Printable View
what is peoples problem with sky sports ?
when you consider what they have done for the game they have really saved english soccer where all the irish players play and earn there wages .
to say they over hype things is stupid its called advertising and i dont think too many of ye find yerselfs being brain washed into watching palace v west brom ! :rolleyes: only idiots fall for hype .
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Kinda wondered that myself at times....ok it's not perfect but it's better than anything else on offer.
I have no doubt should Sky Sports ever obtain the rights to the EL and give it even 1/10th of the coverage the Premiership etc gets, then some people who demonise it here would be over the moon :rolleyes:
What have they done for the English game? How have they 'saved' it? I reckon they, in conjunction with greedy clubs have helped bring the game in England to its knees.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Look outside the premiership, where Sky just take token attention on, and you see a different world of football altogether. Scratch that, look past the Big 3 in the Premiership, and you cannot even see a worrthy contender to the league in the foreseeable future.
Now this isnt totally Skys fault, but witht he creation of the premiership, it has made the rich richer, and has put proud clubs like York, Exeter and a few other on the brink.
Tha aside, I think that Sky provides fantastic coverage of football. If they could only loose Andy Gray, it would be even better.
Sky is football coverage for people who can't/don't want to think for themselves. Its tabloid-esque sensationalism and "look at us brits aren't we great." If people want to believe that every single thing Steven Gerrard does is better than Pele's entire career, or that David Beckham is the best player in the world- listen to sky.
Its handy for watching games, as you can't see them elsewhere, but only fools would actually listen to/believe what the morons they call analysts actually say
To quote Rupert Murdoch: "We will make pay per view sports the battering ram of pay of per view television"
What they have done for the game is hyper-inflate cost bases for clubs -big and small -which the clubs are obliged to pass on to you the consumer/supporter.
Virtually All the money they have put into "the game" has gone straight to players wages -I'm not saying there aren't other factors at play in that (Bosman, antiquated contract proceedures) -but it's a fact nonetheless.
Sure aren't the FA or UEFA now bringing in a rule that clubs can't pay out more than something like 65% of their turnover in wages for exactly the reason that it's destabilising clubs and leagues.
Yeah sure their graphics are flash and their stats are exhaustive (and of highly suspect relevance at times. )
But it's tabloid television at it's near worst and it will, I believe, in the long run be detremental to the development of young Irish players for much the same reasons it's been detremental to the development of young English players -which concern clubs effectively giving up on bringing kids through and looking to buy in cheap talent from elsewhere instead.
And no doubt the people that write off the eL would suddenly get into it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
My problems with sky relate to the 7 days of football culture they've been introduced, the way everygame has to be hyped as the best game ever (accepting that the FA contract ties them to this to some extent), the way they make it impossible for other countries to compete with their kick off times (when exactly could we kick off to avoid a clash?), and finally the ridiculously high subscription charge, with even more cash for prem plus games.
That's my point though, I've seen some quotes on this site basically implying that if you watch Sky Sports at all, then you must be dumb and you must be a "barstooler". :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
It gets on my nerves to be honest.
I actually enjoy their build up to some of their big games and go to plenty of games myself. If the big game turns out to be a big let down, I don't automatically believe Richard Keys after the match if he is trying to make it sound interesting ffs :rolleyes:
I agreee Sky is over the top in its coverage but there are lots of lots of sloppy commentators out there who get facts wrong etc. I like Andy Gray, I think his analysis of the Premiership is pretty good, he does not let bias effect his commentary for those games. He gets carried away in Europe and really lost it for Gerards goal at Anfield. Most weeks he is spot on esp when he does the last word. RTE coverage of the champions league is great too as they let you watch 2 matches without knowing the scores. Dunphy is a bit tiresome at this stage but at least there is a bit of a debate. ITV and BBC have become very boring compared to RTE and Sky in my view. TV3 is just terrible. Giles is great at analysing a game he has just seen but his knowlege of players and the tactics that the non top teams play is limited.
In my view If you want knowlege on the Premieship look to Andy Gray as he nearly knows every player and what tactics every team uses and also can remember incidents from previous game etc.
Gerry Armstrong is the best for European Football and he was great on RTE for the World Cup and along with Brian Kerr he was the best thing on it
Not if you watch it, just if you believe everything they sayQuote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
Ahh well, if you believe everything they say then you ARE dumb ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Yes, but to say that Sky has saved football in England is a statement which I am looking forward to seeing explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkfeckarse
Sky has served to bring football to peoples homes, at the detriment of people actually going to games, thereby taking moeny out of club coffers etc. There is also an uneven distribution of wealth when it comes to the TV money, with Arsenal, man U and Chelsea getting the Lions share, while WBA, Norwich, Charlton etc are left with a pittance compared to the others.
This is not good for the game, its merely making the EPL every bit as mundane and predictable as the SPL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
I didn't say I agreed with that. I think when it first came on the scene you could be forgiven for thinking that but obviously it HAS caused the richer to get richer and the poorer to get poorer.
There's no getting away from that but ultimately that's up to the member clubs to sort out, not Sky.
^^^
How can the member clubs sort it out? Look at the sway that Arsenal would have over Norwich, or Man U over Birmingham.
Its quite simple, and its like when the Premiership was formed - If it didnt get total agreement, the big 5 (Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton and Liverpool) were fecking off to try start a European league.
If clubs object now to the way things are done, then clubs like Chelsea etc will just negotiate their own TV contracts, all to be on PPV, making the Sky deal virtually useless to the smaller clubs, as the money (howver little they get at the moment) will be gone straight away. Without the major attractions of Chelsea, man U, Arsenal etc, Sky will pull the plug, and where will that leave the rest of the clubs? The unfortyunate fact of this is, is that the smaller clubs are just caught in the situation where they have to be happy with what they have. If they try and upset the little cozy cartel, well that will leave in even more trouble.
absolute rubbish to say showing games on tv affects the attendence , do you think that when utd and ars are on the box it isnt a full house at old trafford
, nothing compares to actually going to the games , and attendences are up at every ground in the prem
in the last 10 years how many extra seats have utd put in next season there ground will be over 70,000 and they are allways on tv. really affects the crowds there :rolleyes: .
last year everton were near the bottom average attendence 37,000 .
they saved english soccer by giving each club an extra 20 mill in tv rights so they can pay players to join there clubs granted it is still a bit behind europe (who get even more money from tv rights )but its catching up .im an evertonian so i know most about them but i know for a fact if it was nt for there cash we would be gone by now .
the smaller clubs were let down by itv digital loads of them in debt and closing down but sky stepped in and all the clubs that were heading out of business a year ago are still here .
of coarse andy gray is biased to british clubs in europe same way i like to see bohs do well in europe but dont really care what they do in the el .
and about that gerard goal i even cheared when that went in which pains me as an evertonian but it was a great come back and a screamer of a goal .
and again ill say it does nt matter how much they "hype" a game ( i call it advertise) nobody will be tricked into thinking palace west brom is going to be a classic , well only idiots maybe that i why ye are getting so upset about the over hyping ! are ye falling for it :cool: ? .
They gave all 96 teams £20m ya? Even if that was the case, look at what has happened to clubs like Leeds, Bradford, Coventry, Notts Forest, Sheff Weds!Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Not entirely true. If you remember correctly Sky jettisoned the football league in 2000/2001. ITV made a balls of it. Sky picked up the pieces at a very very low price. Look at Wrexham, Chesterfield, Bury. The 'Sky income' isnt exactly helping them at present, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
They out bid smaller tv stations RTE, BBC, UTV for exclusive rights to matches then charge people who have to pay for their channel already again to watch it pay per view :mad: ..
When the other channels would probably just show the match :mad:
20 mill is in reference to the prem teams of coarse .
look at the scotish league they pulled out of that and now celtic and rangers even though they get into the champs league every year are broke . who did they buy this summer ? but a few years back they could get players like hartson sutton larson etc
everton even though they had no europeen money finished 17th in the league got 4 mill from the fa but were able to spend nearly 10 mill on 3 good players did nt have to waste loads on wages either ( high wages can hardly be blamed on sky its bad management )and before you say it it was nt from the rooney transfer money .
rubbish this was a big deal bbc utv etc complained about monopoly's the eu said bbc etc can buy the rights to a certain amount of games like rte and setanta do but they didnt want to pay for them :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eire06
sky sports one is free now and has 80 live matches , the others are extra games that you can choose to buy, its 80 euro for an extra 40 to 80 games im not sure how many on prem plus
rte in case you dont pay it costs 160 euro a year (tv licence)for 10 to 20 live games
I can't believe I'm even responding to this. :rolleyes:
anto1928 - Have a read of The Beautiful Game? by David Conn or the same author's The Football Business. He'll explain it to you far better than any of us here could.
Premiership attendances are down 6% and a huge amount of lower division clubs are struggling badly. It's not all down to Sky of course but they must shoulder some of the blame.
If Dad stops bringing son to the game then son doesn't bring his son and then the game dies. Very simple but I'm afraid very true. Then the barstoolers lose interest because they need crowds at the games for atmosphere so they can enjoy it on the telly.
Here's a review of The Beautiful Game? -
"Football has never been richer, more hyped, more central to Britain's culture than today. Yet never has it been in greater turmoil. Once, football was about passion, community, beauty. The game celebrated and honoured its past, striving to uphold the values that had made it great. Today, football is about money. Its richest club, Manchester United, earned [pound]146 million last year; yet since 1992 34 of the Football League's 72 clubs have been insolvent. The game is in danger of losing its lifeblood - and its soul. David Conn, the game's premier investigative journalist, sets out on a journey through the heart of English football, exploring how our national sport has failed - and who is to blame. Travelling from Highbury's art deco stands to provincial non-league outposts, Conn interviews players, managers, agents, chairmen and fans, building up a picture of a game mired in crisis, from the casino that is today's Premiership all the way down to the lowest leagues. For every all-conquering Manchester United or 'Chelski', there are ten clubs in desperate straits, ready to implode. Many of these stories have never been told before; many of them are shocking."
KOH
as i say i cant speak on every club coz i dont know enough about them , but attendences at goodison are allways on the up ( bar this year with the 4,000 season tickets that were sent back when rooney was sold ) next year you wont be able to get tickets . they are expanding the staduim , utd are expanding , arsnel moving to a 60,000 seater stadium ,
the clubs that have small fans bases fulham bolton etc depend on the money from sky coz there 10,000 season tickets does nt generate enough money for them to compete with them teams that get 40,000 a week .
10,000*300=3mill
40,000*300=12mill
so an extra 20 mill from sky allows them to but and pay players
main reason for reduction in attendences is coz of the reductions in the number of seats due to health and saftey ( example attendence at a mersey side derby years ago could be around 100,000 now its 40,000) does that mean less want to see it because its on telly of coarse not they cant fit in the ground
if ye dont like the coverage on sky then use those strange little shaped things on your tv that allow you to change channel to rte for ground force or what ever rubbish they show.
and any way english clubs have to spend big to compete with the europeen clubs real who have an open bank account and have there debts constanly cancelled , millian who had there own roman abrom when they bought gullit van basten etc .