Brace yourself (1 Viewer)

hill83 said:

Not too sure how much actually, but, and this is guess work, I'd imagine the cost of the sports package goes towards the football costs. Sky F1 can be viewed without the sports package.

Click to expand...

But...why would I want to support an organisation to provide a service - when I believe it is very bad for the sport in the long term? I don't & I won't (although to be fair...I occasionally use it as an excuse to go to the pub for a pint to watch)

hate it when people moan about sky

sky F1 coverage is the best

sky football coverage is the best

you pay for what you get

if you cant afford sky, either live with it or try to get some more cash,dont sit there abusing the company for raising standards

covcity4life said:

hate it when people moan about sky
THAT DOES NOT BOTHER ME

sky F1 coverage is the best
THAT IS AN OPINION

sky football coverage is the best
SO IS THAT

you pay for what you get
1. I THINK YOU MEAN "GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR"
2. NOT EXACTLY...I PAY NOTHING TO SKY, I CHOOSE NOT BE BE A SLAVE TO THE TELLY UNLESS I REALLY WANT TO WATCH A MATCH - & THE PUB I USE ARE WELL PRICED FOR BEER
if you cant afford sky (I CAN AFFORD IT), either live with it (I LIVE WITHOUT IT UNLESS IT SUITS ME...THEN I VISIT THE PUB LIKE I SAID) (or try to get some more cash,dont sit there abusing the company (HAVE I ABUSED THE COMPANY?) for raising standards (IF YOU CLAIM THEY HAVE RAISED THE STANDARD, AGAIN - THAT IS OPINION)

Click to expand...

Let me refer you to each point in response above - block capitals - & as Bruce Springsteen pointed out "57 channels & there's nothing on"

CC4L I don't watch TV full stop as I have no license.

If I want to see matches (6 nations, International Football, Tennis or F1) I go to my mums and watch it there.

She does not have sky. She is getting some TV packet from TalkTalk but I wouldn't know if they includes sky.

All I know is I love F1 and have done since I was a kid.

I like watching the races and the fact that I now can't watch 10 of them because I don't have the access to Sky is a little infuriating.

I don't care if their coverage is better! I'm happy with the BBC's coverage and I will continue to be happy with it until I decide to get Sky (which I probably wont!)

For any other viewing needs, I watch replays of TV show (Like Ripper Street) on iPlayer, 4oD or ITV Player.

yeh if anyone is in a situation where they cant/dont want sky that is fine

but you have to realise that for some races you will need to watch the highlights,cant have cake and eat it

bazza if you have no issues with sky,why make such a racket?,just let people who do find things to watch on sky watch it in peace

i have sky/espn and i love it, so much footy,especially italian football league which i love.

covcity4life said:

yeh if anyone is in a situation where they cant/dont want sky that is fine

but you have to realise that for some races you will need to watch the highlights,cant have cake and eat it

bazza if you have no issues with sky,why make such a racket?,just let people who do find things to watch on sky watch it in peace

i have sky/espn and i love it, so much footy,especially italian football league which i love.

Click to expand...

I really have no issue with people choosing to have Sky. I choose not to. My original post is below in agreement with Richie's view about F1 selling its soul...like footy - not what I'd call "making a racket" tbh

"I have a bee-hive in my bonnet about the Sky issue. Although in fairness not just them... its ESPN/ITV...actually the FA/Premiership/FL who've sold football's sole...& f1; cricket; Rugby's ruling bodies want a cut of the cash too...& it'll all end in their tears when it backfires"

covcity4life said:

hate it when people moan about sky

sky F1 coverage is the best

sky football coverage is the best

you pay for what you get

if you cant afford sky, either live with it or try to get some more cash,dont sit there abusing the company for raising standards

Click to expand...

Raising standards? In what respect? Employing dickheads like Keys, Marsh, Gray, Merson, Phil Thompson etc etc etc

Creating the monster that is the Premier League today?

SkyblueBazza said:

My original post is below in agreement with Richie's view about F1 selling its soul...like footy

Click to expand...

This is the nail being hit on the head.

Once upon a time, F1 and Football was free for anyone to watch. You could watch all the races from F1 without having to pay any extra costs. The only thing you paid for was your TV license.

The issue here isn't to do with improving the quality and standards of the broadcasting. The issue relates to the fact that over the past 20 years, more and more things that were free, now come at a cost.

Not only do you have to pay the TV licensing company for the right to watch live TV, but if you want to watch sport, you then have to pay out again for that right too. It's nothing about quality, it's about fleecing joe public for every extra penny they have.

Ecclestone has split the rights for one reason and one reason alone. He splits it down the middle, ten games each and increases the amount each side has to pay for thos ten races. They end up paying more than they were when they had both had the right to screen all 20 of the races.

Ecclestone therefore comes out of it with a lot more money in his back pocket, and companies like Sky notice an upsurge in the amount of people buying sky+ or people buying the right to watch Sky Sports on their free view channels (and other tv providers).

You see both Ecclestone and Sky benefit as far as I can see it and the only people that loose out are the BBC (who are a company set up to provide for every member of the British Isles) and Joe Public who have to fawk out even more money just to see the things they like to watch.

Football was the same once. You could watch it free. Then the money grubbing bastards stepped in and suddenly, if you want to watch football from accross the globe, you need to buy a subscription to sky sports in order to do so.

As another poster said, Rugby is fast going down the same route. Sport used to be done for the love of it. Now it's being done for the money, fame and prestige that comes from it. We end up with diving prima donnas, who fall over at the slightest touch and then roll around on the floor like they've got a fatal injury.

Once the referee has done something about it, they get up as if nothing was wrong and go and do it again. Thankfully some refs are wise to it but some aren't. Football is fast becoming a sport for the rich as well.

People on here talk about the 20,000 "fake fans" and how their "excuses" they come up with are just ways of getting out of helping their club. They conclude they're not true fans of the club. But as i said earlier, they don't know the personal situations of those 20,000 fans so they have no right to comment on it.

But this isn't just a problem here in Coventry. Attendance accross the length and bredth of this country is falling. I had a look at season ticket prices at some of the big clubs in the Premiership. If you want to be in one of the best stands (the Sir Alex Ferguson stand no less) you need to pay in excess of £950.

I'm sorry but that's not exceptable. We've already looked at other countries and how they regulate their football tickets. The top club in Germany asks for £90 for a season ticket! Thats a wopping £860 less than what Manchester United ask for.

And that £90 as far as I'm aware is a fixed price for all footballing clubs, regardless of league position in Germany. You might say that the football in Germany isn't as good as the football in england and that the prices charged reflect why because the money recooped with ticket sales goes to buying expensive flashy players.

But that my friend is just an excuse. You could say it's to improve the quality of the service and the football but again that is just an excuse. It's a money making opperation that's taking us sports fans for idiots. They'd cut off their own arms and legs if they could make some money off it and would probably do the same to us too.

In the end, capitalism has a lot to answer for. It's destroying everything in its path and cares not for anyone but itself...

covcity4life said:

hate it when people moan about sky

sky F1 coverage is the best

sky football coverage is the best

you pay for what you get

if you cant afford sky, either live with it or try to get some more cash,dont sit there abusing the company for raising standards

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody would dispute the sheer amount of sport you can get with Sky (though I don't think their presentation is any better than most of the terrestrial channels). For me, what is disturbing about Sky is how they have a near-monopoly on sports now. It is all very well saying "you get what you pay for", but for many people there's little choice in the matter. People now have to pay a premium - far greater than the TV licence - if all they want to do is watch a bit of live cricket.

Colonel Mustard said:

I don't think anybody would dispute the sheer amount of sport you can get with Sky (though I don't think their presentation is any better than most of the terrestrial channels). For me, what is disturbing about Sky is how they have a near-monopoly on sports now. It is all very well saying "you get what you pay for", but for many people there's little choice in the matter. People now have to pay a premium - far greater than the TV licence - if all they want to do is watch a bit of live cricket.

Click to expand...

Well said Colonel!

fernandopartridge said:

Raising standards? In what respect? Employing dickheads like Keys, Marsh, Gray, Merson, Phil Thompson etc etc etc

Creating the monster that is the Premier League today?

Click to expand...

If it's such a monster, why are we as fans, and all other teams so desperate to get into it. Because we want to be and play the best teams and get the money that goes with it.

Colonel Mustard said:

I don't think anybody would dispute the sheer amount of sport you can get with Sky (though I don't think their presentation is any better than most of the terrestrial channels). For me, what is disturbing about Sky is how they have a near-monopoly on sports now. It is all very well saying "you get what you pay for", but for many people there's little choice in the matter. People now have to pay a premium - far greater than the TV licence - if all they want to do is watch a bit of live cricket.

Click to expand...

Please in MY personal view Andy Townsend drives me nuts, he does talk some bollocks. Having to endure him right now. But used to love listening to the fan commentators on Sky, they could be so funny.

skybluehugh said:

If it's such a monster, why are we as fans, and all other teams so desperate to get into it. Because we want to be and play the best teams and get the money that goes with it.

Click to expand...

But remember, if we ever do make it back to the Premiership, our season ticket prices will go up by at least a £100 or more.

Our tickets prices will go up by at least £15 to £20.

Many fans will suddenly find themselves priced out of season tickets.

Yeh many will pay the money to see the matches, but the same goes the other way.

Many wont go because they can't afford the hyke in price!

And the people who can't afford it now (while we're in league 1) will find it almost impossible!

A inevitable problem if we ever do make it back to the top!

Colonel Mustard said:

I don't think anybody would dispute the sheer amount of sport you can get with Sky (though I don't think their presentation is any better than most of the terrestrial channels). For me, what is disturbing about Sky is how they have a near-monopoly on sports now. It is all very well saying "you get what you pay for", but for many people there's little choice in the matter. People now have to pay a premium - far greater than the TV licence - if all they want to do is watch a bit of live cricket.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough I have sky mainly for cricket. In fairness it's coverage is far far better than the terrestrial days.

Grendel said:

Funnily enough I have sky mainly for cricket. In fairness it's coverage is far far better than the terrestrial days.

Click to expand...

5 are good but they barely get any coverage-nothing live and just an hours highlights show.

I'm still amazed that anybody actually pays for SKY..I can't afford it, yet I managed to watch 16 hours cricket consecutively one day last year thanks to the internet.

skybluehugh said:

Please in MY personal view Andy Townsend drives me nuts, he does talk some bollocks. Having to endure him right now. But used to love listening to the fan commentators on Sky, they could be so funny.

Click to expand...

Townsend is a tit. The only football coverage that came close to near-perfect was Football Italia with Sir James Richardson. Still producing the gold for the Guardian's footie coverage.

Football Italia was ace. Here you go, plus with George Weah running the length of the pitch versus Verona, sigh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwOLi3J4Y78

Grendel said:

Funnily enough I have sky mainly for cricket. In fairness it's coverage is far far better than the terrestrial days.

Click to expand...

Oh I don't know about that. Miles better, of course, than the old BBC days with AR Lewis and bloody Illingworth. But Channel 4's coverage was excellent. They had the best team yet assembled: Nicholas, Atherton, Hussain, Simon Hughes, Benaud, Slater etc. They also helped popularise the game again with their fanciful vibe, including the odd-but-inspired choice of Mambo No. 5 as the theme.

In fairness to Sky, they did take on Atherton and Hussain and kick Allott, Colvile and Willis to the curb. And there's no better one-upsmanship banter in the commentary box than that between Hussain and Botham.

Nonleagueherewecome said:

Football Italia was ace. Here you go, plus with George Weah running the length of the pitch versus Verona, sigh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwOLi3J4Y78

Click to expand...

Ahhh yes. Nothing better than relaxing on a Sunday watching Weah, Baggio, Gullit, Seedorf, Signori, Del Piero et al with Peter Brackley and Kenneth Wolstenholme.

I also have sky mainly for the excellent cricket coverage.
Far too much football on and of much lower quality than the cricket

Brackley and Wolstenholme were a class above the other commentators back then. And yes when I praised 5's cricket coverage I meant 4 in effect as was seeing as it's the same gang; they all got head-hunted by SKY as a result of their success.

Right, time to grab an hour or two's kip before the cricket starts!

RichieGunns said:

But remember, if we ever do make it back to the Premiership, our season ticket prices will go up by at least a £100 or more.

Our tickets prices will go up by at least £15 to £20.

Many fans will suddenly find themselves priced out of season tickets.

Yeh many will pay the money to see the matches, but the same goes the other way.

Many wont go because they can't afford the hyke in price!

And the people who can't afford it now (while we're in league 1) will find it almost impossible!

A inevitable problem if we ever do make it back to the top!

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you, I don't understand it myself. But it would still be great to have a season where we at least stand a chance of doing

Colonel Mustard said:

Oh I don't know about that. Miles better, of course, than the old BBC days with AR Lewis and bloody Illingworth. But Channel 4's coverage was excellent. They had the best team yet assembled: Nicholas, Atherton, Hussain, Simon Hughes, Benaud, Slater etc. They also helped popularise the game again with their fanciful vibe, including the odd-but-inspired choice of Mambo No. 5 as the theme.

In fairness to Sky, they did take on Atherton and Hussain and kick Allott, Colvile and Willis to the curb. And there's no better one-upsmanship banter in the commentary box than that between Hussain and Botham.

Click to expand...

Here, here. But that is why I think Sky get such a hard time. If you think about how much their innovations have made all the other channels up their game massively. Even Freeview was a consequence of the terrestrial stations trying to claw back advertising from Sky. I do agree the have had a bad influence on our beloved football but they could not have done so unless people were willing to pay for it. And one last point tickets for Prem games should be even cheaper than the lower leagues due to the massive amount of money they get from Sky

skybluehugh said:

Here, here. But that is why I think Sky get such a hard time. If you think about how much their innovations have made all the other channels up their game massively. Even Freeview was a consequence of the terrestrial stations trying to claw back advertising from Sky. I do agree the have had a bad influence on our beloved football but they could not have done so unless people were willing to pay for it. And one last point tickets for Prem games should be even cheaper than the lower leagues due to the massive amount of money they get from Sky

Click to expand...

But they aren't because the enthasis is made on making as much money as possible.

They take their fans for a ride and a fair amount take the bate.

I understand some people really want to see their teams and they'll find the money to do so.

But to then assume that everyone else can too is very unfair and the clubs effectively price out some of their most loyal (but poorer off) fans.

Anyway i digress. I too would love to see us back in the premiership.

But I worry that whoever is in charge of us whenever that happens, will take advantage of being in the Prem to raise the prices sky high :/

In the end they don't have to worry about revenue streams to a degree because the sky contract and just being in the Premiership brings a fair whack of money per year.

But for some strange reason, without fail, they decide to charge their fans a fortune...sad really