Diego_Sideburns Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 New TV deal worth at least £80,000,000 to each club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Lot of money that but it seems Sky and Setanta were having a bit of a bidding war. However, when the deal comes into play we may well still be in a recession and I wouldn't mind betting that for a lot of people if money's tight the first thing to go is the Sky Subscription- especially the sports bit which is extra. Sky having over paid for football since the second Premier League contract- the first seems good value now- will feel the pinch and may not have the money to pay for it. If we have a long term recession (which seems highly likely) then I could see football being a big casualty especially at the top end - Man U owe an awful lot of money and the banks may soon start wanting to collect. I'm not a financial expert but this seems very risky for Sky and Setanta and if I was a Premier league chairman I'd not want to spend the money just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) But the good news is... that pointless Setanta loses a lot of its coverage.... Well done Sky! Sky Steals Setanta Rights ... ah well... at least theres still the SPL and non-league! Edited February 7, 2009 by BigfinLatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 But the good news is... that pointless Setanta loses a lot of its coverage.... Well done Sky! Sky Steals Setanta Rights ... ah well... at least theres still the SPL and non-league! As Sky have been one of the biggest culprits of creating the current warped state of the football league structure in this country, I would like nothing more than to see them go to the wall. The way they hype up the Prem and give such meagre coverage to the football league (which basically consists of that berk of a presenter metaphorically tromboning Leeds United for an hour) continues to turn young fans away from their local teams and the football league and into their arm chairs where they can watch the over paid, uncommitted toss for far cheaper on tv. I actually have my fingers crossed for a long term recession in the mould that rudemedic describes. The FA have managed to lose any sort of worthwhile influence over the top flight of football in this country due to their own spineless greed. Scudamore has far too much power, the FA should be looking at the state of the football league and intervening with this money hoarding. Surely they can see that in the long run, this is going to be catastrophic for English football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 As Sky have been one of the biggest culprits of creating the current warped state of the football league structure in this country, I would like nothing more than to see them go to the wall. The way they hype up the Prem and give such meagre coverage to the football league (which basically consists of that berk of a presenter metaphorically tromboning Leeds United for an hour) continues to turn young fans away from their local teams and the football league and into their arm chairs where they can watch the over paid, uncommitted toss for far cheaper on tv. I actually have my fingers crossed for a long term recession in the mould that rudemedic describes. The FA have managed to lose any sort of worthwhile influence over the top flight of football in this country due to their own spineless greed. Scudamore has far too much power, the FA should be looking at the state of the football league and intervening with this money hoarding. Surely they can see that in the long run, this is going to be catastrophic for English football. The answer is in the hands of supporters of the 72 Football League clubs, who should vote with their feet by not putting their hands in their pockets to finance Murdoch and the Greedy clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The answer is in the hands of supporters of the 72 Football League clubs, who should vote with their feet by not putting their hands in their pockets to finance Murdoch and the Greedy clubs. Exactly and i already have, very few will do the same though. There are just too many people who have become attached to their Monday night and Sundays with back to back games and that includes football league fans as well. I used to watch a fair bit of it and fall asleep through them but for someone reason still look forward to the next televised game. I think it's the shear magnitude of advertising you are bombarded with which almost forces you to believe that it's going to be amazing everytime, when in fact Chelsea playing away at Middlesborough is always going to be dreary whatever way you look at it as are 90% of the games they show. Too many believe the prem hype instead of going out and supporting their local team, how many will never experience a feeling like we got at Leicester last week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Exactly and i already have, very few will do the same though. There are just too many people who have become attached to their Monday night and Sundays with back to back games and that includes football league fans as well. I used to watch a fair bit of it and fall asleep through them but for someone reason still look forward to the next televised game. I think it's the shear magnitude of advertising you are bombarded with which almost forces you to believe that it's going to be amazing everytime, when in fact Chelsea playing away at Middlesborough is always going to be dreary whatever way you look at it as are 90% of the games they show. Too many believe the prem hype instead of going out and supporting their local team, how many will never experience a feeling like we got at Leicester last week? The problem for TTA is that too many Oldhamers have been to BP and found that, even with a 6-0 win on 'Celebration Sunday' with free admission, the entertainment value did not match that provided by Sky Sports, with close-ups, action replays and special effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The answer is in the hands of supporters of the 72 Football League clubs, who should vote with their feet by not putting their hands in their pockets to finance Murdoch and the Greedy clubs. Think this is a highly commendable attitude Diego but what about the cash the Greedy league get from the Beeb (essentially for just match of the Day), the Beeb is partially funded by the TV license fee that I'm sure an upright standing citizen like yourself pays. (I'm going to take the 'fifth' as to whether I pay but I don't have a TV- in Durham anyway). To be honest I would think a lot of people got Sky for the football but many will stay with Sky for the other sports they now have. My Dad for one was watching the rugby on sunday instead of the football and if the cricket had been on (and been interesting) he would have had one eye on that and if we aren't watching Oldham I can almost guarantee he is watching the rugby on a saturday instead of Jeff and his boys. Some people on here would probably pay a monthly subscription fee to watch the NFL (and if sky get the other US sports those as well- I hope they don't) or the darts or whatever sport that Sky shows. My brother (who's not that big a sports fan) has Sky but without the sports channels but I wouldn't mind betting he ends up paying more to finance something he doesn't watch. Something I think may happen a bit as people will have to choose their Sky level and I can see some ditching the movies (which are a lot more accessible on line) but keeping the sports. The prices might well go up too and I'm not just talking about home subscriptions but pub ones as well and often pubs will pay for Sky as it means they some customers in on certain nights. Like I said in my earlier post I think Sky are taking a bit gamble with paying this much in times of recession (especially with the rise of slightly dodgy foreign website where you can often watch games for free if you have a quick enough internet connection). If Sky goes tits up they could bring almost all the Premier League with them- and Murdoch might well decide to cut his losses and run if Sky are running at a loss. We shall see and teams like oursleves could be in a position to capitilise if things go badly wrong for the Greedy League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Think this is a highly commendable attitude Diego but what about the cash the Greedy league get from the Beeb (essentially for just match of the Day), the Beeb is partially funded by the TV license fee that I'm sure an upright standing citizen like yourself pays. For my TV Licence fee I receive BBC 1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. I can't get Five or digital TV for Freeview etc. Neither does the area where I live have cable TV. From 2011 this area will go digital and I shall only be able to receive any TV by having a satellite dish, which I do not want. So from then onwards I may be like you in Durham and not have a TV. Therefore I shall have fewer interruptions when I am exercising my brain on OWTB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry, but I love football and I'll continue to subscribe to SKY sports....and guess what, like thousands of others I'll probably upgrade to SKY HD later this year (and I'm not exactly splashing out at the moment having been subject to a wage cut - I'm cutting back big time)...as Oldham fans we're naturally jealous and perhaps angry at the gulf the SKY money has created between the haves and the have nots, but lets face it, if you love your football then generally their really isn't a better League to watch Premier League football, and their isn't a better place to watch it than live on SKY sports. I know it's totally at odds with being an Oldham supporter, and (probably being a hypocrit) I would like to see a return to the days of football clubs fielding a team of players local to the location of the club, but it's never going to happen - not in a capatilist society. As Oldham fans, the best we can hope for is success on the pitch...only that will get the crowds flocking back to BP - a nuclear strike on SKY's satellites in Space, knocking out SKY's transmissions forever will not suddenly get people flocking back to BP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Im really glad SKY have got back most of the football. Setanta having games lowered the benefit of my sky subscription whilst the cost remained the same. Just hope Setanta fold and more sports can return to SKY. I dont blame SKY for the money in football and the way it as gone. I blame the FA and the clubs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Gutted for Setanta makes change watching a game on there to SKY. Plus it sees them tighten there grip on football and at all levels allow them to dictate when games are played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 BBC have got the football league rights for next season. I'm sticking with Setanta because the boxing on it blows Sky out of the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Sorry, but I love football and I'll continue to subscribe to SKY sports....and guess what, like thousands of others I'll probably upgrade to SKY HD later this year (and I'm not exactly splashing out at the moment having been subject to a wage cut - I'm cutting back big time)...as Oldham fans we're naturally jealous and perhaps angry at the gulf the SKY money has created between the haves and the have nots, but lets face it, if you love your football then generally their really isn't a better League to watch Premier League football, and their isn't a better place to watch it than live on SKY sports. I know it's totally at odds with being an Oldham supporter, and (probably being a hypocrit) I would like to see a return to the days of football clubs fielding a team of players local to the location of the club, but it's never going to happen - not in a capatilist society. As Oldham fans, the best we can hope for is success on the pitch...only that will get the crowds flocking back to BP - a nuclear strike on SKY's satellites in Space, knocking out SKY's transmissions forever will not suddenly get people flocking back to BP. You see I thought I enjoyed it as well, but since i've been without it for the last 2 years through being at uni I really haven't missed it at all. I don't even go to the pub to watch the big four playing each other anymore. I've realised they're usually a pretty dull affair and a waste of my time. I think it's one of those things, because it's there, you watch it, but if you didn't have it, you wouldn't notice so much after a couple of months. I wouldn't say it's jealousy the way I look at the Premier League, more an injustice. The balance within football has been ruined, the game at the top level has become more about making money than about the football itself. The football is just a side issue to most in the Premier League. What are they playing for exactly, a respectable league position, purely to avoid relegation? Sounds fantastic and a really worthwhile competition. I personally feel the Football League should try and break off from the Premier League, let them have their money and dead end league, i'm sure when the excitement of the relegation battle is removed the appeal to the vast majority of teams in the division would disappear or be shown up for what it really is, purely financially motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Im really glad SKY have got back most of the football. Setanta having games lowered the benefit of my sky subscription whilst the cost remained the same. Just hope Setanta fold and more sports can return to SKY. I dont blame SKY for the money in football and the way it as gone. I blame the FA and the clubs... It's fair enough putting yourself first, but with no competition to Sky what are the long term implications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 (edited) It's fair enough putting yourself first, but with no competition to Sky what are the long term implications? I dont quite understand your point. What's better for the consumer... Giving one greedy corporation a subscription fee for all the content or giving two greedy corporations two fees which in total is higher than the old fee for the same amount of content. You tell me... The idea that splitting the TV packages create competition is flawed one. It just allows more people to make more money. How much did a sky sports subscription go down when Setanta came along ? In the past I would pay Sky a fee for everything. If I want everything now I have to pay nearly twice as much!!! My point of view puts EVERYONE first.... We now have a worse deal than ever before!!!! What they should of done is sold one of the packages to the BBC / ITV for a reduced cost....on they could justify.... instead of this money making auction bull:censored:... Edited February 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 For my TV Licence fee I receive BBC 1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. I can't get Five or digital TV for Freeview etc. Neither does the area where I live have cable TV. From 2011 this area will go digital and I shall only be able to receive any TV by having a satellite dish, which I do not want. So from then onwards I may be like you in Durham and not have a TV. Therefore I shall have fewer interruptions when I am exercising my brain on OWTB. So you'll still have a telly and no reception? A fantastic opportunity to watch all those DVDs and Vidoes that have clogged up the shelves and drawers for years and never actually been viewed more than once! I also suspect you could get some sort of TV service online as an when required, legally or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I dont quite understand your point. What's better for the consumer... Giving one greedy corporation a subscription fee for all the content or giving two greedy corporations two fees which in total is higher than the old fee for the same amount of content. You tell me... The idea that splitting the TV packages create competition is flawed one. It just allows more people to make more money. How much did a sky sports subscription go down when Setanta came along ? In the past I would pay Sky a fee for everything. If I want everything now I have to pay nearly twice as much!!! My point of view puts EVERYONE first.... We now have a worse deal than ever before!!!! What they should of done is sold one of the packages to the BBC / ITV for a reduced cost....on they could justify.... instead of this money making auction bull:censored:... My point is that most people won't buy both subscriptions. Most people don't have that sort of spare cash to throw at watching overpriced, overrated football on TV. If people make a choice based on who's coverage they prefer or which provider has the games they want to see, both will lose a share of the market. You're assumming that everybody has the money to and wants to watch the football so much that they are willing to buy both companies packages to have it all. In reality I very much doubt that's the case. You may not see a benefit immediately, but if Setanta stay in the market then prices will innevitably fall as Sky would be forced to drop their prices to fall in line with what they are offering and bring back punters who had gone to Setanta. Only the most ardant armchair fan will hav both or those with plenty spare cash. Competition in the market gives some power back to the viewers over what they see, a monopoly is not going to be beneficial in the long run, competition will be. Regarding selling a cheaper package to the BBC or ITV would be a good gesture. I agree that would be a good idea, but we all know that tyhe Premier Greed is all about making as much money as possible and nothing but. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.