|
|
Post by BuzzB on Sept 15, 2014 21:33:30 GMT
I aren't sure exactly what the deal with the TV companies are with Premier League teams, however I have noticed that the Bindippers have been covered every game up until now, and are on for the next few weeks. 9 games on the trot to be exact.I think I read somwhere that they were on TV for 28 of their 38 league matches last season.
Talk about overkill!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 15, 2014 21:38:17 GMT
So far only 3 of the top 5 clubs' fixtures haven't been televised live, Chelsea v Leicester and Swansea and Man City v Stoke.
Every Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United match has been shown.
|
|
|
|
Post by coates on Sept 15, 2014 21:54:16 GMT
Let's be honest sky don't care about any team outside United,Chelsea,Liverpool arsenal and city.
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Sept 15, 2014 22:06:55 GMT
Sky are there to maximise audiences to get subscribers and advertising revenue. We are an unpopular club who have spent the majority of our time playing what to a lot of armchair supporters is poor quality pragmatic football.
If you worked for Sky it would be ratings suicide not to show the clubs that the majority of viewers would want to watch, either because they support the clubs or because they have the players and playing style that entertains you.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Sept 15, 2014 23:54:51 GMT
Can you really blame SKY and BT for showing the bigger teams more? It's all about viewing figures and money.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Sept 15, 2014 23:59:05 GMT
Can you really blame SKY and BT for showing the bigger teams more? It's all about viewing figures and money. As someone who lives 235 miles from the Brit, would want to see his team every week, cant get there every week and cant afford a season ticket...yes  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 16, 2014 6:46:56 GMT
Sky are there to maximise audiences to get subscribers and advertising revenue. We are an unpopular club who have spent the majority of our time playing what to a lot of armchair supporters is poor quality pragmatic football. If you worked for Sky it would be ratings suicide not to show the clubs that the majority of viewers would want to watch, either because they support the clubs or because they have the players and playing style that entertains you. Agreed, the way to get on live TV more is to (somehow) get higher up the table, build a bigger fan base - or at least neutrals who actively choose to watch us - and play more attractive football and/or be involved in more exciting, edge of seat, games. To be honest I'm not sure I want to be on live TV a great deal more than we are - living where I do getting to games involves a fair bit of planning for myself and those I car share with. The 3pm Saturday kick off is our routine and later or earlier kick offs and night matches involve much more planning. For example, I like to give my dogs a one hour MINIMUM walk before heading for Stoke. That is no problem for 3pm kick offs where I tend to leave home soon after 11 am. 12.30 kick offs mean I'm walking them from about 7 in the morning, in the dark in the winter months.  Evening games mean that one or two of my co-travellers struggle to get to some games because of work commitments - one can't always get away from work in time and the other may need to swap a night shift to manage it. Having said that, I would like to see us as a top 7 club and I would like us to score more goals - but, preferably, I'd like Sky and BT to continue to ignore us most of the time. Thankfully, the structure of the TV deal means we get paid as if we had 10 live matches even though we usually get fewer than that. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 16, 2014 7:10:55 GMT
As long as the tv money is shared equally then I don't really mind
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 16, 2014 7:14:21 GMT
As long as the tv money is shared equally then I don't really mind It isn't. Every team is paid a payment to cover 10 live games. Once teams go above 10 live games they are paid a sum for each televised game. I can't remember how much but it is a £million ish per game for games over 10. |
|
|
|
Post by cityhullstan on Sept 16, 2014 7:38:40 GMT
Let's be honest sky don't care about any team outside United,Chelsea,Liverpool arsenal and city. Seem to like the white shite a lot. Always showing their games live |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 16, 2014 7:43:22 GMT
As long as the tv money is shared equally then I don't really mind It isn't. Every team is paid a payment to cover 10 live games. Once teams go above 10 live games they are paid a sum for each televised game. I can't remember how much but it is a £million ish per game for games over 10. Looking at around 30m difference between the most and least shown. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27411682 |
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Sept 16, 2014 7:57:40 GMT
The most scandalous tv bias is for Manure in the FA Cup.Its now a run of 39 consecutive FA Cup ties that have been shown dating back to 1998. the thing that pisses me off is that the shit are chosen ahead of lower league teams who really need the extra revenue.The FA should do something about ensuring lower league clubs get a better share of FA Cup tv revenue.....but they wont
|
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Sept 16, 2014 8:37:05 GMT
It isn't. Every team is paid a payment to cover 10 live games. Once teams go above 10 live games they are paid a sum for each televised game. I can't remember how much but it is a £million ish per game for games over 10. Looking at around 30m difference between the most and least shown. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27411682I think that table also reflects the position money of £1.2 m per place So Man C got 21m more than us. 8 x 1.2m was down to places = 9.6m. Then they were on 15 times more than the 10 minimum (which we got even though we were only on 7 times) which accounts for the other 11m. So I guess it's about 750 k per game in what they call hosting fees. |
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Sept 16, 2014 8:48:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kingswaystokie on Sept 16, 2014 8:59:48 GMT
After our last 2 home games would you expect sky to plan some games at the brit.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 9:51:29 GMT
You can bet your life we'll be on on New Year's Day!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 16, 2014 9:54:38 GMT
That Mail article does point out that the reason the Sky and BT money is distributed the way it is (with a big flat rate payment to ALL clubs in addition to smaller place payments and TV appearances) is to try to produce a more level playing field. If the big clubs got an extra £70 million or so based on their bigger numbers of armchair fans, then we would start to look like the Spanish and German top flights where one, two or three clubs finish way ahead of the rest in most seasons. I wish our Premier League was more of an even playing field but at least we do get regular upsets, with clubs such as Stoke able to beat Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal at home (and be unlucky only to get a draw against Citeh and Everton and a loss to Spurs) all in the same season. If we couldn't start each season in the hope that sort of thing might happen, I think I'd have stopped going or be wishing we were in the Championship. OK, most clubs our size don't beat the top clubs very often, but they do have a chance of doing it - in some leagues that just isn't the case. I wonder if the TV viewing figures would be as high as they are (around the world) if only two or three clubs had a chance of sharing the honours instead of 6 or 7? There has to be some reason why the Premier League attracts so much more money and viewers than any other league - and a huge part of the reason must be its relative competitiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Sept 16, 2014 10:41:32 GMT
Yes it's ironic that in this respect at least we're ahead even of Germany I think for doing things right. In Spain the big two negotiate their own deals, making Atletico's achievement even greater.
The big differentiator at the top of course is Champions League money. If Man U failed to get in again they would probably suggest the rules be changed. Then there's the hideous gap between Premier and the Football League, etc
Oh to be a despot with unlimited power over world football for a year or so!
|
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Sept 16, 2014 11:14:40 GMT
Im guessing that this is what Stan is refering to above but you cant help but notice the number of times Leeds are on Sky. I dont have numbers but I would estimate that they have graced the air-waves about 3 times as often as we have. It certainly aint for the quality or the aesthetically pleasing nature of their play so you have to assume that somewhere a bit of research has shown they get higher viewing figures than most Championship teams - probably the rest of the nation watching in the hope that they lose !
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 16, 2014 11:27:01 GMT
The 'bigger' clubs are unrecognisably bigger compared to what they we're pre SKY
Arsenal used to get crowds well below 20000 in the 80's
Everton won more titles than The Shit had pre SKY
SKY & The Premier League have turned English football into what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 16, 2014 11:36:36 GMT
at least most of our games stay at 3pm on a saturday.
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 16, 2014 11:47:18 GMT
If I was a bindipper I wouldn't bother to buy a season ticket in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Sept 16, 2014 11:48:55 GMT
Can you really blame SKY and BT for showing the bigger teams more? It's all about viewing figures and money. As someone who lives 235 miles from the Brit, would want to see his team every week, cant get there every week and cant afford a season ticket...yes & how do you think the average Man Utd fan feels. It's a bloody long way from Gravesend to Manchester. So far that most of them have never made the trip |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 16, 2014 13:08:04 GMT
If I was a bindipper I wouldn't bother to buy a season ticket in that case. you could just squeeze in with an existing ticket holder, apparently thats their done thing |
|
|
|
Post by Ayupshag on Sept 16, 2014 14:06:10 GMT
Don't forget that sky sell the rights to some live games abroad. Chelsea v Leicester was on setanta Ireland as was man city v Stoke both live at 3pm
|
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Sept 16, 2014 14:15:13 GMT
Fuck 'em. If it means we keep to 3pm Saturday kick off's, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coates on Sept 16, 2014 14:23:45 GMT
Do we ever play well on sky? Other than the villa game.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 16, 2014 14:41:57 GMT
Aug-end of Nov live gamesWe've done better than we usually do. We're normally rock bottom. Manchester United - 10 (Sky 7, BT 3)
Liverpool - 10 (Sky 7, BT 3)
Manchester City - 10 (Sky 7, BT 3)
Arsenal - 9 (Sky 7, BT 2)
Chelsea - 7 (Sky 6, BT 1)
Everton - 6 (Sky 4, BT 2)
Tottenham - 6 (Sky 4, BT 2)
Aston Villa - 6 (Sky 5, BT 1)
QPR - 6 (Sky 5, BT 1)
Newcastle - 5 (Sky 3, BT 2)
Stoke City - 4 (Sky 3, BT 1)
West Ham United - 4 (Sky 3, BT 1)
West Brom - 4 (Sky 3, BT 1)
Swansea City - 4 (Sky 3, BT 1)
Burnley - 4 (Sky 3, BT 1)
Crystal Palace - 3 (Sky 3, BT 0)
Southampton - 3 (Sky 3, BT 0)
Hull City - 3 (Sky 3, BT 0)
Sunderland - 3 (Sky 3, BT 0)
Leicester City - 3 (Sky 3, BT 0)
|
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Sept 16, 2014 16:53:59 GMT
As someone who lives 235 miles from the Brit, would want to see his team every week, cant get there every week and cant afford a season ticket...yes & how do you think the average Man Utd fan feels. It's a bloody long way from Gravesend to Manchester. So far that most of them have never made the trip Yeah I guess you are right, it serves me right for being a gloryhunting Stoke fan  |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 16, 2014 21:15:24 GMT
As long as the tv money is shared equally then I don't really mind It isn't. Every team is paid a payment to cover 10 live games. Once teams go above 10 live games they are paid a sum for each televised game. I can't remember how much but it is a £million ish per game for games over 10. I did not know that! That sucks! Big team favouritism again. |
|
Evening games mean that one or two of my co-travellers struggle to get to some games because of work commitments - one can't always get away from work in time and the other may need to swap a night shift to manage it.
