24/25 Sky TV Coverage

[Returning ram]

11 minutes ago, Crewton said:

In my case, I really don't fancy a beer at 10 O'Clock these days, although many do and probably will. So I won't bother and that's a longstanding tradition broken, all because the ever-greedy premier league wouldn't cough up a decent package for the EFL clubs. Yet again, fans are disposable, and the fans of clubs outside of the premier league are the most disposable of all. 

All of the benefits of Sky TV money that you've quoted would still have been available without such wholesale contempt for the traditions of the professional game if only English football had spoken with one voice. But it's been greed, greed, greed, every step of the way.

 

24 live games a season, 10 midweek, BH games and moving to another day will mean that it's probably a handful of home matches that KO at 12.30 per season. Many more changes than we had this season ? I also prob won't have a beer at 10, but would just stay on pub a bit longer to make up for it.

I'd disagree with that, the game has to be marketable, same as every other sport, T20, NFL at Wembley for example, football isn't alone, consumer demand drives change and that's what's happened. Times move on, blame sky for it, but if it hadnt been then it would have been someone else.

 

 

 

 

[Crewton]

6 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

24 live games a season, 10 midweek, BH games and moving to another day will mean that it's probably a handful of home matches that KO at 12.30 per season. Many more changes than we had this season ? I also prob won't have a beer at 10, but would just stay on pub a bit longer to make up for it.

I'd disagree with that, the game has to be marketable, same as every other sport, T20, NFL at Wembley for example, football isn't alone, consumer demand drives change and that's what's happened. Times move on, blame sky for it, but if it hadnt been then it would have been someone else.

 

 

 

 

It's not consumer demand from the UK though, but it's UK football attendees who are always the ones being inconvenienced.

We don't get a say and that's just not right.

[Returning ram]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Because I work on weekdays and don't particularly want to be going to the pub at 9am with my kids in tow on a weekend.

Which is why I asked, there will be 5/6 games then that will change before hand, but after you can stay in longer 😏

Must admit, my kids get bored after they eaten food in a pub, so no chance of getting them in twice.
 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, Returning ram said:

24 live games a season, 10 midweek, BH games and moving to another day will mean that it's probably a handful of home matches that KO at 12.30 per season. Many more changes than we had this season ? I also prob won't have a beer at 10, but would just stay on pub a bit longer to make up for it.

I'd disagree with that, the game has to be marketable, same as every other sport, T20, NFL at Wembley for example, football isn't alone, consumer demand drives change and that's what's happened. Times move on, blame sky for it, but if it hadnt been then it would have been someone else.

 

 

 

 

The game survived for over 100 years without it being marketable to overseas 'customers'. The game is nothing without the fans and its about time they were put back to the forefront of thinking as opposed to an afterthought. Hopefully an independent regulator will see to this.

[Returning ram]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The game survived for over 100 years without it being marketable to overseas 'customers'. The game is nothing without the fans and its about time they were put back to the forefront of thinking as opposed to an afterthought. Hopefully an independent regulator will see to this.

The game has evolved over the years, fans have evolved over the years, attendances are on the rise and the days of 3pm KOs are a thing of the past.

Years ago we were having crowds of 13k at a decaying ground, where the environment was not welcome for families or women and often intimidating for away fans to the point they wouldn't come. Nowadays attendances are 25k plus and still owners make losses, an independent regulator won't stop more money coming in.

Also not sure where overseas bit has come in, do we really think that the championship is that attractive to that market ? PL fair enough, but I would guess that the change in our league is driven by the UK.

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

The game has evolved over the years, fans have evolved over the years, attendances are on the rise and the days of 3pm KOs are a thing of the past.

Years ago we were having crowds of 13k at a decaying ground, where the environment was not welcome for families or women and often intimidating for away fans to the point they wouldn't come. Nowadays attendances are 25k plus and still owners make losses, an independent regulator won't stop more money coming in.

Also not sure where overseas bit has come in, do we really think that the championship is that attractive to that market ? PL fair enough, but I would guess that the change in our league is driven by the UK.

It's driven by advertising, and they sell it around the world for the very same reason. When have you ever seen an authentic survey of the UK public that's indicated that they want even more EFL football at stupid o'clock on days of the week when hardly anyone wants to watch a football match?

[Wolfie20]

You would assume (though don't bank on it) that the EFL would have canvassed all 72 clubs before agreeing to this deal. If that's the case then it's the clubs themselves who have sold the attending fans down the river and the lure of extra money has probably meant more to them than what best suits their fan base.

It would be interesting to know how each club voted.

[G STAR RAM]

19 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

The game has evolved over the years, fans have evolved over the years, attendances are on the rise and the days of 3pm KOs are a thing of the past.

Years ago we were having crowds of 13k at a decaying ground, where the environment was not welcome for families or women and often intimidating for away fans to the point they wouldn't come. Nowadays attendances are 25k plus and still owners make losses, an independent regulator won't stop more money coming in.

Also not sure where overseas bit has come in, do we really think that the championship is that attractive to that market ? PL fair enough, but I would guess that the change in our league is driven by the UK.

Ask people in the grounds if they think the game is changing for the better or the worse, I'm pretty sure the concensus would be the latter.

[Returning ram]

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It's driven by advertising, and they sell it around the world for the very same reason. When have you ever seen an authentic survey of the UK public that's indicated that they want even more EFL football at stupid o'clock on days of the week when hardly anyone wants to watch a football match?

The changing of the game times on a Saturday, midweek won't move. Three games at 12.30, to sell advertising you need to have an audience, those will mostly be fans of the teams involved, therefore the target audience as they are more likely to buy a sky sports subscription. 

[Crewton]

23 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

You would assume (though don't bank on it) that the EFL would have canvassed all 72 clubs before agreeing to this deal. If that's the case then it's the clubs themselves who have sold the attending fans down the river and the lure of extra money has probably meant more to them than what best suits their fan base.

It would be interesting to know how each club voted.

It was reported as being a "unanimous" decision, with no details of any dissenters. To be fair to David Clowes, it'd take a brave owner of Derby County to fall out with the EFL over a TV deal after what happened the last time. Trevor Birch's statement after the deal was agreed was fawning towards Sky in the extreme. The EFL were desperate for an agreement, because they see it understandably as a lifeline for quite a few ailing clubs, and the FA are the PL's lapdogs.

Only a Government Regulator would have the power to place restrictions on such deals and as yet, we don't have one.

[Kathcairns]

25 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

The changing of the game times on a Saturday, midweek won't move. Three games at 12.30, to sell advertising you need to have an audience, those will mostly be fans of the teams involved, therefore the target audience as they are more likely to buy a sky sports subscription. 

I must be old fashioned, but foot ball to me is at 3 on a saturday and tuesday nights.

[Returning ram]

32 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ask people in the grounds if they think the game is changing for the better or the worse, I'm pretty sure the concensus would be the latter.

I think a certain generation would, I think a lot though would be more concerned with VAR than KO times. 
 

Proof will be in the pudding as they say, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same attendances next year as this, we shall see.

 

[Kathcairns]

2 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

I think a certain generation would, I think a lot though would be more concerned with VAR than KO times. 
 

Proof will be in the pudding as they say, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same attendances next year as this, we shall see.

 

Its not really proof though is it, because if you are a fan you would still prob turnout if the games were played anytime in the day or night, but it shouldnt have to be like that.

[Crewton]

The underlying point is that, despite the headline figures of "£935M" and "50% increase!", it amounts to an increase for next year over what it would have been that might just be enough to cover our increased wage bill for the season - that's all - for a fir bit of disruption to match-going fans. And that's before you factor in the further loss in gate receipts (I doubt the pathetic compensation for being chosen for TV has been increased).

 

[Returning ram]

2 minutes ago, Kathcairns said:

Its not really proof though is it, because if you are a fan you would still prob turnout if the games were played anytime in the day or night, but it shouldnt have to be like that.

Proof regarding my original point, that attendances won't change because of this. The world is changing, football as well, you only have to look at the women's game to see the journey that has taken and the part that TV money has played in that.
 

You don't have to agree with it, totally get that, there is lots that I don't, but imo there is a difference between that and not seeing the positive influence that the money pumped into the game has resulted in a massive growth in attendances.

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, Returning ram said:

Proof regarding my original point, that attendances won't change because of this. The world is changing, football as well, you only have to look at the women's game to see the journey that has taken and the part that TV money has played in that.
 

You don't have to agree with it, totally get that, there is lots that I don't, but imo there is a difference between that and not seeing the positive influence that the money pumped into the game has resulted in a massive growth in attendances.

The influx of foreign money has been anything other than positive for the English game.

[Grimbeard]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The game survived for over 100 years without it being marketable to overseas 'customers'. The game is nothing without the fans and its about time they were put back to the forefront of thinking as opposed to an afterthought. Hopefully an independent regulator will see to this.

I agree with your sentiments, but your hopes for anything good from a government inspired quango are doomed to disappointment.

[Returning ram]

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The influx of foreign money has been anything other than positive for the English game.

I presume we digress from sky money now or foreign money to sky ?

Wouldn't agree or disagree either way tbh, if your a city, Forest or Chelsea fan for example, I'm sure they'd disagree, for me, not really sure it has impacted me that much.

[Grimbeard]

41 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The underlying point is that, despite the headline figures of "£935M" and "50% increase!", it amounts to an increase for next year over what it would have been that might just be enough to cover our increased wage bill for the season - that's all - for a fir bit of disruption to match-going fans. And that's before you factor in the further loss in gate receipts (I doubt the pathetic compensation for being chosen for TV has been increased).

 

It wont even do that. If each team in any given division is receives an equal cash injection, then wages and transfer fees will rise.

Basic inflationary economics innit?

[Kathcairns]

37 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The influx of foreign money has been anything other than positive for the English game.

To many foreign owners, and now american actors are getting in on the act. I think in years to come they will get fed up of football and go onto something else. Thats why if David Clowes gets some investment in the club i hope he keeps the majority of the shares.