Edmund Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 I love sky. My only qualm is it's a bit pricey but hey ho I don't thinks it's enough for me to pmt over its services.
davieG Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 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. They could just continue to show the games they currently show with revenues split the same way but they are sold to customers on a pay per view basis. This way the TV customer can see all or whichever games they choose without having to pay for something they don't want or to have to sign up to two separate broadcasters. If the pitch they price of each game appropriately they shouldn't be any worse off. Of course companies like Sky would then have to become a proper broadcaster and not live off the back of armchair football fans.
Edmund Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 They could just continue to show the games they currently show with revenues split the same way but they are sold to customers on a pay per view basis. This way the TV customer can see all or whichever games they choose without having to pay for something they don't want or to have to sign up to two separate broadcasters. If the pitch the price of each game appropriatly they shouldn't be any worse off.Of course companies like Sky would then have to become a proper broadcaster and not live off the back of armchair football fans. Its inevitable that its going to go down the pay per view route similar to boxing any year soon. I don't think peoples ideas in here are any revolution.
davieG Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 Its inevitable that its going to go down the pay per view route similar to boxing any year soon. I don't think peoples ideas in here are any revolution. I wasn't claiming to be some modern TV Che Guevara
Edmund Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 I wasn't claiming to be some modern TV Che Guevara I wasn't aiming that at you I reckon streaming games is the route it will take but not through your computer but tv. With sky +'s anytime they are already using internet to download footage to your sky box and im sure in the distant future aerials will become redundant.
davieG Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 I wasn't aiming that at you I reckon streaming games is the route it will take but not through your computer but tv. With sky +'s anytime they are already using internet to download footage to your sky box and im sure in the distant future aerials will become redundant. Will always useful in stormy weather
Ford Super Sunday Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 They could just continue to show the games they currently show with revenues split the same way but they are sold to customers on a pay per view basis. This way the TV customer can see all or whichever games they choose without having to pay for something they don't want or to have to sign up to two separate broadcasters. If the pitch they price of each game appropriately they shouldn't be any worse off.Of course companies like Sky would then have to become a proper broadcaster and not live off the back of armchair football fans. Then Sky would say goodbye to a huge chunk of their subscribers unfortunately. When you pay £35 a month (at least) for Sky Sports, you get what, loads of football games a month, from Prem, Football League, Champions League. If Sky ask (sorry FORCE) you to pay £5-10 per game, you're gonna be spending a whole lot more, which people won't do. But if it's someone who is going to watch the odd game, then again, it will lose $ky a lorry load of money. It would also mean that games like Wigan-Blackburn wouldn't be shown, and Man U-Wigan, Man U-Blackburn would, they are gauranteed money making games. And if Sky were then forced to show 'lower' games on PPV, then they would lose out, even if they charged less. Charging £35 minnimum gaurantees that you get the money, whether the customer watches every game and every sport or not. Additionally, Prem Plus, Sky's Pay-Per-View service which lasted six seasons, never really took off, and very few people paid for the games.
davieG Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 Then Sky would say goodbye to a huge chunk of their subscribers unfortunately.When you pay £35 a month (at least) for Sky Sports, you get what, loads of football games a month, from Prem, Football League, Champions League. If Sky ask (sorry FORCE) you to pay £5-10 per game, you're gonna be spending a whole lot more, which people won't do. But if it's someone who is going to watch the odd game, then again, it will lose $ky a lorry load of money. It would also mean that games like Wigan-Blackburn wouldn't be shown, and Man U-Wigan, Man U-Blackburn would, they are gauranteed money making games. And if Sky were then forced to show 'lower' games on PPV, then they would lose out, even if they charged less. Charging £35 minnimum gaurantees that you get the money, whether the customer watches every game and every sport or not. Additionally, Prem Plus, Sky's Pay-Per-View service which lasted six seasons, never really took off, and very few people paid for the games. Well I recognised it wouldn't be too good for Sky but they are not the ones selling the packages. As a sky subscriber I'd prefer pay as you view. It would be all about pitching the price at the market level. If they only charged say £3 for your less attractive games rising to £20 for the big games I'd be more likely to watch the so called lesser games.
Guest Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 I wasn't aiming that at you I wonder who it was aimed at....
Tommeh Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 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 realise alot of this is your opinion (which I disagree with anyway), but the bit highlighted is not and complete bollocks. 1 prem game a week at 4pm Sunday on sky. With 1 pay per view prem game at 5:15 on the saturday and 1 championship game at the same time on normal sky is what for me should be allowed. The power they have is crazy. And for all I can see their only good show is Soccer Saturday with Jeff.
CosbehFox Posted 8 September 2009 Posted 8 September 2009 They could just continue to show the games they currently show with revenues split the same way but they are sold to customers on a pay per view basis. This way the TV customer can see all or whichever games they choose without having to pay for something they don't want or to have to sign up to two separate broadcasters. If the pitch they price of each game appropriately they shouldn't be any worse off.Of course companies like Sky would then have to become a proper broadcaster and not live off the back of armchair football fans. Agreed and as said it's not far off that route now. In fact I believe it's already done abroad. What you'll see is the possibility to buy an armchair season ticket.
Alexikokopops Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 I wasn't aiming that at you I reckon streaming games is the route it will take but not through your computer but tv. With sky +'s anytime they are already using internet to download footage to your sky box and im sure in the distant future aerials will become redundant. Virgin Media already have the capability to stream things with iPlayer, ITV on Demand and 4OD all available to watch through your TV.
Katy Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 Virgin Media already have the capability to stream things with iPlayer, ITV on Demand and 4OD all available to watch through your TV. You're like a walking advert Alex
Guest Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 You're like a walking advert Alex Is he on commission?
The Doctor Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 Virgin Media already have the capability to stream things with iPlayer, ITV on Demand and 4OD all available to watch through your TV. annoying thing about that is for virtually every program except some of the sport you have to activate your pin which means i can't actually access these so called free programs without paying.
Alexikokopops Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 annoying thing about that is for virtually every program except some of the sport you have to activate your pin which means i can't actually access these so called free programs without paying. The pin is just parental control. It's nothing to do with paying. Change your settings and it'll reduce the amount you have to put it in.
The Doctor Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 The pin is just parental control. It's nothing to do with paying. Change your settings and it'll reduce the amount you have to put it in. pretty sure it is because the message i get when i try to access these parental control areas tells me i need to activate my pin by ringing an 0800 number. never mind anyway, found that if i turn the box off anf on again it lets me watch the shows. just starting to watch the we are klang series on the iplayer before it goes andd is replaced by lunch monkeys (thursday 10:35pm people )
potter3 Posted 9 September 2009 Posted 9 September 2009 pretty sure it is because the message i get when i try to access these parental control areas tells me i need to activate my pin by ringing an 0800 number. never mind anyway, found that if i turn the box off anf on again it lets me watch the shows. just starting to watch the we are klang series on the iplayer before it goes andd is replaced by lunch monkeys (thursday 10:35pm people ) If it's 0800 then it's a free number...
lcfc_jme Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 I still fckign haTE sky TV they;rw still cu nts. Georgie Thompson and Jeff Stelling areew thw only good things aboutr Sky tv tbf.
Tommy G Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 I still fckign haTE sky TV they;rw still cu nts. Georgie Thompson and Jeff Stelling areew thw only good things aboutr Sky tv tbf. Oh god.
The Doctor Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 If it's 0800 then it's a free number... thought 0800 was overseas code.
Sir Fynwy Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 thought 0800 was overseas code. Well you thought wrong!
Alexikokopops Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 thought 0800 was overseas code. Well they did only start using 0800 as a freephone number in 1985 so it's understandable if you missed it.
potter3 Posted 10 September 2009 Posted 10 September 2009 Well they did only start using 0800 as a freephone number in 1985 so it's understandable if you missed it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.