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 .
Are you saying that Sky gives every Premiership club £20m a year, or when a team gets promoted to the Premier division.?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I'll ignore the 100,000 comment, but attendances are falling in the last few seasons, in the premiership at least. This is nothing to do with health and safety, as they've all been all seater for many years now (with exception of Fulham). It's over saturation of TV football and the loss of competitiveness for the title. The next TV deal will be less if it's a joint deal, if not it'll go the Italian way of individual club rights which will further widen the gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Flicked over to the boro match last night - loads of empty seats, for a european match ffs. Ditto both them and the barcodes the previous games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
yes each club gets 16 million as a base fee then every time you are shown you get 1.5 mill every team gets shown at least 4 times so about 20 mill .
this is why utd got shown so much coz sky owned shares in them the more utd were shown the more money they get they better players they can buy the better the club does the share price went up sky sold them made a killing
.
as for the next comment about the reduction in attendences id like to see where these facts are coming from and why if attendences are falling are clubs expanding there stadiums , utd , everton, liverpool ,arsenil are all looking to expand in recent year boro newcastle sunderland southampton portsmouth chelsea etc have all added seats !!!
IS THIS COZ THEY LIKE TO HAVE EMPTY SEATS ??? :rolleyes:
have a look at this
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/...D56148,00.html
if it doesnt work here are a few points ive cut and pasted ive put this one first as it relates to attendences ( it is from the 02/03 season ill check for more up to date one if i get a chance at lunch ) but note to 3 % increase not reduction in attendences :rolleyes: :D
Premiership clubs’ matchday income increased to £363m – driven by a 3% increase in Premiership attendances, more European matches and increased ticket yield. :rolleyes:
In 2002/03 the 92 top professional clubs generated total revenue of £1,658m – up 4% from 2001/02.
The total revenue of Premiership clubs was £1,246m, up 10% on 2001/02 (£1,132m) maintaining the League’s position as the ‘European and world champions’ in terms of revenue generation.
The loss of ITV Digital monies resulted in total Football League clubs’ revenue falling by 12% to £412m – the majority of the drop occurring in Division One (down 14% to £255m).
Manchester United headed the Premiership ‘revenue league table’ at £175m, followed by Liverpool and Arsenal (both at £104m). At the other end of the table was West Bromwich Albion (£28m). In 2002/03, the average Premiership club generated revenue of £62.3m.
Commercial revenue was almost unchanged, at £340m in total, in part reflecting the tough market for sponsorship and advertising.
The Premiership clubs’ largest source of revenue came from broadcasting – 44% of the total at £543m. Looking back a few years, broadcasting was the smallest revenue source. In 1996/97, broadcasting monies were less than £100m, representing just 21% of Premiership clubs’ total revenue and, in 1991/92, were less than 10% of revenues at a mere £15m.
Reasons I don't like SKY:
(a) Obsession with refereeing decisions and referees. There is a programme called "Goals on SUnday". Should be called "Referees on Sunday". They have made what is a difficult task just about impossible. Andy Gray hates every referee and spends most of the time commentating on the ref rather than the game. They always talk about the ref showing "common sense". This is usually in the context of of a player, who is already booked, kicking a ball away or doing something stupid to get a second booking. No mention of the stupid player showing common sense. I believe that their attitude to refs has permeated the game at all levels making the game almost unmanageable. It's is an impossible job made even harder.
(b) The hype over some pretty ordinary fare. Everton in a Champions League spot - Premiership the best in the world. You've got to be joking. And no, you can't ignore the hype as someone suggested. It's in your face.
(c) The rich are getting richer.
There are plus points of course. They do show some Football League games and highlights. They were the innovators with camera angles. Live football. news programme on a Saturday with updates on all the games.
I think the + outweigh the - (otherwise I wouldn't be a subscriber). BUt Andy Gray with his big bull head does get under my skin.
I think the problems I'd have with Sky are they overhype the games and have games kicking off at times that suit them not the fans.Eg Liverpools fans having to get to places like Norwich and Southampton for 12.45 kick offs and Chelsea fans having to travel to Liverpool for early kick offs v Liverpool and Everton.Also their involvement has led to greater greed from players,clubs and agents and ticket prices going up every year.
I would agree that their coverage is top quality,the camera angles are good and they have changed football on tv forever.However,theres too many games on tv though and the signs are there that overkill has been reached with falling tv figures for games.
Is this true?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
On satellite only, or on NTL as well?
i have sky and get bbc1&2 itv(not utv) channel 4 channel 5 , sky one sky sports 1 sky movies 1 , one music channel and its for free it was with the aptartment when i moved in so ive no idea what it is think its called free view !Quote:
Originally Posted by monutdfc
That's just your apartment block set up. Freeview doesn't have Sky one, sky sports or sky movies (sky news and sky sports news).Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
i better not ask questions since ive been there 2 years and have never paid a sky bill :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
but im allmost sure ive seen some where that sky sports one is free now it may be with a new digi box or some thing i dont know any way
i all fairness refs are rubbish now adays perfect example is the foul on baros the in champs league clear penelty but nothing given , but i do hate to see all this crowding around the ref after every decision . tv ref is the best option , for example in a utd game by the time the nevills have stopped moaning to the ref you could have watched a replay 4 or 5 times .plus the fa should hit them with some pretty hefty fines/suspentions players like rooney it would soon shut him up !.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
the common sence thing i understand what you are saying but when im playing and everything is going against you its very easy to boot the ball away you just dont think for a second .
everton being in forth all season is pretty impressive they finished 17th last year lost rooney spent 2.4 mill and have been in 4th since sept. in my book thats worth talking about .
and they never say the prem is the best in the world they say its one of the most exciting which it is ! if it was nt you would nt keep tuneing into it .
and the rich get richer in every league and every aspect of life (everton and liverpool where some of the richest in the 80's long before sky came along .)
ill agree with trev about the times sometimes are poorly thought out but this happens in every league , liverpool fans travel to norwich for 12 o clock on a sunday , cork city fans have to travel to dublin for a 7 oclock kick off on a fri night which is impossible if you finish work at 5 30
on andy gray its just personal taste i think he is good he knows football rather than just names and dates !!, but you get this on every channel mark lauranson is a idiot , brady is a idiot ,.
and on the hype they only advertise there own shows on there own channels if this is over hype then rte tv3 etc are just as guilty do you see how much tv3 advertises its own stuff ?
Richard Keyes is a nob of the highest order. Jeff Skelling is the most talented sports presenter on TV IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I don't think the standard of refs has got worse what i think has happened is that there is more games on tv now so we get to see al the incidents again and again. Got to remember there can be upto i think 24 cameras at games now where before we had maybe 6 or 8 so we are seeing far more now then we ever did.
I think you are right about the Nevilles thay are always bleeding moaning. Same with Savage of Blackburn and Cahill of Everton.
I have seen this in games i have been to this year and they are basically in the refs face for half the game.
Also Joe Cole falls into that cat. aswell.
I am only going on what games i have been to in the Prem. this year and what players i saw.
I hate moaners :mad:
My problem with Sky Sports : Richard fúcking Keyes !!! A complete and utter *******, I hate him.
I take it you don't like him then :D
you must be driven mad on this site so its full of them :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ciaran76
"andy gray is crap , they hate this presenter or that annalist etc etc" :D :D
The referees are no better or worse than they used to be. It's just the TV now shows up all their mistakes. Have you ever tried refereeing a game with people diving and cheating and snarling at you ? He got the Baros dive correct for the 2nd one. If you live by the dive, you'll die by the dive.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Why are Brady and Lawrenson idiots ? Brady usually calls it correct far more often than most pundits.
ANdy Gray mostly commentates on the referee and on the game as an aside.