Cormack Thread

[Dons79]

As you can see, Beograd won all there titles in the 30s, so nearly 100 years ago, likewise jugoslavija.

1 win in 1966

1 win in 1989

1 win in 1998

thats it.

[englishred]

38 minutes ago, perthshirered said:

Scotland is probably alone in that. It's a country split down the middle with pro-indy/bootlickers. You still have massive clubs there, Valencia, Bilbao, Athletico amongst others. Our league is so obviously skewed towards two teams, as we have witnessed in simple things like televised matches, ticket allocations and, frankly, bent match officials. You don't get away with that to this extent anywhere else. 

We are, sadly, unique. We need liberating. They are a stain on Scotland and a cancer on Scottish football. 

Good post.  Sky don't even show every Edinburgh derby just the occasional one, which is arguably the second biggest game up here.  Then as you say the ticketing... at a "neutral " venue they have their own ends!! 

Sadly i don't see anything changing in the next 10 years.  Sky just want 4 derby games and that puts an end to a bigger league.   The only hope is a billionaire buys a club outside them and can fund a serious challenge.

[JamieMT]

12 minutes ago, englishred said:

Good post.  Sky don't even show every Edinburgh derby just the occasional one, which is arguably the second biggest game up here.  Then as you say the ticketing... at a "neutral " venue they have their own ends!! 

Sadly i don't see anything changing in the next 10 years.  Sky just want 4 derby games and that puts an end to a bigger league.   The only hope is a billionaire buys a club outside them and can fund a serious challenge.

Both Sky & BBC have abandoned any notion of broadcasting the SPL. Broad coverage has always been poor, but this season in particular it's gone off a cliff.

Why cover a Dons v Hearts/Hibs or an Edinburgh derby when a tantalising Ross County v The Rangers is on offer? Most weeks they ignore the biggest game in favour of covering the biggest teams. Benefits two clubs and fucks the rest.

Ditch both and set up a SPL TV streaming service. Give the fans the opportunity to watch all 38 games, regardless of which club you support. They'll make a lot more money broadcasting direct and to all fans, than they do from the deals they have in place at present.

[Millertime]

1 hour ago, strachanmcgheegoal said:

My only caveat to their eradication (which I think we'd need to pursue anyway, even if just to get a decent transition deal whilst the cunts hang about and assuming we have the sense to bin their colts) is how do you stop a cunts by proxy situation with them basically taking on a Clyde or a Dumbarton or someone as a Feeder Club.  

Lol

Manufactured

The blue glasgow one was relegated to the 3rd division

[Hoofball]

14 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Lol

Manufactured

The blue glasgow one was relegated to the 3rd division

And here’s me thinking your better than that

[perthshirered]

1 hour ago, Dons79 said:

Great post, totally concur, fuck the Huns and Tim’s, get them both tae fuck

The fact that Mongotime dildoed it only adds weight to my argument. 

[ericblack4boss]

8 hours ago, JamieMT said:

Both Sky & BBC have abandoned any notion of broadcasting the SPL. Broad coverage has always been poor, but this season in particular it's gone off a cliff.

Why cover a Dons v Hearts/Hibs or an Edinburgh derby when a tantalising Ross County v The Rangers is on offer? Most weeks they ignore the biggest game in favour of covering the biggest teams. Benefits two clubs and fucks the rest.

Ditch both and set up a SPL TV streaming service. Give the fans the opportunity to watch all 38 games, regardless of which club you support. They'll make a lot more money broadcasting direct and to all fans, than they do from the deals they have in place at present.

FFS, trust the SPFL with Tv rights, I remember very clearly the early 2000s the cartel ( SPL)  were negotiatig Thier TV deal with sky and turned down a figure in the region of 30 million, as " derisory" and then ended up with a deal from the BBC worth about 10 million, 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

8 hours ago, Millertime said:

Lol

Manufactured

The blue glasgow one was relegated to the 3rd division

Very poor fishing 

You need to be less transparent.

[Millertime]

46 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

Very poor fishing 

You need to be less transparent.

Don't know what i was talking about there actually, sorry you're right!

[Millertime]

8 hours ago, Hoofball said:

And here’s me thinking your better than that

Apologies, talking keech

[sooth_stander]

2 hours ago, ericblack4boss said:

FFS, trust the SPFL with Tv rights, I remember very clearly the early 2000s the cartel ( SPL)  were negotiatig Thier TV deal with sky and turned down a figure in the region of 30 million, as " derisory" and then ended up with a deal from the BBC worth about 10 million, 

 

10 hours ago, JamieMT said:

Both Sky & BBC have abandoned any notion of broadcasting the SPL. Broad coverage has always been poor, but this season in particular it's gone off a cliff.

Why cover a Dons v Hearts/Hibs or an Edinburgh derby when a tantalising Ross County v The Rangers is on offer? Most weeks they ignore the biggest game in favour of covering the biggest teams. Benefits two clubs and fucks the rest.

Ditch both and set up a SPL TV streaming service. Give the fans the opportunity to watch all 38 games, regardless of which club you support. They'll make a lot more money broadcasting direct and to all fans, than they do from the deals they have in place at present.

Didn’t Roger Mitchell suggest (not a streaming service, as streaming wasn’t a thing back then) something very similar back in the day but got laughed out of town?

[aberdeen1970]

12 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

 

Didn’t Roger Mitchell suggest (not a streaming service, as streaming wasn’t a thing back then) something very similar back in the day but got laughed out of town?

The numbers are interesting. 

 

Sky pay £29m per season for Scottish football.  Or £2.4m per month. 

What would people be willing to pay for spfl tv? £10pm?  Maybe £15pm tops? And would they commit for 5 years like sky have done? 

At £15pm you would need 161,000 subscribers per month to match the same income from sky. Would we get that? 

I appreciate the long term health of our game is a bigger picture than just tv money alone but I wouldn't imagine the clubs would accept much less than they are getting at the moment despite our tv deal being shite on many levels. 

 

 

[DD1903]

1 hour ago, Millertime said:

Don't know what i was talking about there actually, sorry you're right!

Couple of mulled wines last night, MT?

[slippers]

21 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

The numbers are interesting. 

 

Sky pay £29m per season for Scottish football.  Or £2.4m per month. 

What would people be willing to pay for spfl tv? £10pm?  Maybe £15pm tops? And would they commit for 5 years like sky have done? 

At £15pm you would need 161,000 subscribers per month to match the same income from sky. Would we get that? 

I appreciate the long term health of our game is a bigger picture than just tv money alone but I wouldn't imagine the clubs would accept much less than they are getting at the moment despite our tv deal being shite on many levels. 

 

 

Iptv must be costing sky an absolute fortune these days. But out of principle i think a lot of people would pay £10 a month if they knew it was supporting their club. Aslong as it wasn’t the same level of games shown on sky. Ideally you show every game even if it’s just effectively red tv being put out on the channel.

You also have to remember their would be a substantial running cost to the channel but that would be taken care of with advertising I’m sure. 

[Millertime]

6 minutes ago, DD1903 said:

Couple of mulled wines last night, MT?

Haha yeah kicked it all off early!

Genuinely wasn't trolling, was just not thinking

[aberdeen1970]

Just now, slippers said:

Iptv must be costing sky an absolute fortune these days. But out of principle i think a lot of people would pay £10 a month if they knew it was supporting their club. Aslong as it wasn’t the same level of games shown on sky. Ideally you show every game even if it’s just effectively red tv being put out on the channel. 

Maybe. There's a lot of people just watch the club on iptv or streams though rather than go to the games so would they pay an extra £180 per year to get the same thing as they are getting already as part of a wider package for £60 per year? You're right though, we'd need people like that to convert to make it work. 

The other challenge is asking folk to pay £15pm for a channel that only shows Scottish football.  When it's about the same price for other channels that show multiple leagues/sports if that's their thing. 

Also you're competing for expendable income with cheaper options like Netflix etc which cater to the whole family. 

 

[KenDodd'sDad]

I do wonder how long IPTV can keep going. It seems too good to be true. Will probably get shut down soon.

[zeroisgod76]

Do the clubs in Scotland publish viewing figures for matches that are on PPV at the moment? Would be interesting to see what the uptake is for these games considering they are being charged at £10-£15 per game. 

I personally believe a service even costing £20 plus a month but giving the option of watching every game from every club has the potential to be a huge success.

[Ramandu]

44 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

The numbers are interesting. 

 

Sky pay £29m per season for Scottish football.  Or £2.4m per month. 

What would people be willing to pay for spfl tv? £10pm?  Maybe £15pm tops? And would they commit for 5 years like sky have done? 

At £15pm you would need 161,000 subscribers per month to match the same income from sky. Would we get that? 

I appreciate the long term health of our game is a bigger picture than just tv money alone but I wouldn't imagine the clubs would accept much less than they are getting at the moment despite our tv deal being shite on many levels. 

That doesn't include the cost of operations for sky. On top of the £29m they have to pay for staff, equipment and broadcasting tech. Any spfl TV would have to cover those costs as well.

I'd be happy (ecstatic) to live in a world where we are a bit poorer but there are no cheeks. But that is a harder sell to chairmen and boards. Unfortunately, it's probably also a hard sell to a lot of fans lower down the pyramid than us, who don't interact with (and therefore don't despise) the cheeks as much as us.

I would love it if they were gone though. I would absolutely love it.

[DD1903]

39 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Haha yeah kicked it all off early!

Genuinely wasn't trolling, was just not thinking

Oh I know, MT! 

[DD1903]

1 hour ago, aberdeen1970 said:

The numbers are interesting. 

 

Sky pay £29m per season for Scottish football.  Or £2.4m per month. 

What would people be willing to pay for spfl tv? £10pm?  Maybe £15pm tops? And would they commit for 5 years like sky have done? 

At £15pm you would need 161,000 subscribers per month to match the same income from sky. Would we get that? 

I appreciate the long term health of our game is a bigger picture than just tv money alone but I wouldn't imagine the clubs would accept much less than they are getting at the moment despite our tv deal being shite on many levels. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

That doesn't include the cost of operations for sky. On top of the £29m they have to pay for staff, equipment and broadcasting tech. Any spfl TV would have to cover those costs as well.

I'd be happy (ecstatic) to live in a world where we are a bit poorer but there are no cheeks. But that is a harder sell to chairmen and boards. Unfortunately, it's probably also a hard sell to a lot of fans lower down the pyramid than us, who don't interact with (and therefore don't despise) the cheeks as much as us.

I would love it if they were gone though. I would absolutely love it.

The company that bought the rights to the Italian league recently had to approach Sky Italia for help, as the costs to set up the infrastructure were huge. 
 

Sky have it all wrapped up, and they know it. We would have a better TV deal if we

1) hadn't told them to do one in the early 90s, when they were starting all this 

2) jumped ship to setanta, then had to go back begging to sky when that all went tits up

[sooth_stander]

38 minutes ago, KenDodd'sDad said:

I do wonder how long IPTV can keep going. It seems too good to be true. Will probably get shut down soon.

You do wonder.

Someone is going to get an example made of them and slammed in jail for a few years and then the whole thing will fizzle out but whilst it’s there…..

[Millertime]

14 minutes ago, DD1903 said:

Oh I know, MT! 

See when you reply to something on here and it's instant, ie you read something and instantly hit "reply" and type something, is that "thinking"?

Or do people read something, process it, actually think about a reply and then type?

[Millertime]

24 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

That doesn't include the cost of operations for sky. On top of the £29m they have to pay for staff, equipment and broadcasting tech. Any spfl TV would have to cover those costs as well.

I'd be happy (ecstatic) to live in a world where we are a bit poorer but there are no cheeks. But that is a harder sell to chairmen and boards. Unfortunately, it's probably also a hard sell to a lot of fans lower down the pyramid than us, who don't interact with (and therefore don't despise) the cheeks as much as us.

I would love it if they were gone though. I would absolutely love it.

Without those 2, we would quickly become a league of Ireland style league (ironically)

[daytripping]

13 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

You do wonder.

Someone is going to get an example made of them and slammed in jail for a few years and then the whole thing will fizzle out but whilst it’s there…..

They've already jailed people, guy got 12 years a few Months ago. Like drugs, where there's money someone will always fill the shoes of anyone jailed.

There's no way of stopping it, if there was it would have already happened. Maybe jailing users but the jails are already filled, not a very likely option.

Players should stop getting paid 100k a week, it's obscene, needs less money going to them and made cheaper to purchase via legal methods. Fuck paying Sky 75 a Month to line some rich football players pocket.

[KenDodd'sDad]

If the UK sellers get jailed someone overseas will likely pick up the slack.

[slippers]

24 minutes ago, Millertime said:

Without those 2, we would quickly become a league of Ireland style league (ironically)

I’ve had this argument on a podcast before. I disagree. League of irelands average attendance is something like 3k. I think their is scope to actually increase attendances across the board without them. I do wonder though if further down the line the league is dominated by us, hearts and hibs as I believe that the loss of the 2 would have a bigger effect on finances for the lesser teams than us, hearts and hibs. Also the tv money for all it is is also a much bigger % of income for the lesser clubs than the likes of us. 
 

Ultimately I’d rather get a decent manager and continue on the path we are on and spend more and more money every season with our good player trading model and hope to compete at a higher level and maybe 1 day get lucky and topple them if they have a off season. Unlikely as it is. If we can get group stages every season and sell a player for Circa 5m at-least every second season it’s a massive shot in arm. It’s a big ask to finish above them but really feel like we could be in a position to complete a lot better in a 1 of game and hopefully half the gap between 2nd and third. 
 

It’s a fair feat for us to beat Celtic on Rangers given the financial gulf but it’s actually quite unbelievable some of the lesser teams can even run them close in a 1 off game on their budget. 

[aberdeen1970]

8 minutes ago, daytripping said:

 

Players should stop getting paid 100k a week, it's obscene, needs less money going to them and made cheaper to purchase via legal methods. Fuck paying Sky 75 a Month to line some rich football players pocket.

Aye its ridiculous now. 

If you are based in the UK, support Aberdeen and are a non match goer, in order to be able to legally watch some, not even all, our games live on tv you'd have to

1. Subscribe to sky sports to watch a handful of our league games per season, mainly the home games against the Huns and Celtic and a couple of others. 

2. Subscribe to tnt sports to watch our European games

3. Subscribe to viaplay if we're chosen for a cup game 

4. Pay for a tv licence if we're chosen for a Scottish cup game. 

And that's only to be able to watch say 30% of our games live on tv if you're lucky. 

Its nae wonder people look for alternative options, it's unsustainable. 

 

[DD1903]

25 minutes ago, Millertime said:

See when you reply to something on here and it's instant, ie you read something and instantly hit "reply" and type something, is that "thinking"?

Or do people read something, process it, actually think about a reply and then type?

That is not the hat way, MT!

[slippers]

9 minutes ago, aberdeen1970 said:

Aye its ridiculous now. 

If you are based in the UK, support Aberdeen and are a non match goer, in order to be able to legally watch some, not even all, our games live on tv you'd have to

1. Subscribe to sky sports to watch a handful of our league games per season, mainly the home games against the Huns and Celtic and a couple of others. 

2. Subscribe to tnt sports to watch our European games

3. Subscribe to viaplay if we're chosen for a cup game 

4. Pay for a tv licence if we're chosen for a Scottish cup game. 

And that's only to be able to watch say 30% of our games live on tv if you're lucky. 

Its nae wonder people look for alternative options, it's unsustainable. 

 

Probably 10% of our games are broadcast legally in all honesty. I think that’s why as you state their is such a big rise in Iptv. Can literally watch every game.