General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Are you sure about that ? If so that's awfully expensive.

Yeah, £29(.50) + £7 HD

Even if Sky goes 10% up on Sports and the premium HD that's still; £23.10 + £5.77, over £6 cheaper than Virgin.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by mike_gain

This is exactly what I am doing for this season. I could afford both of them but I am refusing to shell out near enough £37 for Sky Sports and the presumed £15-£20 for BT on the basis that I think this is a ridiculous amount of money for just sports channels

Instead I'm going to put my money towards renewing my season ticket at my club and because my season ticket will be cheaper than the Sky/BT price for a season I'll spend the difference on my teams new top and a few afternoons in the pub watching some football when BT decide to stick my team on on a Friday/Monday night.

Television money and the power TV companies have gained, as a result of pumping stupid amounts of money in, is ruining football in the UK and I am no longer prepared to help fund this.

Rant over, back to a happy Friday afternoon

Repped. The most deserving I have given imo.

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------

Surely nobody knows if the 530pm slot will get worse viewing figures than the 1245pm slot because until now ESPN, with fewer subscribers than Sky, have had the 530pm slot. You could equally make the argument that at 1245pm more blokes are sitting outside changing rooms waiting for their WAGs to decide if they can squeeze into a 12, and by the time they get home they'll be able to make a claim that they deserve to be left alone to watch the footy for a bit. But that would ignore the fact that many women like to watch football as well.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Repped. The most deserving I have given imo.

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------

Surely nobody knows if the 530pm slot will get worse viewing figures than the 1245pm slot because until now ESPN, with fewer subscribers than Sky, have had the 530pm slot. You could equally make the argument that at 1245pm more blokes are sitting outside changing rooms waiting for their WAGs to decide if they can squeeze into a 12, and by the time they get home they'll be able to make a claim that they deserve to be left alone to watch the footy for a bit. But that would ignore the fact that many women like to watch football as well.

If they need to squeeze into a size 12..I'd think that the pub is a better option..as I'd need to be drunk to squeeze anything that found a size 12 tight

Present company excepted

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

And...I've known a few girls who thought that a 12 was too big..but I told them..I'm not making it smaller, that is your job

[DaMac]

Ot Colin, but did having infinity installed create much extra mess? Reason I ask is I put my VM cable under my drive, but I doubt BT lift the block paving if I decide to have it intalled.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by DaMac

Ot Colin, but did having infinity installed create much extra mess? Reason I ask is I put my VM cable under my drive, but I doubt BT lift the block paving if I decide to have it intalled.

I have bt infinity 2...which is the version that goes over the telephone wire for the last leg (from the box)

So on that basis, no mess

[coulsontom]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

LOL, good one. Again, those people choose to watch that program. Many others choose to watch the football.
Sky may well put the 2nd choice games on Saturday, but I was just highlighting what I think they will do. I don't think they will let BT have the best matches on Saturday, without having something strong to fall back on? I also, think Wetherspoons (and other major pub chains) will lobby Sky to show a good game to generate sales in their pubs from the Saturday night crowd. Still, its just a thought

Swansea v Aston Villa or Strictly? hmm Strictly.

The 5.30pm slot is GUARANTEED to be at most the 3rd best game of the week.

Therefore it will not, and cannot be a game that has wide appeal.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by coulsontom

Swansea v Aston Villa or Strictly? hmm Strictly.

The 5.30pm slot is GUARANTEED to be at most the 3rd best game of the week.

Therefore it will not, and cannot be a game that has wide appeal.

Firstly, Strictly really isn't the answer to that question.

Secondly, why is the 530pm slot guaranteed to be 3rd best, at best? Where have any of the broadcasting companies involved said that will be the case?

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by coulsontom

Swansea v Aston Villa or Strictly? hmm Strictly.

The 5.30pm slot is GUARANTEED to be at most the 3rd best game of the week.

Therefore it will not, and cannot be a game that has wide appeal.

"Guaranteed" is a rather strong word, I guess you know something about Sky's schedule I don't.
So lets say BT show Spurs v Arsenal (or some such equivalent) at 12.45, and then show football from other countries or a big rugby game in order to keep viewers from switching over to Sky. Sky are are just gonna go "oh, you know what, lets pay massively over the top amount of money for football games and just play a third rate game on a Saturday night so we can let BT/ITV/BBC win the ratings on a Saturday."
For me Sky will show a decent match on Saturday and suffer a bit on the Sunday.

---------- Post added at 06:59 ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 ----------

Originally Posted by mike_gain

This is exactly what I am doing for this season. I could afford both of them but I am refusing to shell out near enough £37 for Sky Sports and the presumed £15-£20 for BT on the basis that I think this is a ridiculous amount of money for just sports channels

Instead I'm going to put my money towards renewing my season ticket at my club and because my season ticket will be cheaper than the Sky/BT price for a season I'll spend the difference on my teams new top and a few afternoons in the pub watching some football when BT decide to stick my team on on a Friday/Monday night.

Television money and the power TV companies have gained, as a result of pumping stupid amounts of money in, is ruining football in the UK and I am no longer prepared to help fund this.

Rant over, back to a happy Friday afternoon

Great post sir, great post Just out of interest, who is your club? I will look out for their scores next season with a bit more fondness (sorry if thats a bit too soft for you all) - as long as it is not Peterborough Utd, as a Cambridge Utd fan, that would never work

P.S, money is killing football, you are spot on!

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Yeah, £29(.50) + £7 HD

Even if Sky goes 10% up on Sports and the premium HD that's still; £23.10 + £5.77, over £6 cheaper than Virgin.

Well they are their channels...

The £7 HD surely includes the Movies HD charge too if you have them?

[colin25]

Originally Posted by coulsontom

Swansea v Aston Villa or Strictly? hmm Strictly.

The 5.30pm slot is GUARANTEED to be at most the 3rd best game of the week.

Therefore it will not, and cannot be a game that has wide appeal.

Strictly? And you call yourself a sport fan?

I'd watch cricket first before that, and i hate cricket (though I'm partial to watching england lose, but that is just too good to miss )

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------

Originally Posted by mike_gain

This is exactly what I am doing for this season. I could afford both of them but I am refusing to shell out near enough £37 for Sky Sports and the presumed £15-£20 for BT on the basis that I think this is a ridiculous amount of money for just sports channels

Instead I'm going to put my money towards renewing my season ticket at my club and because my season ticket will be cheaper than the Sky/BT price for a season I'll spend the difference on my teams new top and a few afternoons in the pub watching some football when BT decide to stick my team on on a Friday/Monday night.

Television money and the power TV companies have gained, as a result of pumping stupid amounts of money in, is ruining football in the UK and I am no longer prepared to help fund this.

Rant over, back to a happy Friday afternoon

Mike (hope you don't mind the personally address)

I disagree. I don't argue with the sentiments (who doesn't want things cheaper)

But it isn't sky who causes this.

There is no reason why FA can't sell the rights for a lower price, or arrange for certain games to be broadcast on tv for free. Or indeed, use the money to reduce the ticket price

Sky does things for sky...but they do not put greed into people or companies, that is there. If it wasn't sky, the owners would think of some other way.

And the issue isn't the cost of tv...fans can always watch a match, by buying a season ticket. The issue is that despite all the money from sky, owners still think that raising ticket prices is correct.

But what would happen if sky quit paying?

For some clubs, debt would become unsustainable.

That isn't likely to happen, but I suspect sky etc won't pay the same money, if subscribers aren't taking the product.

Problem there is that it is a world game...someone is always willing to pay...but no guarantee who gets to see it.

Ok..tired of typing..haircut day

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

"Guaranteed" is a rather strong word, I guess you know something about Sky's schedule I don't.
So lets say BT show Spurs v Arsenal (or some such equivalent) at 12.45, and then show football from other countries or a big rugby game in order to keep viewers from switching over to Sky. Sky are are just gonna go "oh, you know what, lets pay massively over the top amount of money for football games and just play a third rate game on a Saturday night so we can let BT/ITV/BBC win the ratings on a Saturday."
For me Sky will show a decent match on Saturday and suffer a bit on the Sunday.

---------- Post added at 06:59 ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 ----------



Great post sir, great post Just out of interest, who is your club? I will look out for their scores next season with a bit more fondness (sorry if thats a bit too soft for you all) - as long as it is not Peterborough Utd, as a Cambridge Utd fan, that would never work

P.S, money is killing football, you are spot on!

I confidently predict that Bt won't have Spurs v. Arsenal or Arsenal v. Spurs this season. I may very well be wrong but Sky have pack d, which is controlling, and I cannot see them letting Bt show either fixture.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and if I'm wrong I'll come back and say so, but Bt's first match of the season will be Palace v. Spurs or similar. No inside info, just based on my analysis of the situation and my understanding of what each rights pack actually means.

[Itshim]

Go to a live game far more fun

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Go to a live game far more fun

And far more expensive as well dear chap.

[mike_gain]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Great post sir, great post Just out of interest, who is your club? I will look out for their scores next season with a bit more fondness (sorry if thats a bit too soft for you all) - as long as it is not Peterborough Utd, as a Cambridge Utd fan, that would never work

P.S, money is killing football, you are spot on!

My team is St Johnstone, we'll be playing either Crusaders or Rosenborg on the 18th July, if it's the latter I expect a humping. We are one of the few clubs in the country to not have any debt and have money in the bank and the only senior team with a J in their name. In short we are the best team in the UK :-)

I have to confess that I have been in the home end at London Road cheering on the Posh and the away end at your Abbey Stadium (or whatever the hell you're calling it these days) so I am probably not your best friend ;-)

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by colin25

Mike (hope you don't mind the personally address)

I disagree. I don't argue with the sentiments (who doesn't want things cheaper)

But it isn't sky who causes this.

There is no reason why FA can't sell the rights for a lower price, or arrange for certain games to be broadcast on tv for free. Or indeed, use the money to reduce the ticket price

Sky does things for sky...but they do not put greed into people or companies, that is there. If it wasn't sky, the owners would think of some other way.

And the issue isn't the cost of tv...fans can always watch a match, by buying a season ticket. The issue is that despite all the money from sky, owners still think that raising ticket prices is correct.

But what would happen if sky quit paying?

For some clubs, debt would become unsustainable.

That isn't likely to happen, but I suspect sky etc won't pay the same money, if subscribers aren't taking the product.

Problem there is that it is a world game...someone is always willing to pay...but no guarantee who gets to see it.

Ok..tired of typing..haircut day

To be fair I never solely said Sky were to blame, the problem goes right back to the formation of the Premier League and the various companies who have tried to get a foothold by offering stupid amounts which their competitors have to match e.g. ITV Digital, Setanta, ESPN and now BT.

The FA (and SFA) don't really come into it as they only sell the rights to international games. Each of the English and Scottish leagues (with the ageerement of member clubs) sell their content themselves (not so sure about Wales , NI and Ireland). All the league members want the best price and that is gained by exclusivity which TV companies will almost certainly have stipulated as prerequisite before negotiating. This was the mistake, there should have been no exclusivity so that 2 companies to give less money and the consumer could decide who to watch.

However where we are now is that, as you point out, if someone stops paying clubs go bust so the TV men have a stranglehold on clubs which is why we have Friday night, Monday night and lunchtime football, no domestic games on the same night as European football (unless you are a big club then it doesn't matter), predictions of Armageddon because one club looses it top flight status etc....

We are at the stage where the men/women with the money (and this isn't just Sky, as you say this is a global thing) can dictate when and how things are done. Wages have gone crazy, players move for money rather than ambition (see majority of the Motherwell team), you can't blame them but the only reason teams in England are paying more is because the market is distorted by the madness going on the top flight.

I'd quite happy see the TV money being capped or taken away completely but this is probably because when I started watching my team we were at the bottom of the pile with no money, a crumbling stadium and were getting beat every week. But in spite of all of this I fell in love with it all so going back to being a team with no money would make no difference to clubs like mine.

So I can no longer justify subsidising the companies that I see as the cause rather than the solution to the problems in UK football....and going to a game is much better anyway :-)

[colin25]

Fair point...and good stance

Not my cup of tea, but I applaud it.