See ya Sky.

I think its not the talk of a conspiracy. I think we all feel so disappointed at the demand for our games. We love our club and can't or - like me - dont want to really see past that. It's like when the fixtures come out - you love to see it. The Sky games (I hate the fact I automatically gave sky a capital "S"!) are another must see. I wanted the scouse game telivised. I thought the Chelski game might. I f-in KNEW the derby would be on the box! Never mind. The day WILL come when they have us on wall-to-wall; 24/7.

x

 

What a hilarious hissy fit. You can't be serious about the conspiracy? They are just giving the viewing public what they want. Sunderland are not that big a draw elsewhere in the country. Not being funny either but Sunderland weren't great to watch last year in terms of the number of goals going in. They'll be looking where they can get goals because goals equal entertainment. I did laugh at one of the Sky selling points:

"MAJOR DERBIES: Sky Sports HD will show seven major derbies including Everton v Liverpool on October 1, Tottenham Hotspur v Arsenal on October 2 and Manchester United v Manchester City followed by Queens Park Rangers v Chelsea on October 23."

Come on now, surely Newcastle V Sunderland raks above QPR v Chelski!

 

The dictionary definition of conspiracy is a surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. That sounds pretty much like what goes on in every board room across the world every day. I didn't say that Donald Pleasence was sitting in a volcano somewhere stroking a white cat and plotting the downfall of SAFC. But I do believe that Sky has a vested interest in keeping the status quo in regards to the top 4 and if they can acheive this by giving more coverage to the big 4 at the expence of the rest of the league then they will do that. To think they wouldn't is frankly childishly nieve.

 

So you recognise that the Wear Tyne derby is a bigger draw than the Chelsea QPR derby but you still think its down to viewing figures. You've just defeated your own argument.

 

Donald Pleasance was a Mackem. His cat was a Millwall fan.

Straights

x

 

Sorry to butt in but on a world scale it probably is, but just in the UK no-way. Sad fact is Chelsea are a known everywhere now, and are associated with winning things. Whereas our Derby is just another game in the eyes of a lot of people.

 

And his secret underground base was directly under the bogs on suddik green... true story bro.

 

Beginning to wonder if any of you know the first thing about anything to be honest. I just read on your board someone complaining that all clubs pay the same for the TV rights, so should be shown an equal number of times. I found it hilarious that any football fan could not be aware that it is actually Sky who pay the clubs, not the other way round. More worrying was that NONE of you put him right on it. Are you aware the the club don't pay Sky to show them?

Not particularly trying to "wum" but come on, seriously? Sky know which matches will do the best for THEIR company, and no matter how many times they show your club, they pay you the same. Be grateful for the free money and watch Iraqgoals

 

Fair enough, but it doesn't stop me being pissed off and telling Sky to shove it.

 

Are you refering to my post?

 

Who gives a flying **** haha, the crack on here on a Monday is terrible

 

I think it was because, unlike you, we were all clever enough to realise what the OP of that article was actually referring to: the SKY subscribers that is!

 

COL - You've lost me COL. My point was that part (and only part) of the selection process will be are the teams entertaining to watch. Sunderland are not unless you're a Sunderland fan. We (Newcastle) are probably still living off the entertainers tag a little from the 90's, plus our ability to either concede a boat load at any given time, or score a boat load at any given time. Just the way it is. Then you have the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U who are on another level altogether. They have gloryhunters, sorry fans, littered all over the country and have the best players. More neutrals want to watch these teams, mainly because of the superstars on show. I have no doubt there is a bit of London bias too but there is little point getting huffed about it, it ain't gonna change. Sunderland have signed a lot of players which creates a bit of interest, but none of them are what would be termed as marquee signings. Same for Newcastle.

I'd say the derbies are different altogether. I'm biased but I reckon our derby has more intensity and ferocity about it than any other in the country. Now if you were creating a ranking list of where derbies ranked you'd get nowhere. To each and every fan their derby is the biggest. But surely I can't be the only one who finds any London derby outside of Ars v Spurs, a bit of a diluted version of a derby.

 

If you were referring to my post then what I said was each Sky "Customer" pays the same amount. You should pay more attention to your English comprehension in class, my literally challenged friend.

 

Actually. The more you are shown live the more you get paid.
As you say "I found it hilarious that any football fan" wasn't aware of this.

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

The licence fee goes to the BBC only. Sky doesn't get any of it.

 

Will this not just encourage fans to go to pubs that show away games live through asian/arabic television channels?

And once fans start doing this then they will realise there is little point in having Sky if they only have it to watch Sunderland games.(big if)

If fans get used to going to pubs to watch games then we know where this is going to lead don't we, another rant from Quinny

Sky are a bunch of bent ****s anyway, viz a ve the phone hacking scandal.

 

I will grant you that point mate. But, as I said, if we are all paying the same for our subscriptions then we should all get the same air time. Don't you agree?

 

I know that, someone brought up MOTD earlier and the licence fee was in reference to that.