Next FAI Television Deal

**bigmac** · 23/02/2006, 3:49 PM

Originally Posted by NY Hoop

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

Originally Posted by bigmac

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

Originally Posted by Schumi

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.

**Dodge** · 23/02/2006, 5:07 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

**Plastic Paddy** · 23/02/2006, 5:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

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...

PP

**pete** · 23/02/2006, 9:05 PM

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.

**TonyD** · 23/02/2006, 9:38 PM

Originally Posted by pete

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

Originally Posted by TonyD

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

Originally Posted by liamon

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

Originally Posted by NY Hoop

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.

**Mr A** · 24/02/2006, 12:26 PM

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

Originally Posted by CharlesThompson

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