I hate Sky!

All dots · February 14, 2008

[quote user="diabolicalmastermind"]Living in Yorkshire myself I''ve always thought of Hull as a rugby town anyway. Much like Wigan is.[/quote]

Blimey, that''s a killer point ! I thought the debate was about potential fan bases, sizes of local populations etc not whether or not you thought that K on Hull is a rugby town. I saw that Hull Fc had an attendance recently of close on 20K, now that you have raised the point what''s the average Hull KR home attendance ? I really don''t know so I''m not making any point apart from just being curious.

SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! · February 14, 2008

Hull''s KC Stadium has a capacity of 25,404, so about 1,000 less than Carrow Road, their average attendance is 17,206 this season. They on average fill 67.7% of their stadium! Norwich on average this season have filled 94.1% of Carrow Road.

If Hull did make it into the Premier League they would be exactly like Wigan in my opinion, maybe sell out for the big games, but not by people wanting to support Hull. If they stayed up for a season or two average attendances would drop back to the level they are at now.

Jim Smith · February 14, 2008

Sorry if i''m being stupid but are you trying to argue that Hull has a population in excess of 1 million people because I find that very hard to believe.

For what its worth I think Hull are potentially quite a similar club to us in that its a provincial city with one football team and is quite independent both in outlook and geography. We have a bigger fanbase though. In fact was there not a survey last year which showed we were about 16th in britain in terms of fan base (including ranger and celtic). I always think we have more fans living all over the country than many clubs hence our exiled supporters groups are all very well supported.

Syteanric · February 14, 2008

i too hate sky.. the way to save football would be to boycott this faceless organisation.

When sky signed the premiership deal in 1992 i think it was more a case of Desperation than shrewd business sense and foresight... No one had Satellite TV back then... the pull of WWF, MTV and early shows of the simpsons wasn''t enough to attract people to the service. Landing football meant people HAD to subscribe if they wanted to watch the game (useful for away games i''ll admit)

Sky was cheap and affordable at the time, they had a monthly subscription service which most early customers could afford.

if you ask a sky subscriber what they subscribe for they might say football, Lost, SKy HD or Skyplus or whatever they want... Its worth noting that sky has over 200 channels... the majority of these channels most subscribers will NEVER watch. its worth noting that nearly all of those 200 channels are commercial based... those commercials pay for the service. Not your subscriptions.

Phone up sky''s Marketing department and ask them how much it will cost to put an advert on Sky Sports at half time vs Man Utd and Liverpool. then ask them how much it would cost to put the same advert on at midnight on sky 3? the difference would be astronomical.

A chap knocked on the front door last week trying to sell me sky. he couldnt answer the question when i asked him why should i pay monthly for something which, through its advertising revenue, Should be free?

He tried to tell me that the TV Liscence pays for all commercial channels on Terrestrial Tv.. it doesnt.. it pays for the BBC, local radio, National BBC radio and the bbc.co.uk website. ITV, channel 4, Channel 5 and the free view stations are paid for by advertising.

If everyone in this country handed back their sky subscription for being charged for nothing (which is essentially what your paying for!) then the company would go bankrupt.. not because they had no subscribers but because the advertisers would pull out.. i dont work for sky and im not privy to facts and figures there... but im willing to bet that had they not of landed the football deal when they did then there would be no Sky TV today... by securing the deal they knew people would be duped into paying. they make double the money...

contrast this to Virgin Medias TV service, you can sign up to their free view package, get additional channels (including sky 1 and Setanta i believe, through a viewing card) and watch them all for FREE. theres no subscription. the Adverts are going out to a wider audience. the programmes are being made through the money made in this advertising.

If people really wanted to save football they''d hand back their subscriptions and wait for the company to wind up.... the upside? A terrestrial channel would pick up the rights.. games would be broadcast free having been paid for by advertising... the Premiership sides would get less money which would tighten the game up... hence Benefitting the smaller sides and England.

Who here has sky? just what, Exactly, are you paying for? Happy at paying for a service which, technically, should be provided for free?

jas :)

Web Team - Vince · February 14, 2008

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

contrast this to Virgin Medias TV service, you can sign up to their free view package, get additional channels (including sky 1 and Setanta i believe, through a viewing card) and watch them all for FREE. theres no subscription. the Adverts are going out to a wider audience. the programmes are being made through the money made in this advertising.

[/quote]You can get VM''s Freeview channel line-up equivalent if you take their phone service.Sky 1/2/3, Sky News, SSN, Sky Travel - not available any VM packages due to the Sky/Virgin dispute over carriage fees (i.e. how much the channels pay to be part of the package; or the operators pays to havea channel as part of their package)Sentanta - Virgin TV XL customers get various channels included, but for everyone else it requires an extra subscription.But I agree with your general point Jas - football subscriptions keep Sky afloat.

Taxing · February 14, 2008