Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_m
Probably not, but if it's not based on any solid evidence that they would otherwise be watching Plymouth Argyle then why should they be denied the opportunity?
|
That is a very valid point, and those fans probably should not be denied the opportunity, but where is the evidence that fans will still attend lower league football if they had a choice of watching Man Utd v Liverpool, Spurs v Arsenal, Man City v Chelsea or any such variant of top teams being shown on TV each week at 3 P.M on a Saturday?
If the PL clubs shared their revenue with the lower league clubs and they were more than compensated for any potential loss in revenue, I would not have a problem with it. Until then, the lower league clubs should have all the support they can get.
I do believe the NFL survives whilst sharing it's revenues around, so why can't the PL?
---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin25
lol..I get the feeling you are anti-sky.
|
No, not really. If I was allowed Sky in my flat and they offered a fantastic deal for me to ditch VM, I probably would, but it would have to be a great, great deal.
I was just making a point that many people are complaining that prices will keep going up because there are two TV players in the football market.
It seems people would prefer one supplier, Sky Sports being the preferred choice because they think it would be cheaper. I do not think if Sky (or anyone else) had a monopoly that it would be cheaper. Judging by what Sky charge already, I doubt greatly they would give customers a cheaper price that what is available now. Also, the PL and UEFA would be able to dictate the prices to Sky (or anyone else). They would then have to pay what is being asked (and one party would pay it) and then pass that cost on to customers.
The way it is, whilst not perfect, is the best way we will get it currently in my opinion. Something does need to change, but it won't whilst people keep paying. I will beat my drum again and say if prices do not down for the cost of sports, it will be down to Sky not passing on their savings, not because BT have bought CL football rights imho. I would be saying the same if BT had the main rights and Sky were the "minnows."
---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
Because the governing bodies don't give a damn about Joe Public and in my view they have sold us down the river a long time ago in order to satisfy their increasingly greedy grabbing hands as well.
---------- Post added at 06:44 ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 ----------
No channels generally do not arrive on a Monday Max.  |
You can't blame the governing bodies Den, what are going to do, force Sky and BT to make a loss on sports? Force price cuts on Sky or BT, where is the justification if people happily pay what is being asked? Force the PL not to get the best deal it can for its product? (I don't believe the PL does need the money it gets, but they will keep doing it because they know they can.)
It would be like Tesco (or anyone else) being forced to make a loss (force price cuts) on a chocolate (a luxury commodity, like tv sports) and force Cadbury (or anyone else) to offer it at a lower price than they could get for it from Tesco (or anyone else).
There is no-one else to blame other than the paying public.