Sky tv is ruining British Football!

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

if sky hadn''t aquired the rights to the football in 1992 then i think its fair to say BSB wouldn''t exist as a company today.... there was no "lost" or 24 back then... just MTV and the simpsons.. hardly enough to attract customers.... they would of been gone years ago if they hadnt of taken the risk.

jas :)

[/quote]Yes there would,  Sky was trading on Film channels up to then,  and still would today, regardless of Sports.  Admittedly Sports/Football on Sky has made it huge,  but it''s a bit naive to think Sky is just Football.And it''s not Sky''s fault The Premier League is like it is,  it''s because of armchair supporters subscribing.  It''s because people say they are football supporters because they pay a subscription.  It''s a beast that won''t slow in a recession,  it won''t make a jot''s difference. 

[William Darby 0]

''Sky has ruined football in the way that it has created the ''big four''

at the top of the premiership and made the premiership a for gone

conclusion most seasons''How do you work that out?  It started with Man U who had financial backing, a good manager and a group of young kids coming through.  Then came the sugar daddies namely Blackburn who were bank rolled at the time, and what continues to this day, is Sky actively promoting the teams who consistently do well.  Chelsea came along, they got a lot of air time,  Arsenal have as do Liverpool.  Man City has entered the game big time now,  if they push on in a season or two, all you''ll get is Man City Man City Man City.  You see, Sky don''t create the top teams they promote them, in turn they get the lions share, until another big hitter comes along.

[Theres only one Ken Foggo 0]

To me, the real problem is because of the Sky money on offer the financial difference between being in the Championship and in the Premiership has become completely ridiculous. Relegation has become too financially disastrous. Look at Southampton and Charlton. Teams like Middlesbrough must be terrified the same thing will happen to them if they go down - hence the game at Chelsea the other day when they played a 9-0-1 formation in a desperate bid to snatch a point!!!

[The Walking Man 13]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="The Duke"]

After is was announced yesterday that BskyB had won the rights to 5 of the 6 packages for Premier league football for three year from 2010 onwards, for a record 1.78 Billion. Yes thats 1.78 Billion! I felt a very deep sadness for the way English football is heading. 

I am worried on two points really. First, surely this will only serve to make the rich richer and the poor, well stay poor. How are the likes of the BBC and terestrial televison supposed to compete with this? I subscribe to Setanta for the modest 12.99 that it costs but i will have to cancel come 2010 as its really not worth it for just 23 live games on a Saturday evening which i might miss due to drink after city games or just not want to watch someone like Wigan v''s Hull!

My second worry is that the Premier league has become too realiant on this money from BskyB. 1.78 billion is a big sum of money especially in todays climate. What happens if BskyB pull out or go under much like the old ITV sport deal. The Premiership would simply be brought to its knees and robbed of all its best players. Even i must admit i am glad that players like Ronaldo and Torres chose to play here and it will be a sad day if the top players in the world do not wish to play in our top league.

While i''m going at BskyB, Another thing that gets me about them is the way they handle Champoinship matches. Its is looked upon seemingly as the Premierships poorer cousin, viewed the same as the Blue Square league in thier eyes. In fact i would say Setanta''s coverage of the Blue Square is superior to that of Sky''s coverage of the Championship. The comentators are always rubbish and there is always useles Don Goodman what has he ever done? The Championship has the 4th highest average league attendance in Europe only behind the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A. So why the is the coverage so bad?

[/quote]Surely it''s is only because of the BskyB money that we have the likes of Ronaldo and Torres playing in this country. Without their funds English clubs would not be able to pay the wages they command and the would be plying their trade in Spain.

As for the Championship being the poor cousin of the Premiership, well it is. As a City fan you should know better than most that the Championship is Short on  skill and at time dire to watch. Harsh? realistic. Ok I agree that they pay lip service to the Championship but who else is going to cover it at any great level. Answer nobody. Supply and demand. They know the televised sports business better than anybody. There scheduling reflects that.

Your trying to buck against the very thing that has made our Premier football league the best in the world.
[/quote]

 

Whilst I''m not against Sky (it''a the free market after all) the Championship may be of a lesser quality than that of the premiership, but at least in the Championship you get excitement. How many teams just above the relegation zone in the premiership would go to Man Utd and go for a win like we did at Wolves. Excitement is what spectator sport is all about. If sky has done anything for the Premiership it has inadvertantly decreased the excitement because managers are petrified of relegation and losing their jobs hence the reason why lesser teams ''park the bus infron of the goal'' when they visit the likes of Man Utd.

[Fuglestad 0]

I really couldn''t give a sh*t if players like Torres and Ronaldo play in England or not.

[yellow hammer 0]

Sky is the wrong target for your ire. The real villians are the Premier League management committee and the Football Association, who between them carve up the income from broadcasting rights. Sky doesn''t decide that the lion''s share of TV income goes to the Top 4, it is the Top 4 who have used their power to bring in large TV audiences to negotiate the deal that best suits them and to hell with the rest of football in the country.

We need an FA that is genuinely interested in the long-term future of football, and not just the short-term maximising of income, to invest this TV pot of gold into football from top to bottom, not just for the elite.

[Noseybonk 0]

[quote user="Fuglestad"]I really couldn''t give a sh*t if players like Torres and Ronaldo play in England or not.[/quote]

I''m with you Fugelstad. To the majority of real football fans, who plays for the ''big four'' is of no consequence whatsoever.

[Leedscanary 338]

I would like to a salary cap in all levels of football. It would level the playing field. Look at the wonders this format has done in Rugby League and NFL. I would also like to see a ticket price cap in relation to the players salary cap, say £10 for League 2, £15 for league 1, £20 for Championship and £30 for Premier league. That will help bring the people''s game back to the people.

[Graeme Miles 0]

• Sky tv is ruining British Football!
• Pope is actually catholic
• Bears do Sh*t in woods

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="JimboRoyle"]To me, the real problem is because of the Sky money on offer the financial difference between being in the Championship and in the Premiership has become completely ridiculous. Relegation has become too financially disastrous. Look at Southampton and Charlton. Teams like Middlesbrough must be terrified the same thing will happen to them if they go down - hence the game at Chelsea the other day when they played a 9-0-1 formation in a desperate bid to snatch a point!!![/quote]I agree with that, but teams like Middlesbrough  if  they do go down and get into financial trouble,  isn''t because of the recession it''s because they''ve financially over stretched themselves in a bid to stay up every year.  Just like Leeds did.

[Erik the Viking 0]

[quote user="The Duke"]

After is was announced yesterday that BskyB had won the rights to 5 of the 6 packages for Premier league football for three year from 2010 onwards, for a record 1.78 Billion. Yes thats 1.78 Billion! I felt a very deep sadness for the way English football is heading. 

I am worried on two points really. First, surely this will only serve to make the rich richer and the poor, well stay poor. How are the likes of the BBC and terestrial televison supposed to compete with this? I subscribe to Setanta for the modest 12.99 that it costs but i will have to cancel come 2010 as its really not worth it for just 23 live games on a Saturday evening which i might miss due to drink after city games or just not want to watch someone like Wigan v''s Hull!

My second worry is that the Premier league has become too realiant on this money from BskyB. 1.78 billion is a big sum of money especially in todays climate. What happens if BskyB pull out or go under much like the old ITV sport deal. The Premiership would simply be brought to its knees and robbed of all its best players. Even i must admit i am glad that players like Ronaldo and Torres chose to play here and it will be a sad day if the top players in the world do not wish to play in our top league.

While i''m going at BskyB, Another thing that gets me about them is the way they handle Champoinship matches. Its is looked upon seemingly as the Premierships poorer cousin, viewed the same as the Blue Square league in thier eyes. In fact i would say Setanta''s coverage of the Blue Square is superior to that of Sky''s coverage of the Championship. The comentators are always rubbish and there is always useles Don Goodman what has he ever done? The Championship has the 4th highest average league attendance in Europe only behind the Premiership, La Liga and Serie A. So why the is the coverage so bad?

[/quote]

Or perhaps another take on it is "Saint Delia has ruined Norfolk football?!?!?!"

[Gary Football 0]

Or another take is that Gazza is ruining this message board.

[jelltex 0]

It is a fact that teams playing at home in the football league, Premier league or wherever in Europe ow the TV rights for that game. It''s that for the timebeing the Prem has chosen to seel domestic rights en bloc.

What annoys me is the assertion, or apparant assertion that football began in 1992 by Sky, and that before then it was the dark ages; when in fact the Prem is just the old Football league Division 1 rebranded.

And yes, the Prem has ruined football; are we more entertained with the Prem today than Div 1 20 years ago? I''m not. As for it being the best league in the world, who are you kidding? When only one of maybe 5 teams can actually win it, and only what four teams have won it since it began, how is that in any way competitvie???

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Evil"] To the majority of real football fans, who plays for the ''big four'' is of no consequence whatsoever.[/quote]

Of course it is. Firstly ''real'' football fans as you put it want to see these players play, albeit on tv, secondly if they were not here, the players at lower prem clubs would be at the top clubs, some of our players would be at the bottom end of the prem / top of the chumpionship so we''d be watching more Hoozes week in week outIts of direct consequence.Sky have improved the game in many (most?) ways, unfortunately the players wages and transfer figures have become obscene. There is no solution to this unless the world market is regulated. Free markets never work be it football, steel, coffee, they just lead to greed and poverty

[Yellow Wal 314]

Spot on Jelltex, but it is not only Sky that is ruining football but the authorities that control the game. Everything is in place to help the the Premiership and their clubs. The loan system was brought in to place to help smaller clubs who, mostly through excessive amounts of injured players, needed some temporary help. Now it is used to promote young players from Premiership teams to increase their value, David Bentley being a prime example. Had he not played for Norwich, and then Blackburn on loan what would his transfer fee been? Let us remember he played only one game for Arsenal first team, in the FA Cup, and never in the Premiership before coming to Norwich. Ban all loans and restrict the number of players over 21 that a club can have registered for them and a level playing field would start to return. Norwich have in the past through players like Ian Crook, John Polston, Ian Culverhouse and similar been able to sign top club''s fringe players .... it wouldn''t happen now because we would have to loan them and they would then be priced out of our reach by gaining first team experience and their values rocketing. The problem is the authorities who allow this sytem to continue.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="I cant smell anything"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

if sky hadn''t aquired the rights to the football in 1992 then i think its fair to say BSB wouldn''t exist as a company today.... there was no "lost" or 24 back then... just MTV and the simpsons.. hardly enough to attract customers.... they would of been gone years ago if they hadnt of taken the risk.

jas :)

[/quote]

Yes there would,  Sky was trading on Film channels up to then,  and still would today, regardless of Sports.  Admittedly Sports/Football on Sky has made it huge,  but it''s a bit naive to think Sky is just Football.

And it''s not Sky''s fault The Premier League is like it is,  it''s because of armchair supporters subscribing.  It''s because people say they are football supporters because they pay a subscription.  It''s a beast that won''t slow in a recession,  it won''t make a jot''s difference. 
[/quote]

still dont agree.. no one would of paid £20 a month for sky.. or whatever it was when the local video shop had the films months before sky did at the time, and for £1 a time for a rental too... like i said at the time.. in the early 90''s if Sky hadnt got football i doubt they would made it that far.....

the simpsons and Beavis and butthead were the only reason people watched sky back then....

Everyone would rent the film they could wait 3 months for sky to show,

and they all wore shell suits and bumbags.... those were the days! ;)

jas :)

[Hairy Canary 703]

Well I guess I''m in a minority of one here because I totally disagree. It is not BskyB that is deciding how to spend the hugh wads of cash that are coming into the game but the football chairmen. What is ruining football is the never ending increasing wage packet of the top players and the total dominance of the preimier league. 

The premiership could spend some of the billions supporting the whole football structure including the football league and grass roots - helping to avoid administration and improving facilities throughout the country

or maybe setting up an acadamy structure throughout the country to allow all youngsters (not just those who the clubs want to develop) to have good facilities and enjoy the game - boys and girls.

There are many more options that we could all come up with. All the end of the day its the greed of the premiership clubs and what they choose to spend the cash on, not the cash itself.

 

 

[Crofty88 0]

Murdoch will always remain a problem as long as BSkyB keeps its oar in sports. To be perosnally honest i can''t stand the commentary on Sky Sports and wish that football would come back to good old BBC! The problem is BBC will not put £1.78bn into sports on terrestrial tv ever, forcing the poorer market to spend alot of money on sky and get the pointless extras. In answer to Setanta, £12.99 is a resonable price for the present fixtures but if there is only gonna be 23 games next season i shall be pulling out of my subscription at the end of this season. purely because it is not worth it! Surely the BBC can buy rights into a percentage of games throughout the season. not all of them just a couple a month! I refuse to switch on BBC 3 to watch f****n italian derbies when i want 2 watch the norfolk derby. ANYONE WITH AN ANSWER?????