Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
The Stig

Football Rights Explained

By The Stig, in General Football and Sport

Recommended Posts

DB11

DB11

Posted
Posted
There is a fair bit of confusion around at the moment as to what Setanta have / don't etc. Here is a full breakdown who covers eack tournament. Lock this thread if you want, I'm just doing it to clear up any confusion that may be around, not create a debate.

FA Cup

ITV - 1st choice pick of mathes and 4th choice pick.

Setanta - 2nd and 3d choice of matches

England Internationals

ITV - Home qualifiers and away friendlies, Home friendly highlights

Setanta - Home friendlies and away qualifiers

Premiership

Sky - Packages 1 - 5

Setanta - Package 6

BBC - Terrestrial highlights

BBC, ITV, Virgin - Online Highlights

Champions League

ITV - Tuesday 1st and 2nd pick, Tuesday highlights

Sky - All other games

Championship, Leagues 1 and 2

Sky - All live games, highlights

ITV - Terrestrial Highlights

Uefa Cup

ITV - First pick of live games

Five - Second pick of live games

League Cup

Sky - Exclusive live games

ITV - Terrestrial highlights

Conference

Exclusive to Setanta

There will be changes to the rights next season.

Oh no what am I going to do. Conference is only on Setanta :cry:

Tommeh

Tommeh

Posted
Posted

The amount of games ITV now have is ridiculous, worst football coverage ever. I know people dislike setanta at the moment but their coverage of games on the whole isn't that bad. I mean nothing to worry keys and Gray but a huge improvement on pleat, Matt smith and the rest.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
The amount of games ITV now have is ridiculous, worst football coverage ever. I know people dislike setanta at the moment but their coverage of games on the whole isn't that bad. I mean nothing to worry keys and Gray but a huge improvement on pleat, Matt smith and the rest.

Setanta's coverage is dogshit mate.

I dont see why people have such a problem with ITV apart from Pleat its not that bad. Clive and Jim Beglin are a good partnership.

Last night there was some missfit presenting the programme along with McManaman, Venables and... Chris Waddle is by far worse than David Pleat at commentry aswell, contradicts himself alot.

Waddle's best quote was "Frank Lampard needs to belive that he can whip a good ball in" what a load of shit. He does it week in week out for Chelsea. :giggle:

Samilktray

Samilktray

Posted
Posted

Setantas coverage isnt even bad.

But to be honest as long as I can watch the game I dont care, If you dont like the commentators or presenters, mute it or just dont watch it.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
Setantas coverage isnt even bad.

But to be honest as long as I can watch the game I dont care, If you dont like the commentators or presenters, mute it or just dont watch it.

:rolleyes:

I think Setanta need all the people they can.

lildave3

lildave3

Posted
Posted
What I don't understand is why you aren't getting angry at Sky. They have less games yet are charging you more than two seasons ago before Setanta got in on the act. It's not Setanta's fault that Sky is a rip off.

Sky gives you hundreds of channels, all of different stuff. I'd pay for it (well, I don't, but I would) football or no football.

Samilktray

Samilktray

Posted
Posted
Sky gives you hundreds of channels, all of different stuff. I'd pay for it (well, I don't, but I would) football or no football.

Bit different comparing Sky as a whole to Setanta which is only a few sports channels.

Joe.

Joe.

Posted
Posted

People only hate Setanta because they haven't got it, not because of the quality of it (which I think is actually pretty good).

I can understand taking frustration out, but Setanta bought the rights to air the England away qualifiers fair and square. They've done absolutely nothing different to what Sky did last year.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
People only hate Setanta because they haven't got it, not because of the quality of it (which I think is actually pretty good).

I can understand taking frustration out, but Setanta bought the rights to air the England away qualifiers fair and square. They've done absolutely nothing different to what Sky did last year.

Im able to watch Setanta because my Nan has got it but I think the coverage is gash.

Fairplay to them though they are now topdogs in a competitive market.

The Stig

The Stig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well, they could if the Beeb weren't such tight wan kers & would pay for the rights. I don't know why I bother paying my licence fee when they can't be bothered to stump up a few notes for the highlights.

It's the country's national sport for christ's sake, surely the BBC has a public duty to acquire the rights to such events? It's the same with the cricket - depsite it being the major summer sport, they decided against bidding for the coverage rights as it wouldn't fit in with their scheduling. Yep, I'd much rather watch re-runs of Cash in the Attic or Under the Hammer than the next Ashes series.

The BBC have a VERY tight sports budget. The BBC trust allocate them money to sepnd and if they were to spend more money, our lisense fee would go up. That is why they can't afford to bid for the Champions League. Setanta wanted 1 Million pounds for ten minutes of football. I'm sorry but if it was up to me there is no way I would fork up that much money. They have other programmes to porduce. If they were to spend that much money, we'd see lots more repeats of Cash in the Attic.

Nice one Stig

Top man :thumbup:

No problem mate.

Setanta's coverage is dogshit mate.

I dont see why people have such a problem with ITV apart from Pleat its not that bad. Clive and Jim Beglin are a good partnership.

Last night there was some missfit presenting the programme along with McManaman, Venables and... Chris Waddle is by far worse than David Pleat at commentry aswell, contradicts himself alot.

Waddle's best quote was "Frank Lampard needs to belive that he can whip a good ball in" what a load of shit. He does it week in week out for Chelsea. :giggle:

I think Setanta's coverage its self is good. Angus Scott is an excellent professional presenter. Pundits wise Les Ferdiand, Steve Mcmanaman, Terry Venables and Harry Redknapp are good pundits, not sure about Big Sam as a pundit and Jon Champion is for me one of the top 5 commentators in the country. Waddle is a good co commentator but not a fan of Craig Burley.

As for ITV, not as bad as people make out. Andy Townsend can be annoying, but he knows his stuff and is a good pundit. Steve Rider is one of the best around and Clive Tyldesley is the best commentator in the country annd Jim Beglin is a good co commentator. David Pleat has an irritating voice and makes a lot of gaffes but also knows his stuff and Craig Doyle the irish fella is amusing and a good host. However, ITV's crime was axeing Jim Rosenthal in favour of the over rated and over used Matt Smith. Shocking decsison.

Tommeh

Tommeh

Posted
Posted
Setanta's coverage is dogshit mate.

I dont see why people have such a problem with ITV apart from Pleat its not that bad. Clive and Jim Beglin are a good partnership.

Last night there was some missfit presenting the programme along with McManaman, Venables and... Chris Waddle is by far worse than David Pleat at commentry aswell, contradicts himself alot.

Waddle's best quote was "Frank Lampard needs to belive that he can whip a good ball in" what a load of shit. He does it week in week out for Chelsea. :giggle:

I await the day when itv actually have adverts during the game. Itv for football is a disaster, satantas news channel maybe terrible but the match coverage I've seen has been decent enough with lynham, sir les, john champion etc.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
I await the day when itv actually have adverts during the game. Itv for football is a disaster, satantas news channel maybe terrible but the match coverage I've seen has been decent enough with lynham, sir les, john champion etc.

Soon I bet.

You cant wack Clive and Jim though.

Alexikokopops

Alexikokopops

Posted
Posted
Sky gives you hundreds of channels, all of different stuff. I'd pay for it (well, I don't, but I would) football or no football.

I'm talking about the additional fee you pay for the Sports channels though (as in the extra £19 you pay for Sky Sports Mix). The major prduct they offer with the sports channels is the football, and they market it so. At the end of the day they're offering less sport yet haven't reduced the £19 etra you pay for the sport channels. In fact the price has gone up since two seasons ago when Setanta got involved in Premiership football. They've lost these games to Setanta, yet are charging more, and people still sit there and say "I'm not paying the extra for Setanta". YOU'RE PAYING EXTRA FOR LESS GAMES!

And lets be honest - Sky gives you hundreds of channels, all of different crap. It's the same with Virgin Media. We have the big VM TV package and watch about 4 of the 20 billion channels on a regular basis. There is so much crap on TV it's ridiculous.

andyh1884

andyh1884

Posted
Posted
The BBC have a VERY tight sports budget. The BBC trust allocate them money to sepnd and if they were to spend more money, our lisense fee would go up. That is why they can't afford to bid for the Champions League. Setanta wanted 1 Million pounds for ten minutes of football. I'm sorry but if it was up to me there is no way I would fork up that much money. They have other programmes to porduce. If they were to spend that much money, we'd see lots more repeats of Cash in the Attic.

Perhaps if they allocated more of the budget to sport rather than producing such dross as Fat Teens Can't Hunt, My Manboobs and Me, My Penis and Everyone Else's and Pram Face Mansion, we would be able to see more sport for our licence fee. Maybe I'm asking too much though.

Yes, they have other programmes to produce, but are they actually any good and are the audience figures for these anywhere near the levels they would be for, say, the highlights of the England-Croatia match? If the answer is 'no', are they therefore not spending the public's money particularly wisely if the vast majority of the country aren't watching their output?

The Stig

The Stig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Perhaps if they allocated more of the budget to sport rather than producing such dross as Fat Teens Can't Hunt, My Manboobs and Me, My Penis and Everyone Else's and Pram Face Mansion, we would be able to see more sport for our licence fee. Maybe I'm asking too much though.

Yes, they have other programmes to produce, but are they actually any good and are the audience figures for these anywhere near the levels they would be for, say, the highlights of the England-Croatia match? If the answer is 'no', are they therefore not spending the public's money particularly wisely if the vast majority of the country aren't watching their output?

They can't just go on audience figures, they have to go on a variety of programmes. The BBC covers lots of sport. There simply isn't the money there to spend. You might want more football and sport, LOTS of others don't.

The Stig

The Stig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I await the day when itv actually have adverts during the game. Itv for football is a disaster, satantas news channel maybe terrible but the match coverage I've seen has been decent enough with lynham, sir les, john champion etc.

Who also does a lot of work for ITV.

Anyway as for adverts you don't have to worry, it will not happen.

EDIT - For those slagging off ITV, they finally stumped up the cash to show highlights. They showed a one hour show last night. Matt Smith presented as Steve Rider is in Milan for the GP and Craig Doyle who is normally ITV 1 highlights man is in Ireland covering Rugby.

andyh1884

andyh1884

Posted
Posted
They can't just go on audience figures, they have to go on a variety of programmes. The BBC covers lots of sport. There simply isn't the money there to spend. You might want more football and sport, LOTS of others don't.

Really? So why is it that shows that have poor audience figures get canned then? Isn't that because they're not popular with the general public so they stop producing it? Eldorado is a prime example (showing my age here!)

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...