View Full Version : Next FAI Television Deal
A face
23/02/2006, 2:07 PM
Lads, the current deal is up in about a year AFAIK.
I just want to ask what eL fans think would be acceptable for the leagues interests as regards as new deal.
In my opinion whoever gets the rights to show the national games should also have to compile with a full package which would include ....
A weekly hour long highlights package from the League, Cups and European competition.
A live game once a week from the League or Cups, 30% at least of which would be made up of First Division clashes
Positive promotion policy of the eircom League interests (i dont know how to quantify this but something needs to be done on it)
Lads, i know this thread may spark discussion on this issue but i'm going to split it from the thread if it happens (start a new thread on it if you want to discuss it basically) ..... i want just what you think is reasonable for the league in the next Television deal.
Its just to get an idea for what fans actually want out of it so at least that much is clear this time around.
Risteard
23/02/2006, 2:16 PM
I'd pretty much go with what you have there.
Just try to induce competition to TV3 on the highlights package.(there's easily the market for a slightly longer show on a better time.)
Think it would be impossible to force their hand into showing that many live matches ie once weekly. 9 First Division matches shouldn't be shown. 4 or so alright.
Aside from that though, better promotion policy is absolutely necessary and tv3 need to buck up a bit (show all the fecking matches for a start.)
Peadar
23/02/2006, 2:20 PM
A live game once a week from the League or Cups, 30% at least of which would be made up of First Division clashes
Positive promotion policy of the eircom League interests (i dont know how to quantify this but something needs to be done on it)You're contradicting yourself with these two points.
If 30% of your coverage is dedicated to the lower division, you will not promote the league in a positive manner!
ThatGuy
23/02/2006, 2:21 PM
I agree with what you are saying apart from one thing, 30% of live games should be division 1 games? 0% of live games should be division 1 games in my opinion.
The only time that a Div1 team should be shown is if they are involved in a FAI Cup game against a Premier side and there are no more appealing games in the round, or the relegation/promotion play-off. It is hard enough to portray the league in a good light without resorting to showing Athlone, Galway, Cobh, Kilkenny etc.
I am sorry if that is harsh on those teams and Div1 in general, but everything about Division 1 is terrible. In my opinion 100% of the coverage should be given to the clubs in the Premier Division.
Any highlights package or series of live games should focus on the Premier Division. Match of the Day doesn't show highlights of Bournemouth or Rushden and Diamonds and we shouldn't be taking time away from the progressive clubs so that Limerick can be given some token gesture airtime.
NY Hoop
23/02/2006, 2:24 PM
A one hour highlights package at 10pm on monday nights. Remember Gazzetta, now on Bravo? Something along those lines. Not only coverage of ALL premier games but features, interviews, top scorer charts, fans view, history of clubs etc etc. TV3 wont do this cos they have to show their imported crap.
No live games from the first division ffs. And no need for live games every single week. The amount of live games shown now is sufficient.
What is far more important is that ALL premier games have cameras at them and have proper gantries. Derry and Waterford dont have any gantries and Bray and Sligo's are in the wrong stand. Fix these problems first and tv companies would be far less reluctant to avoid these venues.
KOH
Bald Student
23/02/2006, 2:26 PM
It's OK the way it is now with the exception of eL Weekly. It needs to be seriously improved and put on at a reasonable time. They should have propper highlights of one match and the goals from most of the rest.
First division games should only be shown if they're promotion deciding games at the end of the season.
Peadar
23/02/2006, 2:29 PM
Fix these problems first and tv companies would be far less reluctant to avoid these venues.
Inadequate floodlighting is a major problem as well.
A fans programme on Setanta would be a good idea as well.
It would cost almost nothing to produce and could be sponsored.
Basically work along the lines of Soccer AM but keep it more focused.
You could have fans on from two clubs involved in the clash of the week.
bigmac
23/02/2006, 2:33 PM
Yeah I agree with most of that. An hour long weekly package is the minimum and a decent spread of live matches - I think one a fortnight would be good, with an extra few towards the business end of the season. Also a more equal revenue split for the teams - there shouldn't be a situation like last year where some teams (Waterford) get absolutely no money out of the tv deal. I'd prefer an across the board payment split between the clubs.
30% is an awful lot to have from the first division - I think if the league could get the first division included in the highlights that would be a big step forward. The choice of live games needs to be better thought out - no more Waterford-Longford games for example - Preferences should be given to games that are pretty guaranteed to have a bit of life in them.
Btw, what are people's opinions on deferred live coverage?
IMO
An average of one game a week, with at least one a fortnight. (higher density in last few weeks)
Across the board equitable split of money between all clubs in the premier
Weekly hour long highlights programme to be aired before 11pm
The EL to submit a list of the preferred fixtures to be televised, taking into account the number of times each team is shown, derby nature of the game, and maximising accessibility for fans (eg show 2 of the Cork-Derry games)
One game minimum from each round of the FAI Cup, with both semi-finals and the final shown live
just point of info on the waterford camera situation - tv crews have said that it is one of the easiest stadiums to set up and work in, so it's not a lack of tv facilities limiting its exposure.
Peadar
23/02/2006, 2:36 PM
...so it's not a lack of tv facilities limiting its exposure.
It's the lack of anything resembling football. :D
Risteard
23/02/2006, 2:37 PM
Bray and Sligo's are in the wrong stand.
Add Cork City to that i think.
Ps, don't h so the only thing i'll be 'ko'ing is you and your friends if you persist with this ridiculous sig crap.:D
ThatGuy
23/02/2006, 2:38 PM
A one hour highlights package at 10pm on monday nights. Remember Gazzetta, now on Bravo? Something along those lines. Not only coverage of ALL premier games but features, interviews, top scorer charts, fans view, history of clubs etc etc. TV3 wont do this cos they have to show their imported crap.
No live games from the first division ffs. And no need for live games every single week. The amount of live games shown now is sufficient.
What is far more important is that ALL premier games have cameras at them and have proper gantries. Derry and Waterford dont have any gantries and Bray and Sligo's are in the wrong stand. Fix these problems first and tv companies would be far less reluctant to avoid these venues.
KOH
Good post agree with every word (apart from KOH).
NY Hoop
23/02/2006, 2:38 PM
just point of info on the waterford camera situation - tv crews have said that it is one of the easiest stadiums to set up and work in, so it's not a lack of tv facilities limiting its exposure.
Think you're missing the point there. Its not how easy it is to set up. Its the perceived image of the ground when a game is shown there. Frankly it looks crap but this is because the camera is IN the main stand.
I remember when we were down there for the Cup game in 97 it looked top class on tv because the camera was FACING the main stand.
KOH
Vitruvian Man
23/02/2006, 2:43 PM
The key to success is a high quality highlights programme plus a bit of advertising hype which shows the league in an attractive light. There does not need to be a heavy emphasis on Live matches because the quality of EL football is quite low, in the majority of cases, and will turn the TV watcher off over time. I know it’s not going to be popular to say here but, Div 1 teams should not be shown live unless they are in the cup. But the Div 1 teams should still get a cut of the TV money anyway on some kind of pro-rata basis.
The highlights show should be at least 45 minutes long and be on during a prime slot such as 20:30 on a weekday. I would try to insist on some kind of standard for the camerawork at matches. Something like… 2 Featured Matches in the show with a minimum of 2 TV-studio operated cameras at the game AND a live commentator. The rest of the show should be made up from the tapes which the clubs send in themselves. They should also try to get a better panel of experts in to analyze the matches – how about ditching one of the two clapped out ex-pro’s and get a sports journalist in to give an insight instead.
At the moment we have a TV3 show that is made up clips from a single camera provided by the club, consisting of amateur cameramen filming the backs of people’s heads at the RSC while a presenter voices over in a monotone completely out of sync with the action. They show the goals at the start of the program, their highlights consist of only the goals and then they show us the goals a third time while the pundits analyse them. While I’m grateful for any EL at all on the telly, TV3’s effort is poor to say the least. Which is a shame because Trevor Welch and Stephen Cullinane (I think) are obviously EL supporters and enthusiastic for the league.
A face
23/02/2006, 2:57 PM
Alright lads ... back on track here.
So 30% of First Division games are too much, fair enough. And someone said that one live game a week is too much aswell.
As regards the first division, it would have to be measureable lads, you would have to give parameters for the station to work within, they wont be able to forecast how games will pan out in cup ties for example. We are probably better off leaving them pick (they will go with the biggest interest, bigest viewing figures) but tie them down to a number of games a year. IMO the first division CANNOT be ignored, even if it is just to ensure there are 4+ games a year, there HAS to be some coverage.
How about a live game every two weeks, its half but you'll have a better chance of picking a better game to view. Possibly biggest viewing figures ??
The TV coverage needs to be co-ordinated, at the moment it just looks like TV stations show a game when they've nothing better to fill. You could have 5 games in a row and then none for a month. We need a game every week at the same time (the station isn't really importnat)
Agree re the need for a proper highlights show but that needs at least 2 cameras at every Premier ground, and 1 at each first division game. There should be absolutely NO first division games shown live
Red4Eva
23/02/2006, 3:13 PM
Having spent the last 6 years travelling to the various sh*tholes of the 1st div i'd have to say absolutely no way should there ever be a live 1st div games. rank stadiums, pathetic crowds & as for the style of football...no thanks
I wouldnt show games from the 1st division , but it would nt hurt to have cameras at them and show the goals.
Red4Eva
23/02/2006, 3:19 PM
I wouldnt show games from the 1st division , but it would nt hurt to have cameras at them and show the goals.
ya but the clubs can tape the games themselves and give the tape to tv3 like ourselves, harps & dublin city have done in past cupla years
ya but the clubs can tape the games themselves and give the tape to tv3 like ourselves, harps & dublin city have done in past cupla years
Ya but the clubs had to pay for someone to do it for them. Im saying that TV3 should send down a camera of there own and do all the dirty work (editing and what not) themselves, costing the clubs nothing.
Schumi
23/02/2006, 3:42 PM
I think live games are less important than the highlights programme. An hour-long highlights package (of a higher quality than the current TV3 effort) at no later than 10 O'Clock on Sunday or Monday should be the priority. A live game every 2 or 3 weeks would be plenty I think but it would be better to have them evenly spread over the season rather than the clumping of games in groups of 3 or 4 at a time we had last year.
The highlights should cover all premier games at a minimum and preferably as many first division games as possible with one featured game being given at least 15 minutes of the programme. First division games should not be considered for live games (with the possible exception of a big promotion deciding game) as the quality of football just isn't there.
bigmac
23/02/2006, 3:49 PM
Think you're missing the point there. Its not how easy it is to set up. Its the perceived image of the ground when a game is shown there. Frankly it looks crap but this is because the camera is IN the main stand.
Fair enough, but since when did that bother the TV companies? I agree that the cameras should be on the far side of the pitch - gives them a better view anyway, but from a walk before we run point of view, let's try to get cameras at every game before we start discussing optimum camera positions. Fact is that a few live games for a club would pay for a TV gantry for future games.
NY Hoop
23/02/2006, 4:14 PM
Fair enough, but since when did that bother the TV companies? I agree that the cameras should be on the far side of the pitch - gives them a better view anyway, but from a walk before we run point of view, let's try to get cameras at every game before we start discussing optimum camera positions. Fact is that a few live games for a club would pay for a TV gantry for future games.
Never said it was bothering the tv companies. However the Chief Executive of Setanta Sports Niall Cogley said in an interview a few weeks back that domestic rugby was easy to broadcast as they had "proper gantries in place".
Having a tripod filming the back of peoples heads in the RSC and in the Brandywell makes the league look poor IMO.
KOH
A face
23/02/2006, 4:50 PM
I think live games are less important than the highlights programme. An hour-long highlights package (of a higher quality than the current TV3 effort) at no later than 10 O'Clock on Sunday or Monday should be the priority. A live game every 2 or 3 weeks would be plenty I think but it would be better to have them evenly spread over the season rather than the clumping of games in groups of 3 or 4 at a time we had last year.
Agreed with that !!
Lads, what do you want from a highlights programme aswell ... should we outline (measureable) features that it should have ?? Maybe add some optional ones aswell.
A highlights package is what we, as current fans want, but the clubs and advertisers want live football. The only way that will work is it is every week at the same time
Plastic Paddy
23/02/2006, 5:52 PM
A highlights package is what we, as current fans want, but the clubs and advertisers want live football. The only way that will work is it is every week at the same time
Absolutely right. You have to have an anchor show at a fixed time each week for the league to build a decent viewer base, and I don't mean 12.30am on a Thursday morning. From my (admittedly limited of late) exposure to Irish domestic football, League football is of a decent enough standard to support a one-hour highlights showreel each week, and decent football is what pulls in advertisers which is what generates revenue for the TV station and ultimately the clubs. It's also the only way to assault the potential barstool market, fronting them with "product". :) The League bods should be out talking to the TV stations now to see what's on likely offer.
And there's no reason why the League should just be talking domestic broadcast either. There's a healthy enough expat market to attack through either Sky or Setanta. I'd certainly watch from here in London and I know many others who would.
Perhaps Eircom would lend some of their weight to the upcoming talks on the League's behalf? It can't hurt to have corporate partners like that alongside. Might squeeze a bob or two more out of whoever signs to broadcast... :D
:ball: PP
If we continue with the number of live matches from last season we will do well.
No 1st division matches should be shown live. Highlights only if top of the table clash.
We cannot link the International rights to the eL packages because RTE & TV3 are the only stations that can bid for the International matches.
I think Setanta could be interested in weekly highlights show? They couldn't be worse than TV3 & eventhough may not have the same coverage would show at better time slot?
Turners Cross may have the tv gantry on the wrong side but its probably the largest in the league which can double as a studio.
I think Setanta could be interested in weekly highlights show? They couldn't be worse than TV3 & eventhough may not have the same coverage would show at better time slot?
Agree with this. Setanta has been the most positive thing to happen to local football in years. I don't think it's any coincidence that the coverage last year improved dramatically once Setanta came on the scene. Setanta should be given the highlights programme and TV3 should be cut adrift. (They should also lose the International rights.)
Slash/ED
23/02/2006, 11:46 PM
No way should first division matches be shown live, we need to promote all that is good about the EL, showing first division matches will put people off. Agree also highlights package is the most important thing.
liamon
24/02/2006, 8:53 AM
Agree with this. Setanta has been the most positive thing to happen to local football in years. I don't think it's any coincidence that the coverage last year improved dramatically once Setanta came on the scene. Setanta should be given the highlights programme and TV3 should be cut adrift. (They should also lose the International rights.)
To be fair to TV3, they were showing some eL football when our national broadcaster wouldn't touch it. The slot was terrible though. As for Setanta, will they really offer us wide exposure? What sort of coverage do they have? I'm not sure I know many people with access.
Is narrowing the viewing market going to bring in new fans and grow the league? Would we be better off pushing RTE/TV3 to show decent highlights at a more reasonable time, rather than getting a better product that very few people can access? Surely with the upcoming re-launch of the league, we need maximum exposure.
And don't ever let the first division anywhere near a camera, or we'll just scare away potential fans/sponsors.
A face
24/02/2006, 9:17 AM
Is narrowing the viewing market going to bring in new fans and grow the league? Would we be better off pushing RTE/TV3 to show decent highlights at a more reasonable time, rather than getting a better product that very few people can access? Surely with the upcoming re-launch of the league, we need maximum exposure.
Agreed with that alright ... but its up to the fans to lobby them. We should have been doing this years ago though.
bigmac
24/02/2006, 10:22 AM
Never said it was bothering the tv companies. However the Chief Executive of Setanta Sports Niall Cogley said in an interview a few weeks back that domestic rugby was easy to broadcast as they had "proper gantries in place".
Having a tripod filming the back of peoples heads in the RSC and in the Brandywell makes the league look poor IMO.
My mistake, I misinterpreted your original post about tv companies becoming less reluctant. Agree completely with you on positioning of gantries opposite crowds. With rugby though, Donnybrook, Musgrave and Thomond all have their cameras on the stand side of the pitch.
The next TV package needs to be more 'joined up' in terms of the live games than the previous ones. No more massive gaps between live games, no more showing a game totally without giving any context (like other matches going on etc). A better highlights package is a must, and the first division must be given some coverage in this.
How the hell are clubs meant to improve themselves- ataract crowds and especially sponsors if they get zero coverage? I'm not saying the 1st should have live games (except maybe playoffs and big end-of-season promotion battles), but the people saying it should get no coverage whatsoever and villify poor standards there seem to be applying "knock their teeth out and then punch them in the stomach for mumbling" logic to the situation. And it's not as if the premier produces that much fantastic football, standards overall in out league are still poor.
CharlesThompson
24/02/2006, 12:52 PM
The clubs could really do a lot to help themselves here regarding TV coverage. To suggest that the TV companies should dedicate teams of cameramen, and production staff to every game in the country is so off the mark it's unbelievable. They will not do this simply because the cost compared to the income on a project of this type totally negates the opportunity.
What clubs, let's face it who need tv coverage, need to do is to make it easy for the TV companies to screen games from their stadia. The cost for a tv company to screen a live match in Ireland is somewhere in between €20k - €25k per match. A sizeable amount of this cost is taken up with logistics and labour i.e. running cables, setting up camera positions etc.
I would suggest that if each club took it upon themselves to install a cable infrastructure at their ground which effectively allowed a plug and play scenario for the TV Co.'s then the clubs could then gain more money from the tv companies for screening the games, the TV companies could still save money on screening the games and their would be a better spread of games shown on the TV. In order to minimise the cost of implementing such an infrastructure, the eL or FAI should tender for the job and take the money for this from grant money due to clubs.
ANother fact already alluded to earlier in the thread is that the general positive look and feel on the TV of our matches is non existent because most of the grounds look like crap. This is why SKY for instance, who would be interested in showing live games in the Friday night schedule, do not show any eL matches even during the summer months when there is little or no live football available to their audience in the UK. This is important because if they grounds were up to scratch, the betting companies are willing to support the cost of screening matches because let's face it, there are more than enough people willing to bet on two flies going up a wall and football would sell in the UK if even for the summer.
Well that's all I have to add at the moment, apologies if I've strayed off topic slightly, but they are considerations I think are well worth mentioning at this point.
NY Hoop
24/02/2006, 1:23 PM
The clubs could really do a lot to help themselves here regarding TV coverage. To suggest that the TV companies should dedicate teams of cameramen, and production staff to every game in the country is so off the mark it's unbelievable. They will not do this simply because the cost compared to the income on a project of this type totally negates the opportunity.
What clubs, let's face it who need tv coverage, need to do is to make it easy for the TV companies to screen games from their stadia. The cost for a tv company to screen a live match in Ireland is somewhere in between €20k - €25k per match. A sizeable amount of this cost is taken up with logistics and labour i.e. running cables, setting up camera positions etc.
I would suggest that if each club took it upon themselves to install a cable infrastructure at their ground which effectively allowed a plug and play scenario for the TV Co.'s then the clubs could then gain more money from the tv companies for screening the games, the TV companies could still save money on screening the games and their would be a better spread of games shown on the TV. In order to minimise the cost of implementing such an infrastructure, the eL or FAI should tender for the job and take the money for this from grant money due to clubs.
ANother fact already alluded to earlier in the thread is that the general positive look and feel on the TV of our matches is non existent because most of the grounds look like crap. This is why SKY for instance, who would be interested in showing live games in the Friday night schedule, do not show any eL matches even during the summer months when there is little or no live football available to their audience in the UK. This is important because if they grounds were up to scratch, the betting companies are willing to support the cost of screening matches because let's face it, there are more than enough people willing to bet on two flies going up a wall and football would sell in the UK if even for the summer.
Well that's all I have to add at the moment, apologies if I've strayed off topic slightly, but they are considerations I think are well worth mentioning at this point.
Agree 100%. Good idea about the cable infrastructure and one that should be looked into.
KOH
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.