SFM – The Next Steps

ByTrisidium

SFM – The Next Steps

As we all know, this site emerged from the ashes of RTC. The wish of the original administrator of the site, one which I wholeheartedly share, was to keep together the wonderful community RTC had built, in terms of both personnel and spirit. There are still many individuals around who were also part of RTC, and regrettably many who are no longer with us. The RTC spirit however, that of a cross-party football site where issues can be discussed in a respectful and insightful manner remains. The “wisdom of the crowd” phenomenon is also with us to perhaps an even greater extent than before, and consequently SFM’s credentials as a formidable alternative to the print media have grown.

In recent times, many contributors have expressed frustration that we are pretty much a talking shop and little else; characterised as “a lot of gum bashing and no teeth”. I think that is fair comment up to a point, but then again our aim – up to now – has been to simply present an alternative view – a view that has increasingly become the fan view as opposed to the industry view (the industry being made up of club officials, players, and press).

In fact the way I see it personally, SFM has evolved to a point where it has become the watchdog (monitor if you will) of an industry which is subject to very little oversight. The Rangers situation will eventually be done with (no laughing at the back please), and like everything else will be consigned to history (albeit more than one). The same self-interest and lack of regard for sporting integrity though will still remain, and the need for oversight will remain also.

Having arrived at those conclusions,  we have two alternatives; the first is to remain as we are (which is not a bad place to be), and the second is that SFM has to expand its role.

In recent weeks, the mods have met to discuss this, and we think that we ought to give the latter option a try. As to how we want to achieve that, and we have come up with a skeleton plan as follows;

1. We need to move into the area of gathering news content as well as commenting on what appears elsewhere;

2. We should act as a cross-club portal to get good fan site content from all clubs to a wider audience;

3. We need to highlight the positives in the game as well as the negatives;

4. We should become an actively campaigning body, aligning with fan groups to lobby for the changes we think important.

 In order to achieve these objectives, more time will need to be spent on communication like podcasts, adding news content, expanding membership and building links with other fan groups. Time will also need to be spent  setting up features, attending press conferences etc. Later in the year, one of the mods will have much more time on his hands to help achieve this.

Podcasts, premium content, labour, organisation and all of the above costs money, and ultimately a subscription based model backed by sponsorship seems to be our best way of achieving that. In order to give us a head start, we will in the next few months be putting together a business-plan and a pitch for Crowd Funding investment.

This is not to say that our existing model has been a failure. We have successfully managed to keep ourselves afloat through the ad-hoc generosity of people in our community, although the inability to keep the podcasts going has been a bit frustrating. Finding income streams which are more solid will allow us to respond to events more quickly (for example mounting an ad campaign to respond to some event or other, or buying new equipment), and hopefully achieve all of our objectives – and build a bigger audience base for our message.

Of course a move of this nature will require that, in the interests of transparency, anonymity of SFM will have to be set aside. That will not affect any of our contributors, and our practice of using (sometimes) imaginative names on the blog will remain. However, for crowd funding to be successful, we will require to have a board in place, and there is no hiding place from Companies House. The make up of the board is also crucial, and in addition to consideration of blog members for that role, we will be looking to have respected people from without.

I imagine there may be a consequent subtle effect on moderation policy to take into account.

The reason I have made this post is to keep the community up to speed with events. Although we have decided to move forward to see if we can get support for our business plan, that plan is by no means finished. As I said earlier, the “wisdom of crowds” has made our community unique and given it its credibility. There’s a lot more wisdom out there we hope to tap into before we go ahead with our initiative.

We already had someone in mind for chairman of the new board, but events have conspired tragically to rob us of that – and had the effect of postponing this announcement. However we would like to hear suggestions for suitable outside candidates for board and committee places.

We also want to hear from you if you have a suggestion to be added to our wish list of SFM function above – or even if you think it is a mistake to embark on this course.

This is a very big move for SFM, so we don’t want to rush into anything. We need to listen to what you folks have to say, because if the merging SFM is not considered a better SFM by our community there is very little point in looking to fund it.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,023 Comments so far

GabbyPosted on2:59 am - May 16, 2015


Barcabhoy

What about people across the UK that don’t like football, or any sport. They could argue that a disproportionate amount of BBC is spent on sport rather than other programming?

Anyone could make any argument for BBC funding. You can’t please everyone

View Comment

DonegaltimPosted on3:00 am - May 16, 2015


The BBC and their pitiful financial input into Scottish football must be addressed by the administrators of our game. Firstly, more excitement for the viewer doesn’t rest solely with the BBC or Sky but everyone in Scotland, ranging from the paying fan to the government and a series of investment measures. Start a channel on TV and bugger the TV companies and their pitiful offers.

This investment should be ring fenced to include the upkeep and improvement of stadia. The camera angles, safety, lower prices and any other improvements. Cheaper prices should not only fall on the club itself but all agencies with a plan for the next twenty years or so. The dilapidation in many stadia is pitiful and without any government financial assistance will only get worse.

Henry McLeish set out a plan, good or bad, but much of which wasn’t implemented. Was it unaffordable or unworkable? If so, then the plan is deeply flawed. Games, for example, from ICT show large tracts of empty seats where every shout from a fan can be heard. It looks extremely amateurish to the viewer. If many of these tickets aren’t sold, then let the kids and oap’s in for a pound. Affordable tickets like the German model, can and should be subsidised by government. Fill the seats in any way they can. A full stadium is much better that a half empty one.

Scottish football needs to be dragged into the modern age and that goes for its administrators. Meetings between the same staid, boring, late fiftys men in suits has shown to be the demise of our game. Aberdeen are one of our bigger teams yet a full capacity is not over twenty thousand. If the product is there, the fans will come. Sell it, not to what has gone before but to all of the public.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:46 am - May 16, 2015


Donegaltim,
Couldn’t agree more. I often go to Glasgow and Edinburgh to watch Classical music, Opera and even sometimes Ballet, all are heavily subsidised by national and local governments and the BBC. I don’t grudge this or we would be a ‘Philistine’ nation without it. But why not a bit more attention to Scottish football too?

We could also think about Lottry grants for the initial capital costs, and as for maintenance, I think of Carfin Lourdes Grotto. Not trying to bring religion into this but it is a pilgramage centre in the heart of industrial Lanarkshire. This place is maintained as far as I am aware by some job/ placement schemes and is beautifully kept.

Lets say one or two professional groundsmen/women, and half a dozen folk who are looking for a skill to move forward would be a good thing?
This winter has seen some potentially good games ruined by poorly maintained pitches. The argument goes that smaller clubs cannot afford the initial costs and then the maintenance to keep them in tip top condition. Surely this is an area where public finance could be well spent? We did it for all seated stadiums, why can’t we do it again?

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on7:51 am - May 16, 2015


The debate about BBC coverage of SPFL and EPL has been interesting reading, thanks particularly to AllyJambo and MCFC.

I do take some of MCFCs points and I think there is some merit in the argument that the EPL product is simply worth far far more.

However as BB points out their is an issue here in that the BBC isn’t SKY or BT or any other commercial station. Its funded by licence payers.

SKY for example can pay whatever the product is worth to them and this is driven by commercial returns from subscriptions and advertising that can then sell on to recoup their outlay on the rights. Same for all over commercial channels. This is where the market value argument makes unarguable sense. They pay whatever they feel they can afford while still making a profit from selling on the product.

But the BBC doesn’t operate in that way so the point about market value of the products isn’t really all the story. The BBC expenditure on programming has to be measured in different ways to determine if value for money is achieved.

IMO this should definitely not be a question of comparing population/number of licence payers in different regions. That doesn’t make sense to me. However I would expect it to be quite fair to compare what is being paid per viewer for Sport coverage or indeed any other programming.

I have no idea of the relative viewing figures and how much is paid for each product but I have a wee hunch that rather than find the SPFL is undervalued by the BBC, I think we would see that the BBC have actually paid far too much for EPL coverage when viewership figures are compared to the cost of coverage.

£204million for 3 years seems quite generous particularly where there were reportedly no rival bids from any other terrestrial channels.

Either way, we often criticise the Scottish Footballs leaders for their weak negotiating positions and the poor deals secured. So I won’t rush to criticise Topping for speaking out in what I assume is an attempt to put some pressure on the BBC to pay more for the coverage. After all the BBC have just blown a huge some of money on EPL football coverage.

If the SPFL were serious they’d be doing they calculations on per viewer basis and starting the next negotiation expecting the same to be spent on a per viewer basis. But they also have to be strong enough to tell the BBC to get raffled if they won’t pay what the SPFL believe the product is worth.

Sooner or later the SPFL have to stop selling the product to organisations who don’t value it well rather than signing contracts and then moaning about the low value of what they have agreed to. They need to grow a pair and be much tougher in negotiations.

They may need to be willing to do without the TV income for a year or 2 in the worst case scenario.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:59 am - May 16, 2015


gerrybhoy67 on May 15, 2015 at 7:03 pm

I am probably wrong here but is it beyond the realms of possibility that dave and the 3B’s didn’t know ibrox was a goner and the 2 direct debits were being paid – before they purchased shares they would have no official way of asking about the finances and now that they know the story the game is a bogey?
———-

They appear to be engaged in their own 120 day review of life ‘under the bonnet’ 😀 And Level 5 seem to be working mostly on the principle of no news is good news.

Regarding the BBC, I heard this week the new WM gov were looking at removing the licence fee in the long term. Could be the usual cooercion tactic or another step towards the vision of a US-style Britain with the privatisation of everything. Can’t say I’m much of a fan of the BBC anymore. But as pointed out, it IS still a public service. And their underfunding of Scottish football has, perhaps, made it easier for Sky & BT to offer the micro deals they do and get away with them. Got me thinking about what sort of TV deal Danish football would get if the country was part of Germany and viewed as a remote part of the federal state. Most teams would struggle in the second tier of German football, so as a North German entity it may be nowhere near as well funded as it is now. Hopefully, those long promised devomax powers will see a real change in the financial clout of the Scottish parliament and, not least, devolved broadcasting.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on8:12 am - May 16, 2015


There would be no debate about the amounts paid by Sky or BT or the BBC if the SPFL took its broadcast rights away from the above and took the entirely logical step of delivering its own broadcast content.
Even if there was no increase in revenue, there would be an escape from broadcasters who are prepared to sacrifice fans best interests at the altar of convenient ( to the broadcaster) scheduling. Add in the ability to block Sky broadcasting into Scotland at a time that suits us, and you have all of the building blocks available to protect and promote the game here.

Sky , BT and the BBC in London have shown by their actions that they do not have the best interests of Scottish Football at heart. They are not suitable partners because they are not committed to a healthy , prosperous competitive game in Scotland.

Ditch them and go it alone

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on8:38 am - May 16, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (162 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 8:12 am
There would be no debate about the amounts paid by Sky or BT or the BBC if the SPFL took its broadcast rights away from the above and took the entirely logical step of delivering its own broadcast content.
Even if there was no increase in revenue, there would be an escape from broadcasters who are prepared to sacrifice fans best interests at the altar of convenient ( to the broadcaster) scheduling. Add in the ability to block Sky broadcasting into Scotland at a time that suits us, and you have all of the building blocks available to protect and promote the game here.

Sky , BT and the BBC in London have shown by their actions that they do not have the best interests of Scottish Football at heart. They are not suitable partners because they are not committed to a healthy , prosperous competitive game in Scotland.

Ditch them and go it alone

8 0 Rate This

========================

How I wish the SPFL would follow this approach BB. It would be first time I’d pay a subscription for Sports coverage in about 10 years or so. And I’d happily do so.

I’m sure fans of all clubs could get better coverage this way too, there would be time for smaller clubs to get more air time and discussion.

And the channel could even look at coverage of other scottish sports events or minority sport to start to fill available slots.

But can it be achieved?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on9:10 am - May 16, 2015


Staying at Loch Corrib just up from Galway,peaceful and weather getting better,reading the blog the past few days has been better than antime I can imagine,you get the feeling it’s gathering a pace with the comments posted and it’s only a matter of time before being recognised as an objective force to the incumbents that are destroying the structure of the game of football with no understanding of the sport and its history,the great people that dedicated their life for the better of the game must be watching down in despair,are all other countries fans happy with the way the game is run or do they have blogs that are trying to correct the way their game is being ran also,God only knows where the EPL and the rest of English football will be in 10 years time as it is a recipe for disaster ,not just on the football field,greed will take hold off the field,there are a few glib folk out there biding their time

View Comment

EddiegoldtopPosted on9:15 am - May 16, 2015


Barcaboy ,
I agree 100% ,
In fact I would go as far as to say this is an opportunity that should not be missed.
If this concept was marketed properly I think the financial benefits to our game would be huge .
One example that springs to my mind would be as follows ;
All profits for the first 3-5 years to be pumped into a far reaching publicity drive by way of :
1) An equal amount of money to be awarded to each of our top flight teams which MUST be spent on buying 1 (or even 2) foreign “stars” .
2) A list of 12 foreign countries are chosen by the board and a ballot will decide which country each team buy their “star” from .
3) The board then spend wisely on a marketing strategy in each of those countries.
4) Those countries will then pay to screen our game on a contracted bases of x amount of years.

IMO it’s a sure way to drum up Interest from afar and at the same time boost our game .
It’s an Idea that has pros and cons I know but I feel we need to do something which is out of the box.
There are many other strategies that could be used to maximise the potential of having our own TV rights.
The difficulty that we have right now is double barrelled in as much as there is no appetite from our clubs high Heid yins to take this on no doubt due to the additional workloads that this may entail and secondly I believe there is FEAR of failure !
Again , IMO what do we have to fear ? Do they really think that by going alone we would make less than £1m a year in profits ?

As you said Barca , now is the time to grasp the nettle and go it alone .

I as a businessman would see something worth Investing in if it were seriously looked at .

You know it makes sense….

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:44 am - May 16, 2015


I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Barcabhoy and AllyJambo.

The BBC will not safeguard it’s future nor show good stewardship of public money by paying over the odds for SPFL highlights, the public purse subsidising commercial entitites. In fact they would be actively undermining their position by doing so. If the SPFL can get more money elsewhere, let them. I appreciate that you might say the public server broadcaster has to cover the National sport but I guess they can equally argue if this sport is available on other channels, the country is not being deprived of coverage. And coverage of the results would probably be sufficient to fulfil their charter from a news perspective. Also this would contradict the view of some fans that no games should be live, thus forcing folk to get back out to the stadia.

I also think the point about competitive landscape is being misunderstood. I take that as being the BBC should not back one entity over another – to use the opera example they should not back one opera company and make them profitable at the expense of others. In this respect I see the point about Rangers and Celtic getting more matches covered and receiving match payments on that basis but the BBC (and other media companies) contract is with the governing body not with an individual clumpany (unlike say Spain where I think Barca and RM have their own TV deals), so I think they’re covered there.

Pretty sure BBC does make money from the EPL coverage – when I’m travelling I see MOTD shown on BBC World, which gets advertising (others have highlighted the EPL’s glamour image worldwide) – whether its enough to justify the cost? Well I guess that’s one for the BBC trustees.

The BBC spokesperson’s tone and statement were highhanded, I agree, but at a time when the Tories are going after the BBC, probably as a thank you for Murdoch’s support of them in his Engish papers as much as the perceived “left wing bias”, I can’t help but wonder what the SNP leadership spent all those hours talking to Murdoch about – after all the Scottish Sun supported the SNP as visibly as the English version supported the Tories…

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:46 am - May 16, 2015


Of course any potential success in achieving more income for our clubs would make a powerful FFP policy all the more important.

In fact its tempting to think that with the complete lack of governance we have currently its probably just as well our game has been financially strangled the last few years.

Given complete free reign and a modest increase in the income I strongly suspect a number of clubs would flood their teams with foreign journeymen and neglect youth structures once again. Just as they have done in the recent past.

We often hear pundits and journalists commenting that one of the benefits of the modest income our game has received in recent years is the time and effort invested in developing youth players compared to say 10 years ago.

Every time I hear this I feel like screaming at the radio/TV etc as its quite clear this issue was forced on clubs by lack of money, when in my opinion the rules and structures in place should encourage this regardless of the financial return. So that ultimately if someone sells the rights at a better return the clubs are not tempted to simply blow this cash of third rate imports.

FFP is a absolute must to a healthy, competitive and honest game.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:51 am - May 16, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (162 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 1:34 am

I’d suggest that Ms Slater displays the arrogance of a Dave King and the understanding of her (Scots) audience of a Neil Doncaster. If that statement from her is typical of how she operates, she might well be described as a female version of that arrogant buffoon in charge of the SPFL!

We have often been critical of Doncaster for the way he is prepared to denigrate the rest of Scottish football to justify a pro-‘Rangers’ stance. It seems Ms Slater is happy to insult Scottish football, too, in her efforts to justify the favours heaped on the English Premiership…by the English ruled British Broadcasting Corporation. There was absolutely no need to insult Scottish football, unless, of course, she doesn’t have the skill to make a statement, attempting to justify this lack of impartiality, without recourse to insults!

I have always thought that a well produced football highlights program is the perfect showcase for the game and, in this modern era, has become an inducement for companies to sponsor leagues and clubs. I’m sure many can remember the way, even in the days of black and white television, that the slickness of the English highlights produced a far more watchable, and lengthier, coverage of matches that led to many people following their ‘favourite English club’ via television. It wasn’t long before more and more people, who previously attended matches regularly, found they could get their ‘football fix’ from the television, complete with the new phenomenon of the ‘football pundit’, who’s apparent knowledge and insight made the Scottish equivalent seem even poorer by comparison.

With the poorer quality of the underfunded Scottish production, there was never any chance that it would be aired outside of Scotland, and so it’s potential audience was extremely limited. This has, of course, directly led to the situation that now allows the BBC to cite viewing figures as a justification for treating the Scottish game as a backwater.

Basically, the attitude of the BBC towards football is no different than that of the Scottish media in general towards ‘Rangers’. Promote the interests of their favourites, no matter what the cost to the wider (football) community, ignoring the fact (in the BBC’s case enshrined in their charter) that they have the same duty of impartiality to all!

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:54 am - May 16, 2015


jockybhoy says:
Member: (74 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:44 am
I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with Barcabhoy and AllyJambo.

The BBC will not safeguard it’s future nor show good stewardship of public money by paying over the odds for SPFL highlights, the public purse subsidising commercial entitites. In fact they would be actively undermining their position by doing so. If the SPFL can get more money elsewhere, let them. I appreciate that you might say the public server broadcaster has to cover the National sport but I guess they can equally argue if this sport is available on other channels, the country is not being deprived of coverage. And coverage of the results would probably be sufficient to fulfil their charter from a news perspective. Also this would contradict the view of some fans that no games should be live, thus forcing folk to get back out to the stadia.

I also think the point about competitive landscape is being misunderstood. I take that as being the BBC should not back one entity over another – to use the opera example they should not back one opera company and make them profitable at the expense of others. In this respect I see the point about Rangers and Celtic getting more matches covered and receiving match payments on that basis but the BBC (and other media companies) contract is with the governing body not with an individual clumpany (unlike say Spain where I think Barca and RM have their own TV deals), so I think they’re covered there.

Pretty sure BBC does make money from the EPL coverage – when I’m travelling I see MOTD shown on BBC World, which gets advertising (others have highlighted the EPL’s glamour image worldwide) – whether its enough to justify the cost? Well I guess that’s one for the BBC trustees.

The BBC spokesperson’s tone and statement were highhanded, I agree, but at a time when the Tories are going after the BBC, probably as a thank you for Murdoch’s support of them in his Engish papers as much as the perceived “left wing bias”, I can’t help but wonder what the SNP leadership spent all those hours talking to Murdoch about – after all the Scottish Sun supported the SNP as visibly as the English version supported the Tories…

0 0 Rate This

=============

Your argument seems to assume we are demanding over the odds payments for SPFL coverage and then take forward your argument from there?

I think its quite reasonable to expect a fair valuation based on viewership, but the question is are the SPFL getting that?

All your points about paying over the odds and about coverage being available on other channels could of course be just as equally applied to the EPL coverage and that brings us back to the original thrust of the argument I think.

On what basis are the BBC happy to pay huge sums for EPL coverage but a relatvie pittance on SPFL coverage and is it being even handed in its dealings? Is it paying more per viewer for one over the other?

The situation might not have arisen if the BBC had not spent vast sums of money on EPL coverage. But they have.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:17 am - May 16, 2015


The broadcasting debate and how the conglomerates spend their and our (BBC) money seems to pop up about every 2 weeks

Not decrieing it as its something I feel strongly about

I have said on here many times before that I don’t subscribe to SKY or BT
In fact if it wasn’t for the boss/wife BBC would get Hee Haw as well

I am a miserable tight fisted git and proud of it 🙂

Xbmc/Kodi is were I view all my sport,movies,TV series’s,Anime and much more
I get to see a lot more of what I want to watch

Also I get to view more Scottish football than on all the so called broadcasters combined

During the season it would really surprise you the games which are broadcast over the internet especially the lower league’s

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:44 am - May 16, 2015


At Last! Some good news for TRFC supporters this week. They are going to be able to give away their money to, or as the article calls it, ‘invest in’, their football club. Again!

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-to-learn-of-ibrox-investment-plans-in-near-future-207047n.126232271?

It’s a bit like a beggar coming up to you in the street and telling you how lucky you are to have this opportunity to invest in his next bottle of buckie!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on10:49 am - May 16, 2015


Matty Roth says:
Member: (153 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:54 am

The situation might not have arisen if the BBC had not spent vast sums of money on EPL coverage. But they have.

====================================================================

The point has been made several times that the BBC was extravagant buying EPL rights. What were their choices: pay less for the same thing, pay nothing and get nothing, pay much less and cover half the matches. MotD is 50 years old and Sky or BT would LOVE to win that format – EPL highlights are a highly desirable product that commands a premium price.

The EPL is not the problem – forget about it.

The problem is that the BBC has a complex system of targets to meet, that none of us fully understand, and at present golf, snooker, darts, skiing and formula one are all more attractive than SPFL coverage.

Topping’s job is to understand exactly how the BBC, Sky and BT Sport think and adjust the product to make it more atractive – not slag them off for a deal he agreed and alienate them for coming negotiations.

Your sport is represented by a collection of pompus, moronic dinasaurs. Is that the EPL’s fault? Is that the BBC’s fault? Stop blaming others – look inside – that’s where the problems are – and the solutions.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:54 am - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo on May 16, 2015 at 10:44 am
At Last! Some good news for TRFC supporters this week. They are going to be able to give away their money to, or as the article calls it, ‘invest in’, their football club. Again!
/////////////////////////////////

Give us your money
Don’t worry we will keep it nice and secure
Oh and BTW if Mr King doesn’t get passed FPP forget it we’re off ❗

View Comment

oddjobPosted on11:07 am - May 16, 2015


Much has been said about the TV licence, and how “public money” funds the BBC. One poster said he/she was “legally obliged” to pay the licence fee. That is true, only if you want to watch live broadcasts, on ANY channel, Sky, ITV, BT the internet ,laptop and of course BBC.

The cost of a licence is £145 per year, less than £3 per week. I don’t live in the UK,but I’m sure that that might buy one pint of beer per week.
SKY ,from past experience, charge about three times the cost of the licence fee for a half decent package. They also benefit from adverts(lots of them).

If you don’t want to pay the fee, don’t do it, but expect a knock on the door if you continue to watch TV.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on11:10 am - May 16, 2015


Matty Roth: I’m not saying we should be “demanding more” – the market rate is the market rate. Q: Who’s offering more?

Comparing viewing figure versus population versus popularity versus commercial package and demanding some sort of football equivalent of the Barnett Formula is not the way to go.

Money for nothing and your cheques for free is not the way to build a strong sustainable league. I joke with my English colleagues that the SPFL is more profitable than the EPL – well we lose less money at least… Remember the last time we got a better deal than the clubs were expecting and how the clubs over-extended on the basis TV money would come in for x number of years? The Setanta debacle – and we had to go back cap in hand to Murdoch after all…

And that IS the original point – the EPL have people queuing up to throw money at them and the BBC have decided their flagship football program, MOTD has to continue – they have to pay to play. Do I think that’s the best use of MY money? Or that Lineker gets £2m? No, I almost never watch it. Never watched Top Gear either and don’t think Clarkson was deserving of that salary either. But plenty of people did. I hardly watch BBC other than to consume news/politics in truth – but I think my money is well spent to get that without a Murdoch or Barclay twins or indeed Guardian Trust spin on things.

Maybe the BBC should divert whatever percentage of Scottish money they have away to cover more Scottish sport – at the expense of news, or Alba, or locally produced programs – I don’t know. But to say “we deserve more” just because someone else is getting it, isn’t the way for me.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:19 am - May 16, 2015


From the Evening Times article- http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-to-learn-of-ibrox-investment-plans-in-near-future-207047n.126232271

The Rangers Supporters’ Trust held talks with director John Gilligan on Thursday night and released minutes of their meeting yesterday.

Gilligan has appealed to fans to be patient with the new board as they attempt to deal with the historical issues they have inherited from previous regimes.

He revealed that investment in the club has been delayed as they wait to hear if the SFA pass major shareholder Dave King as a fit and proper person.

This is simply blackmail of the SFA- I can’t find any other word that fits. Is there not one single sports journalist in the whole of bonny Scotlandshire with the cojones to ask Gilligan or Murray or any Board member the very simple question- WHY does King’s investment depend on the outcome of the FPP deliberations? I’m pretty sure I could dig out a quote from King, pre-egm, to the effect that his kids’ inheritance is going into the Ibrox warchest regardless of his FPP status.

My question is, do the SFA professional game board have the collective cojones to deal with blackmail in the only way it should be dealt with? Well, Regan, Doncaster and Ogilvie are on the board, so I’m guessing the answer is a resounding no. What a parcel of rogues!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:01 pm - May 16, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1215 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 10:49 am

The problem is that the BBC has a complex system of targets to meet, that none of us fully understand, and at present golf, snooker, darts, skiing and formula one are all more attractive than SPFL coverage.
_________________________________

I’m sure these sports are all the talk of the lads in the pubs…in England, where they do, all, get coverage from the BBC. Just goes to show, that even parlour games and sliding down a slope can be made interesting, and saleable, on television with the correct funding and packaging!

As for the rest of us funding the BBC’s vanity project, when there is already saturation coverage elsewhere…

I must say, though, that your most recent post is quite hubristic, in a ‘our league’s bigger and better than your one, and even minority sports and parlour games draw a bigger audience’ kind of way.

I’d just love it (in a Kevin Keegany kind of way) if the BBC were to announce that, ‘because Manchester United are so much bigger, better and more popular than all the other teams in England, we have agreed a new contract that gives United £60m of the £68m available for football coverage. This is fully justified because Manchester United have been so popular throughout the world, for decades, and so it is thanks to them that finance has now come to the EPL in the shape of Russian oligarchs and oil rich Arabs. This might make the rest of the English league look small and insignificant, and so reduce their negotiating power with other broadcasters, but so what? We are all United supporters here and don’t actually care about the rest, and don’t give a toss that the BBC has a duty to be impartial and fair to the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the parts that we, the governors, have an affinity with! Love, Babs Slater’

PS, Hope City win tomorrow 😉

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on12:04 pm - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
May 16, 2015 at 10:44 am

At Last! Some good news for TRFC supporters this week. They are going to be able to give away their money to, or as the article calls it, ‘invest in’, their football club. Again!

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-to-learn-of-ibrox-investment-plans-in-near-future-207047n.126232271?

It’s a bit like a beggar coming up to you in the street and telling you how lucky you are to have this opportunity to invest in his next bottle of buckie!
——————————————————————-
A man walks along a street, and a scruffy looking man selling matches comes up to him and says “Excuse me, are you the chap that always gives me a pound for a box of matches, but never takes a box?” “Yes, I am” replies the man. “In that case, I just wanted to tell you that from Monday, they’re going up to £1.50”.

You can decide which party in this fable might equate to those offering shares in a football club, and which to those being asked to cough up again for what might amount to nothing.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:25 pm - May 16, 2015


Is there something not right about the £5m payable on demand loan to Ashley? King has long known of its existence since it was advanced. If I was responsible for the repayment and I didn’t have it, I certainly wouldn’t be prodding him with a stick.

It’s almost like King has been goading him to make the demand, which Ashley has resisted to date. It may be pedantic, but even his EGM requisition doesn’t demand payment. A vote in favour of repayment does not necessarily follow that payment would be accepted. Have I got that correct?
If so, (and I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood it) what does Ashley gain by forcing a vote on it, if he wants it to remain in place? Is he just broadcasting his strength, or has he a cunning plan to nurture dissent amongst the follow followers, and further damage cash flow? Something he found himself on the receiving end of.

So would it follow that if Ashley refuses payback, he keeps the securities. Therefore any share issue would only be possible against a crumbly stadium under ownership dispute.

View Comment

@ModgePKRPosted on12:29 pm - May 16, 2015


Been mulling over the BBC issue and thought I’d share some thoughts on my back-of-a-fag packet numbers. 

The current EPL highlights package is worth £68m per year. I checked out some viewing figure from BARB and found that roughly 7% of the English population watch MOTD. (3.87m viewers out of 55m population). That equates to roughly £17.50 per viewer per year. 

Sportscene figures are harder to find but I believe they’re also roughly 7% of the Scottish population, so that’s approximately 350,000. The Scottish deal is worth £1m a year or £2.85 per viewer per year.

I’m not buying the “quality of the product” argument as football is much more than that. We don’t shop around for the best team to support and, regardless of the quality of football on display, we all enjoy to watch our own teams play. Football support, and therefore audience, is largely derived from locality, history and culture – not quality. 

As a publicly funded broadcaster with a charter to support local culture, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for parity in the per-viewer per-year costs for football on both sides of the border and to up the Scottish highlights package to the same £17.50 as paid for the English equivalent. That would work out at around £6m per year, which is £2.5m a year less than the budget for River City which has comparable viewing figures.

View Comment

Highland_BhoyPosted on12:31 pm - May 16, 2015


Hi AllyJambo now this is off topic, so I do apologize but I am also concerned why you say that Ken Buchanan did not get the recognition that he deserved. I am not being disrespectful here but can you find me any recordings of Buchanan’s bouts. I was always told how great he was but I never saw one of his bouts and even now trying to get coverage of his fights abroad are impossible, now that is not the bbc’s fault, nobody seemed interested. However what is staggering is he fought and beat a young up and coming Jim Watt (24) when he was (27)yet Jim went on to have an illustrious career with full BBC coverage. Perhaps it was just despite his obvious talent that the time just wasn’t right for Ken.

View Comment

TorquemadaPosted on12:34 pm - May 16, 2015


Global ignorance of the kind referred to is not confined to the United States. In the early 70s in Canada, I had to go through an international operator in Montreal to call Dublin while my wife was able to dial direct to her family Glasgow. She used to get hugely amused at my exasperation at being asked weekly: “Dublin Ireland, is that North or South!”

“How could you expect them to know where Dublin is?” she’d chuckle.

Then one day the direct connection went down and she had to go through Montreal also. Her side of the conversation went something like this:

“I’d like to call Glasgow, please… Yes, Glasgow Scotland… Yes, it’s in the United Kingdom… GLASGOW!… For goodness sake, G-LA-S-G-O-W… What d’ye mean, what big town is it near?”

Cue hysteria from yours truly!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:45 pm - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (920 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 12:01 pm

I must say, though, that your most recent post is quite hubristic, in a ‘our league’s bigger and better than your one, and even minority sports and parlour games draw a bigger audience’ kind of way.

===========================================================

That’s a very cheap shot – shame on you 🙂

It’s not my league. It’s a global brand that happens to be based in my country – and yours too until independence.

What about looking at the English Football League as the competitor for the SPFL to aspire to? How does that work? An hour’s highlights after midnight covering three leagues, 72 teams. How many quillions do the BBC pay for that?

If the production values are not up to scratch, what is the SPFL doing, If the camera angles are crap, what is rthe SPFL doing, If the comentators want to ltalk about a team not playing, what is the SPFL doing. If the crowd noise has to be blocked out becasue it is offensive, what is the SPFL doing? You seem to miss my primary point that the SPFL clubs do not deserve a free lunch from the BBC or anyone else – and the sooner they stop belly aching and realise that the sooner they might employ some professionals that can help them and vote for some administrators who have TV deals in the top three of their priorities.

The SPFL is poorly managed and under performing. Maybe Mike Ashley is planning to get his foot in the door at 10-15 clubs before he storms the sixth floor and turns it into a proefessional money spinning sports body.

View Comment

gc58Posted on12:47 pm - May 16, 2015


Watching BT Sport 1 and they showed an analysis of how Southampton had performed in the last 14 games compared to the previous 22 games.
The points won per game had almost halved in the last 14 games and the panelists used this fact and others to demonstrate that perhaps Southampton would suffer next season in the EPL if they gained entry to the Europa League.
This analysis was factual, easy to understand and showed that clubs with smaller squads and resources do genuinely suffer in the latter stages of the football campaign due to suspensions and injuries.
Compare and contrast the level of factual analysis put forward by Scottish football journalists and pundits.
How many times on the radio clyde football phone-in do they use the phrase ” it’s a matter of opinion “?
😥 😥 😥

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:07 pm - May 16, 2015


Corrupt official says:
Member: (44 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 12:25 pm

While there is every chance that Ashley has a cunning plan behind his EGM request for a vote to repay his loan, it could just be that he’d rather get it back ‘voluntarily’ from the club than to be seen to, possibly, throw the club into further difficulties by demanding it back himself. He still has kit and merchandise to sell, after all.

What’s more, of he demands repayment, and King readily ponies up, King becomes an even bigger hero. If the EGM results in repayment being made, even if it is King’s money, he becomes slightly less of a hero because he was going to repay the loan anyway, wasn’t he? 😉

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:24 pm - May 16, 2015


AJ @ 12.01pm

It just struck me from your post that there is an equivalent in another sport oft mentioned on here, that of Golf.

A combination of a hungry capable PGA in the mid 90’s plus the emergence of a young, supremely talented and handily, (for want of another word) coloured American in Tiger Woods brought a dusty old country club elitest sport into mainstream viewing and hence sponsor city. They clearly then entered a period where the one man became bigger than the actual game itself and one wonders, had he not self imploded (sound familiar?) if they would have struggled to maintain the interest. Equally though, now that Tiger is ‘lower league’ the sport amazingly seems to have decided that it can continue without him, for now. There doesn’t seem to be any ‘good of the game’ arguments over his absence. They just get on with it albeit there have been a couple of questionable moments – the free drop issue whereby the Gentlemen of Augusta, for the first time in their existence it seemed, allowed one of their rules to have good old discretion applied springing immediately to mind.

Of most interest here, I am struck by the parallel where the European tour has had to try and continue in the American PGA Tour’s shadow, and how effective everyone feels it has been in succeeding.

For me personally, the European tour still carries a degree of ‘authenticity’ about it whereas the PGA astroturf presentations are just mundane in the extreme.

Sorry if a little off topic.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:37 pm - May 16, 2015


It’s late evening in Melbourne, where Mrc C and I are having a break from child-minding duties in Brisbane.I’ve only just got onto free wi-fi,and have spent the last wee while catching up.
I notice one or two posts about Ladbrokes, and player betting, and-begging pardon if it is too off topic for a serious football afternoon- can I offer for your amusement this link
http://www.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s314622
Briefly, it’s horse-racing ‘ ringer’ scam story which I heard broadcast on ABC local radio in Brisbane.
.Not being a gee-gee man myself, I had never heard it.
The two guys broadcasting it made it sound so funny, but apparently some really bad guys were involved.
When this broadcast first went out, the Australian racing authorities were that very day considering whether one of the scammers could be said to be what in another sport we might call ‘ fit and proper’
enough to get his licence back.
I draw no parallels, of course.
I offer the piece as a bit of entertainment.

View Comment

vansenPosted on1:54 pm - May 16, 2015


There it is, in very clear language:

‘He revealed that investment in the club has been delayed as they wait to hear if the SFA pass major shareholder Dave King as a fit and proper person.’

No other show in town, it is Dave King, fabricator of evidence, teller of lies or nothing.

Roll over SFA, and let him tickle you as you try to act tough.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:05 pm - May 16, 2015


gc58 says:
Member: (5 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 12:47 pm

Watching BT Sport 1 and they showed an analysis of how Southampton had performed in the last 14 games compared to the previous 22 games.

This analysis was factual, easy to understand and showed that clubs with smaller squads and resources do genuinely suffer in the latter stages of the football campaign due to suspensions and injuries.

_________________________________________________________

And it raises an important issue w.r.t. refereeing in general.
Bad decisions – even honestly made ones which are equally distributed – thereby disproportionately adversely impact on the less well off clubs with smaller squads and lower budgets when compared to those clubs with bigger squads and richer budgets.

A higher standard of refereeing is therefore absolutely essential to maintaining sporting integrity.
Because it doesn’t in fact ‘all’ actually just ‘even itself out’ over the course of a season.

Bad refereeing – even of the honest variety – apart from turning off spectators – unfairly favours the better off clubs with the resources – in terms of squad depth to withstand its consequences.

It goes without saying that a low standard of refereeing also creates the potential for masking a level of actual dishonesty that would be rendered transparent by a higher standard.

I am not a fan of ref bashing I should say. They do a hard job. Most do well, most of the time. But anything that makes a hard job easier for the incumbents to get right more of the time would be welcome imo.

How we can actually drive up standards in refereeing is an open debating point, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

But the importance of doing so? This should be axiomatic.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:12 pm - May 16, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1216 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 12:45 pm

That’s a very cheap shot – shame on you 🙂

It’s not my league. It’s a global brand that happens to be based in my country – and yours too until independence.
________

Cheap shots abound 😈

But I agree, the EPL is a global brand, merely based in England; I wrote something on the subject a while back. It does, in my opinion, actually makes it less ‘British’, and therefor less deserving of a leg up from the BBC. How much of the licence payers’ fee will make it’s way out of the country as a result? A greater proportion than will leave Scotland, regardless of how much the SPFL is paid.

I have not concerned myself with the actual level of disparity involved, I’ve merely looked for a more equitable and fair share, but the figures Modge produced earlier are quite stunning in the disparity they show!

@ModgePKR says:
Member: (51 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm

I’ll leave our debate, with one last point.

You raise the ‘I’ word – Independence – and I wonder if you’ve ever wondered why so many Scots, and Welsh (I’ll leave N Ireland out as it’s quite a different matter) want to split from the UK (England actually)? I know that most of my friends and acquaintances here in Derbyshire are a bit bemused by it, and genuinely can’t understand why anyone would not want to be British, or rather, as it’s most often put by them, English!

I think we see in this debate a small example of why so many feel they lose out from this union of nations, because the big one is always going to be bigger, better and richer. What’s more, it’s difficult, if not impossible, for the people of the bigger country to empathise with those in the smaller ones.

The result; the people of the little country (Scottish football supporters) are disadvantaged, and the people of the big country (English football supporters) can’t understand why it bothers them! It is very annoying to feel disadvantaged.

And that’s about it 🙂

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:23 pm - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (921 comments)

May 16, 2015 at 1:07 pm
What’s more, of he demands repayment, and King readily ponies up, King becomes an even bigger hero. If the EGM results in repayment being made, even if it is King’s money, he becomes slightly less of a hero because he was going to repay the loan anyway, wasn’t he?
——————————————————–
Ally, I can see that, or something similar being the case, but it seems a long road for a shortcut, when he could have easily provided the demand for payback, and given a reasonable time-frame, i.e. When ST money came in. Thus avoiding any “trying to kill us” claims
Choosing the EGM route via MASH, seems rather circuitous if all he wants is his money back in his pocket. Throw in his SFA appeal against dual interest and it doesn’t look like he is up for walking away.
I was trying to look at it from King’s stick prodding point of view, and it does make sense that it is in his interests to get the monkey off his back so to speak, but Ashley seems to have a firm grip of his ears and not prepared to make the demand. Coupled with the additional questions the EGM will be seeking answers to, it looks like King’s ears are in for some serious stretching.
The way I see it is the loan is repayable on demand. Not give me it back when you have it.
£5m may be nothing to either of them in real terms, or in the total sums required for “Project T’Rangers”, but in the relevant clout the loan provides, it has much more value.
King knows he needs to pay it, and probably has it, hence the stick prodding. It looks like he needs a bigger stick though, as there is no incentive for Ashley to make the demand.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:20 pm - May 16, 2015


Corrupt official says:
Member: (45 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 2:23 pm

I agree that Ashley’s move seems a rather soft approach for such hardnosed business man, and I am certain that he is not ‘being nice’ by using this approach. There will, though, be a reason for it, even if no more than a shot across the bows. At 5 o’clock today, once Newcastle and Hull’s results are known, Ashley might begin to show us a clearer insight into his plans, for, should Newcastle be free from the possibility of relegation, he won’t have the worry of ‘dual ownership’ issues with the EFL for next season – if he does, indeed, intend to hang around Ibrox.

I’m not sure, though, that King, or rather the board, have to wait until Ashley demands his money back to make repayment of the full amount. Even if there is some clause in the contract preventing repayment before it’s demanded, Ashley would surely be deemed as inviting repayment by his actions over the EGM. What’s more, if the £5m is available, but Ashley is free to refuse repayment, surely it would be a great coup for King (or the board) to announce he has the money and all Big Mike has to do is ask, or say he will accept it and return all the security!

The only reason I can think that King might be prodding Ashley with a stick is that he (King) doesn’t have the money, knows he won’t get the money, and wants Ashley to call it in now so he, King, can go on to the next stage in his plan, possibly/probably liquidation.

Of course, there is the possibility, even probability, that everyone is waiting for the play-offs to be decided before moving on to the next stage of their plan, and Big Mike has done no more than to ramp up the pressure!

In the normal course of things, Ashley’s EGM move would probably be seen as a sign that he is getting out, but first ensuring his loan is repaid while causing maximum discomfort for the victors. But that is not how things go in the battles for a seat in the Blue Room at Ibrox!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on3:31 pm - May 16, 2015


After all the BBC comment I find myself listening to Airchie on Clyde 2 as the only way to get the game live on Radio.
Still the best commentator we have. Every kick of the ball all the atmosphere, the weather. The mans still the tops.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:45 pm - May 16, 2015


Vansen

The teller of lies was a Director of RFC when lies were told to the SFA to keep the 2011 UEFA licence.

The SFA know that the rules were not followed by RFC and know that they too were negligent in policing those rules.

They want to keep this knowledge quiet because of the huge can of worms it opens.

The can opener has not gone away for the same information that RFC kept from the SFA in 2011 was kept from the SPL lawyers setting up the LNS Commission.

Someone at TRFC kept that information secret as part of a policy of secrecy and deception.

DK was a Director of RFC in all of this time.

There should be no barge pole long enough given the damage the keeping things secret has and continues to do to Scottish football.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:48 pm - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (923 comments)

May 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm
As you say Ally, Endless permutations, including the possibility he is covering his ample derriere from the threat of demotion, which has just become a little less likely…. winning 1-0 at the mo.

View Comment

vansenPosted on4:27 pm - May 16, 2015


Auldheid,

I could not agree with you more. Thanks to the dedicated work of yourself and others we may finally see a light shone on these events.

However, i fear that despite the voluminous amount of information available, we will still see King given fit and proper status. I find it staggering, truly i do.

To me, King is the worst kind of character, a snake who would sell you his soul for money, then engineer a buy back at a fraction of the purchase.

His previous involvement with Rangers, his long running feud with the South African authorities, his staggering attitude towards it and his never ending lies should mean only one decision is forthcoming.

Sadly, we all know what that is.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:03 pm - May 16, 2015


Ok its us v

QOS
Pretendygers
Hibs

Exciting you bet. And they couldn’t sell those lead in games?
SPFL marketing seriously flawed. id fire them all.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:24 pm - May 16, 2015


Corrupt official says:
Member: (46 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm

Could it just be as simple as Ashley hopes that the EGM won’t be called – triggering one of the conditions for immediate repayment apparently included in the loan agreement? His timing may be down to allowing TRFC to finish the play-offs (if required) just before the completion of any notice period, say one week, that might come into effect at the default point!

And Ashley’s derriere still needs covering 😳

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on5:32 pm - May 16, 2015


OT SFM stuff: We have started to test a live audio feed platform (radio – if you will) and there is a live stream running continuously to weed out a range of technical difficulties SFM-ers may have.

There is a “Radio” page listed on the main menu above – or ou can access it here http://www.sfmonitor.org/sfmradio/

Just a music playlist at the moment, but the idea is that StevieBC’s brilliant concept may be brought to life!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:40 pm - May 16, 2015


Works ok for me

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:43 pm - May 16, 2015


Not convinced that the delay with respect to King’s FPP is down to the SFA. Could it possibly be that Rangers have not yet submitted all the required papers?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:48 pm - May 16, 2015


Vansen

I’m not so sure. Deceiving the SFA is one thing, being Director of a club who told porkies to UEFA to keep a licence to keep them from going under as a result of unfair play, is quite another.

Especially when the porkie was necessitated to circumvent the aims of financial fair play which was to prevent the unsustainable policies that ended in RFC being liquidated,policies that DK apparently still favours.

Football has been lied to consistently and proof that it has been exists, but the governors of our game want to keep it buried because some of them were involved in keeping things secret.

This is not about a fit and proper person this is about having a game whose credibility as an honest contest cannot be challenged.

In giving DK any seal of approval the SFA will attach a stigma to Scottish football that will demean and diminish it.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:20 pm - May 16, 2015


Anybody read Gary Keown’s piece in The Herald today? What did you think of it?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:17 pm - May 16, 2015


jean7brodie says:
Member: (293 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 6:20 pm

Anybody read Gary Keown’s piece in The Herald today? What did you think of it?

============
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/it-is-time-for-rangers-to-reach-a-settlement-with-mccoist.126231500

I’ve just had a look- thanks Jean. I thought this paragraph was pretty brave-

The fact that a previous board felt it appropriate to commission the work to commemorate the capture of the old Third Division is bad enough. There has already been too much in the way of celebration around Ibrox over a club with the second-highest wage bill in Scottish football capturing a two-bob tournament contested by part-timers.

Two years ago, there would doubtless have been a march on the Herald offices, plus a boycott (but of course- every perceived insult has to result in a boycott). It’s maybe a sign of how things have moved on that stuff like that can now be printed without much protest. That’s progress of a sort.

However the link to Ally’s gardening leave salary is really a bit stretched. Ally won’t settle for less than he’s due, and to be fair to him (and that’s a first from me!) why should he? The current Board can do absolutely nothing about it, so I just don’t know what Keown is suggesting.

Ally’s reputation as a manager lies in ruins, so he is very unlikely to walk into another job inside football. He will always have legendary status at Ibrox for his exploits as a player, no matter what. So he might as well bank as much cash as he can, then get the Question of Sport people to take him on again. I’m sure the cheeky chappy will be welcomed back with open arms.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on7:35 pm - May 16, 2015


neepheid says:
Member: (574 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 7:17 pm
_____________________________________________

Yip, neepheid, scathing and brave. I agree with you re the tenuous link to Ally’s deal but he could do the honorable thing as a Real ‘Rangers’ Man. 🙄

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on8:36 pm - May 16, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1216 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 10:49 am
Matty Roth says:
Member: (153 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:54 am

The situation might not have arisen if the BBC had not spent vast sums of money on EPL coverage. But they have.

====================================================================

The point has been made several times that the BBC was extravagant buying EPL rights. What were their choices: pay less for the same thing, pay nothing and get nothing, pay much less and cover half the matches. MotD is 50 years old and Sky or BT would LOVE to win that format – EPL highlights are a highly desirable product that commands a premium price.

The EPL is not the problem – forget about it.

The problem is that the BBC has a complex system of targets to meet, that none of us fully understand, and at present golf, snooker, darts, skiing and formula one are all more attractive than SPFL coverage.

Topping’s job is to understand exactly how the BBC, Sky and BT Sport think and adjust the product to make it more atractive – not slag them off for a deal he agreed and alienate them for coming negotiations.

Your sport is represented by a collection of pompus, moronic dinasaurs. Is that the EPL’s fault? Is that the BBC’s fault? Stop blaming others – look inside – that’s where the problems are – and the solutions.

20 2 Rate This

=============

MCFC, I feel the need to put the record straight on a number of things you seem to think I’ve said or implied. I think we misunderstand each other.

– I’m not blaming the EPL or the BBC for the SPFLs deficiencies
– I’m not defending the people running the Scottish Game
– I’m not looking for others to blame

None of that changes the fact that we are all entitled to question the BBC’s actions just as much as any other organisation out there. Or are they privileged in this regard?

And I do question why they feel the need to spend so much on EPL football coverage. I don’t understand it, but then I don’t and have never really watched the EPL.

But thats just the point, just like aLL BBC viewers I’m expecting them to cater in some way to my tastes. As far as football goes they really don’t.

Sure, they can’t please everyone all of the time but nevertheless I’m as entitled to expect that as much as an EPL fan, a F1 fan, a Tennis fan or a Shinty fan.

So I think the point still remains if enough people are interested its not unreasonable to expect them to make some sort of decent attempt to serve their customers.

If there is so little interest then fair enough, I’ve no problem with that.

But I’m not convinced the quality, depth and expenditure of Scottish Football coverage is in keeping with the potential viewing audience.

Your comment about SKY and BT desiring MOTD and its 50 years old etc I really don’t understand if I’m honest.

I don’t think its unreasonable to ask questions and hopefully this doesn’t come across as whining but I get the feeling from your responses I’ve irked you somehow by daring to question the way of things.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on8:52 pm - May 16, 2015


jockybhoy says:
Member: (75 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 11:10 am
Matty Roth: I’m not saying we should be “demanding more” – the market rate is the market rate. Q: Who’s offering more?

Comparing viewing figure versus population versus popularity versus commercial package and demanding some sort of football equivalent of the Barnett Formula is not the way to go.

Money for nothing and your cheques for free is not the way to build a strong sustainable league. I joke with my English colleagues that the SPFL is more profitable than the EPL – well we lose less money at least… Remember the last time we got a better deal than the clubs were expecting and how the clubs over-extended on the basis TV money would come in for x number of years? The Setanta debacle – and we had to go back cap in hand to Murdoch after all…

And that IS the original point – the EPL have people queuing up to throw money at them and the BBC have decided their flagship football program, MOTD has to continue – they have to pay to play. Do I think that’s the best use of MY money? Or that Lineker gets £2m? No, I almost never watch it. Never watched Top Gear either and don’t think Clarkson was deserving of that salary either. But plenty of people did. I hardly watch BBC other than to consume news/politics in truth – but I think my money is well spent to get that without a Murdoch or Barclay twins or indeed Guardian Trust spin on things.

Maybe the BBC should divert whatever percentage of Scottish money they have away to cover more Scottish sport – at the expense of news, or Alba, or locally produced programs – I don’t know. But to say “we deserve more” just because someone else is getting it, isn’t the way for me.

10 3 Rate This

==============

I feel you’ve misrepresented what I’m trying to say somewhat.

I’ve made no mention of “we deserve more because someone else does” or any sort of Barnett formula comment. In fact I don’t even understand that comparison, in what way would could this be compared to the Barnett formula??

TBH the fact you’ve mentioned Barnett formula seems to give a bit of a political undertone to your objections.

The Top Gear comparison is pointless. There is really nothing to compare.

The point I’ve been trying to make is to question whether some sports coverage is value for money and why other sport coverage from the same broadcaster is of such appalling poor quality and seems to have relatively little invested in it.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on8:53 pm - May 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (925 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Corrupt official says:
Member: (46 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm
Could it just be as simple as Ashley hopes that the EGM won’t be called – triggering one of the conditions for immediate repayment apparently included in the loan agreement? His timing may be down to allowing TRFC to finish the play-offs (if required) just before the completion of any notice period, say one week, that might come into effect at the default point!
And Ashley’s derriere still needs covering
—————————————————————————

I actually think that the purpose of the call for an EGM is to provide a platform for the very public shredding of whatever reputations DK/PM have left. If it comes before the SFA F&PP outcome so much the better though I doubt that DK would want that hence the radio silence down Govan way.

At the same time MA seeks to hoist these blowhards with their own petard by seeking a vote from shareholders to reclaim the ‘crown jewels’ by paying him back the trifling sum of £5M. Fans and other believers in the, shall we say “possibly exaggerated”, claims made by DK prior to the last EGM will doubtless clamour to support this motion thus providing further embarrassment to DK and the 3Bs who will likely have to vote against as they are still conducting a 120 day review (aka searching down the back of the sofa).

Oh what fun!

Scottish Football needs a stronger Arbroath next season.

View Comment

stevoPosted on9:00 pm - May 16, 2015


Another vote for XBMC/Kodi which was first drawn to my attention here. It’s no exaggeration to say it has completely revolutionised my life. mrs stevo literally danced with joy when she discovered she could once again watch all the foreign satellite channels we lost when we moved into a conservation area. More importantly, I’ve been able to watch French and German lower division football (even third tier!) and other things (not all football) which evidently have no commercial value in the UK. Still can’t get over popping home one lunchtime and catching a few minutes of Bunyodkor Tashkent vs Persepolis in the Asian Champions League. This is the way television should be.

On a not completely unrelated note, since Sky have increased their prices for their sports package, I have until the end of the month to cancel it with no penalty. I have no great interest in the English Premiership and am highly disinclined to fund it. Would anyone happen to know how much Sky are paying for La Liga? (It’s even harder to find this information than it is to find out exactly how much I’m paying Virgin Media for the Sky Sports package.) If it’s more than they’re paying for their SPFL rights, that would certainly be the last straw.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:27 pm - May 16, 2015


redlichtie says:
Member: (215 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 8:53 pm

I think you could be right, and any one of a number of the scenarios suggested might be correct, too. Yours is certainly a very plausible one, though. I also think Ashley will have more than one plan, or alternative outcomes, and be well prepared for whatever King intends to do. He’ll even be prepared for King to do nothing!

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:28 pm - May 16, 2015


With regard to the blog and ambitions to further the TSFM cause, I’m in full support of all the that you suggest.

As others have commented this will involve a great deal of work and commitment from the mods & any board appointed.

For that reason if no other, I think we need to let them decide whats realistic and achievable and find their way slowly in this. I’m all for taking small steps.

I’m not currently bu I was previously a subscriber and would happily return to paying once again, particularly if we see even some of the developments suggested.

Thanks to all at TSFM.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on9:51 pm - May 16, 2015


I’ve watched over the last few days where the debate has gone with regard to the diminishing TV returns for Scottish clubs.

Perhaps if we retrace our steps to the early 1990’s when the EPL was formed there was not such a huge gulf between the top of the English league and the Scottish clubs. Rangers knocked Leeds out of the European Cup.

However since its inception more and more and yet even more cash has been given to the EPL. All through the nineties SKY was the only show in town and yet it continually upped the price creating a larger and larger gulf between the other domestic leagues. The highlights package from such a well branded product, which told everyone it was the best and lets face it who doesn’t want the best, also became well sought after. BBC and ITV competed with each other to drive the cost of this aspect of the deal higher.

The damage that this had on our sport was akin to the gradual tightening of a garrotte!
The gap for coverage fees became larger and larger. Details of deals meant that our own league became second class even when showing a highlights program within our own borders. How one league can have that power over another is beyond me. If you think about that for just a minute you see how ridiculous that particular clause is; Scottish football cannot be shown in Scotland on a Saturday night yet English football can!

Now BT has entered the fray the cost will rise even further. SKY by all accounts have just paid more than they can afford for the next deal. They know that the EPL is their companies flag ship and if they lose the rights subscribers will potentially leave in droves. They are now locked in a death spiral with the new kid on the block. Over two decades SKY/BT and BBC/ITV have created this monster and now they must continue to feed it.

Of course on top of that is the distorted Champions League money and European ranking system ensuring money stays in the top leagues.

Where this leaves our own funding is the debate; is it worthwhile losing customers through the turnstiles to receive less money from TV to cover those losses?

That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter; games moved to outlandish days and times which mean fans cannot attend yet the clubs are not getting that lost income back via the TV deal.

I’ve long argued that the administrators of our sport are now reaping what they have sowed. The next generation of football fans don’t want Scottish club merchandise because they never see it on the telly at an appropriate time. Peak time football is the EPL, Spanish, French, and German leagues so which clubs merchandise do you think they are going to ask for?

Our administrators have sleep walked into this situation. Fans, you know the people that actually pay to watch the games, have been saying for years that the scheduling of games was a problem and that it was driving them away from the sport. Any deal should have a cost benefit analysis carried out. That does exactly as it says on the tin; you analyse the deal to see if the cost will be a benefit to you business. We have had now at least three of these deals which in real terms have produced diminishing returns while at the same time crowds have dropped. Surely there must be someone in authority who can run these numbers and arrive at the simple conclusion to ditch these deals; pure and simple!

We can try this for one or two years to see if crowds do return.
What is the worst that could happen?
We get saddled with a really poor TV deal that inconveniences supporters ……………….. nope we’re there already!

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:57 pm - May 16, 2015


I know nothing about XBMC/Kodi

Any chance of someone who does posting an idiots guide ?

View Comment

feedthehossPosted on10:42 pm - May 16, 2015


@Barcabhoy

I can sort that out for you mate…..

http://www.tvaddons.ag/tvmc-windows/

you’ll want to google the following too.

Vdubt25
NJM sports
UK turk streams

https://seo-michael.co.uk/how-to-watch-premier-league-football-using-xbmc/

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on11:22 pm - May 16, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (163 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm
I know nothing about XBMC/Kodi

Any chance of someone who does posting an idiots guide ?
=================================================

http://oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/236764/xbmc-kodi-beginners-guide

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:07 am - May 17, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
Member: (163 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm
I know nothing about XBMC/Kodi

Any chance of someone who does posting an idiots guide
,,,,,,,,,,
There is a 45 MIN idiots guide to downloading and installing XBMCKodi on You Tube Its a step by step keystroke by keystroke guide by someone sitting in front of a Windows 7 PC so you can compare what you have done on your PC with what you see on the guys PC
You will find it easier to do if you have a laptop (which doesnt have to be Windows 7) showing the You Tube video and you pause it after each keystroke as you enter the instructions onto the Windows 7 pc you are installing Kodi
Just search for XBMC Kodi on You Tube on the laptop and start your pc with a Google home Page
My 10yr old Grandson did the laptop bit and kept me right throughout

Hope this helps

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on12:18 am - May 17, 2015


I’m on Kodi thanks to tcup, but I find it very hard work.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:24 am - May 17, 2015


Matty RothMatty Roth says:
Member: (156 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm

——–

Matty – i agree with just about everything you say there. Maybe I’ve tried to respond to too many specific comments with a general argument. If I appear irked, I apologise.

I’m sure the BBC would love to have the money to show much more sport as they used to – cricket, horse racing, boxing, full F1 etc etc. Their choices probably look unbalanced from many people’s point of view. EPL is the last big sport they have through the year and they are probably desperate to keep it because it would be a big hole in the schedule and a big loss of face. We don’t know their exact criteria, but the 10% argument is just too simplistic for a serious debate. It always frustrates me when people look for conspiracy and prejudice before they’ve look at the more prosaic option, that their football administrators are hopelessly out of their depth in the modern business world.
It’s a tough world out there and these are the good days because the BBC is heading for hard times under theTories so Topping may have a scary surprise in store – especially now he’s pissed off Ms Slater – muppet!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:02 am - May 17, 2015


justshatered says:
Member: (130 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 9:51 pm

Our administrators have sleep walked into this situation. Fans, you know the people that actually pay to watch the games, have been saying for years that the scheduling of games was a problem and that it was driving them away from the sport. Any deal should have a cost benefit analysis carried out. That does exactly as it says on the tin; you analyse the deal to see if the cost will be a benefit to you business. We have had now at least three of these deals which in real terms have produced diminishing returns while at the same time crowds have dropped. Surely there must be someone in authority who can run these numbers and arrive at the simple conclusion to ditch these deals; pure and simple!
=================================

Back in the 70’s Scottish Club Chairmen warned of the dangers of TV. Desmond White of Celtic, and Tom Hart of Hibs in particular opined that it could eventually ruin the game. Their view was people prepared to come and watch the game should be the priority, yet now those very people, of which I’m one, are treated with utter contempt. It is a quite incredible situation when you think of it. A spectator sport treating the spectators at the ground as the lowest class citizens of all. For me the Scottish authorities should fulfill their contractual obligations with the current deals then negotiate a highlights package only and get back to games at 3PM on a Saturday as far as is reasonably practicable.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:03 am - May 17, 2015


dedeideoprofundis says:
Member: (19 comments)
May 17, 2015 at 12:18 am

I’m on Kodi thanks to tcup, but I find it very hard work.
——-

Interesting with some Kodi/XBMC chat. Hadn’t heard of it either before tcup mentioned it. A few observations:

I found it difficult to work as well. Not so much installing it as activating and installing the add ons like Sportsdevil. Thank you tcup who pointed me to various sources for add ons via extensive PMs on here 😎

The process takes you back to the early non-intuitive days of DOS computing in one respect, though not quite that bad 🙂

At first I opted for a stand-alone streambox, bought online from a Danish outlet, that had Kodi’s previous incarnation XBMC pre-installed in a custom version. The box plugs into the telly via an HDMI cable.

Since then, I’ve put Kodi on Windows, which worked fine apart from some unwanted software that came from somewhere which hijacked my Firefox browser. I’ve now installed Linux Mageia 4 (free downloadable OS which can be installed on a Windows PC) and have found a version of XBMC thst works on that. No real virus or other threats on Linux compared to Windows. Mageia is fast annaw even on an older Sony Vaio I’m using to test it.

Finding stuff to watch isn’t just like changing channels, though, there are various add ons that have sports content some of which work and some that don’t. But on the whole there is an outrageous selection of sports events that will stream. Quality wise some of the streams are 640×360 which look too unclear on a bigger TV but ok on a laptop. Others are better quality.

I looked around yesterday and noticed every match in the Norwegian league was streaming. Yes Ronny, if you’re reading, Strømsgodset were on!

An alternative for exiles is a paid IPTV stream service from (for example) storesatellite.com They have a free 24-hour trial stream that works on XBMC or you can buy their streambox and subscription (about £250 a year). It costs but is far easier to use (for dummies like myself) and many of the streams are good resolution HD.

So there are lots of alternatives, if you have a semi-decent internet connection.

This concludes the voting of the Danish jury.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:47 am - May 17, 2015


mcfc says:
Member: (1217 comments)
May 17, 2015 at 1:24 am
Matty RothMatty Roth says:
Member: (156 comments)
May 16, 2015 at 8:36 pm

——–

Matty – i agree with just about everything you say there. Maybe I’ve tried to respond to too many specific comments with a general argument. If I appear irked, I apologise.

I’m sure the BBC would love to have the money to show much more sport as they used to – cricket, horse racing, boxing, full F1 etc etc. Their choices probably look unbalanced from many people’s point of view. EPL is the last big sport they have through the year and they are probably desperate to keep it because it would be a big hole in the schedule and a big loss of face. We don’t know their exact criteria, but the 10% argument is just too simplistic for a serious debate. It always frustrates me when people look for conspiracy and prejudice before they’ve look at the more prosaic option, that their football administrators are hopelessly out of their depth in the modern business world.
It’s a tough world out there and these are the good days because the BBC is heading for hard times under theTories so Topping may have a scary surprise in store – especially now he’s pissed off Ms Slater – muppet!

6 0 Rate This

=========================

Thanks MCFC, its not always easy debating on the internet!

I agree with you that anyone making an argument the SPFL should simply get 10% of what EPL gets from the BBC is very much mistaken.

The only argument for equivalence I can see is where we look at a per viewer basis of some sort, and you’ve made some good arguments why that might be just as flawed.

Its something the SPFL should be using to build their case and try to secure better value when next negotiating but publicly sniping the BBC won’t help them.

Personally I think the Beeb have sacrificied too many good sports events to keep the their favourites Wimbledon, MOTD etc. The decision that really confused me was selling F1 rights they had already secured on to SKY.

BarcaBhoy made a very good point that all of this becomes irrelevant if the league set up their own broadcast channel and I think that is probably the only way they can escape their current predicament.

For SKY or BT, Scotland is actually well enough covered (subcription wise) by selling EPL and other sports coverage. As TV rights go the UK is the home market, Scotland isn’t treated as a separate market in any way.

So the SPFL has a challenge selling rights because there are no subscription channels operating with Scotland as their primary target market.

Leagues in similar size countries which have managed to secure good deals probably have domestic channels willing to pay slightly better returns for the rights (as you say EPL comparisons are irrelevant to SPFL).

SaintinAsia produced some interesting figures on how undervalued the SPFL actually was compared to similar leagues with similar sized domestic markets.

Over the years this has the cumulative affect on the game AllyJambo talks about. So the product gets less and less attractive.

The SPL looked at this prospect several years ago but backed off, most likely they crapped themselves as they knew they just weren’t capable of making success of it.

And that bring us back to your point that the people running the game in Scotland are completely inadequate.

I had to laugh at Doncasters recent interviews, particularly on Radio Scotland. Every challenge they gave him he pointed the finger at the clubs and used the “i only implement what they ask me to” excuse.

Then when there was something positive like the new sponsor to talk up he wanted to bask in the glory.

The excuse he only does what the clubs tell him doesn’t cut it for me, they all have collective responsibility but that doesn’t mean he can escape any criticism for his abject performance.

As for the clubs making all the decisions, they can only choose from what is presented to them which I am sure will be part of Doncaster’s remit to explore and report back with options..

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:12 am - May 17, 2015


Danish

I no u love IPTV

Try this if we haven’t already

https://seo-michael.co.uk/tutorial-how-to-install-stalker-kodi-xbmc/

And also

https://seo-michael.co.uk/tutorial-how-to-install-ivue-tv-guide-kodi-xbmc/

They both should intragate together to give you all your TV with a nice EPG 🙂

Here is a little walkthrough
Kodi IPTV Stalker addon with EPG
Please note this is not my work but the wonderful guys at the iVue TV guide and is very much a work in progress.

Obviously you need the IPTV Stalker addon as well as the iVue TV guide installed.

Once you have it installed you need to run the iVue guide once and then close it down again as this allows it to create a database etc.

Now rather than opening it again press the C button on your keyboard or context button on the remote and select addon settings.

Now where it says xmltype change this to stalker (it might take a couple of attempts for this to work) and then go along to the guide fixes tab and select to reset the database and infact do all the fixes in that category.

Once done relaunch iVue TV Guide and it will download the schedule again but this time will have all the stalker channels in.

To connect the channel name with a stream click on the channel program and choose stream and in the addons choose the IPTV stalker addon and then scroll for the corresponding channel.

You can change the appearance of the iVue TV Guide and personally I prefer the DreamTec skin but the choice is up to you.

Again please note this is very much a wip and the guide doesn’t have many logos on the stalker channels as yet but these are being added and its a step in the right direction

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:45 am - May 17, 2015


There is a certain irony in the main two threads underway at the moment. One being the crappy revenue received for Scottish games, and the other on how to watch games for free on a Kodi XBMC.
Perhaps a solution may be found in the middle ground, and some steps are being taken in that direction.
I am largely in the dark as to both sides of the equation, but came across this when trying to educate myself. On the surface it offers an alternative to both.
http://www.celtsarehere.com/the-spfl-network-the-proposal/

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:48 am - May 17, 2015


Barcabhoy

For a quick startup on kodi

Just type TVMC into your search bar
And choose the platform you would like to download windows, android etc

It is a basic package which you can add to and learn on
Also install sportsdevil

https://seo-michael.co.uk/how-to-manually-install-sportsdevil-on-xbmc/

And the links for the best IPTV
I put in the post above

If anyone needs any info or help feel free to PM me

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:59 am - May 17, 2015


Corrupt

Internet TV is not the way forward for the future.
It is the way forward now 😀

I agree with spfl TV format but I have said before they could do a trial on the net with the so-called lesser compititions/cups at very little to no cost

Xbmc/kodi is mainly free and is used all over the world probably has as many usesers if not more than Sky/BT have subscribers

Think of that as a start off target audience and as I said costs would be minimal and easily covered or even profit made by half time advertising alone

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:10 am - May 17, 2015


tcup 2012 says:
Member: (181 comments)

May 17, 2015 at 10:59 am

Corrupt

Internet TV is not the way forward for the future.
It is the way forward now
————————————————-
I agree with you 100% on that.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on11:10 am - May 17, 2015


Forgot to add
XBMC/KODI is not illegal and breaks no laws in this country or any other that I know of 😀

The law states that you are breaking the law if you put copyrighted material on the internet
But there is no law against viewing copyrighted material that has already been put on the internet (in the UK)
Other countries have no copyright laws
And in some it the copyright laws are so convoluted that they wouldn’t know were to start lol

PS
Also forgot to add
XBMC/KODI Is not a flash in the pan or in anyway a new thing

It has been up running and growing for over 10 years

XBMC stood for Xbox media center.
And was first introduced on the original Xbox (yes the 1 before the 360 lol)

So is a steady source and growing daily

I have personally been using it for over 3 years

The worst kept secret on the net

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:32 am - May 17, 2015


Bravo tcup. I’ll check those links. My inner geek cannot resist this stuff 🙂

Heard one of the guests on Off the Ball yesterday mention that there is now so much football available that there is a very real danger of over saturation. So the ship may gave sailed regarding selling tv rights to matches with empty terraces.

I agree with tcup that the SFA/ SPFL should get up to speed with current and evolving technology. Quite interesting things happening in women’s cycling on that front, btw. They have difficulty getting coverage of their events even though some are held in conjunction with men’s events. Webcasts and dedicated apps now offer an opportunity to get the coverage out to the fans. And these could well offer a brighter future for the niche market that Scottish football inhabits, especially if clubs and bodies able to specify broadcast times that are fan friendly.

The selling of specific broadcast rights needs to be looked at. The days of including webcast and foreign rights as part of a discount job lot to one briadcaster need to come to an end.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on11:55 am - May 17, 2015


Couldn’t agree more Danish 😀

Even sky,BBC,virgin and BT have started coming around to the power of the internet and threat to their strangle hold on the main stream viewing public

With sky go ,BBC iPlayer etc
As well as Netflix ext

People now have a choice to watch what they want when they want

SPFL should be looking to lead the pack n
Not carry the ration’s at the back 😥

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:14 pm - May 17, 2015


tcup.
How is the Kodi XBMC monetised? i.e. Where does the income to the league come from? Is it solely through advertising?
With regards to the illegal bit. I don’t live in the UK, but I have SKY, and Celtic telly. Even so, occasionally I have to resort to illegal streams sometimes to watch games I fancy. (I justify it to myself because I also have a seldom used(by me anyway) ST.
If the Kodi system is legal it is deffo a plus, but not being a techy, I have overlooked and dismissed it through laziness more than anything else. I sense that might be about to change because I really do grudge paying SKY.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on12:31 pm - May 17, 2015


Corrupt

Not all apps or Addons as they are called on KODI are free

There are many PPV and subscription addons

A lot of these addons are ran by the TV companies themselves

And most of these started as free/donation until they built up a following and technology advanced (internet speed) for better quality streams

You even have Netflix, live film,NBC,sky go ect addons on kodi you can access if you have a subscription

But most 80% or so are free

Corrupt you already pay a subscription to Celtic TV
Celtic have already decried the current TV deal saying they can make more

And guess how they can make more

Yep you got it IPTV ( Celtic TV)

Why don’t you give KODI a try and see what you think
You have nothing to lose if its not for you delete it 🙂

View Comment

Comments are closed.