The First Financial Nail In The Football Coffin

[Legod Third Coming]

That is not so much thanks to Sky, as thanks to the constitution (?) of the EPL - i.e. they act as one entity for the purposes of selling broadcasting rights to matches. Wouldn't matter if it was Sky or anybody else buying those rights.

 

Correct, but it would be hard to sell rights if there was noone there to buy them. So SKY must utlimately be responsible for the value of those rights.l

[Minty]

Then I trust that you also:

 

1. Refuse to pay your BBC licence on the basis that its top stars earn equivalent salaries to footballers (£18m paid to Jonathan Ross pre Sachs-gate...)

2. Refuse to watch the Grand Prix, because the drivers can earn upwards of £20m per annum for driving a car.

3. Marched against the banks to protest at the average investment bankers' wages (£6bn paid out by Goldman Sachs on annual bonuses).

4. Do not shop in BHS or any of the other outlets owned by Philip Green...

 

SKY do not pay footballers. Football clubs pay footballers.

 

So rather than demonise SKY, why don't you demonise Nicola Cortese???

 

You cannot pick SKY from a capitalist world order and isolate them as being responsible for establishing the economic imbalances that exist globally. That is just a bit daft in all honesty.

With respect LTC, you don't know what I do or don't do, but suffice to say that I do what I can, where I can, in line with my beliefs. I do boycott many shops and brands, and I have protested. I stand up for my beliefs where I can, and I'm also doing something about it, as I am Director of a Social Enterprise.

 

It would be impossible to do everything in line with your beliefs actually, I believe that sometimes you need to engage with the thing you don't agree with in order to try and change it.

 

Also, I didn't say that *I* demonise Sky. I don't particularly like them, just as I don't particularly like any of the larger companies who put shareholder profit before other considerations. I also didn't pick Sky, they happened to be the topic of discussion. I'll happily discuss other companies.

 

My choice of phrase was probably wrong. I am a hypocrite - we all are. We all do things that we often say we don't like or agree with. Some are less hypocritical than others. The difficulties are that when large corporations get into the powerful positions that they have, it is often impossible to not have to shop somewhere or deal with a company you would rather not. For the man on the street, who loves football and used to watch it quite happily on terrestrial tv, to ask him to choose between paying a company he doesn't particularly like, or not doing the thing he loves, is not a fair nor straightforward choice.

 

Sky saw a commercial opportunity in 1992 and took it. Their 'investment' in football has been a direct contributor to players' wage increases, along with wider football marketing initiatives. That was the general point I was making.

 

Oh, and for clarity, I have ALWAYS stated my disappointment and personal dilemma at Saints' involvement in such an industry. But I am human, and I love football and the team I grew up with, which is what makes it all the harder to walk away, as much as I would dearly love to sometimes.

[Legod Third Coming]

With respect LTC, you don't know what I do or don't do, but suffice to say that I do what I can, where I can, in line with my beliefs. I do boycott many shops and brands, and I have protested. I stand up for my beliefs where I can, and I'm also doing something about it, as I am Director of a Social Enterprise.

 

It would be impossible to do everything in line with your beliefs actually, I believe that sometimes you need to engage with the thing you don't agree with in order to try and change it.

 

Also, I didn't say that *I* demonise Sky. I don't particularly like them, just as I don't particularly like any of the larger companies who put shareholder profit before other considerations. I also didn't pick Sky, they happened to be the topic of discussion. I'll happily discuss other companies.

 

My choice of phrase was probably wrong. I am a hypocrite - we all are. We all do things that we often say we don't like or agree with. Some are less hypocritical than others. The difficulties are that when large corporations get into the powerful positions that they have, it is often impossible to not have to shop somewhere or deal with a company you would rather not. For the man on the street, who loves football and used to watch it quite happily on terrestrial tv, to ask him to choose between paying a company he doesn't particularly like, or not doing the thing he loves, is not a fair nor straightforward choice.

 

Sky saw a commercial opportunity in 1992 and took it. Their 'investment' in football has been a direct contributor to players' wage increases, along with wider football marketing initiatives. That was the general point I was making.

 

Oh, and for clarity, I have ALWAYS stated my disappointment and personal dilemma at Saints' involvement in such an industry. But I am human, and I love football and the team I grew up with, which is what makes it all the harder to walk away, as much as I would dearly love to sometimes.

 

A superb reasoned response thank God!

 

FWIW I agree with a huge bulk of what you say - and I hope you were not offended that the natural assumption was that (as is most often the case) SKY were being unfairly 'picked on'.

 

I have no particular axe to grind for or against SKY other than to point out that they exist in a free market which encourages their existence and that, dependent on your beliefs, they do nothing that is not legitimate. I actually admire their programming quality and am grateful that, but for them, the technology now available to the television watcher is far higher than had it been left to non-commercial organisations or those with the typical advertising model. They innovate and I admire innovation.

 

If you then want a debate about the economics of the world order, I would love to have one - probably not here because it's a football forum.

[saint si]

Correct, but it would be hard to sell rights if there was noone there to buy them. So SKY must utlimately be responsible for the value of those rights.l

 

Fair point, though there must be some competition in the market otherwise Sky wouldn't be paying anything like what they are.

[Legod Third Coming]

Fair point, though there must be some competition in the market otherwise Sky wouldn't be paying anything like what they are.

 

True. SKY and EPL happened to come together at the right time for both parties. SKY needed subscribers and the EPL needed money. Whether that was some Faustian deal as others might believe is not a debate I would even want to enter. There is a product available, SKY are the highest bidder for it, so they must utlimately be responsible for the money today.

[scotty]

And you've only just noticed this?

 

No.

[teamsaint]

The EU accounts for around 10% of the total non-UK broadcasting revenue (and about 5% including the UK), so not a massive amount in the grand scheme of things.

 

However, the UK alone accounts for nearly £600m a year, which is around 55-60%. If the rights are to be sold as one across Europe, it seems plausible that the value of UK rights will be diminished as BSkyB will no longer have "exclusive" rights to sell to customers in the UK. While Sky as a whole (including its Sky Deutschland and Sky Italia operations which are also massive - albeit not quite on the same scale as BSkyB) may acquire the majority of the pan-European rights, because someone in the UK could buy a decoder and subscription from Greece or Romania for a fraction of the price as BSkyB charge, that potentially has an effect on the price Sky will be willing to pay.

 

Anyone thinking that it'll drive down the price of a Sky Sports subscription is, sadly, very much mistaken.

 

Best way to drive down that cost is to unsubscribe from all sky pay channels, and then get one of their half price deals. I got a year and then am currently on another 6 months at £20 a month.

[aintforever]

Hopefully all the pubs that have been fined over the last decade or so can now sue Sky for compo and lost earnings etc.

 

Personally I think Sky have ruined football, I couldn't give a toss about shiny new stadia or 100K a week foreign t@ssers. I preferred it when as a kid I could get into the Dell for £2 and watch Matt le Tiss take the p!ss out of the European Champions and be 2 yards away from the action. You could stand where you liked, smoke a fag and have a laff. By comparison, football today is just expensive, sterile and dull - all for the benefit of w@nker glory supporters who want to watch Man Utd on the box.

[Thedelldays]

Hopefully all the pubs that have been fined over the last decade or so can now sue Sky for compo and lost earnings etc.

 

Personally I think Sky have ruined football, I couldn't give a toss about shiny new stadia or 100K a week foreign t@ssers. I preferred it when as a kid I could get into the Dell for £2 and watch Matt le Tiss take the p!ss out of the European Champions and be 2 yards away from the action. You could stand where you liked, smoke a fag and have a laff. By comparison, football today is just expensive, sterile and dull - all for the benefit of w@nker glory supporters who want to watch Man Utd on the box.

 

again, you are showing you have no clue what so ever.

 

 

oh, and when was this £2 entrance fee when MLT took the pish out of the european champions..?

[Rut]

I think TV companies as a whole (not just Sky) and wary of the way things are going. Landlines, CD's & books were all mainstays of society not so long ago. They still are to some degree but not as much thanks to new technologies.

 

Same with watching football on TV. If Saints get to the Prem then the 'is there a stream for the game?' won't be such a stupid question. There probably will be. All round the world there are 3pm Sat live English games and someone is streaming them.

 

They are fighting a losing battle.

 

Being able to stick a dish up and point it at Greece is prob the least of their worries. How many people would actually do this? Compared to those willing to go to watchpremfootball.com - not many.

 

See what happens anyway....

[SNSUN]

More Championship TV? That can only be a good thing, no matter which league we're in in a few years.

 

I think this league really is the best - the fight for Premiership promotion heats it up, games are fought well, and you usually have big teams coming up from League One. I love the nPc the last time we were in it, and I still do. (Nothing to do with our position, it's just a great league.)

[ericb]

again, you are showing you have no clue what so ever.

 

 

oh, and when was this £2 entrance fee when MLT took the pish out of the european champions..?

 

If i remember right i think it was £3.00 for juniors in the milton road end in the late 80's when we beat liverpool 4-1

[scotty]

Hopefully all the pubs that have been fined over the last decade or so can now sue Sky for compo and lost earnings etc.

 

Personally I think Sky have ruined football, I couldn't give a toss about shiny new stadia or 100K a week foreign t@ssers. I preferred it when as a kid I could get into the Dell for £2 and watch Matt le Tiss take the p!ss out of the European Champions and be 2 yards away from the action.You could stand where you liked, smoke a fag and have a laff. By comparison, football today is just expensive, sterile and dull - all for the benefit of w@nker glory supporters who want to watch Man Utd on the box.

 

Eloquent, accurate, and perfectly sums up my feelings towards sky better than I could ever have articulated myself.

[Thedelldays]

If i remember right i think it was £3.00 for juniors in the milton road end in the late 80's when we beat liverpool 4-1

that would have been whilst banned from europe..?

[Junior Mullet]

That's all well and good... I don't have Sky because I am one of those who don't agree with the amount of money in football and I'm not a hypocrite... but the bigger issue here is that of the £40 a month, only a relatively small fraction goes towards the production costs of what are, I agree, good quality football programs. The vast majority is going directly to players as part of wages. I don't mind paying for a quality product, but the money in football is obscene, there is ZERO justification for it, in world where that money could be put to far better use, and THAT is why so many people 'demonise' Sky, for their contribution.

 

Add to that something about the ordinary working man and his family being priced out of 'his' game and you sound very much like me. I totally echo your sentiments.

[aintforever]

again, you are showing you have no clue what so ever.

 

 

oh, and when was this £2 entrance fee when MLT took the pish out of the european champions..?

 

It probably wasn't but you get my point. Football today is cr@p, expensive and boring in comparison to the pre-Sky years.

[Guan 2.0]

http://newsthump.com/2011/10/04/pub-tv-ruling-could-see-return-to-dark-days-of-sub-50k-a-week-wages-warns-sky/

[Legod Third Coming]

It probably wasn't but you get my point. Football today is cr@p, expensive and boring in comparison to the pre-Sky years.

 

If you think the football you're seeing today is worse than that under Branfoot and even some under Chris Nicholl, you are mad. If you think it's worse than that under Gray and Wigley, I'm stunned you can operate a computer...

 

(Oh and having watched football at all levels for years, I can tell you categorically that Barcelona today are probably bettered only by Brazil of the 70s).

 

If you're talking about The Dell, we all miss it. I especially miss sitting there in the p i ssing rain and watching us lose 1-0 with a last minute goal to Bolton or Blackburn or some other boring, useless team who used to turn up, park the bus and nick a really sh i tty goal on the break in the last minute...

[aintforever]

If you think the football you're seeing today is worse than that under Branfoot and even some under Chris Nicholl, you are mad. If you think it's worse than that under Gray and Wigley, I'm stunned you can operate a computer...

 

(Oh and having watched football at all levels for years, I can tell you categorically that Barcelona today are probably bettered only by Brazil of the 70s).

 

If you're talking about The Dell, we all miss it. I especially miss sitting there in the p i ssing rain and watching us lose 1-0 with a last minute goal to Bolton or Blackburn or some other boring, useless team who used to turn up, park the bus and nick a really sh i tty goal on the break in the last minute...

 

The dross we watched under Gray and Wigley was part of the Sky years but that's irrelevant, I wasn't talking about a particular managers style more the matchday experience.

[Saint_John]

The BBC have just announced cuts of 15% to the Sports budget and also cuts in Local radio.

 

I believe one thing under discussion is doing away with DUEL COMMENTRY on Football matches by Local Radio, i.e. when we play away at say Derby then Radio Solent will take the Radio Derby commentry, likewise when sides come to us they will take the Solent commentry with Dave M "sitting on the fence" over certain decisions etc.

 

I cannot see a number of the "big sides" being happy with this arrangment and imo they would provide their own commentry team for games. Now I don't know what the arrangement is between Radio Solent and "The Saints Player" but I cannot see fans being happy to pay money to Saints for match commentry and finding some Skate or somebody else giving a one-sided commentry of the match.

Therefore the question, would Nicola go his own way and provide Saints Commentry on the Saints Player at a additional COST ?

 

Then I remembered a few weeks ago when our U18 thrashed manure at Staplewood, MUTV showed the match on the internet. It seemed at that time the MUTV were geared up to showing ALL THEIR OWN GAMES, and it is only the agreement between Sky & the PL that is stopping them.

 

Could the victory by Mrs Skate actually lead to the breakup of the TV agreement ? and for Clubs go their own way and sell their own rights as they do in Italy ??

[Legod Third Coming]

The BBC have just announced cuts of 15% to the Sports budget and also cuts in Local radio.

 

I believe one thing under discussion is doing away with DUEL COMMENTRY on Football matches by Local Radio, i.e. when we play away at say Derby then Radio Solent will take the Radio Derby commentry, likewise when sides come to us they will take the Solent commentry with Dave M "sitting on the fence" over certain decisions etc.

 

I cannot see a number of the "big sides" being happy with this arrangment and imo they would provide their own commentry team for games. Now I don't know what the arrangement is between Radio Solent and "The Saints Player" but I cannot see fans being happy to pay money to Saints for match commentry and finding some Skate or somebody else giving a one-sided commentry of the match.

Therefore the question, would Nicola go his own way and provide Saints Commentry on the Saints Player at a additional COST ?

 

Then I remembered a few weeks ago when our U18 thrashed manure at Staplewood, MUTV showed the match on the internet. It seemed at that time the MUTV were geared up to showing ALL THEIR OWN GAMES, and it is only the agreement between Sky & the PL that is stopping them.

 

Could the victory by Mrs Skate actually lead to the breakup of the TV agreement ? and for Clubs go their own way and sell their own rights as they do in Italy ??

 

If they do, this is a disaster for clubs like ours. One thing few people thank the FA (EPL) for is the collective sale of league rights which ends up with teams like ours receiving a far higher proportion of revenue than if we sold our own rights.

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

it won't make any difference. All the premier league have to say is that for public broadcast only the sky pub channel is authorised for public showings. Job done. The landlady can continue to buy her greek channel but won't be authorised for displaying of it in a public place.