marknursey 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Personally I believe that SKY has had a positive effect on my consumption of football, I can now watch a live football match pretty much every single day of the week. Although at 50 pound a month, it is maybe a little over-priced. What are your thoughts on SKY''s effect on your personal consumption of football? Positive or Negative? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryJames 0 Posted February 18, 2011 I despise SKY. They killed this game, and they''ll kill cricket as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beefy is a legend 224 Posted February 18, 2011 Even though I''m not a subscriber, I find the previous poster''s criticism on Sky to be pretty unreasonable. Since Sky became involved in the creation of the Premier League, English football has soared beyond it''s European counterparts, both in it''s quality and it''s accessible and excitement. Think on this, the facilities which Sky''s money has allowed has meant the building of fantastic stadiums such as the Emirates, City of Manchester Stadium etc and a general improvement in the experience for the match-day goers rather than just the armchair fan. If we had managed to stay in the Prem during those early years I''ve no doubt that we would already have a 35,000 seater stadium at Carrow Road and even better facilities than what we have now. Further, I can watch a game every night of the week virtually. As for cricket, I''m a massive fan of Sky''s coverage which has taken the game a long way as well. As well as Beefy, Nasser, Atherton, Lloyd, who are outstanding, you have the huge technological innovations which in my view has also made the game more accurate and interesting to the public. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
......and Smith must score. 1,586 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote user="marknursey"]Personally I believe that SKY has had a positive effect on my consumption of football, I can now watch a live football match pretty much every single day of the week. Although at 50 pound a month, it is maybe a little over-priced. What are your thoughts on SKY''s effect on your personal consumption of football? Positive or Negative?[/quote]You obviously live on your own, Mark.......For us marrieds the £50 a month is chicken feed compared to the divorce lawyers fees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
a1canary 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Nope, i''m with james. Beefy, you need to alter you sentence just a little for it to be entirely correct. "Since Sky and the EPL, THEIR PRODUCT (i.e. the EPL) has soared beyond its European counterparts..." etc etc. The EPL is football played in England by teams based in England, and yes its fantastic entertainment and a fantastic global, multinational product. But it is not "English Football".I think you''ll find most people under a certain age who has never known football before Sky will be in favour of them. Most others, who have witnessed the extreme polarisation of English football between the few haves and the many have nots, the total saturation of the game, and the demise of the international team, will have a less that favourable view of Sky. I''m in the latter camp. Although i do admit the quality of the (premier league) product, it''s delivery and so on is not in question, the cost of delivering has been too great. We need to tear the whole Murdoch edifice down and start again in my view! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sing up the river end 0 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote user="CanaryJames"]I despise SKY. They killed this game, and they''ll kill cricket as well.[/quote]spot on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryJames 0 Posted February 18, 2011 The ''English Premier League'' is neither English, nor the ''best in the world'' as some people say. I''d actually say it''s not the best league in the country, and personally find leagues like the Championship much more exciting - as any of a dozen or more teams could have won it at the start of the season. Slightly ironic that we''re all (myself included) desperate to get promoted. I can''t help but think the thrill of ''getting there'' is much more fun than ''being there''...As for it not being English, that much is clear in our national team. Going back to the other point, how can we have the ''best league in the world'', which is ''English'', yet the English national team be so poor? Something is inherently wrong there. SKY has facilitated the ability of clubs to pay £35million for Andy Carroll, which is simply ridiculous. If Carroll is worth that much, Shearer was worth £400million in his prime.SKY has ensured no club will win the top flight (for the foreseeable future at least), without spending ludicrous amounts. The likes of Man City (£25million for bench-warming Adebayor/etc & Chelsea with £50million for a poor Torres) shows the huge gulf that has appeared. It is English football''s loss that a club can no longer be successful without having to spend billions on over-rated, over ego-inflated, over-paid prima donna''s with no sense of reality. In terms of cricket, taking the Ashes 2005, shown on Channel 4. I remember there were scores of people who didn''t know or understand cricket ''getting into it'' that summer, simply because it was so accessible.This year (admittedly the time difference complicates matter), I doubt many ''new'' cricket fans would have been added. I''m a massive cricket fan, but the money that is slowly being pumped into that by SKY is starting to make it a complete farce, much like it has done/is doing with football.So yes, I don''t like SKY. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
"""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0 Posted February 18, 2011 There is no doubt about it that Sky has had a positive impact on the coverage of Football and Cricket. There are more games than ever being broadcasted for fans to watch all over the country which is great from a personal prospective. But maybe this has had an impact on the attendences across the country especially in the lower leagues, but Sky have also injected large amouts of money into the Football League as well as the Premier League which can only be good for the game. Sky don''t choose how these clubs spend there money. For the cricket Sky have provided top class coverage of England since they won the rights. I think Sky were the first company to broadcast Englands test matches from abroad? Which is brillaint for Cricket fans. I''m also awear that Sky have invested millions into developing cricket coaches and the grass roots games. Which is only going to help produce better players for the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
"""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0 Posted February 18, 2011 Better coverage of Football and Cricket - good for the games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 0 Posted February 18, 2011 I am a total devotee of Sky. I have the sports channel and benefit from Sky + . Apart from the excellent football coverage, I am a cricket and golf enthusiast. and I therefore watch my fair share of sporting events. I have also rekindled an interest in speedway having been a one time regular at the Firs stadium, supporting Aub Lawson and Ove. Sky news is top class, especially the late night press review. The rest is quite awful, although you get the occasional gem like Deadwood with Ian McShane. I watch few movies and do not pay the extra for that service.I have my telephone line rental through Sky and they are also my, very good, ISP. The more you have the more discounts are available. For little over £50.00 a month I feel I get good value for money.Then again, I''m getting on and live alone. Tailor made for me for sure, but an unecessary luxury for others, perhaps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerry Harrison 2 Posted February 18, 2011 Sky Sports do cover sport very well, but I hate the way they can change the kick off time and date of when a game is played. I want to watch Norwich V Bristol City at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon, not on a Monday night. I''m gutted they moved the Nottm Forest game to a Friday night, as I may now have to miss it due to work. I used to subscribe, but know it''s too expensive for me. Sky Sports now costs more than my monthly DD for my NCFC season ticket. And there''s no way I''d rather watch TV than go to Carrow Road! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
. 0 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote user="CanaryJames"]I despise SKY. They killed this game, and they''ll kill cricket as well.[/quote]Yep. Completely agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,187 Posted February 18, 2011 What a pleasure to agree with Cluck.Sky''s influence on football is completely malign. And if you can''t see it, you''re just wrong.Cricket is slightly more complex in that their coverage is technically so far ahead of the old days of the BBC. But in removing Test cricket from terrestrial television, they''ve done untold damage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
. 0 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote user="Robert N. LiM"]What a pleasure to agree with Cluck.Sky''s influence on football is completely malign. And if you can''t see it, you''re just wrong.Cricket is slightly more complex in that their coverage is technically so far ahead of the old days of the BBC. But in removing Test cricket from terrestrial television, they''ve done untold damage.[/quote]This gives you the added knowledge of being right Robert.Stick with it. [Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,187 Posted February 18, 2011 To be fair, this one''s so obvious that not even you could get it wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
. 0 Posted February 18, 2011 [quote user="Robert N. LiM"]To be fair, this one''s so obvious that not even you could get it wrong.[/quote]See... now you''ve got it all wrong again.Clearly you still have much to learn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6088m canary 0 Posted February 19, 2011 I don''t see anyone bar an armchair fan of the "top four" would be in any way shape or form enamoured with Sky. They have ruined our national game.Im just hitting the big 3-0 and i think anyone younger than myself may well not be able to remember a top division that had the likes of Watford, Norwich, Ipswich and even Wimbledon pushing these supposedly top sides all the way each and every season. Sure the likes of Utd and Liverpool always had money but the difference between the top 4 and the rest of the leagues is so ridiculous these days that i even find myself losing interest in football. I will never stop supporting City but i do have to say that these days i barely tune in to the ChampionsLeague and would rather pull up weeds for 90minutes than watch the national side play. And that im afraid is a very sad thing to say.Wage caps. turnover related amounts on transfers, no buying up of the young talent nationwide and hopefully down with Murdoch and his empire of right wing sh*te. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6088m canary 0 Posted February 19, 2011 http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/uefa-banks-on-football-fans-being-thick-201102183558/Pretty much sums it up perfectly.I mean you onl.y have to look at Soccer A.M to realise that people can do anything they like with football, as long as there are a million moronic sheep to follow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 11,131 Posted February 19, 2011 [quote user="CanaryJames"]The ''English Premier League'' is neither English, nor the ''best in the world'' as some people say. I''d actually say it''s not the best league in the country, and personally find leagues like the Championship much more exciting - as any of a dozen or more teams could have won it at the start of the season. Slightly ironic that we''re all (myself included) desperate to get promoted. I can''t help but think the thrill of ''getting there'' is much more fun than ''being there''...[Y][Y] As for it not being English, that much is clear in our national team. Going back to the other point, how can we have the ''best league in the world'', which is ''English'', yet the English national team be so poor? Something is inherently wrong there. SKY has facilitated the ability of clubs to pay £35million for Andy Carroll, which is simply ridiculous. If Carroll is worth that much, Shearer was worth £400million in his prime. SKY has ensured no club will win the top flight (for the foreseeable future at least), without spending ludicrous amounts. The likes of Man City (£25million for bench-warming Adebayor/etc & Chelsea with £50million for a poor Torres) shows the huge gulf that has appeared. It is English football''s loss that a club can no longer be successful without having to spend billions on over-rated, over ego-inflated, over-paid prima donna''s with no sense of reality. In terms of cricket, taking the Ashes 2005, shown on Channel 4. I remember there were scores of people who didn''t know or understand cricket ''getting into it'' that summer, simply because it was so accessible. This year (admittedly the time difference complicates matter), I doubt many ''new'' cricket fans would have been added. I''m a massive cricket fan, but the money that is slowly being pumped into that by SKY is starting to make it a complete farce, much like it has done/is doing with football. So yes, I don''t like SKY.[/quote]I wish i could write like this.Excellent stuff[Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smooth 114 Posted February 19, 2011 I have sky and to be honest, no Sky has not increased my appetite for football.I am a Norwich fan only, not England and no other team, I don''t care what happens to any premier league team as it doesn''t effect my day to day life.What Sky has done for football is completely change it, from the roots to a polished product. I was brought up just prior to Sky and the game is now about those with the cash and it is now pretty boring.I am a sports fan of all sports and will watch cricket, rugby league, golf, american football, tennis so for me football is only part of my enjoyment of sport and Norwich are the only interest for me.The sooner the European law makers back the portsmouth land lady''s purchasing of a COMPETITOR to Rupert Murdochs'' Sky the better.The game has changed completely and Sky is very much part of taking it away from a sport to a precession of the haves and have nots.Even though I have Sky I have not bought it for football and if it was pay per view I would just watch the Norwich games. 2 super League games, tennis and hours upon hours of american football are the reason i have bought it.But I will be looking at alternatives and also this new ruling in Europe. If Sky begins to falter, then hopefully football can falter and we can get our game back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncfcrooferman 0 Posted February 19, 2011 I have not got Sky and have not had it for many years in my view they have single handily destroyed football as we know it in this country. Games should be played 3pm on Saturday or 7 45 Tuesday or Wednesday nights not at all stupid times of the weekend and beyond. As for making the premier league better to me the rich get richer and more coverage every week while the small go by the wayside and no one cares for them its all about Chelsea,Man Utd etc who really care about them I for one don`t.They bang on week after week how great the premier lge is ...where ? I see very average over paid prima donnas prancing about falling over play acting and hassling the ref if things don`t go their way great role models to our children as they grow up. Because of the injection of sky money these players get far to much money and now have no infinite with the club they play for and supporters needs, you ask them how much a derby win means most of them would not have a clue to them it is only another game :( .I was lucky grew up in the 70`s and early 80`s with just match of the day and match of the week to watch my hero`s play and if Norwich made match of the day on Saturday night my weekend was made mind you never used to win (nothing changes when we are T.V.) then Sky came along in the early nintys and we have since been flooded with non stop games every night of the week and out of the games how many are worth watching ? very very few.Maybe i am wrong but in the end I personally think sky will kill the game in the end when the money runs out who will bank roll a lot of the clubs then sky will be gone they wont care. Many of the lesser team who have relied on sky money to chase the dream and hold on to it will be up the creak without a paddle with no investment will go to the wall leaving a huge void in the the football supporters life the mainstay of the clubs, the ones sky don`t care about because of the way they dictate kick off times etc .......This is just my view and many other will disagree or agree and at the end of the day we all views and that is why threads like this make good reading ..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MisterCarrow 0 Posted February 19, 2011 At the end of the day it''s the fans who are to blame for the want of putting it a better way. If fans didn''t subscribe to Sky and pay the inflated viewing costs then Sky wouldn''t be able to give clubs a minimum of £50 million every year for them to pay over the top wages. Likewise, if fans didn''t pay the inflated ticket prices then clubs wouldn''t be able to pay the players inflated wages. It''s supply and demand! People want to watch football and are going to pay. They have a choice but chose not to act.Secondly, people go on about the demise of the England football team. I say what demise! We''ve always been average and I think people have visions of us being this big international footballing power, we''re not! In 11 world cups since 1966 we got to one semi final and 3 quarter finals and failed to qualify 3 times. We''ve only got to Euro semi''s once.....once I say. We are an average side and always will be. We lack skill on the ball and haven''t got the tatical awareness to win big games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lambo 0 Posted February 20, 2011 Love Sky, Sky Sports coverage of Footy, Cricket and Speedway is superb. I also try to catch WWE! SSN is quality also. Really loving the new Sky Atlantic channel! Some quality shows like Blue Bloods, Entourage and Boardwalk Empire! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryJames 0 Posted February 20, 2011 Thank you very much Herman! You spoil me! :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites