Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bradwell canary

Villa away on Sky

Recommended Posts

SKY can f**k off tbh.I''m getting sick of constant games vs Villa being shown instead of games against the top sides.It''s bad enough that we get less live matches in general than many teams, but being forced to always watch us playing the likes of Stoke, Villa and West Brom is taking the pi$$...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote user="Indy_Bones"SKY can f**k off tbh.I''m getting sick of constant games vs Villa being shown instead of games against the top sides.It''s bad enough that we get less live matches in general than many teams, but being forced to always watch us playing the likes of Stoke, Villa and West Brom is taking the pi$$.../quote

I have to disagree Indy, I like the fact that we are playing against some sides that we actually have a chance of beating. When you play against the big sides you get the sense that the cameras are only really there to watch them...

It has felt as though we are a little down on live fixtures although streaming ensures you can watch them all if you really want to. However, for info our televised home game v Villa this season was on BT, not sky, and we''ve also been on against Stoke, Chelsea, West Ham and Fulham and are due to be on v Spurs next month, so actually a fair spread in terms of quality of opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Beefy is a legend"]It has felt as though we are a little down on live fixtures although streaming ensures you can watch them all if you really want to.[/quote]Not really the point is it Beefy?I used to subscribe to SKY Sports, but ended up cancelling it the season when Liverpool were on no less than FIFTEEN times to our FIVE...Must be great if you''re a fan of one of the big sides, but the rest of us get shafted with less than half the games they have televised.[quote]However, for info our televised home game v Villa this season was on BT, not sky, and we''ve also been on against Stoke, Chelsea, West Ham and Fulham and are due to be on v Spurs next month, so actually a fair spread in terms of quality of opposition.[/quote]Villa, Fulham, West Ham and Stoke...WOW!Only Chelsea stand out from the pack of dross we''ve been televised against, so with Spurs, that''ll be just 6 games all season, with the majority against bottom half opposition.If I was a Man Utd fan (regardless of how crap they''ve been this year), I''d likely have watched them playing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City et al, rather than the games against Villa, Fulham, Stoke and West Ham that we get...There simply is NO sense of fairness about this at all, which is why I told SKY to keep their s**t coverage of teams outside the top 6 and saved myself £20 a month in the process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"]SKY can f**k off tbh.I''m getting sick of constant games vs Villa being shown instead of games against the top sides.It''s bad enough that we get less live matches in general than many teams, but being forced to always watch us playing the likes of Stoke, Villa and West Brom is taking the pi$$...[/quote]Bet you watch the stream though Indy. [;)] [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bradwell canary"]Sky just released next batch of games they will show.

Villa away is one of them.[/quote]Hurrah!They''ve stopped showing Swansea every week as well which is a bonus. Felt like I was watching them more than Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Beefy is a legend"]It has felt as though we are a little down on live fixtures although streaming ensures you can watch them all if you really want to.[/quote]Not really the point is it Beefy?I used to subscribe to SKY Sports, but ended up cancelling it the season when Liverpool were on no less than FIFTEEN times to our FIVE...Must be great if you''re a fan of one of the big sides, but the rest of us get shafted with less than half the games they have televised.[quote]However, for info our televised home game v Villa this season was on BT, not sky, and we''ve also been on against Stoke, Chelsea, West Ham and Fulham and are due to be on v Spurs next month, so actually a fair spread in terms of quality of opposition.[/quote]Villa, Fulham, West Ham and Stoke...WOW!Only Chelsea stand out from the pack of dross we''ve been televised against, so with Spurs, that''ll be just 6 games all season, with the majority against bottom half opposition.If I was a Man Utd fan (regardless of how crap they''ve been this year), I''d likely have watched them playing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City et al, rather than the games against Villa, Fulham, Stoke and West Ham that we get...There simply is NO sense of fairness about this at all, which is why I told SKY to keep their s**t coverage of teams outside the top 6 and saved myself £20 a month in the process...[/quote]

The strange thing about your argument though Indy, is that if we were only on against the big boys, the big boys would be on the box even more often...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest the way we play football hasn''t got sky and bt chasing us down for televised games.

They arn''t doing anyone favours, they have to entice subscribers. If we play better or get near relegation we''ll be on again towards end of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]

I used to subscribe to SKY Sports, but ended up cancelling it the season when Liverpool were on no less than FIFTEEN times to our FIVE. There simply is NO sense of fairness about this at all, which is why I told SKY to keep their s**t coverage of teams outside the top 6 and saved myself £20 a month in the process.[/quote]

IB, I''m confused![8-)] If you don''t have Sky any more why does it matter to you...I''m getting sick of constant games vs Villa being shown instead of games against the top sides. It''s

bad enough that we get less live matches in general than many teams,

but being forced to always watch us playing the likes of Stoke, Villa

and West Brom is taking the pi$$....what they screen?[*-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great. A Holty winner, assisted by Hoolahan is gonna be televised for the whole world to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]Bet you watch the stream though Indy. [;)] [:D][/quote]More than likely Lapps [:D]My argument is simply that it should be a fair mix of games against all level of opponents with all teams having the same amount of games televised.I stopped paying for SKY sports because I didn''t want to pay £20 a month for the ''privilege'' of NOT watching my team play (whilst the big boys were on nearly every week), and then on the rare occasions we did get a game shown - it was against ''poorer'' opposition (rather than the aforementioned big sides).It wouldn''t even have been as bad if the sides like Man Utd and Liverpool were having games against Stoke or West Ham shown, but it was constant games like Man Utd vs Chelsea, Liverpool vs Arsenal, Man City vs Spurs etc...Clearly the best of both worlds for supporters of those big sides, but a kick in the teeth for everyone else...@PC, the reason it bothers me is that I do also like to sometimes watch the match in the pub with a few friends (rather than via a dodgy stream), and I have far less incentive to make the trip down the road and spend some cash to watch us play Villa, than I would someone like Arsenal or Man City. Also, the injustice of it all really frustrates me, as a subscriber I paid the same £20 that my Liverpool supporting friend did, yet he got 3x more games of his club shown for the same money - how is that fair ffs???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the hell do QPR Tinpot still manage to get their games on Sky most weeks? Does Harry have polaroids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]How the hell do QPR Tinpot still manage to get their games on Sky most weeks? Does Harry have polaroids?[/quote]Because SKY would have you believe that QPR are still a bigger club than the likes of us, despite having a rough side, shocking ground and being a league below us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lappinitup"]Bet you watch the stream though Indy. [;)] [:D][/quote]More than likely Lapps [:D]My argument is simply that it should be a fair mix of games against all level of opponents with all teams having the same amount of games televised.I stopped paying for SKY sports because I didn''t want to pay £20 a month for the ''privilege'' of NOT watching my team play (whilst the big boys were on nearly every week), and then on the rare occasions we did get a game shown - it was against ''poorer'' opposition (rather than the aforementioned big sides).It wouldn''t even have been as bad if the sides like Man Utd and Liverpool were having games against Stoke or West Ham shown, but it was constant games like Man Utd vs Chelsea, Liverpool vs Arsenal, Man City vs Spurs etc...Clearly the best of both worlds for supporters of those big sides, but a kick in the teeth for everyone else...@PC, the reason it bothers me is that I do also like to sometimes watch the match in the pub with a few friends (rather than via a dodgy stream), and I have far less incentive to make the trip down the road and spend some cash to watch us play Villa, than I would someone like Arsenal or Man City. Also, the injustice of it all really frustrates me, as a subscriber I paid the same £20 that my Liverpool supporting friend did, yet he got 3x more games of his club shown for the same money - how is that fair ffs???[/quote]IB, as far as your first point is concerned, you are effectively saying you want  something for nothing. You want to watch Sky without paying for it.As to the second point, you are mistaking Sky for a public service broadcaster that has a duty to be fair. It isn''t and it doesn''t. It is governed by the rules of capitalism - it will show what it wants on the basis of what people want to watch and so will pay to watch.If, like you, the selection doesn''t appeal then people can stop paying. If enough people do that then Sky might assess its selection policy. But I imagine they have highly-paid researchers telling them what most armchair fans want to watch, and that is the basis for their choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the choice PC, I''d happily pay £20 a month for SKY - IF they showed a minimum of 1 of our games every month. In fact, I''d be even happier to pay £20 a month to watch ALL of our games ONLY via SKY (e.g NCFC TV, a channel which only shows Norwich games) if it was an option.I appreciate that the argument against this is that some fans will then stay at home rather than going to the game, but most fans go for the atmosphere anyway and this isn''t that likely to change much purely because we''re available on SKY, and I''m pretty sure that getting a percentage of a consistent revenue stream through SKY from ''exiled'' supporters who simply can''t get to games, is better for the club than getting jack all from those fans and having them watching it via a stream instead...Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Thoughts?[/quote]
 
 
I think you never ever stop moaning and should find something to be happy about once in a while.............
 
 
 
 
[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Given the choice PC, I''d happily pay £20 a month for SKY - IF they showed a minimum of 1 of our games every month. In fact, I''d be even happier to pay £20 a month to watch ALL of our games ONLY via SKY (e.g NCFC TV, a channel which only shows Norwich games) if it was an option.I appreciate that the argument against this is that some fans will then stay at home rather than going to the game, but most fans go for the atmosphere anyway and this isn''t that likely to change much purely because we''re available on SKY, and I''m pretty sure that getting a percentage of a consistent revenue stream through SKY from ''exiled'' supporters who simply can''t get to games, is better for the club than getting jack all from those fans and having them watching it via a stream instead...Thoughts?[/quote]In general terms I am against screening all games. It has the potential to create a generation of fans who would have no incentive to attend matches. I know we have full houses now, but I take a longer view, since there is no doubt in my mind the directors still want to expand capacity at some point.As for the financial aspect, as I understand it we get a standard payment from Sky even if they show fewer than the stipulated minimum number of games. So we have money coming in no matter what.Whether non-Sky fans are happy to watch streams I don''t know. I did try a couple of matches in the Lambert season but found the experience so tedious (possibly someone more adept at technology could have improved it) that I stopped and have no intention of starting again. If streaming becomes satisfactory for enough people (I assume from your posts that it isn''t for you, since you would be willing to pay for Sky under some circumstances) then Sky might have to rethink its strategy.The bottom line here, though, is that there is no reason why football fans should be abe to watch their team except by going to matches. Concepts of right and fairness do not apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are all getting rather indignant about the number of City games shown on Sky. Sky are an entertainment company designed to make money. City are just not entertaining enough, first season we were a novelty since then our football is dull. They could show us against the best but walkovers are not entertaining. And games between teams in lower order are rarely entertaining due to being high pressure games. Who apart from City supporters would have found Stoke (a) a good game to watch.

Just be grateful Sky are willing to pay us £65m to be at the party. Would you like a situation that is the case in Spain were only Real Madrid and Barca get anything like real money from TV.

I will keep paying my Sky subscription as its good value for a number of sports. However if you only watch to see City or Stoke or WBA it probably is not good value and maybe you should stop paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Given the choice PC, I''d happily pay £20 a month for SKY - IF they showed a minimum of 1 of our games every month. In fact, I''d be even happier to pay £20 a month to watch ALL of our games ONLY via SKY (e.g NCFC TV, a channel which only shows Norwich games) if it was an option.I appreciate that the argument against this is that some fans will then stay at home rather than going to the game, but most fans go for the atmosphere anyway and this isn''t that likely to change much purely because we''re available on SKY, and I''m pretty sure that getting a percentage of a consistent revenue stream through SKY from ''exiled'' supporters who simply can''t get to games, is better for the club than getting jack all from those fans and having them watching it via a stream instead...Thoughts?[/quote]

We generally get about 10 televised games per season so that averages to about one game per month.

Last season, our TV games were:

West Ham, Arsenal, Aston Villa, Manchester Utd, Sunderland, QPR, Sunderland.

The season before they were:

West Brom, Sunderland, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Sunderland, Wigan, Newcastle, Manchester City, Liverpool.

I''m not really sure you have much of a case IB...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Beefy is a legend"]We generally get about 10 televised games per season so that averages to about one game per month.

Last season, our TV games were:

West Ham, Arsenal, Aston Villa, Manchester Utd, Sunderland, QPR, Sunderland. The season before they were:

West Brom, Sunderland, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Sunderland, Wigan, Newcastle, Manchester City, Liverpool.

I''m not really sure you have much of a case IB...[/quote]No trying to be picky, but we only had 9 games shown on SKY in the 2011/2012 season (ESPN was an additional channel and cost so cannot be included), these were:West Brom, Sunderland x 2, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Wigan, Newcastle and Man City, so 4 out of 9 against the ''big sides'' which isn''t bad tbhLast season however was much worse with:West Ham, Villa, Sunderland x2, QPR = only 5 games on SKY (again ESPN does not count), NONE of which were against the top sides...Now contrast this with Liverpool:2011/2012Arsenal x2, Exeter, Bolton, Spurs x2, Brighton, Everton x2, Man Utd x2, Chelsea, Man City x3, Fulham, Villa, Wigan, Newcastle x2, Cardiff, Blackburn, SwanseaSo 23 games compared to our 9 (of which 4 were cup games, still leaving 19 to our 9 league games), and they played the top sides a total of 12 times compared to our 4 (which again removing the 1 cup game, gives 11 out of 19 games against top sides 58% to our 44%).2012/2013Man City x2, Arsenal x2, Man Utd x2, Everton x2, Newcastle, Chelsea x2, Swansea, West Ham, Stoke, QPR, West Brom, Spurs, VillaSo 18 games to our 5, of which 11 were against top sides (so 61% compared to our 0%).Tell me again that I don''t have a case Beefy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Beefy is a legend"]We generally get about 10 televised games per season so that averages to about one game per month.

Last season, our TV games were:

West Ham, Arsenal, Aston Villa, Manchester Utd, Sunderland, QPR, Sunderland. The season before they were:

West Brom, Sunderland, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Sunderland, Wigan, Newcastle, Manchester City, Liverpool.

I''m not really sure you have much of a case IB...[/quote]No trying to be picky, but we only had 9 games shown on SKY in the 2011/2012 season (ESPN was an additional channel and cost so cannot be included), these were:West Brom, Sunderland x 2, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Wigan, Newcastle and Man City, so 4 out of 9 against the ''big sides'' which isn''t bad tbhLast season however was much worse with:West Ham, Villa, Sunderland x2, QPR = only 5 games on SKY (again ESPN does not count), NONE of which were against the top sides...Now contrast this with Liverpool:2011/2012Arsenal x2, Exeter, Bolton, Spurs x2, Brighton, Everton x2, Man Utd x2, Chelsea, Man City x3, Fulham, Villa, Wigan, Newcastle x2, Cardiff, Blackburn, SwanseaSo 23 games compared to our 9 (of which 4 were cup games, still leaving 19 to our 9 league games), and they played the top sides a total of 12 times compared to our 4 (which again removing the 1 cup game, gives 11 out of 19 games against top sides 58% to our 44%).2012/2013Man City x2, Arsenal x2, Man Utd x2, Everton x2, Newcastle, Chelsea x2, Swansea, West Ham, Stoke, QPR, West Brom, Spurs, VillaSo 18 games to our 5, of which 11 were against top sides (so 61% compared to our 0%).Tell me again that I don''t have a case Beefy....[/quote]Indy, you don''t have a case because there is no reason at all why you should be able to watch ANY Norwich City matches on television. There is no such entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Indy, you don''t have a case because there is no reason at all why you should be able to watch ANY Norwich City matches on television. There is no such entitlement.[/quote]I understand what you''re saying PC, but that''s almost like saying it''s ok for a pub to charge me the same price for half a pint as they do for you to have a full one, and if I don''t like it - go drink somewhere else!It may be the way it works, but that doesn''t make it RIGHT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Indy, you don''t have a case because there is no reason at all why you should be able to watch ANY Norwich City matches on television. There is no such entitlement.[/quote]I understand what you''re saying PC, but that''s almost like saying it''s ok for a pub to charge me the same price for half a pint as they do for you to have a full one, and if I don''t like it - go drink somewhere else!It may be the way it works, but that doesn''t make it RIGHT...[/quote]Indy, I don''t want to prolong this, but I really don''t think you do understand what I''m saying! There is no reason at all why you should be able to watch any football on television, let alone Norwich City matches.If I want to see a play or hear a concert I have to go to the theatre or the concert hall. I don''t expect to be able to be able to sit at home and see and hear. If you want to watch Norwich City play football, then go to games. If you can''t or won''t go to games, that''s tough. You seem still to believe there should be some kind of service that allows you to watch games you don''t attend. There is no justification for believing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Indy, I don''t want to prolong this, but I really don''t think you do understand what I''m saying![/quote]Me either PC as I think we simply see this differently.[quote]You seem still to believe there should be some kind of service that allows you to watch games you don''t attend. There is no justification for believing that.[/quote]I believe that in a world that is the most technologically advanced that it has ever been, with the ability to send live recordings to virtually anywhere in the world at the click of a button, that it''s not unreasonable to suggest that this could be done for live football games.I''ve seen concerts shown live on TV, I''ve seen Sports and stuff like the Oscar''s without a problem, but apparently suggesting that it would be nice to be able to watch my own football team live each week in the same manner (and paying accordingly to do so) is some bizarre request...???The service is basically already there and in use in some respects (mainly if you follow a top four club), so we know that it CAN be done, so what on earth is wrong with asking if they WILL do it????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think that it is an away game, and to me thats the main thing. saves our supporters their hard earned cash in travel, tickets, and a whole day away.

I wish that they would show more away games and less home ones!!

Traveled to two away games early in the season, which turned out to be a complete no show by the team, Hull and Spurs, the only ones who did show up were the supporters. Would have rather sat in my armchair for those two!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not surprisingly, our frequency being broadcast dropped after last season when we adopted the "lull them to sleep" style. Networks make money from advertisers who pay based on potential viewership. Casual fans or fans of othrr teams who may watch a Norwich game are less likely to tune in if our games are dull. So the few they do air will have some sort of hook to them to entice those viewers to tune in and buy razors, beer and aphrodisiacs that were advertised. At least thats how it works here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Indy, I don''t want to prolong this, but I really don''t think you do understand what I''m saying![/quote]Me either PC as I think we simply see this differently.[quote]You seem still to believe there should be some kind of service that allows you to watch games you don''t attend. There is no justification for believing that.[/quote]I believe that in a world that is the most technologically advanced that it has ever been, with the ability to send live recordings to virtually anywhere in the world at the click of a button, that it''s not unreasonable to suggest that this could be done for live football games.I''ve seen concerts shown live on TV, I''ve seen Sports and stuff like the Oscar''s without a problem, but apparently suggesting that it would be nice to be able to watch my own football team live each week in the same manner (and paying accordingly to do so) is some bizarre request...???The service is basically already there and in use in some respects (mainly if you follow a top four club), so we know that it CAN be done, so what on earth is wrong with asking if they WILL do it????[/quote]Indy, that exists via streaming, but you seem not to be happy with that!The other point is that what you want, what would make you happy, the televising of all NCFC games, would almost certainly damage attendances in the longer run. If it comes to the good of the club versus your selfish desires, I vote for the good of the club. If you can''t get to games, that is tough. You still seem to think you have some entitlement here. You really don''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Indy, that exists via streaming, but you seem not to be happy with that![/quote]Because it''s not a direct comparison PC.That''s like saying tapes sound the same as CD''s or that the picture quality of VHS is the same as Blu-Ray...Streaming provides a basic service (which is usually better than nothing), but isn''t even remotely close to the HD quality broadcasts live SKY games provide (even if the source is the same before re-broadcast via stream).[quote]The other point is that what you want, what would make you happy, the televising of all NCFC games, would almost certainly damage attendances in the longer run. If it comes to the good of the club versus your selfish desires, I vote for the good of the club.[/quote]Of course the club comes before individual supporters, but tell you what, you provide cast iron evidence that doing this actually would seriously impact attendances and cost us both in atmosphere and financially and I''ll concede the point, but until then I simply don''t agree.[quote]If you can''t get to games, that is tough. You still seem to think you have some entitlement here. You really don''t.[/quote]I accept that being unable to go to games because I can''t afford to is my problem and my problem alone - but that isn''t the issue here, my complaint is that fans of other clubs have MORE of their games (and usually against ''better'' opposition) broadcast for the exact same price as I would pay to subscribe as a Norwich fan, so surely by your logic THEY don''t have an entitlement to have extra games shown, but that''s exactly what''s happening...At the end of the day I simply voted with my wallet, but that doesn''t mean that I have to agree with the situation or think it''s fair...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s like you guys are having two separate topic debates, but against each other.

Televising games doesn''t impact attendance much or at all. Besides, as tv money increases, ticket sales matter less.

There. I''ve answered each of you individually with unrelated comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see where you are coming from, Indy, but in the end (and I think this is what Beefy and Purple are driving at) it''s surely down to commercial realities ?Any TV company, be it Sky, BT, or any of the folk that run the likes of MUTV, have to weigh up if , by televising live games they can make a decent margin on it . Presumably, there are enough possible takers for dedicated channels like MUTV to make it worthwile. Conversely, it seems that no such guarantee would exist for a mythical ''NCTV''.Indy mentions the subscription, but for the Sky''s of this world, this is only a small consideration . There are other major aspects such as advertising, and what the advertisers want is to get the max audience, so hence why they tend to favour the big clubs. In the same way that an ITV ad slot costs a lot more at half time in Coronation St, than it does for some repeat on at 2 in the morning.My understanding is that part of the broadcaster''s contract stipulates that they are prohibited from showing only ManU Arsenal, Citeh, Chelsea and their pals ; likewise their coverage of the lower leagues demands that they cannot just show the top teams in the Champ (eg QPR Leicester), and are obliged to show a certain number of Lge One, Lge Two and even Skrill games. So, I''d guess that , to keep up their quota of Norwich, Villa, Fulham, Swansea, Cardiff, Stoke games, it''s quite an elegant solution to feature games between these clubs.Also, Indy, I cannot see, if you are grumbling about too much of the top teams on TV, that also showing their games v Norwich is going to help matters !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...