Jump to content
I will no longer be developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1736938,00.html

 

I know Sky isn't everyone's cup of tea, but their coverage (if you turn the volume off) is as good as it gets. Also paying 1 fee to 1 company for all the available football is not a bad deal.

 

When it get's split between 6 companies, doesn't that mean that the viewer is going to have to fork out for several subscription fees?

 

If so, this is terrible news. I know there are other, slightly less scrupulous ways of watching football through your computer, but the picture quality is poor, and it'll all get shut down sooner or later...

Posted
  kaizza said:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1736938,00.html

 

I know Sky isn't everyone's cup of tea, but their coverage (if you turn the volume off) is as good as it gets. Also paying 1 fee to 1 company for all the available football is not a bad deal.

 

When it get's split between 6 companies, doesn't that mean that the viewer is going to have to fork out for several subscription fees?

 

If so, this is terrible news. I know there are other, slightly less scrupulous ways of watching football through your computer, but the picture quality is poor, and it'll all get shut down sooner or later...

 

I think you will find sky will get 5 of the 6 packages.

Posted

Sky are s****. They make a killing from their advertising and subscription and have a virtual monopoly. They decide when the games are played, they monopolise the reporting, they influence opinion with their agenda. Its wrong. Its our game, not Murdoch's

 

When you say their coverage is 'as good as it gets' well they have exclusive access to matches, press conferences, player interviews, manager interviews. Its their cameras at every ground.

No one else has a chance to do the coverage better.

 

What more do you need a tv company to do than point the cameras at the match ?

 

If you mean their coverage is 'as good as it gets' because of the analysis ? do me a favour. Andy Gray ?

Posted

I meant everything that doesn't involve talking, hence the "with the volume off" comment.

 

I like the digital service with player cam, replays and all that, and I think the camerawork and direction are very good.

 

I find that when I watch football on other channels you get times when the ball isn't followed, times when the director is more interested in people in the crowd, and times when you get endless replays of some minor event that normally cuts back prematurely to a camera that isn't following the action properly!!

Guest Jack Bauer
Posted

People will always find something to complain about as far as football coverage goes.

Posted

Would anyone be surprised if the PayPerView bit went to a nonSky company (ie Setanta or NTL), the rest stays with Sky.

 

Sky, to get some money back, launch SkySportsSuperDeluxeExtra7 - (probably a Sky satelite only channel) put some of the biggest Prem games on it and charge everyone an extra £10 a month to watch it?

Posted
  Jack Bauer said:

People will always find something to complain about as far as football coverage goes.

 

Personally I don't think its to much to expect for all games involving Liverpool to be introduced as "Five times European Chamipons Liverpool Football Club play against some other team - no European Cups."

 

Also any games not involving Liverpool should begin with, "Team A that isn't Liverpool - No European Cups, play Team B that Isn't Liverpool - Two European Cups."

 

Until Sky implement such a system, they are obviously biased and an enemy of football.

Posted

It's no surprise Sky can offer decent coverage, the amount of money they make from us. A lot of people stick with Sky because of their football coverage - they have used their monopoly on the football to increase the costs of all their services over the years. Because they have done it over time it isn't so obvious.

 

It costs stupid amounts of money now to subscribe to Sky and there is no alternative.

Posted

If you think about the current format you have SKY and you have PPV. What will happen next time round is SKY will buy 5 of the 6 packages and a PPV company will buy the other one. There will be no difference with the viewer except that SKY will put their prices up because they have been forced to compete for each separate package.

 

  Flight said:

It costs stupid amounts of money now to subscribe to Sky and there is no alternative.

 

There is, cable, you can then subscribe to the football for £22 a month. Difference is with cable you are only forced to have a channel for one month so you can turn SKY Sports off during the summer for example.

 

I find it particularly useful as normally there is a glut of LFC games on SKY then nothing so I tune out at that point.

Posted

sky will win the majority of the packages. In addition to this many of the channels that are broadcast by SKY are not owned by sky. So whats to stop them saying they want to buy a channel from sky and send out their signal to a sky STB, or even broadcasting football free to air in the knowledge that they can sell the advertising time for big money and promote their subscription services. Surfice it to say, sky viewers are not going to miss out on many games under the new rules.

Posted
  Quote
For me it comes down to one thing: Is there going to be less Andy Gray commentating? Yes. This is a GOOD THING.

 

but more john motson :rant:

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...