Ford Super Sunday Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Many fans have been upset recently regarding the live TV fixtures we've been getting, especially at home. Some have said to stuff the money and tell Sky where to go. An article published by the Huddersfield Examiner today regarding their game against Hull gives a revealing insight into why we can't do that. RELEGATION-haunted Town faced a Football League points deduction if next month’s game against Hull City was not screened live by Sky.The Examiner can today reveal the background to a tickets row which has left fans seething. Under the Sky TV contract all clubs must host at least one live game per season. But Town were at risk of breaching that because of a hardline stance on costs taken by West Yorkshire Police. The force had already refused permission for Sky to screen the home games against Leeds United and Cardiff City. Senior officers also planned to block the Hull game on March 30, which could have meant Town becoming the first club to breach the Football League’s contract with the pay TV giant. That would have exposed the club to various sanctions including a loss of vital league points. The Examiner can reveal how Town officials were summoned to a meeting at the Football League HQ in Preston and warned of the implications of the Hull kick-off not being switched to 5.20pm for Sky. That led to the club pleading with police to let the game go ahead. Senior officers agreed but imposed strict conditions. These included issuing just 1,500 tickets to away fans and banning independent travel, forcing them to use official coaches only. Both Town and Hull fans attacked the decision, which could now lead to a legal challenge backed by the Football Supporters’ Federation. Town chief executive, Nigel Clibbens, told how the club was approached by the Football League in January to say the Hull game had been chosen by Sky. Mr Clibbens said: “We contacted West Yorkshire Police to inform them as usual but they requested a meeting and subsequently two days later they informed us they would not sanction the change in kick-off time due to their risk assessment and the additional financial burden this would place on them.†Town informed the Football League of the decision and were called to Preston. “At the meeting we were told that Huddersfield Town has a contractual obligation as a member of the League to facilitate Sky TV games under the Football League contract,†said Mr Clibbens. “If we couldn’t fulfil this, we could be subject to sanctions including a possible points deduction. “We informed West Yorkshire Police of the implications for us of being unable to stage the game at the requested kick-off time. “We were pleased that West Yorkshire Police showed a willingness to reconsider the position and work with us to find a solution. “In conjunction with the police, we discussed options and solutions to reduce the policing costs and risk associated with the game. “Together we agreed a series of stipulations, which the police and Huddersfield Town were prepared to move forward together with and we sought agreement from Hull.†Mr Clibbens said Town had every sympathy with the fans but their hand had been forced.He said: “Being faced with the unenviable prospect of not fulfilling the Sky TV contract and the huge potential implications for the club, we are just very relieved the game is to be staged. “The real people who suffer are the normal everyday Hull fans who just want to support their team but have to abide by the restrictions. “We are really grateful for the support of Hull City in helping us deal with the issue and agreeing to the conditions, which meant that West Yorkshire Police was willing to move from its original position to sanction the game. “The Football League also told us that no club in the history of all the Sky agreements had failed to fulfil its TV obligations – every team must have one live televised home game. “At the same time we recognise the issues and difficulties faced by the police. “The football club and the police have worked together to try and resolve the issues. “The circumstances are difficult for everyone but we are pleased that the game is set to go ahead. “As a club we try to ‘make the difference’ in our community and our working relationship with West Yorkshire Police has been very good. “We look forward to this continuing and hope that the game goes ahead as a great advert for both clubs and their supporters.†http://www.examiner....86081-32850056/ Now I'm a Sky apologist but even a points deduction is an extreme way of forcing people to comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 We've staged 7 and they haven't staged a single one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 What if they just screen a game where Huddersfield were the away team? Would that then mean they've complied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 What if they just screen a game where Huddersfield were the away team? Would that then mean they've complied? No... "every team must have one live televised home game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 No... "every team must have one live televised home game." I see that in the second quote now. It wasn't clear in the first quote (after reading a few times I see it says "must host televised game" but when reading quickly that could come across as just be involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Does there come a point where clubs begin to tell Sky to sod off? We've already had Forest, Derby, Middlesbrough and Wolves at home with Millwall and Birmingham to come. The rules state we have to have ONE live televised home game; surely when it comes to six the club is within its rights to state that the inconvenience this presents to attending fans is too great. This amount of games on Sky impacts upon attendances, catering sales, corporate hospitality, the relationship between fans and the club and is likely to carry on into next season. With a quarter of our home games this season being shown live on Sky, it'll take some fantastically talented PR guru to argue fans have got the value for money fans of other clubs have enjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevfromle Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Good...a contract is a contract. Clubs have an obligation to fulfill that contract. Police forces have an obligation to police. How dare they refuse.... That constitutes a breach of contract with the council tax payers of Huddersfield. I believe any case brought against them has a very good chance of succeeding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Good...a contract is a contract. Clubs have an obligation to fulfill that contract. Police forces have an obligation to police. How dare they refuse.... That constitutes a breach of contract with the council tax payers of Huddersfield. I believe any case brought against them has a very good chance of succeeding! I agree with Huddersfield. It seems unfair that their police force has been able to block two matches on Sky when at least one other club in the division has six contracted games on Sky. That's especially true when they've had none of the damaging effects of such a high number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquemada Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Does there come a point where clubs begin to tell Sky to sod off? We've already had Forest, Derby, Middlesbrough and Wolves at home with Millwall and Birmingham to come. The rules state we have to have ONE live televised home game; surely when it comes to six the club is within its rights to state that the inconvenience this presents to attending fans is too great. This amount of games on Sky impacts upon attendances, catering sales, corporate hospitality, the relationship between fans and the club and is likely to carry on into next season. With a quarter of our home games this season being shown live on Sky, it'll take some fantastically talented PR guru to argue fans have got the value for money fans of other clubs have enjoyed. "If your match is chosen by BBC or Sky then you receive an extra facility fee worth £100,000 for the home team and £10,000 for the away team." http://westhamfootball.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/championship-football-west-ham-finances.html Does it become clearer now ? (No, I am not a WH fan but this fact is very hard to track down) Leicester City FC once they had played their one obligated televised home match could have declined any further but chose not to, I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Does there come a point where clubs begin to tell Sky to sod off? We've already had Forest, Derby, Middlesbrough and Wolves at home with Millwall and Birmingham to come. The rules state we have to have ONE live televised home game; surely when it comes to six the club is within its rights to state that the inconvenience this presents to attending fans is too great. This amount of games on Sky impacts upon attendances, catering sales, corporate hospitality, the relationship between fans and the club and is likely to carry on into next season. With a quarter of our home games this season being shown live on Sky, it'll take some fantastically talented PR guru to argue fans have got the value for money fans of other clubs have enjoyed. They don't give a shit. If $ky can cover the money they'd lose and more, then LCFC will do it, that's their mentality and it's been proven by their actions on a number of occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loggy98 Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Everyone complains but they give clubs a lot of money, maybe without some of their money we would not have been able to buy some of the players we have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 "If your match is chosen by BBC or Sky then you receive an extra facility fee worth £100,000 for the home team and £10,000 for the away team." http://westhamfootba...m-finances.html Does it become clearer now ? (No, I am not a WH fan but this fact is very hard to track down) Leicester City FC once they had played their one obligated televised home match could have declined any further but chose not to, I wonder why? I would be in no way shocked if I heard we'd actually lost money on some, if not most, of these games. Middlesbrough is a definite example, I doubt the weather would have the devastating impact it did at 3pm on a Saturday. The issue was with Friday evening gridlock worsened by the conditions, a Saturday afternoon coupled with a Friday night of gritting would have brought the attendance up to its usual 20,000 plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Super Sunday Posted 21 February 2013 Author Share Posted 21 February 2013 "If your match is chosen by BBC or Sky then you receive an extra facility fee worth £100,000 for the home team and £10,000 for the away team." http://westhamfootba...m-finances.html Does it become clearer now ? (No, I am not a WH fan but this fact is very hard to track down) Leicester City FC once they had played their one obligated televised home match could have declined any further but chose not to, I wonder why? This fee, with the integration of the new, Sky exclusive contract, has now reduced to £80,000 for the home team. Still, We'll have received £560,000 in fees while Huddersfield will have had a mere £80,000 by seasons end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Everyone complains but they give clubs a lot of money, maybe without some of their money we would not have been able to buy some of the players we have Or maybe if prices weren't so ridiculous for example clubs wouldn't end up having to spend such inflated prices on players. It's a vicious cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxfordfox83 Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 Everyone complains but they give clubs a lot of money, maybe without some of their money we would not have been able to buy some of the players we have Yeah, but neither would anyone else. If they and their tv money never existed, football would certainly care more about its fans, we'd have more home grown players (as wages wouldn't pull in every overseas player who can tie his own boots) and everything would be cheaper. Unless your dream is to watch wall to wall Premier League football without leaving your home, Sky has only done harm to our sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevfromle Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 All hypothetical....the genie (in the form of sky) is out of the bottle. The game is driven by money. Clubs will always take the money on offer and gamble that attendances will hold up. Why wouldn't they.....it's good business practice and whether fans like it or not, football is a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 All hypothetical....the genie (in the form of sky) is out of the bottle. The game is driven by money. Clubs will always take the money on offer and gamble that attendances will hold up. Why wouldn't they.....it's good business practice and whether fans like it or not, football is a business. oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swalker Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 I don't blame sky for keep getting games. If they are being allowed to do it by our so called governing bodies- FA/ football leagues then why not? I blame the football league for letting sky walk all over everyone just because the football league get a bit of money! They should implement a policy saying 70% of a clubs home games must on Saturday 3pm and Sky have to announce which games they're screening on 2 dates (one in September and one in January). This will not only mean clubs get more Saturday 3pm games but also sky will be forced to fill the time with lower league football like league 2 and so generating more money for the lower league clubs who really need it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayfox Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 So we do receive an additional cash income every game that sky broadcast. We know the owners also want the exposure. So arent going to turn it down. And for those saying the boro game for example would incure losses due to only 8k making it and not 20k. How many of those not making it, has already handed the club 400 quid at the start of the season. Your money is sat in the owners accounts earning them interest and has been since june. Why do you think they care if you dont go to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964FOX Posted 21 February 2013 Share Posted 21 February 2013 I don't blame sky for this one. I blame the local cops for not being able to have the ability to cope with the normal amount of away fans being in their town for an extra two hours, very poor in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 22 February 2013 Share Posted 22 February 2013 In fairness, I don't think we can complain about one home game a season being moved for Sky. I'm quite envious of Huddersfield in that respect. Some of the Sky kick-off times actually aren't that much of an inconvenience, 5:20 on a Saturday means extra pub time and 12:45 isn't a disaster. Sundays can be difficult if you're travelling from outside the county but again, not the end of the world. The times I have the problem with are Thursday and Friday night kick-offs which destroy away attendances and make it very difficult for some home fans to attend, especially if they work out of the county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 22 February 2013 Share Posted 22 February 2013 If Huddersfield hadn't been playing so badly for the past few months or so, this wouldn't be an issue at all. And they're talking about one televised game (their first this season?). Besides, they've had plenty of opportunities to negotiate with Sky early on in the season. Now suddenly, it's an urgent matter... The Terriers really only have themselves to blame for the mess they're in right now. I do hope they get out of it, still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbyfox Posted 22 February 2013 Share Posted 22 February 2013 Does there come a point where clubs begin to tell Sky to sod off? We've already had Forest, Derby, Middlesbrough and Wolves at home with Millwall and Birmingham to come. The rules state we have to have ONE live televised home game; surely when it comes to six the club is within its rights to state that the inconvenience this presents to attending fans is too great. This amount of games on Sky impacts upon attendances, catering sales, corporate hospitality, the relationship between fans and the club and is likely to carry on into next season. With a quarter of our home games this season being shown live on Sky, it'll take some fantastically talented PR guru to argue fans have got the value for money fans of other clubs have enjoyed. And Blackpool ........ that makes 7!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 22 February 2013 Share Posted 22 February 2013 And Blackpool ........ that makes 7!! Forgot about Blackpool at home! Seven out of 23 home games moved is frankly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam1 Posted 22 February 2013 Share Posted 22 February 2013 The football league wouldnt be able to enforce any penalties on Huddersfield if the game didnt go ahead. The contract is null and void if the police refuse to move the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.