GAA doing a deal with SkySports

[armaghniac]

If you are not doing one thing properly then maybe stick at that before moving on to something of much less importance.

[Syferus]

If you are not doing one thing properly then maybe stick at that before moving on to something of much less importance.

Why would reaching out to an unsaturated country be of any less importance to reaching out to a saturated country? People are people. There's alot more gra for the games aboard than there is in a lot of unionist communities.

[Zulu]

If you are not doing one thing properly then maybe stick at that before moving on to something of much less importance.

The GAA has done a great job of developing the games in Ireland and participation rates compare favourably with other sports in the country. Indeed, I'd imagine the percentage of the population playing GAA in Ireland would be similar to the percentage of people playing soccer in Britain, American football in the US or Aussie rules in Australia. That's not to say we shouldn't aim to increase the numbers playing in the major urban areas where there is genuine potential for growth but how does putting 14 games on Sky hinder that?

Nothing about this deal limits the GAA's potential for further growth in Ireland but it does potentially aid the growth of the games in Britain.

[AZOffaly]

Exactly. It's not relevant to this discussion in my mind. Making games available to kids in th uk does not mean you have to neglect kids in Ireland. In my opinion kids in Ireland are better catered for than at any time in the past.

[theskull1]

There's the argument that all this talk about TV rights to games and relying on more and more televised games for revenue/promotion is driving a wedge between clubs and county teams as more and more demands are placed on the top players.
Clubs nurture players from 6 years of age but have to lump the fact they'll see precious little of that player for a large chunk of the year. Our top intercounty player at the minute Paul Shields for instance has played one league game out of 7 and to be honest ....looking at the number of matches and county sessions, it would be wrong to expect him to play in the circumstances.
I don't like what's happening. Seems to be a medium term plan for Counties to play for longer and longer together in the summer months and the impact to clubs isn't a consideration

[Zulu]

Nothing to do with TV Skull IMO and everything to do with the Gaa being unwilling to address the farce that is the Gaa season.

[AZOffaly]

There's the argument that all this talk about TV rights to games and relying on more and more televised games for revenue/promotion is driving a wedge between clubs and county teams as more and more demands are placed on the top players.
Clubs nurture players from 6 years of age but have to lump the fact they'll see precious little of that player for a large chunk of the year. Our top intercounty player at the minute Paul Shields for instance has played one league game out of 7 and to be honest ....looking at the number of matches and county sessions, it would be wrong to expect him to play in the circumstances.
I don't like what's happening. Seems to be a medium term plan for Counties to play for longer and longer together in the summer months and the impact to clubs isn't a consideration

I think this is a valid concern, and something I'm worried about. The natural progression to me seems to be towards selecting a county panel and they are simply unavailable to their clubs any more until the county season is over. If championship is played, it will be without these players. I don't think this has anything to do with Sky or kids being exposed to the games in the UK though. I'll be perfectly honest, I'm involved/have been involved in various county teams recently, and if we could just plan our activities without worrying about club fixtures etc it would be an awful lot easier and better for the county team. Of course that would be against the whole 'club' ethos of the GAA, and if I was coaching a club team I'd be cursing the county lads being unavailable to me for preparation. It's actually the worst of both worlds at the moment I think.

[roney]

Nothing to do with TV Skull IMO and everything to do with the Gaa being unwilling to address the farce that is the Gaa season.

Agree it's not the TV companies fault. However, it's two sides of the same coin.

The Sky part of media deal was largely about sponsorship and the ability to tap into whatever millions of set boxes are in the UK. The disapora thing is a complete lie that doesn't stand up to any analysis.

Sponsorship is the same reason that the intercounty season isn't shortened. Gate receipts are of course a factor but a lesser factor because whoever is going to go to the games probably will if they are played in Aug or Sept.

However, if I am a big sponsor of the championship I want my sponsorship to run for the maximum period possible. I don't give a shit about club fixtures as it's none of my concern. Sky is a potential platform to sell to sponsors.

Bottom line is that the decisions around fixtures and Sky are primarily of the same nature. Profit and sponsorship is being maximised at the expense of clubs in the fixtures case and people without pay tv in the Sky case.

Anyway, you don't have to believe me but listen to the guy who started the commercial activity for the GPA. He is a very shrewd business person.

"Sky are going to bring additional value to the GAA's entire commercial stock and while the sponsorship deals might not be happening now, they will increase in value because of Sky," said the former IMG sales and marketing manager.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2014/0402/ireland/gpa-founder-oaposneill-says-sky-deal-aposchanges-the-landscapeapos-264015.html

[orangeman]

So if the top brass in the GAA had publicly announced and conceded that the Sky deal was accepted as it was going to bring on board the best media operator in the world ( which they did say ), that the GAA could benefit from the global presence of Sky AND that they got a good few quid out of the deal, more than TV3 could have paid and that if anything the revenue stream over time was going to dramatically increase, would we have been happier ?. In other words a bit of honesty rather than spin.

[AZOffaly]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

[johnneycool]

There's the argument that all this talk about TV rights to games and relying on more and more televised games for revenue/promotion is driving a wedge between clubs and county teams as more and more demands are placed on the top players.
Clubs nurture players from 6 years of age but have to lump the fact they'll see precious little of that player for a large chunk of the year. Our top intercounty player at the minute Paul Shields for instance has played one league game out of 7 and to be honest ....looking at the number of matches and county sessions, it would be wrong to expect him to play in the circumstances.
I don't like what's happening. Seems to be a medium term plan for Counties to play for longer and longer together in the summer months and the impact to clubs isn't a consideration

I think this is a valid concern, and something I'm worried about. The natural progression to me seems to be towards selecting a county panel and they are simply unavailable to their clubs any more until the county season is over. If championship is played, it will be without these players. I don't think this has anything to do with Sky or kids being exposed to the games in the UK though. I'll be perfectly honest, I'm involved/have been involved in various county teams recently, and if we could just plan our activities without worrying about club fixtures etc it would be an awful lot easier and better for the county team. Of course that would be against the whole 'club' ethos of the GAA, and if I was coaching a club team I'd be cursing the county lads being unavailable to me for preparation. It's actually the worst of both worlds at the moment I think.

IMO its not directly related to Sky, but the extended Intercounty championship has everything to do with commercial revenues, sponsorship exposure and TV rights.

There would be no problems running more games off at the weekends, what's to stop the two Munster hurling semi-finals to be played on the one weekend, ditto any of the other provinces doing the same, yet they are elongated so that we've one game a weekend in each provincial competition, it has to be with TV coverage and sponsors paying big money to see their branding splattered over the airwaves for the entire summer.

In the meantime the club game is stymied in all but a few counties whilst this protracted season draws on.

Oh, I think Roney has hit on the same point.

[AZOffaly]

So if the top brass in the GAA had publicly announced and conceded that the Sky deal was accepted as it was going to bring on board the best media operator in the world ( which they did say ), that the GAA could benefit from the global presence of Sky AND that they got a good few quid out of the deal, more than TV3 could have paid and that if anything the revenue stream over time was going to dramatically increase, would we have been happier ?. In other words a bit of honesty rather than spin.

Anyone who didn't realise that Sky exposure opens up commercial avenues is nuts.  We had to be told that? I assumed that was taken as read. In fact I'm sure I heard Liam O'Neill or someone make that point. Sure if there are new markets exposed to the GAA, then the chances are that a percentage of them will at least buy a hurley or a jersey if they get into it.

[roney]

So if the top brass in the GAA had publicly announced and conceded that the Sky deal was accepted as it was going to bring on board the best media operator in the world ( which they did say ), that the GAA could benefit from the global presence of Sky AND that they got a good few quid out of the deal, more than TV3 could have paid and that if anything the revenue stream over time was going to dramatically increase, would we have been happier ?. In other words a bit of honesty rather than spin.

Short answer is yes.

[orangeman]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

AZ. Who is "we' ?. There are competing interests now. When you say that a large portion of funds would be distributed to clubs, I assume you're talking about funds being distributed indirectly in the form of coaching etc without cheques being written to individual units ?.

[theskull1]

Nothing to do with TV Skull IMO and everything to do with the Gaa being unwilling to address the farce that is the Gaa season.

Not sure I'd agree its got nothing to do with it Zulu. My take on it is the upper echelons GAA are driven by revenue opportunities and TV rights is one of those as well as gate receipts and additional sponsorship potential. This pressure between the club game and IC is an understood negative byproduct of that need to develop more sources of revenue. The reason why they are unwilling to address the farce as you rightly call it is due to the fact that the straightforward solutions will impact revenue.


......just seen there's been 6 new replies....probably making a similar point