ian1964 10,457 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Sky Sports and ESPN have reached a new agreement to cover the Scottish top flight until the end of the 2016/17 season. The Scottish Premier League has agreed a new five-year television deal with Sky Sports and ESPN on improved terms. An announcement is yet to made on the figures involved, but they will better the previous deal, which saw the league receive £65m over three seasons. The SPL's previous agreement with Setanta, which was cancelled upon the collapse of the company in 2009, was for £125m over four seasons, the equivalent of £31.25m per year. The new deal will see 30 games broadcast across the two channels each season. More to follow... http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/aberdeen/281116-spl-announce-new-tv-deal/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Thought the current deal had 2 years to run as that was the option iirc. Unless SPL managed to negotiate away from the option? Also hardly surprised they went for this after their rather tentative and a bit silly idea of SPL TV 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Football Club 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 LEAGUE agrees new five year agreement with Sky and ESPN More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 SPL TV may sound silly but they'd get my money, whereas, Sky won't... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 SPL TV may sound silly but they'd get my money, whereas, Sky won't... Same here. 500k households paying just £100 per year would bring in £50m per year. If it could be run on a tight budget I fail to see why it couldn't work very well and provide more money for the SPL clubs. I'm probably missing some sort of fatal flaw in the concept though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I wonder how much that moron Doncaster and other relatively useless SPL staff make from the SPL each year? I bet it's well into the millions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk 158 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Not enough people would pay just for SPL TV, with SKY and ESPN you have lots of other top games and sports as well as football. I wouldn't pay for SPL TV. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 That's the biggest stumbling block Johnny, but you have to take into account that supporters of other Scottish teams who don't always get their games televised by Sky or ESPN would be interested in it. With SPL TV every single game would be either televised live or recorded and shown later. That would be attractive to a lot of Scots both at home and abroad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 That's the biggest stumbling block Johnny, but you have to take into account that supporters of other Scottish teams who don't always get their games televised by Sky or ESPN would be interested in it. With SPL TV every single game would be either televised live or recorded and shown later. That would be attractive to a lot of Scots both at home and abroad. That would be excellent for when you are working on a Saturday during the day, just watch the game later. I would also be interested to watch other teams in the SPL playing more regularly than I do. I can see why people wouldn't pay for SPL TV, but I would. Either that or maybe Sky/ESPN could start cracking out specific channels instead of Sky sports 1-4 it could be Sky sports EPL, Sky sports SPL, Sky sports Championship, Sky Sports Cricket (YAWN). I know it's unlikely & probably far too much effort but just saying.. they probably have enough staff already to cover it! Or how about the channels are names after the sponsors? That could generate a fair bit of revenue surely? "Sky Sports Barclay's Premier League". SPL TV could go down the same route. Maybe Clydesdale bank would be interested in investing if we had a specific channel called "Clydesdale Bank Scottish Premier League"? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Same here. 500k households paying just £100 per year would bring in £50m per year. If it could be run on a tight budget I fail to see why it couldn't work very well and provide more money for the SPL clubs. I'm probably missing some sort of fatal flaw in the concept though. 500k households for a population of only 5.5million is one hell of a big ask. An impossible amount I would think given that there are foreigners and a hell of a lot of people who don't like football. Out of the 5.5 mill there are roughly 2.4million households that means you are looking to get one fifth of all households. I think you would be struggling to get anywhere near 200.000 housholds. I know Holland need 750.000 households from 16 million people to cover the costs and are getting nowhere near that. After that you have your running costs. Judging on your 100pounds then you have 20mill. I really think you would struggle to break even on that. Now you have a guaranteed 14million per year for doing nothing. No worries no risks. Are you still so sure? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.