No, I'm just trying to figure out roughly how much they could expect to take in as "profit" (i.e. the amount they have for distribution, as thought it came from a broadcaster).
No, I'm just trying to figure out roughly how much they could expect to take in as "profit" (i.e. the amount they have for distribution, as thought it came from a broadcaster).
I'm sure someone out there will have the answer for you:)
Does anyone know roughly the going-rate to hire a company to provide OB facilities at a football match?
Say, on a contract basis to cover 60 games per seasons?
Depends how many cameras you are going to use to cover the matches, and whether you need to build a studio or are going to present from pitchside/gantry.
Most basic option would be 8 camera match coverage with pitchside presentation - you'll be looking at around £15k per game.
On top of that you'll need a two satellite links* (£1500 per truck, plus £10 per minute of satellite space - starting an hour before you are on air, and ending no sooner than 30 minutes after off air)
Then you'll need to hire a generator to provide power, and you'll need some kind of graphics/stats capability
And finally you'll need production staff.
*one for your main feed, plus one for the world feed.
Depends how many cameras you are going to use to cover the matches, and whether you need to build a studio or are going to present from pitchside/gantry.
Most basic option would be 8 camera match coverage with pitchside presentation - you'll be looking at around £15k per game.
On top of that you'll need a two satellite links* (£1500 per truck, plus £10 per minute of satellite space - starting an hour before you are on air, and ending no sooner than 30 minutes after off air)
Then you'll need to hire a generator to provide power, and you'll need some kind of graphics/stats capability
And finally you'll need production staff.
*one for your main feed, plus one for the world feed.
Thanks.
So not including staff, and based on 30 minutes pre-/post-match chat, we're already in excess of £20k per game.
Make that 60 games = £1.3m+ over the season. Once staffing and gathering of footage from the non-live games is added on, would it be fair to say they'd be looking at over £2m in production costs alone?
Going with that figure, to get their current amount (£13.5m per year), they'd need to take in around £1.3m per month, based on people subscribing for 10 months.
That equates to just under 130,000 subscribers at £10/month. Is that feasible, I wonder?
(And to get anywhere near the £125m they were expecting from Setanta, you're looking at over a million at £10/month...)
Going with that figure, to get their current amount (£13.5m per year), they'd need to take in around £1.3m per month, based on people subscribing for 10 months.
That equates to just under 130,000 subscribers at £10/month. Is that feasible, I wonder?
You're not including sales to commercial premises. Back in 2004 Sky paid Setanta between £3m and £4m (per year) to put the SPL games in their commercial package. They should be able to raise more than this, either through a deal with Sky or in direct sales.
(And to get anywhere near the £125m they were expecting from Setanta, you're looking at over a million at £10/month...)
That was over four years. Around £31m a year.
I think they should get the SFL and SRU involved, and some foreign leagues if they are interested (like the Bundesliga and Eredivisie).
So not including staff, and based on 30 minutes pre-/post-match chat, we're already in excess of £20k per game.
Make that 60 games = £1.3m+ over the season. Once staffing and gathering of footage from the non-live games is added on, would it be fair to say they'd be looking at over £2m in production costs alone?
Well over.
In fact over £3m, as for all the non-live games you'd probably want 4/5 cameras, so that's £1m already.
Looks like the SPL see no long-term future for their relationship with the bully boys at Sky/ESPN. Not the best of starts to their five year broadcast "partnership":rolleyes:
So could we see SPL TV next season? It would be interesting I imagine they would pitch it about £6 for Sky viewers right?.
No chance of SPL tv next season - aside from anything else they'd be at the back of the queue for a slot on Sky's epg.
Longer term, a joint venture with STV would probably be the best option given that STV already has state of the art production facilities in place (constructed for their Setanta contract).
No chance of SPL tv next season - aside from anything else they'd be at the back of the queue for a slot on Sky's epg.
Longer term, a joint venture with STV would probably be the best option given that STV already has state of the art production facilities in place (constructed for their Setanta contract).
I disagree.
They would struggle to get SPL TV right on air however they could say by November? The ex Setanta slots are in the hands of administrators so if they choose to sell them on the SPL could buy one.
As you say they could use STV's facilities, take some of Setanta's ex commentary and keep shows like The Full SPL, Inside the SPL, Real Football Phone in and charge say £5 - £8. :cool:
They would struggle to get SPL TV right on air however they could say by November? The ex Setanta slots are in the hands of administrators so if they choose to sell them on the SPL could buy one.
As you say they could use STV's facilities, take some of Setanta's ex commentary and keep shows like The Full SPL, Inside the SPL, Real Football Phone in and charge say £5 - £8. :cool:
What might be possible in the short term is to buy a couple of Setanta's epg slots as you suggest and use these to relaunch the Celtic and Rangers TV channels.
What might be possible in the short term is to buy a couple of Setanta's epg slots as you suggest and use these to relaunch the Celtic and Rangers TV channels.
All the programming came from Setanta on those channels though. Liverpool/Arsenal TV seem to be independant set up's.
Reading articles online it appears the SPL will reluctancly sign the deal with EPSN/Sky.
I'd expect Sky to want these kind of fixtures:
Rangers vs Celtic (Home/away games) x4
Hearts/Celtic vs Hearts vs Rangers (Hearts home matches) x2
Aberdeen vs Rangers (Aberdeen home games) x2
Hearts vs Hibs (1 Home/1 Away) x2
Hibs Vs Celtic/Rangers (Hibs home matches x2)
Dundee Utd vs Rangers/Celtic (Dundee Utd home matches x2).
Motherwell vs Rangers/Celtic. (Motherwell home matches x2)
St Johnstone vs Rangers/Celtic (x2 as they are newly promoted).
So if ESPN get 40 SPL matches not including the old firm games then the channel I have subscribed to specifically for American Sport will now be dominated by such wonderful sporting spectacles as St Johnstone v Motherwell and Hibernian v Hamilton
SPL TV ? The fans will lose out again - they will be looking for £10 a month for 60 SPL games a season compared to £9 a month for ESPN offering SPL, EPL, american sports + all the other sports that ESPN buy up.
The other thing to bear in mind about SPL TV is the need for a Customer Services Department to handle subscriptions.
I think that would be quite a big job to set up. Remember the massive problems Setanta had with Customer Services.
Re the calculations above:
Would Sky agree to a commercial deal with SPL TV? If they are playing hardball they may not.
In terms of costs, as well as Customer Services you would also have to factor in something for marketing and admin so I think costs would be far greater than might be imagined. Costs guesstimate:
I reckon total costs would be in the region of £10m. Even if we assume they got £4m for a commercial subs deal then they would still need £19m from residential subs to make a net £13m overall (ie 19m + £4m - £10m = £13m).
At £6 per month for 10 months that means they would need 372,000 subscribers.
(372,000 * 6 * 10 / 1.175) = 19,000,000.
I am not a Scot but that looks like a tall order. And that is just to get the same revenue as from Sky/ESPN. Bearing in mind the risks involved plus adverse cash flow from start-up costs, it would only be sensible to proceed if they were confident of doing significantly better than with Sky/ESPN.
Would Sky agree to a commercial deal with SPL TV? If they are playing hardball they may not.
They'd want it very cheap, just as they have always had it. I'd hope the SPL would go it alone; Sky would lose far more than £4m as many pubs in Scotland would drop Sky's expensive package. Remember, to get the SPL now pubs need to subscribe to the Ultimate package.
The overall figure is probably right, though I think admin can largely be added to production, as they would need other content but could outsource all of it. A lot of marketing could be done through the clubs themselves. The channel would be able to generate some revenue in sponsorship and ad revenues.
At £6 per month for 10 months that means they would need 372,000 subscribers.
(372,000 * 6 * 10 / 1.175) = 19,000,000.
This is where I think you go off the wall a bit. Why six pounds? Setanta built up 200,000 Scottish subscribers paying £15 a month before it got the EPL. It was recently said to have 30% of its premium subscribers in Scotland.
And every subscriber cancels in the summer? Maybe half, probably not even that if decent archive and pre-season material is shown.
How about:
(200,000 * 12 * 11 / 1.175) = 20.6m
or
(250,000 * 10 * 11 / 1.175) = 23.4m
I think commercial revenues plus ad and sponsorship, minus all the costs, would take those figures down by about 5m, so about 15m in the first scenario and 18m in the second. I don't think there's anything impossible about those figures at all, though they probably couldn't be achieved in the first season. By 2014 you might have substantially more.
All the programming came from Setanta on those channels though. Liverpool/Arsenal TV seem to be independant set up's.
Reading articles online it appears the SPL will reluctancly sign the deal with EPSN/Sky.
I'd expect Sky to want these kind of fixtures:
Rangers vs Celtic (Home/away games) x4
Hearts/Celtic vs Hearts vs Rangers (Hearts home matches) x2
Aberdeen vs Rangers (Aberdeen home games) x2
Hearts vs Hibs (1 Home/1 Away) x2
Hibs Vs Celtic/Rangers (Hibs home matches x2)
Dundee Utd vs Rangers/Celtic (Dundee Utd home matches x2).
Motherwell vs Rangers/Celtic. (Motherwell home matches x2)
St Johnstone vs Rangers/Celtic (x2 as they are newly promoted).
No that would be way too many games for Sky. ESPN would not be interested in what's left.
SPL TV is a non starter in my opinion. So many posters here have already complained about there being two different broadcasters (Sky/Setanta and now Sky/ESPN) so how would adding a third help?
The overall figure is probably right, though I think admin can largely be added to production, as they would need other content but could outsource all of it. A lot of marketing could be done through the clubs themselves. The channel would be able to generate some revenue in sponsorship and ad revenues.
By admin I was thinking primarily general admin. Any business with (by your figures!) 200,000 subs is going to need a certain amount of general admin - eg billing system, accounts department, human resources, audit fees, legal & profesional etc etc
This is where I think you go off the wall a bit. Why six pounds? Setanta built up 200,000 Scottish subscribers paying £15 a month before it got the EPL. It was recently said to have 30% of its premium subscribers in Scotland.
And every subscriber cancels in the summer? Maybe half, probably not even that if decent archive and pre-season material is shown.
How about:
(200,000 * 12 * 11 / 1.175) = 20.6m
or
(250,000 * 10 * 11 / 1.175) = 23.4m
I think commercial revenues plus ad and sponsorship, minus all the costs, would take those figures down by about 5m, so about 15m in the first scenario and 18m in the second. I don't think there's anything impossible about those figures at all, though they probably couldn't be achieved in the first season. By 2014 you might have substantially more.
I only used £6 as that was used in an earlier post. I'm happy to accept they could go for a higher price.
But note I did allow for £4m of commercial revenues in my calculations.
Re advertising / sponsorship - well under 10% of Sky's revenues come from advertising / sponsorship so I would not allow more than £2m from that source.
That would bring the break-even down to £17m from residential subs.
Would people really be happy paying all year round just for SPL content? That would mean 3 months of blank screens!
The other big issue is start-up costs and risk. Do SPL clubs have the resources to fund a (much?) worse result than Sky/ESPN in year 1 on a bet that they may do better in the long run? I don't know but doubt it.
Any potential SPL TV would need other rights, whether it's Celtic or Rangers TV programming, pre-season games, or even like in the Netherlands where Eredivisie Live have picked up some Europa League
Looks like they will sign a ESPN + Sky deal meaning two expensive subs.
ESPN will be praying that they do as without the SPL they'd be in the same boat as Setanta 12 months down the line:)
Even if a deal is signed it will be a case of either/or for me as between SS1 and ESPN (be interesting to work out the average cost per game for each of them).
After reading a couple of reports I'm beginning to believe that Sky could maybe only get 10 games with ESPN the other 50. Maybe Sky get first 10 picks (4 Old Firm, 2 Edin derbies, game on last day, one in Aug, 1 Celtic away, 1 Rangers away?)
One report speculaed that ESPN would get one OF derby
After reading a couple of reports I'm beginning to believe that Sky could maybe only get 10 games with ESPN the other 50. Maybe Sky get first 10 picks (4 Old Firm, 2 Edin derbies, game on last day, one in Aug, 1 Celtic away, 1 Rangers away?)
One report speculaed that ESPN would get one OF derby
I guess that would maximise the total number of subs to both channels in Scotland, ie:
Sky has 10 prime SPL games (inc Old Firm), Scotland home internationals, Scottish Cup and Scottish teams in the CL.
ESPN has 50 SPL games so is very much the "home" of the SPL.
So both Sky and ESPN would be essential for any keen Scottish fan.
Despite all the posts to the contrary on here, the more I hear about what is happening the more I think there is some very clever thinking being done by both ESPN and Sky.
Comments
I'm sure someone out there will have the answer for you:)
Depends how many cameras you are going to use to cover the matches, and whether you need to build a studio or are going to present from pitchside/gantry.
Most basic option would be 8 camera match coverage with pitchside presentation - you'll be looking at around £15k per game.
On top of that you'll need a two satellite links* (£1500 per truck, plus £10 per minute of satellite space - starting an hour before you are on air, and ending no sooner than 30 minutes after off air)
Then you'll need to hire a generator to provide power, and you'll need some kind of graphics/stats capability
And finally you'll need production staff.
*one for your main feed, plus one for the world feed.
So not including staff, and based on 30 minutes pre-/post-match chat, we're already in excess of £20k per game.
Make that 60 games = £1.3m+ over the season. Once staffing and gathering of footage from the non-live games is added on, would it be fair to say they'd be looking at over £2m in production costs alone?
Going with that figure, to get their current amount (£13.5m per year), they'd need to take in around £1.3m per month, based on people subscribing for 10 months.
That equates to just under 130,000 subscribers at £10/month. Is that feasible, I wonder?
(And to get anywhere near the £125m they were expecting from Setanta, you're looking at over a million at £10/month...)
You're not including sales to commercial premises. Back in 2004 Sky paid Setanta between £3m and £4m (per year) to put the SPL games in their commercial package. They should be able to raise more than this, either through a deal with Sky or in direct sales.
That was over four years. Around £31m a year.
I think they should get the SFL and SRU involved, and some foreign leagues if they are interested (like the Bundesliga and Eredivisie).
Well over.
In fact over £3m, as for all the non-live games you'd probably want 4/5 cameras, so that's £1m already.
Interesting. It mentions a get out deal within three years to set up SPL TV yet it says it would damage the launch of ESPN if they don't get the SPL.
So could we see SPL TV next season? It would be interesting I imagine they would pitch it about £6 for Sky viewers right?
I think it's a wise move by the SPL. If Sky sorted there schedules out I'm sure the SPL would sign a 90 million deal with Sky.
No chance of SPL tv next season - aside from anything else they'd be at the back of the queue for a slot on Sky's epg.
Longer term, a joint venture with STV would probably be the best option given that STV already has state of the art production facilities in place (constructed for their Setanta contract).
I disagree.
They would struggle to get SPL TV right on air however they could say by November? The ex Setanta slots are in the hands of administrators so if they choose to sell them on the SPL could buy one.
As you say they could use STV's facilities, take some of Setanta's ex commentary and keep shows like The Full SPL, Inside the SPL, Real Football Phone in and charge say £5 - £8. :cool:
What might be possible in the short term is to buy a couple of Setanta's epg slots as you suggest and use these to relaunch the Celtic and Rangers TV channels.
All the programming came from Setanta on those channels though. Liverpool/Arsenal TV seem to be independant set up's.
Reading articles online it appears the SPL will reluctancly sign the deal with EPSN/Sky.
I'd expect Sky to want these kind of fixtures:
Rangers vs Celtic (Home/away games) x4
Hearts/Celtic vs Hearts vs Rangers (Hearts home matches) x2
Aberdeen vs Rangers (Aberdeen home games) x2
Hearts vs Hibs (1 Home/1 Away) x2
Hibs Vs Celtic/Rangers (Hibs home matches x2)
Dundee Utd vs Rangers/Celtic (Dundee Utd home matches x2).
Motherwell vs Rangers/Celtic. (Motherwell home matches x2)
St Johnstone vs Rangers/Celtic (x2 as they are newly promoted).
Wonderful
I think that would be quite a big job to set up. Remember the massive problems Setanta had with Customer Services.
Re the calculations above:
Would Sky agree to a commercial deal with SPL TV? If they are playing hardball they may not.
In terms of costs, as well as Customer Services you would also have to factor in something for marketing and admin so I think costs would be far greater than might be imagined. Costs guesstimate:
Production (as above) - £3m+
Customer services - £2m?
Marketing - £2m?
Admin - 2m?
I reckon total costs would be in the region of £10m. Even if we assume they got £4m for a commercial subs deal then they would still need £19m from residential subs to make a net £13m overall (ie 19m + £4m - £10m = £13m).
At £6 per month for 10 months that means they would need 372,000 subscribers.
(372,000 * 6 * 10 / 1.175) = 19,000,000.
I am not a Scot but that looks like a tall order. And that is just to get the same revenue as from Sky/ESPN. Bearing in mind the risks involved plus adverse cash flow from start-up costs, it would only be sensible to proceed if they were confident of doing significantly better than with Sky/ESPN.
Conclusion: Looks like a non-starter.
Setanta used a ready made call centre, French owned Teleperformance, so customer services wouldn't be that hard to set up.
Getting customer services right is another matter of course.
I agree it looks like a non-starter
They'd want it very cheap, just as they have always had it. I'd hope the SPL would go it alone; Sky would lose far more than £4m as many pubs in Scotland would drop Sky's expensive package. Remember, to get the SPL now pubs need to subscribe to the Ultimate package.
The overall figure is probably right, though I think admin can largely be added to production, as they would need other content but could outsource all of it. A lot of marketing could be done through the clubs themselves. The channel would be able to generate some revenue in sponsorship and ad revenues.
This is where I think you go off the wall a bit. Why six pounds? Setanta built up 200,000 Scottish subscribers paying £15 a month before it got the EPL. It was recently said to have 30% of its premium subscribers in Scotland.
And every subscriber cancels in the summer? Maybe half, probably not even that if decent archive and pre-season material is shown.
How about:
(200,000 * 12 * 11 / 1.175) = 20.6m
or
(250,000 * 10 * 11 / 1.175) = 23.4m
I think commercial revenues plus ad and sponsorship, minus all the costs, would take those figures down by about 5m, so about 15m in the first scenario and 18m in the second. I don't think there's anything impossible about those figures at all, though they probably couldn't be achieved in the first season. By 2014 you might have substantially more.
No that would be way too many games for Sky. ESPN would not be interested in what's left.
By admin I was thinking primarily general admin. Any business with (by your figures!) 200,000 subs is going to need a certain amount of general admin - eg billing system, accounts department, human resources, audit fees, legal & profesional etc etc
I only used £6 as that was used in an earlier post. I'm happy to accept they could go for a higher price.
But note I did allow for £4m of commercial revenues in my calculations.
Re advertising / sponsorship - well under 10% of Sky's revenues come from advertising / sponsorship so I would not allow more than £2m from that source.
That would bring the break-even down to £17m from residential subs.
Would people really be happy paying all year round just for SPL content? That would mean 3 months of blank screens!
The other big issue is start-up costs and risk. Do SPL clubs have the resources to fund a (much?) worse result than Sky/ESPN in year 1 on a bet that they may do better in the long run? I don't know but doubt it.
ESPN will be praying that they do as without the SPL they'd be in the same boat as Setanta 12 months down the line:)
Even if a deal is signed it will be a case of either/or for me as between SS1 and ESPN (be interesting to work out the average cost per game for each of them).
One report speculaed that ESPN would get one OF derby
I guess that would maximise the total number of subs to both channels in Scotland, ie:
Sky has 10 prime SPL games (inc Old Firm), Scotland home internationals, Scottish Cup and Scottish teams in the CL.
ESPN has 50 SPL games so is very much the "home" of the SPL.
So both Sky and ESPN would be essential for any keen Scottish fan.
Despite all the posts to the contrary on here, the more I hear about what is happening the more I think there is some very clever thinking being done by both ESPN and Sky.