SKY TV

[Katy]

What's up with battered Mars Bars anyway?

[MPH]

I hate so much that a total fuck wit like you is a fellow leicester city supporter.

You are racist, an idiot...

I just really hope you are drunk or something.

Ive spent alot of my life in newcastle as i visit 5 or 6 times a year, you speak like someone who has never been there in their life.

Please for the sake of your fellow city fans shut the hell up, you are a total embarrassment.

what the hell are you on?

did you even READ his post?

[davieG]

what the hell are you on?

did you even READ his post?

Well he raced out of Newcastle as quick as he could

[Orkneyfox]

According to my research the Deep Fried Mars Bar was invented in Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire, Scotland by the chippie, or chipper as we say in Grampian, Carron Fish and Chip Shop at Allardice Street in 1995.

An easy deep fried mars bar recipe that you can try at home, though it really is not good for your health, is to beat a raw egg. Dip the mars bar chocolate into the egg and ensure all of it gets covered in egg. Then put this into a batter mix and deep fry until the batter turns golden. In parts of Scotland you can also get deep fried ice cream or creme eggs.

If you are depressed or annoyed by any of the posts in this thread, consumption of this delicacy will distract you and cheer you up.

[dogadug]

SKY tv is great, most people on here criticising it will actually have SKY, and would not want to lose it, and although I think its wrong how SKY can dictate when matches are played etc, and some of the commentators(especially Birtles) are extremely biast, but most people, including me would rather that SKY was here, rather than not here.

[Guest]

SKY tv is great, most people on here criticising it will actually have SKY, and would not want to lose it, and although I think its wrong how SKY can dictate when matches are played etc, and some of the commentators(especially Birtles) are extremely biast, but most people, including me would rather that SKY was here, rather than not here.

Doesn't necessarily mean it provides the best coverage or is the best option for coverage, merely that they have the cash to dictate the schedule

[dogadug]

Doesn't necessarily mean it provides the best coverage or is the best option for coverage, merely that they have the cash to dictate the schedule

You're right. It doesn't exactly provide the best coverage, but the only way to watch many sporting events, is through SKY, which is why I'd rather it was here, than not here

[Fosse Boy]

SKY tv is great, most people on here criticising it will actually have SKY, and would not want to lose it, and although I think its wrong how SKY can dictate when matches are played etc, and some of the commentators(especially Birtles) are extremely biast, but most people, including me would rather that SKY was here, rather than not here.

You're right. It doesn't exactly provide the best coverage, but the only way to watch many sporting events, is through SKY, which is why I'd rather it was here, than not here

If Sky didn't have the cash to hold the monopoly on a number of sports that it currently does though, those sporting events could easily be transferred to any number of other TV networks. The fact that Murdoch seems to have most of UK sport's governing bodies in his pocket doesn't help either. When gutless old men sit in boardrooms putting their own wallets before the good of the sports that they supposedly govern, this is the outcome.

[The Doctor]

According to my research the Deep Fried Mars Bar was invented in Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire, Scotland by the chippie, or chipper as we say in Grampian, Carron Fish and Chip Shop at Allardice Street in 1995.

An easy deep fried mars bar recipe that you can try at home, though it really is not good for your health, is to beat a raw egg. Dip the mars bar chocolate into the egg and ensure all of it gets covered in egg. Then put this into a batter mix and deep fry until the batter turns golden. In parts of Scotland you can also get deep fried ice cream or creme eggs.

If you are depressed or annoyed by any of the posts in this thread, consumption of this delicacy will distract you and cheer you up.

there's pudding for tonight sorted.

[Guest]

SKY tv is great, most people on here criticising it will actually have SKY, and would not want to lose it, and although I think its wrong how SKY can dictate when matches are played etc, and some of the commentators(especially Birtles) are extremely biast, but most people, including me would rather that SKY was here, rather than not here.

I wish Sky would bankrupt itself. Don't have it, and don't want it.

Sports should be on free-to-air channels, or at the very least spread out so that it's not controlled by one monopoly.

[The Doctor]

I wish Sky would bankrupt itself. Don't have it, and don't want it.

Sports should be on free-to-air channels, or at the very least spread out so that it's not controlled by one monopoly.

what, like when sentanta had it, no thanks. (also a monopoly is when a few companies control a large stake of the market, if there is just one company like you have stated then is called an oligopoly. business lesson over).

However would be a good idea to put the football,rugby,cricket etc. (at the very least all of the england games) on terrestrial and add the sports to the list of shows that, by law, have to be available on terrestrial tv (only reason why wimbledon is still on the beeb and the FA Cup on itv)

[Fosse Boy]

what, like when sentanta had it, no thanks. However would be a good idea to put the football,rugby,cricket etc. (at the very least all of the england games) on terrestrial and add the sports to the list of shows that, by law, have to be available on terrestrial tv (only reason why wimbledon is still on the beeb and the FA Cup on itv)

Setanta never had a monopoly on sports.

[Salieri]

Setanta never had a monopoly on sports.

Or an oligopoly for that matter.

[The Doctor]

Setanta never had a monopoly on sports.

what lisa said was that it (sports) should be more spread out rather than controlled by one monopoly but if that means going back a few months and adding sentanta into the equation to make it more available then i'd rather it stayed on sky.

[Guest]

what, like when sentanta had it, no thanks. (also a monopoly is when a few companies control a large stake of the market, if there is just one company like you have stated then is called an oligopoly. business lesson over).

However would be a good idea to put the football,rugby,cricket etc. (at the very least all of the england games) on terrestrial and add the sports to the list of shows that, by law, have to be available on terrestrial tv (only reason why wimbledon is still on the beeb and the FA Cup on itv)

I do know that, just my brain is frazzled and I have a headache.

I never had Setanta, so can only think that you don't like the presentation, which I can't comment on.

What really needs to happen is for the silly rules concerning televised 3pm Saturday kick offs to be revised. It's outdated, and as streaming gets better, people in the UK are going to be able to watch their favourite teams anyway. Rather than selling the rights to one TV company, clubs ought to be allowed to televise their home games on a pay-per-view basis. This way, the argument that club's would lose out on ticket revenue would be redundant. I am not sure what the implications of streaming would have on such a service, but at least it keeps the issue of screening games in the hands of the clubs and means that games don't have to be moved about as much.

[Fosse Boy]

I do know that, just my brain is frazzled and I have a headache.

I never had Setanta, so can only think that you don't like the presentation, which I can't comment on.

What really needs to happen is for the silly rules concerning televised 3pm Saturday kick offs to be revised. It's outdated, and as streaming gets better, people in the UK are going to be able to watch their favourite teams anyway. Rather than selling the rights to one TV company, clubs ought to be allowed to televise their home games on a pay-per-view basis. This way, the argument that club's would lose out on ticket revenue would be redundant. I am not sure what the implications of streaming would have on such a service, but at least it keeps the issue of screening games in the hands of the clubs and means that games don't have to be moved about as much.

Sorry, that solution's just far too sensible. It'll never work.

[Guest]

Sorry, that solution's just far too sensible. It'll never work.

Back to the drawing board......

[The Doctor]

I do know that, just my brain is frazzled and I have a headache.

I never had Setanta, so can only think that you don't like the presentation, which I can't comment on.

What really needs to happen is for the silly rules concerning televised 3pm Saturday kick offs to be revised. It's outdated, and as streaming gets better, people in the UK are going to be able to watch their favourite teams anyway. Rather than selling the rights to one TV company, clubs ought to be allowed to televise their home games on a pay-per-view basis. This way, the argument that club's would lose out on ticket revenue would be redundant. I am not sure what the implications of streaming would have on such a service, but at least it keeps the issue of screening games in the hands of the clubs and means that games don't have to be moved about as much.

but then who gets the right to host the clubs channel?

to be honest some can already do this. the big 4, real madrid and the old firm all have their own channels.

[crazylegs1984]

Back to the drawing board......

got a sneak feeling this might of alreday been said but what kind of contract do ESPN have

[Guest]

but then who gets the right to host the clubs channel?

to be honest some can already do this. the big 4, real madrid and the old firm all have their own channels.

They have the channels, but do they show live games? I didn't think that they were allowed to, as the games are at the moment copyrighted to the Leagues and not to the individual clubs.

[The Doctor]

got a sneak feeling this might of alreday been said but what kind of contract do ESPN have

pretty much just taken setantas contract. 46 games a season for however long setanta had left (3 years i think)

[Edmund]

[Ford Super Sunday]

I do know that, just my brain is frazzled and I have a headache.

I never had Setanta, so can only think that you don't like the presentation, which I can't comment on.

What really needs to happen is for the silly rules concerning televised 3pm Saturday kick offs to be revised. It's outdated, and as streaming gets better, people in the UK are going to be able to watch their favourite teams anyway. Rather than selling the rights to one TV company, clubs ought to be allowed to televise their home games on a pay-per-view basis. This way, the argument that club's would lose out on ticket revenue would be redundant. I am not sure what the implications of streaming would have on such a service, but at least it keeps the issue of screening games in the hands of the clubs and means that games don't have to be moved about as much.

Personally, I wouldn't do that, and I don't think it would ever happen.

The FA Carling Premiership was set up because of the old football league contract, which, when signed in 1988, meant that all 92 clubs shared the £4.5m pot, when in fact, it was mainly Spurs, Man Utd etc. who would be broadcast live.

Now, when a team gets promoted to the Premier League, they have an embarrassment of riches, £25-£30m in TV rights at least now, because the pot of PL money is split equally.

Similarly, in the CCC, every club gets an equal £2.5m for the rights, and the pot is again shared equally in the lower division. Now, call me a closet communist, but this is the way to go.

In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrids TV revenues account for (I think I remember reading) 60% of all TV rights money in Spain. This would only be the same in England, the top four would account for 60-70% of the money, and everyone else would get peanuts.

Can you imagine the revenues of selling your games for say £10-£15 a pop. A team like Burnley would get nowhere near the £30m they are getting this season, while Man Utd would rake in probably hundreds of millions. That to me is not fair in an age where the rich clubs are getting richer.

The argument for ticket revenue would drop, but what about the matchday takings, food, drink, programmes, merchendise. Then, if you decide to go alone and not to sell to a TV company, you have your productions costs, directors, camera men, equipment, broadcasting, the lease for the TV slot. (oh and what platform are you going to broadcast it on... probably Sky, who own the rights to the Astra satellite)

The Saturday at 3pm thing is debatable, personally i'd keep it as it is. I mean people cope fine with MOTD or Football First on lovely $ky. If someone is so determined to watch a game, they'll get it on the internet anyway. I think it would affect lower league clubs, but not the die hards, it'll be the 'comers and goers' and maybe even the 'yoof' who stay away, costing the club money.

I may not have sounded too positive to teams broadcasting their own games, but i'll leave you with this...

In the USA, all NFL teams games are broadcast live in their respective state or region. However, the league has a rule for home games. If under 75% of tickets are not sold for the home game, it will be 'blacked out' in that region, thus preventing all fans staying at home, costing the club money..... interesting.

[Fosse Boy]

In the USA, all NFL teams games are broadcast live in their respective state or region. However, the league has a rule for home games. If under 75% of tickets are not sold for the home game, it will be 'blacked out' in that region, thus preventing all fans staying at home, costing the club money..... interesting.

I always wondered what 'blackout' policy was with regards to U.S. sports. Thanks for educating me.

I just don't think that something like that could work over here though, such a policy would still favour the big clubs due to the fact that they have more fans nationwide who attend games.

[Alexikokopops]

I could deal with Sky moving kick off times if they kept it on the same day, or at least the weekend. That's really what frustrates me about the matter. If people make plans then changing it by a couple of hours isn't too much of an inconvenience (it's not ideal, granted), but it doesn't totally bone them.

Oh, and for those that keep piping up about "I bet those complaining about Sky have Sky", I'm merely complaining about their football coverage. I live in a house of five and we have Sky Sports for tennis, golf, rugby union, and cricket just as much as we have it for the football. Plus I like moaning. Fuck you