|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Oct 4, 2011 7:23:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by supersmashinggreat on Oct 4, 2011 7:31:36 GMT
I remember this case, in fact i asked about any update on here a couple of weeks ago. If she wins, pubs and i presume hotels galore will be jumping on the bandwagon & why not? as for those tied into a deal with sky, who knows  i hope she wins. |
|
|
|
Post by Penners on Oct 4, 2011 7:56:13 GMT
Just on BBC news, she has won the case, could be interesting now!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 4, 2011 7:59:29 GMT
At the end of the day it will mean that Sky will probably not be willing to bid as much for the TV rights as they do at the moment - because, on the face of it, they now no longer have an exclusive right to show the live games in the UK or Europe.
So, I assume that the money Prem clubs get from Sky will drop by several £million per annum per club when the contract is next negotiated.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 4, 2011 8:03:30 GMT
nothing against sky because if they didnt bid some other company would but it may be good for the tv deal to go down and it might mean that football salaries stop spirralling out of control
i doubt it though.
cue half of britain buying a foreign decoder box
|
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 4, 2011 8:17:34 GMT
It could also mean that foreign TV companies end up having to pay more and get priced out, meaning the premier league interest outside of the country starts to wain, possibly meaning it has less appeal abroad but we might get our game back. Or it could lead to clubs negotiating their own, leading to more inequality than we already have. Hard to see what the consequences will be at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by norman conquest on Oct 4, 2011 8:19:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by exiledtolondon on Oct 4, 2011 8:23:19 GMT
nothing against sky because if they didnt bid some other company would but it may be good for the tv deal to go down and it might mean that football salaries stop spirralling out of control i doubt it though. cue half of britain buying a foreign decoder box And which other media companies do you think have the money to bid for the Premier League rights? |
|
|
|
Post by albanianstokie on Oct 4, 2011 8:33:18 GMT
Really, she's won, brilliant!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 4, 2011 8:33:35 GMT
Some of the comments on that BBC link are way off the mark. Players' wages are ridiculous - but it isn't mainly the fan who buys a ticket who is funding them - it is the TV companies. At Stoke, for example, gate receipts account for, at most, 20% of revenue. The majority of the rest is TV money with sponsorship and merchandising accounting for a bit more.
|
|
|
|
Post by exiledtolondon on Oct 4, 2011 8:46:50 GMT
Also, this won't make much of a difference at home - only for Pubs. Foreign home subscriptions are just as much (if not more sometimes) than Sky's. Not to mention the fact you won't get UK channels for everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeyagro on Oct 4, 2011 8:56:57 GMT
Fuck sky there wank and greedy i bought my own albanian card lol got big dish in my garden
get 3pm games now
Ive fitted a lot of sat systems for lads aswell
|
|
|
|
Post by stokelad84 on Oct 4, 2011 8:59:44 GMT
Should be good for football.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimsChin on Oct 4, 2011 9:05:28 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/04/premier-league-tv-coverageThe guardian are reporting that the court ruled against pubs being able to show games from foreign boxes because it counts as breach of copyright as they are showing to the public, but in favour of people having them in their own homes for personal use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stokecity_m on Oct 4, 2011 9:31:47 GMT
It will be great for pubs, but the years subscription to these foreign channels is still £1.5k+ a year so as said above no use to home subscribers - so Sky will just increase the Home package prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by wandonlodge2 on Oct 4, 2011 9:37:05 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/04/premier-league-tv-coverageThe guardian are reporting that the court ruled against pubs being able to show games from foreign boxes because it counts as breach of copyright as they are showing to the public, but in favour of people having them in their own homes for personal use. The ECJ said the transmission in a pub is a "communication to the public", which means that without the permission of the FA Premier League Murphy is in breach of the copyright directive. This directive would not stop individuals buying foreign decoder cards for domestic use. However, the ECJ said live match coverage itself was not covered by copyright protection, although the Premier League could claim ownership of FAPL-branded opening video sequences, theme music, on-screen graphics and highlights of previous matches. This means that as long as the FAPL and BSkyB ensure that match coverage includes enough copyright elements pubs will not be allowed to show foreign broadcasts. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Oct 4, 2011 9:45:47 GMT
Sure, it may stop wages spiralling out of control - but only in this country! The likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter and so on will still be quite capable of offering players ridiculous sums of money thanks to the TV deals in their own countries. In fact, aren't those TV deals biased in favour of the more successful clubs?
As nice as it would be, it does nothing to solve the problem of the ridiculous money in football, just the ridiculous money in English football.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeyagro on Oct 4, 2011 10:18:25 GMT
We live next to iron market we cant have sky in our pub,its just over 1k to have sky in the pub every month, and the iron market is round 1800 pounds a month with being a bigger pub.
viasat is 1500 a year it shows every single epl game
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 10:26:07 GMT
Hopefully the Premier League start to charge any foreign country who wants to broadcast games pay a far higher fee so that games are not available on the cheap via foreign satelite. For anyone who thinks a lucrative TV deal is not good for supporters should take a look at Scotland. If clubs do cut the wage bill (yes footballers do get paid too much) then the better players will simply move abroad.
Expect rises to admission prices to make up for any shortfall in income from TV if the value of the TV deal falls.
The only so called fans who benefit from this decision are the people who want to watch football without putting a penny into the club they claim to support
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 10:30:30 GMT
It will weaken our position compared to the bigger clubs as TV money is a far bigger portion of our income than them. Some clubs will be worse off than us but the difference between the top and the bottom will become huge with no chance of ever building a smaller club into a big club. Even rich benefactors will not be able to make up the shortfall in revenue thanks to Platini and his financial fairplay rules. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Oct 4, 2011 10:37:36 GMT
As the article says, the match itself is fair game, but all the match package (the commentators, the studio, the team line-up display) belongs to Sky. This means if they get caught ripping Sky off then they are breaking copyright laws.
It's not as much to go on, but some large establishments could easily get targetted by Sky if they were to use the foreign decoders. Pubs would probably get away with it, except for larger national chains etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by youareallwrong on Oct 4, 2011 10:51:07 GMT
Hopefully the Premier League start to charge any foreign country who wants to broadcast games pay a far higher fee so that games are not available on the cheap via foreign satelite. For anyone who thinks a lucrative TV deal is not good for supporters should take a look at Scotland. If clubs do cut the wage bill (yes footballers do get paid too much) then the better players will simply move abroad. Expect rises to admission prices to make up for any shortfall in income from TV if the value of the TV deal falls. The only so called fans who benefit from this decision are the people who want to watch football without putting a penny into the club they claim to support Absolutely correct. I pay for my ST to go and watch home games. I pay for Sky and ESPN so I can watch other games and so my wife can watch Stoke whenever they're on. Remember the old days when there was no live football on TV; you either stumped up the cash and went to the game, or you saw nothing. It pisses me off, all these people wanting something for nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Oct 4, 2011 11:27:51 GMT
The entire problem with the PL broadcasting rights is that they aren't 'theirs' (the current club owners) to sell anyway.
The PL (the top flight of English football) belongs to all of the clubs in the pyramid, all of the clubs who have ever played in it and all of the clubs trying to play in it (and by default every fan in England). It is a part of our national cultural life and it was criminal that this was basically 'given' to a handful of grade A self-interested shysters back in the early 90s.
Some of what has happened during the Sky generation is undoubtedly good but it all could have happened with a fairer distribution of the spoils and less fleecing of the fans (the people who 'own' the game).
Anything that breaks up the cosy monopoly of the PL and Sky is a good thing. IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Oct 4, 2011 12:57:53 GMT
Hopefully the Premier League start to charge any foreign country who wants to broadcast games pay a far higher fee so that games are not available on the cheap via foreign satelite. For anyone who thinks a lucrative TV deal is not good for supporters should take a look at Scotland. If clubs do cut the wage bill (yes footballers do get paid too much) then the better players will simply move abroad. Expect rises to admission prices to make up for any shortfall in income from TV if the value of the TV deal falls. The only so called fans who benefit from this decision are the people who want to watch football without putting a penny into the club they claim to support I don't mind if the better players go abroad if it means the league becomes more competitive. The German league isn't considered to be technically as good as the English, Spanish or Italian leagues in terms of quality of player, but is by far a more exciting league than all three. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 13:04:43 GMT
Hopefully the Premier League start to charge any foreign country who wants to broadcast games pay a far higher fee so that games are not available on the cheap via foreign satelite. For anyone who thinks a lucrative TV deal is not good for supporters should take a look at Scotland. If clubs do cut the wage bill (yes footballers do get paid too much) then the better players will simply move abroad. Expect rises to admission prices to make up for any shortfall in income from TV if the value of the TV deal falls. The only so called fans who benefit from this decision are the people who want to watch football without putting a penny into the club they claim to support I don't mind if the better players go abroad if it means the league becomes more competitive. The German league isn't considered to be technically as good as the English, Spanish or Italian leagues in terms of quality of player, but is by far a more exciting league than all three. Look at the SPL though and what happened when they lost their lucrative TV deal with the demise of Setanta and they could no longer afford to pay the wages for the better players. Even the Old Firm had to unload players to the likes of Cardiff and Middlesborough. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 13:13:43 GMT
How has the TV money in our game adversely affected our National game , whereas in Spain it has improved them.
Have the Spanish got stricter rules on the amount of foreign players allowed in?
Id rather watch Stoke on TV via a Stoke City TV station as well with Stoke City commentators going mad when we score like the Brazilian ones do ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Oct 4, 2011 13:30:35 GMT
Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy has not "won" anything, as her pub doesn't show the games! All she's in fact done is cause Sky to charge more and watermark the broadcasting TV pictures screwing the whole thing up for everyone. I wonder what her attitude would be if I bought a nice bottle of wine from the local supermarket and drank it in her pub.  Something for nothing? I thought not. |
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Oct 4, 2011 13:50:52 GMT
As someone who works in the pub trade, I`m glad this has happened. The price of having SKY SPORTS in a pub are outrageous, and this serves them right. It may help to keep a few more pubs profitable and open.
Well done to the lady involved in this and her representatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by exiledtolondon on Oct 4, 2011 14:38:31 GMT
Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy has not "won" anything, as her pub doesn't show the games! All she's in fact done is cause Sky to charge more and watermark the broadcasting TV pictures screwing the whole thing up for everyone. I wonder what her attitude would be if I bought a nice bottle of wine from the local supermarket and drank it in her pub. Something for nothing? I thought not. Sky have always watermarked TV pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Oct 4, 2011 15:03:53 GMT
Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy has not "won" anything, as her pub doesn't show the games! All she's in fact done is cause Sky to charge more and watermark the broadcasting TV pictures screwing the whole thing up for everyone. I wonder what her attitude would be if I bought a nice bottle of wine from the local supermarket and drank it in her pub. Something for nothing? I thought not. Sky have always watermarked TV pictures. Indeed, but watch for the change. They've known the decision could go against them and the planned reaction will be much more noticeable. |
|
