LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsUpdate/0,,10337~2331079,00.html 26% less than there current deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsUpdate/0,,10337~2331079,00.html 26% less than there current deal so about £225k a season less for us minnows in League One? Or even less for us once the greedy Championship clubs realise they have dig their snouts a little deeper…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 cup runs needed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 cup runs needed.... Thats the case every season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 so where does the 25% go to man city chelsea united arsenal etc etc etc as they really need the funds man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 so where does the 25% go to man city chelsea united arsenal etc etc etc as they really need the funds man Football League is not the cash-cow or as in demand as the Greedy league, therefore Sky can take the piss - like they do with RFL. We need Sky more than Sky needs us in theFL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Football League is not the cash-cow or as in demand as the Greedy league, therefore Sky can take the piss - like they do with RFL. We need Sky more than Sky needs us in theFL... Having said that I think Sky's new business has plauteaued over the last few years, certainly since the credit-crunch and many have decided that £50 odd quid a month is simply not worth it. I expect the next Premier League contract to be reduced - why do you think the PL want a 39th game played outside of the UK? £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Sky have invested millions into 3D but at £2k a pop for a decent home system it will die on it's arse, 3D in it's current guise is excellent but unless they find a cheaper and more accessible version for the average man in the street it will continue to be a rare experience enjoyed in a pub, the cinema or the Comet showroom…and thus why the PL will suffer in the next TV deal. Of course this is only my humble take on it and they may well throw another Billion at the PL clubs, can't see it though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Having said that I think Sky's new business has plauteaued over the last few years, certainly since the credit-crunch and many have decided that £50 odd quid a month is simply not worth it. I expect the next Premier League contract to be reduced - why do you think the PL want a 39th game played outside of the UK? £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Sky have invested millions into 3D but at £2k a pop for a decent home system it will die on it's arse, 3D in it's current guise is excellent but unless they find a cheaper and more accessible version for the average man in the street it will continue to be a rare experience enjoyed in a pub, the cinema or the Comet showroom…and thus why the PL will suffer in the next TV deal. Of course this is only my humble take on it and they may well throw another Billion at the PL clubs, can't see it though... 3D has not actually done as bad as you think Prozac, sky have 80,000 3D subscribers and it is growing everyday, sky made over £70 million last year just on multi room charges also now they have 10 millions customers and growing so carnt them throwing less money at the greedy league. Also 3D is a free subscription for customers who have HD and sky world ( full package ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 3D has not actually done as bad as you think Prozac, sky have 80,000 3D subscribers and it is growing everyday, sky made over £70 million last year just on multi room charges also now they have 10 millions customers and growing so carnt them throwing less money at the greedy league. Also 3D is a free subscription for customers who have HD and sky world ( full package ) Multi-room is very lucrative to sky, especially when they rip people off when the second box is faulty and does not call-back. They tried ripping us off, and have done with several people I know and the reason we have all binned sky. Sky have 10 million customers Lee but not all of them subscribe to Sky Sports, Tbh mate, I know you work for them but not got a good thing to say about them…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 3D has not actually done as bad as you think Prozac, sky have 80,000 3D subscribers and it is growing everyday, sky made over £70 million last year just on multi room charges also now they have 10 millions customers and growing so carnt them throwing less money at the greedy league. Also 3D is a free subscription for customers who have HD and sky world ( full package ) I know the crack with the 3D, but the Tvs are silly prices at the moment, unless that drops I can't see it being the success HD is - unless they make the TVs cheaper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Multi-room is very lucrative to sky, especially when they rip people off when the second box is faulty and does not call-back. They tried ripping us off, and have done with several people I know and the reason we have all binned sky. Sky have 10 million customers Lee but not all of them subscribe to Sky Sports, Tbh mate, I know you work for them but not got a good thing to say about them…. Yeah I agree about the cli charges but in defence of sky ( I have to ) we send three letters over a course of three months to warn you that the box has not called back. So if it got to the stage where you get charged you have had plenty of notice. True not all of them do but over 4 million of them have sky sports. Anyway back on subject. The figures that were on late kick off regarding how much we get compared to the championship is appalling, how can us lower league clubs compete at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 I know the crack with the 3D, but the Tvs are silly prices at the moment, unless that drops I can't see it being the success HD is - unless they make the TVs cheaper... How's that sky's fault lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 so about £225k a season less for us minnows in League One? Or even less for us once the greedy Championship clubs realise they have dig their snouts a little deeper…. I'm very mucha cut off your nose to spite your face type of person and therefore would ahve told them to go :censored: themselves. ITV or BBC would probably bid for it at a lower rate and i'd gladly accept. Obviously i'm not making up the shortfall though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 How's that sky's fault lol Not saying it's Sky's fault, but 80,000 subscribers or not, the TVs are too expensive in their present guise - which is a shame. Whilst not Sky's biggest fan they are innovative and the quality is superb from what I have seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 3D television is a bit lost on me. My eyes are incapable of seeing 3D cinema or tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Not saying it's Sky's fault, but 80,000 subscribers or not, the TVs are too expensive in their present guise - which is a shame. Whilst not Sky's biggest fan they are innovative and the quality is superb from what I have seen Tbh if I didn't work for them I wouldn't have them, anyway how much currently do we get for tv money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Not saying it's Sky's fault, but 80,000 subscribers or not, the TVs are too expensive in their present guise - which is a shame. Whilst not Sky's biggest fan they are innovative and the quality is superb from what I have seen Is it a shame? IS IT?! Or is current 3D technology completely :censored:e? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Is it a shame? IS IT?! Or is current 3D technology completely :censored:e? Have you seen the nintendo 3DS now that's impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I recall dealing in plasma tv's when they were 13k. Every tv on the market will be 3d in 5ish years and cheaper than a HD is now. As for sky, they dont give up much money because we arent worth it, no point getting worked up over it. The money would in straight through to wages and agents fees anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I recall dealing in plasma tv's when they were 13k. Every tv on the market will be 3d in 5ish years and cheaper than a HD is now. As for sky, they dont give up much money because we arent worth it, no point getting worked up over it. The money would in straight through to wages and agents fees anyway. Glad you wrote this, saved me the trouble. 3D isn't my bag, but just as Plasma, Flat, HD, BluRay etc have done once the market from top to bottom is this committed it's going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Tbh if I didn't work for them I wouldn't have them, anyway how much currently do we get for tv money? I think it's about £900k per season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 3D television is a bit lost on me. My eyes are incapable of seeing 3D cinema or tv. Spooky, me neither. I can't even see those pics you used to get that were a different pic when you looked at them carefully, or whatver you had to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Spooky, me neither. 12% of the population can't. I'm one of the 88%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Yeah I agree about the cli charges but in defence of sky ( I have to ) we send three letters over a course of three months to warn you that the box has not called back. So if it got to the stage where you get charged you have had plenty of notice. True not all of them do but over 4 million of them have sky sports. Anyway back on subject. The figures that were on late kick off regarding how much we get compared to the championship is appalling, how can us lower league clubs compete at all? I think the English clubs who qualify for the later stages of the Champions League should pay £3m into a pot. The clubs qualifying for the Europa League should subscribe £2m, and the rest of the Premiership £1m each. The pot should then be shared amongst the clubs in the two lower Leagues. It wouldn't amount to a fortune, but would ease the problems for clubs like ourselves. Unfortunately no-one has the guts to make them pay, and none of them would vote for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 but at £2k a pop for a decent home system it will die on it's arse, 3D in it's current guise is excellent but unless they find a cheaper and more accessible version for the average man in the street it will continue to be a rare experience enjoyed in a pub It depends mate. If you go down the rip off merchants like Curry's it does. But we've just started stocking an Optoma 3D projector at our company for £799 (out of stock already!) which is outstanding value. I saw it in demo down at a trade show in Bristol last Feb and the quality is outstanding, albeit in 720p (which TBH, is more than adequate for 3D sport streamed through a piece-of-:censored: Sky box). Personally I think 3D is gimmicky as hell, and sometimes even nauseous. Prefer 2D in movies and sport any day. 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.