

You need tv money to improve the quality, but yet people want to bite the hand that feeds them. 

 

BBC deal for example would send us back 20 years likely 

I would happily pay an expensive subscription if it brought Hearts and Scottish football a competitive deal that allowed us to compete with other clubs for wages . Our TV deal is for old firm away games , the coverage is atrocious and it keeps us so poor we can not compete in the transfer market with third tier English clubs , We go in to third tier European qualifying matches expecting to not be able to compete . We can not hold on to players who do well because we can not afford to pay them the hyper inflated wages they can get down south and as we are constantly told it is just a job for them and there is no loyalty in football

 

The English TV deals push clubs smaller than ourselves in to player markets two or three levels above our own and we get pish like Blackpool making derisory bids for players and then sneering when we turn them down

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Sooks

[Sooks]

The EFL SKY deal

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/may/efl-announces-landmark-broadcasting-deal-with-sky-sports/
 

The SPFL SKY deal

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-new-deal-with-sky-sports
 

The ViaPlay Scottish deal

 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-viaplay-cup#:~:text=Viaplay will show Viaplay Cup,Nations League and friendly matches.
 

Just so people can see the figures involved as this is debated 

 

 

[kevin_hmfc]

3 hours ago, Lord Beni of Gorgie said:

Folk don't want expensive subscriptions 

 

Folk want better tv deals. 

 

Folk have to realise the two need to marry up.

 

You need tv money to improve the quality, but yet people want to bite the hand that feeds them. 

 

BBC deal for example would send us back 20 years likely 

You could argue football was better then however.

 

BBC got the matches to the masses.   

Some people on here swear by almighty God that they will never give sky a penny ( well sky sports I mean). 

[AuldReekiee]

BT were the best broadcasters for Scottish football, hope they are interested in the future.

[Sooks]

3 minutes ago, kevin_hmfc said:

You could argue football was better then however.

 

BBC got the matches to the masses.   

Some people on here swear by almighty God that they will never give sky a penny ( well sky sports I mean). 

SKY will never get a penny from me directly 🙂 

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, AuldReekiee said:

BT were the best broadcasters for Scottish football, hope they are interested in the future.

May be once they are totally priced out of the market for the EPL they will look to diversify their portfolio a little 

[Martin_T]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

May be once they are totally priced out of the market for the EPL they will look to diversify their portfolio a little 

 

Not sure what the situation is now that TNT have bought them over, but there was suggestions that BT were looking to exit sports broadcasting completely.

 

I suspect Google/Apple and Amazon will be the main players in the near future, all of whom could blow Sky out of the market should they choose to.

[Sooks]

10 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

 

Not sure what the situation is now that TNT have bought them over, but there was suggestions that BT were looking to exit sports broadcasting completely.

 

I suspect Google/Apple and Amazon will be the main players in the near future, all of whom could blow Sky out of the market should they choose to.

I would happily pay a subscription to any platform that gave us enough money to compete with clubs we face in European qualifiers , and enough to keep hold of our best players and buy decent players . Add to that an actual appetite to promote and improve the league with coverage and knowledge of other teams out side of Glasgow , and no longer just showing old firm away games and their derbies . I would see a subscription to that as similar to what I pay to FOH , an investment in my club and the league it plays in 

[Gnjambo16]

4 hours ago, Sooks said:

I would happily pay an expensive subscription if it brought Hearts and Scottish football a competitive deal that allowed us to compete with other clubs for wages . Our TV deal is for old firm away games , the coverage is atrocious and it keeps us so poor we can not compete in the transfer market with third tier English clubs , We go in to third tier European qualifying matches expecting to not be able to compete . We can not hold on to players who do well because we can not afford to pay them the hyper inflated wages they can get down south and as we are constantly told it is just a job for them and there is no loyalty in football

 

The English TV deals push clubs smaller than ourselves in to player markets two or three levels above our own and we get pish like Blackpool making derisory bids for players and then sneering when we turn them down

 

 

Very good and sadly very accurate post . 

[RedStarRiot]

18 hours ago, Sooks said:

Yip . Who is that going to affect worse the leagues get billions from them and have gigantic wage bills or the leagues who are more dependent on crowds ? Hyper inflation of the market is killing Scottish football . We would survive , I hope the entire English set up dies and has to reform as some thing more like a genuine football league . Luton and Plymouth as giants of the game ? Do me a favour 

The premier league don’t need a broadcaster really, they could do a streaming service themselves

[Sooks]

3 minutes ago, RedStarRiot said:

The premier league don’t need a broadcaster really, they could do a streaming service themselves

True ……….. could they keep it from being illegally streamed do you know ? Genuine question 

[Jambo in Bathgate]

19 hours ago, Fort Vallance said:

Took out the £59 sub for a year a while ago. Probably had my moneys worth already. If it folds I won't lose any sleep. The worry is that since the governing bodies here can't be trusted to either compensate or source a replacement deal a lot of smaller clubs could be hit badly.  Don't  get the hate for the broadcasters. If you don't like it don't *** take it.

Had to be when they were selling season tickets for £59 and using Scotland team to promote offer. That was the first hint of trouble! 

[RedStarRiot]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

True ……….. could they keep it from being illegally streamed do you know ? Genuine question 

No, the Amazon games are still streamed. However if they offer a competitive package it would reduce it I’d imagine. Music and movie downloads reduced since Spotify Netflix etc

[kevin_hmfc]

6 hours ago, Sooks said:

I would happily pay a subscription to any platform that gave us enough money to compete with clubs we face in European qualifiers , and enough to keep hold of our best players and buy decent players . Add to that an actual appetite to promote and improve the league with coverage and knowledge of other teams out side of Glasgow , and no longer just showing old firm away games and their derbies . I would see a subscription to that as similar to what I pay to FOH , an investment in my club and the league it plays in 

Living in a dream world.  No one wants to pay a premium.   A lot of people argue for free or cheap broadcast of sport.  

[tian447]

2 hours ago, Sooks said:

True ……….. could they keep it from being illegally streamed do you know ? Genuine question 

 

Could they keep it from being illegally streamed? No chance, anyone who wants to stream something will be able to, even with very simple screen recording software or even a webcam for the crapper quality streams.  It's very hard to stop it happening, but you can stop the person from continuing to do it. 

 

What they could do is the same tactic the others do and put a unique code on the screen, which identifies where the original "stream" or broadcast is coming from. For example, you might watch it on Now TV and get the code 123ABC456 showing on your screen. If you share that, someone at Sky can look at it and go "that's Sooks' account, let's get that banned right away" and that would be the end of the stream. 

 

Often though, the codes are at the top right of the screen, which dodgy websites often crop out

[kevin_hmfc]

1 hour ago, tian447 said:

 

Could they keep it from being illegally streamed? No chance, anyone who wants to stream something will be able to, even with very simple screen recording software or even a webcam for the crapper quality streams.  It's very hard to stop it happening, but you can stop the person from continuing to do it. 

 

What they could do is the same tactic the others do and put a unique code on the screen, which identifies where the original "stream" or broadcast is coming from. For example, you might watch it on Now TV and get the code 123ABC456 showing on your screen. If you share that, someone at Sky can look at it and go "that's Sooks' account, let's get that banned right away" and that would be the end of the stream. 

 

Often though, the codes are at the top right of the screen, which dodgy websites often crop out

Don't give them ideas.  Keep the streaming services going plz. 

 

Maybe sky will take note and reduce the prices

[Malinga the Swinga]

Remember Sky just subsidiary of Comcast since 2018.

Comcast probably overpaid for Sky then and there's various rumours about sky dragging them down so who can say that Sky won't be cut adrift and deals may be available for packages of games that others may bid for.

Streaming giants may make bids but you can guarantee Scottish football will be nowhere near top of shopping list.

[kevin_hmfc]

Hope more games end up on free channels 

[Sooks]

38 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Remember Sky just subsidiary of Comcast since 2018.

Comcast probably overpaid for Sky then and there's various rumours about sky dragging them down so who can say that Sky won't be cut adrift and deals may be available for packages of games that others may bid for.

Streaming giants may make bids but you can guarantee Scottish football will be nowhere near top of shopping list.

No where near the top of the list for global players no . If some one was to put together a Scottish platform that was principally concerned with Scottish sports how ever …….. may be 

[Spellczech]

Doncaster has an unerring ability to back a losing horse and then give himself plaudits for it

[Ribble]

On 15/07/2023 at 21:41, Daveandal said:

 

Sky could go bust if Amazon and/or Apple decide to seriously move into the sports market.

 

The question we need to ask is why are our TV right worth so much less than similar sized countries. We do have a good product, we just don't sell it.

 

Sky Sports maybe but not the whole company, Sky have for years been diversifying so that even if they did lose the EPL rights then they are in a strong enough position to continue to grow, broadband, mobile, TV's and even home insurance have all been added to their TV content offering, not to mention the £300m tv studios that they have built in Elstree that have and will be used by both TV and Film for years to come

[Ribble]

10 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Remember Sky just subsidiary of Comcast since 2018.

Comcast probably overpaid for Sky then and there's various rumours about sky dragging them down so who can say that Sky won't be cut adrift and deals may be available for packages of games that others may bid for.

Streaming giants may make bids but you can guarantee Scottish football will be nowhere near top of shopping list.

 

If anything it'd be the Italian and German divisions of Sky that get sold off, UK is highly profitable for Comcast

[davemclaren]

Will be interesting to understand what our contractual position is should ViaPlay stop trading or get bought over. Interesting times but it's clear that selling Scottish football doesn't get many providers queuing up with their chequebooks open. 

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

If anything it'd be the Italian and German divisions of Sky that get sold off, UK is highly profitable for Comcast

The skyQ platform is great imo and Sky Sports is just a small ( though significant ) part of the content on that. 

[Prehen]

The people in charge, Doncaster etc, are a shambles. Barry Hearn did a great interview 4-5 years ago and said he could make everybody more money. His idea was fairly simple, a Commissioner of Scottish football would be put it and he runs it. Essentially an American model. But as this thread states, everything is done by or with Old Firm in mind. There are some great derbies and rivalries that go unnoticed, either to or written pages, due to the infatuation with  2 clubs in Glasgow. Sadly the Covid debacle also showed that very club CEOs want change as they fear uncertainty. Every fan of a SPL club, and I would say Championship and Division 1 as well, know they are getting short changed year after year. Yet no one is willing to try an alternative. When I watched Bristow and Lowe in the 80s, I could never have believed Darts would become mainstream sport with punters willing to pay £150 for a ticket. 
 

Part of the problem is the 2 club nature of the league. Scottish football needs to remove all the hidden powers and rules brought in to favour the OF. As an example of one such rule, the OF introduced a rule that they could write to any other football club and request permission to invite one of their academy players to play for them. They are allowed to contact one per club per year group. Hearts and other clubs receive these letters every year across all year groups below u16. James Wilson stories before Xmas was quite high profile, and luckily that kid knew what was best for him.

 

All the other clubs in Scottish Footfall need to come together and do what is right for them as a collective. 

[SUTOL]

1 hour ago, Prehen said:

The people in charge, Doncaster etc, are a shambles. Barry Hearn did a great interview 4-5 years ago and said he could make everybody more money. His idea was fairly simple, a Commissioner of Scottish football would be put it and he runs it. Essentially an American model. But as this thread states, everything is done by or with Old Firm in mind. There are some great derbies and rivalries that go unnoticed, either to or written pages, due to the infatuation with  2 clubs in Glasgow. Sadly the Covid debacle also showed that very club CEOs want change as they fear uncertainty. Every fan of a SPL club, and I would say Championship and Division 1 as well, know they are getting short changed year after year. Yet no one is willing to try an alternative. When I watched Bristow and Lowe in the 80s, I could never have believed Darts would become mainstream sport with punters willing to pay £150 for a ticket. 
 

Part of the problem is the 2 club nature of the league. Scottish football needs to remove all the hidden powers and rules brought in to favour the OF. As an example of one such rule, the OF introduced a rule that they could write to any other football club and request permission to invite one of their academy players to play for them. They are allowed to contact one per club per year group. Hearts and other clubs receive these letters every year across all year groups below u16. James Wilson stories before Xmas was quite high profile, and luckily that kid knew what was best for him.

 

All the other clubs in Scottish Footfall need to come together and do what is right for them as a collective. 

 

What rule is that? 

 

An SFA thing or SPFL? 

 

Is it just the OF teams that can invite a player from other clubs, or can all clubs invite players? 

[Prehen]

41 minutes ago, SUTOL said:

 

What rule is that? 

 

An SFA thing or SPFL? 

 

Is it just the OF teams that can invite a player from other clubs, or can all clubs invite players? 

It is all teams, but for obvious reasons the process only works one way. And the compensation for any player who moves the year before the year the player is 16, is negligible. You often see news break Q4 every year of some great young hope coveted by the the Glasgow clubs. Happens every year and goes unnoticed yet completely within the rules.

[davemclaren]

5 minutes ago, Prehen said:

It is all teams, but for obvious reasons the process only works one way. And the compensation for any player who moves the year before the year the player is 16, is negligible. You often see news break Q4 every year of some great young hope coveted by the the Glasgow clubs. Happens every year and goes unnoticed yet completely within the rules.

If it is a rule it's not exactly well hidden. 😄

[Mysterion]

On 16/07/2023 at 08:35, henryheart said:

I subscribe because I like La Liga TV. Anything else they show including Scotland internationals, the League Cup and the Swedish speedway is a bonus. At £59 a year it is a good deal for me and I would be sorry if it folded.

 

That offer is pretty good (if it keeps broadcasting). Something like 5 Scotland games being shown on the channel between June - October, if it was a PPV option you'd spend upwards of £60 just to watch those games anyway. 

 

I watched some of the Raith/Pars game at the weekend and my kid has an interesting in La Liga. Between that and the Scotland games I'll get some sort of value from the service. 

 

That aside - I don't really see anything specific that suggests ViaPlay will go bust just now, just that as a review of their business model they might have to cut their losses and sell off the UK company. 

 

On 16/07/2023 at 11:26, AuldReekiee said:

BT were the best broadcasters for Scottish football, hope they are interested in the future.

 

BT Sport was good, they helped grow the value of the game but changes in their core business meant it couldn't pursue the rights. Tomorrow BT Sport becomes TNT Sport (owned by Discovery+ & BT). They might re-enter the Scottish market if rights are available at discount.

 

2 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Will be interesting to understand what our contractual position is should ViaPlay stop trading or get bought over. Interesting times but it's clear that selling Scottish football doesn't get many providers queuing up with their chequebooks open. 

 

Would expect any takeover would result in contracts carrying over at existing agreements. Cease trading and it's all contracts are null/void.

 

I generally thought that Premier Sports was a working trading model because they hadn't splashed silly amounts of money and grown over a period of time. I don't think a lot will have changed with the rebrand to ViaPlay. I viewed their £59 a year offer as an attempt to grow their customer base at very low margin. 

[SUTOL]

31 minutes ago, Prehen said:

It is all teams, but for obvious reasons the process only works one way. And the compensation for any player who moves the year before the year the player is 16, is negligible. You often see news break Q4 every year of some great young hope coveted by the the Glasgow clubs. Happens every year and goes unnoticed yet completely within the rules.

 

Thanks, didn't know about it.

 

Bit in bold: A bit like the right to cancel a league match to play a 'glamour' friendly. 

 

 

[davemclaren]

55 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

That offer is pretty good (if it keeps broadcasting). Something like 5 Scotland games being shown on the channel between June - October, if it was a PPV option you'd spend upwards of £60 just to watch those games anyway. 

 

I watched some of the Raith/Pars game at the weekend and my kid has an interesting in La Liga. Between that and the Scotland games I'll get some sort of value from the service. 

 

That aside - I don't really see anything specific that suggests ViaPlay will go bust just now, just that as a review of their business model they might have to cut their losses and sell off the UK company. 

 

 

BT Sport was good, they helped grow the value of the game but changes in their core business meant it couldn't pursue the rights. Tomorrow BT Sport becomes TNT Sport (owned by Discovery+ & BT). They might re-enter the Scottish market if rights are available at discount.

 

 

Would expect any takeover would result in contracts carrying over at existing agreements. Cease trading and it's all contracts are null/void.

 

I generally thought that Premier Sports was a working trading model because they hadn't splashed silly amounts of money and grown over a period of time. I don't think a lot will have changed with the rebrand to ViaPlay. I viewed their £59 a year offer as an attempt to grow their customer base at very low margin. 

Yea, I took up that offer to get the Scotland international and Scottish cup games for a year. 

[tian447]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Yea, I took up that offer to get the Scotland international and Scottish cup games for a year. 

 

Snap, it pays for itself after 4 or 5 games compared to the PPV option. 

 

I just hope they keep it up for this coming season because I've only watched 2 games on it so far (I'm not counting the Raith v Dunfermline game as that was rubbish!) 

[kevin_hmfc]

Sky are the daddys of sport.  Pisses all over BT, ESPN, Setanta, vialplay combined.    

 

They will always be top dog.  

[Footballfirst]

4 hours ago, Prehen said:

It is all teams, but for obvious reasons the process only works one way. And the compensation for any player who moves the year before the year the player is 16, is negligible. You often see news break Q4 every year of some great young hope coveted by the the Glasgow clubs. Happens every year and goes unnoticed yet completely within the rules.

The recent changes mean that there is no compensation payable to other clubs unless and until the player signs a professional contract, e.g. if you sign a 13 year old from another CAS club then give them a pro contract at 16, compensation to the original club for the three years at ages 11, 12 and 13 would only be payable at the date of the signing of a pro contract (3 x £7,500 for "elite" clubs).  If however you decided to release them at 15 or 16 without offering them a pro contract, then no compensation would be payable. 

 

The compensation paid for each year spent with an  "elite" club is dependent on year of the player's birthday.  The compensation is less for other clubs

11 - £7,500

12 - £7,500

13 - £7,500

14 - £15,000

15 - £15,000

Edited July 17, 2023 by Footballfirst

[DesertDawg]

Not much detail in this news.  In fact, it's difficult to get a grasp of what the Doncaster statement actually means.

 

SPFL and Infront renew media rights partnership through 2028/29 season

Zug, Switzerland/Glasgow, Scotland - Infront and the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) have extended their exclusive media rights partnership for another four seasons. The renewal, which will run until the end of the 2028/29 season, reinforces the commitment to elevate Scottish football on the international stage first made in 2018.

The partnership will continue to cover the international media rights for the SPFL Cinch Premiership, the SPFL Cinch Championship, the SPFL Cinch League One & Two, the Viaplay Cup and the SPFL Trust Trophy.

Infront secured agreements with more than 20 broadcast partners and platforms for the 2022/23 season, enabling fans of Scottish football to watch the high-class action across over 150 territories. 

The collaboration has also seen the SPFL significantly boost its digital presence through the use of Content X, Infront's sports content automation solution. Over 20,000 posts have been generated and published since the platform was introduced in 2021, yielding more than 1.1 billion impressions. This strategy, targeted at both domestic and international fans, has fuelled a follower surge of more than 228,000 across all SPFL social media channels. The prolongation means the organisation will continue to use these products, working closely with Infront Lab to further improve Scottish football’s online footprint.

Andreas Kaeshammer, Head of Football, Infront said: "Our continued partnership with SPFL speaks volumes about our collective achievements over the past years. We've unlocked new opportunities for SPFL, both in terms of broadcast territories and digital footprint. This renewed commitment allows us to further build on this momentum and continue elevating Scottish football on a global scale."

Neil Doncaster, SPFL Chief Executive, said: "The renewal of our agreement with Infront reflects our confidence in their strategic approach and their ability to deliver value. Their contributions have transformed our global visibility and significantly boosted our digital engagement. We are excited about what this extended collaboration can achieve, driving Scottish football's popularity and, consequently, income for our clubs."

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

On 16/07/2023 at 11:27, Sooks said:

SKY will never get a penny from me directly 🙂 

Same here.

Your earlier post.

£935m for EPL over 5 years, SPFL £250m over 5 years.  No figure on the ViaPlay link, do you the amount?

 

Admittedly  the EPL has 70 clubs from Championship to L2  we have 42 over the 4 leagues. It still equates to over double per team as a fag package maths. 

[Sooks]

9 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Same here.

Your earlier post.

£935m for EPL over 5 years, SPFL £250m over 5 years.  No figure on the ViaPlay link, do you the amount?

 

Admittedly  the EPL has 70 clubs from Championship to L2  we have 42 over the 4 leagues. It still equates to over double per team as a fag package maths. 

Even with that obscene amount of TV cash many of them are in tens and even hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt . Hyper inflating the market for everyone else , and still not having enough so running up enormous debts . Honestly **** SKY TV , they are like cash pushers and all these shitty wee clubs are junkies for it

[Tommy Brown]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

Even with that obscene amount of TV cash many of them are in tens and even hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt . Hyper inflating the market for everyone else , and still not having enough so running up enormous debts . Honestly **** SKY TV , they are like cash pushers and all these shitty wee clubs are junkies for it

Evert time someone calls offering me Sky, they get politely told much of the above

[Sooks]

20 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Evert time someone calls offering me Sky, they get politely told much of the above

Good man 😄 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Tommy Brown said:

Same here.

Your earlier post.

£935m for EPL over 5 years, SPFL £250m over 5 years.  No figure on the ViaPlay link, do you the amount?

 

Admittedly  the EPL has 70 clubs from Championship to L2  we have 42 over the 4 leagues. It still equates to over double per team as a fag package maths. 

If the above figures are correct it breaks down as thus. Working on the presumption that the money is divided equally between all clubs.

EFL. Has 72 clubs. Over 5yrs each club would receive 12,986,000. That breaks down to 2,597;000 per year.

SPFL. Over 5yrs 625,000 per club. Which breaks down to 125,000 per year.

It means an English club is getting TWENTY times more than a Scottish club. Neil Doncaster says we have a great deal.

[John Findlay]

24 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

If the above figures are correct it breaks down as thus. Working on the presumption that the money is divided equally between all clubs.

EFL. Has 72 clubs. Over 5yrs each club would receive 12,986,000. That breaks down to 2,597;000 per year.

SPFL. Over 5yrs 6,250,000 per club. Which breaks down to 1,250,000 per year.

It means an English club is getting over 2 times more than a Scottish club. Neil Doncaster says we have a great deal.

Sorry fixed that first figures for Scottish teams were incorrect.

[davemclaren]

2 hours ago, John Findlay said:

If the above figures are correct it breaks down as thus. Working on the presumption that the money is divided equally between all clubs.

EFL. Has 72 clubs. Over 5yrs each club would receive 12,986,000. That breaks down to 2,597;000 per year.

SPFL. Over 5yrs 625,000 per club. Which breaks down to 125,000 per year.

It means an English club is getting TWENTY times more than a Scottish club. Neil Doncaster says we have a great deal.

It matters not a jot if it's a great or rubbish deal, what matters  is if it's the best deal we can get. 

[kevin_hmfc]

48 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It matters not a jot if it's a great or rubbish deal, what matters  is if it's the best deal we can get. 

Do you take into consideration things like getting the product out there?

 

I will always love those 2 years 2002-04 when the BBC had all our games.   My granny never bothered with all that TV stuff ( lucky if she got channel 5) but suddenly had one game per week to watch.   

 

Pubs that didn't buy sky also suddenly had big matches to show, including 4 old firm games.

Edited July 17, 2023 by kevin_hmfc

[davemclaren]

7 minutes ago, kevin_hmfc said:

Do you take into consideration things like getting the product out there?

 

I will always love those 2 years 2002-04 when the BBC had all our games.   My granny never bothered with all that TV stuff ( lucky if she got channel 5) but suddenly had one game per week to watch.   

 

Pubs that didn't buy sky also suddenly had big matches to show, including 4 old firm games.

Getting the product out there isn't really a positive if you are getting nothing, or next to nothing for it. Especially when you have sold out your stadium. 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

It matters not a jot if it's a great or rubbish deal, what matters  is if it's the best deal we can get. 

I'm not sure it is.

[davemclaren]

12 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I'm not sure it is.

None of us know for sure but nobody goes out to get a bad deal. 

[kevin_hmfc]

34 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Getting the product out there isn't really a positive if you are getting nothing, or next to nothing for it. Especially when you have sold out your stadium. 

A lot of people believe that sport should be free to air. 

 

Anyone who refuses to buy sky must believe this.

[davemclaren]

20 minutes ago, kevin_hmfc said:

A lot of people believe that sport should be free to air. 

 

Anyone who refuses to buy sky must believe this.

A lot of people believe everything should be free.