See ya Sky.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
French Connection NUFC said:
your so clueless, were Newcastle not Hull, we have too good a players to go down, and i even have the balls to say that, were back in the big time and were staying
Click to expand...

You were back in the big time and you were staying - but you didn't :cheesy:

But if you had bothered to engage your brain you might have understood that I wasn't making a prediction simply pointing out that the potential for distraught mags is probably too much for sky to miss out on.
 
I used to use the old BBC 606 but got sick of these kids keep coming into disgussions that had sod all to do with them just to destroy debate and cause trouble. Its not as bad as it was on there but they still do it I see. Its a pain in the arse.
 
Rather daft view to take mate as Sunderland simply aren't an attractive team to watch and don't excite fans of all teams so Sky will decide to go with the teams which will excite fans at the start of the season.

If Sunderland somehow change their style and have a great season, then they will be involved in more big games and become a team that fans of all clubs will want to watch.

So no need to throw your toys out your pram, instead just prey that your team plays better football this year.
 
Got to say might be North East biased here but I personally would have both Sunderland and Newcastle's first two games on Sky. Think Newcastle are on a fair amount but that Sunderland amount is quite frankly shocking.
 
BigJohnny said:
Rather daft view to take mate as Sunderland simply aren't an attractive team to watch and don't excite fans of all teams so Sky will decide to go with the teams which will excite fans at the start of the season.

If Sunderland somehow change their style and have a great season, then they will be involved in more big games and become a team that fans of all clubs will want to watch.

So no need to throw your toys out your pram, instead just prey that your team plays better football this year.
Click to expand...

No offence mate but you should read the whole thread. Also, wasn't us kicking the ****e out of Chelsea at their place exciting enough for you?
 
Cheik the room said:
Factually incorrect, Sky pays the exact same figure to every club in the Premier League, they don't pay on a game to game basis
Click to expand...


One day a Geordie will actually say something factual.

Ahem......

Matching its achievements on the football field in winning this season’s Premier League, Manchester United topped the 2010/11 TV income league receiving £60.4 million in total broadcast revenue.

Twenty six of United’s 38 matches were televised this season. Northwest rivals Liverpool, still England’s most successful team with five Champions Leagues, had a hugely disappointing sixth-place finish for 2011/2012 yet still netted the second highest amount of facility fees as 23 of its matches were shown on British TV.

The 22 live TV appearances from Premier League 2010-2011 by league runners up Chelsea helped secure the club a total of £57.7 million, placing them second on this season’s list – a position they have held for two consecutive years, despite winning last season’s championship. Manchester United tipped the London club to the post in terms of broadcast revenue in 2009-2010, then pocketing £53 million.

By stark contrast Blackpool, whose taste of Premiership football only lasted the 2010-2011 season, received the lowest broadcast payment of 39.08 million GBP ($63.2 million). The club was relegated from the League on the nail biting last day of the season, finishing in 19th position.

Each of the league’s 20 clubs had at least ten matches televised live across the UK through the season.

The income sharing agreement sees 50% of the money earned from UK TV rights distributed equally between the 20 Premiership clubs, while 25% is dished out according to each club’s final standing in the league. The remaining quarter is split according to the number of matches that are televised in the UK.

"We believe that our income distribution mechanism, the most equitable of Europe's major football leagues, rewards sporting success while also guaranteeing a significant amount of broadcast revenue to each club in order that they can plan from one season to the next," said Richard Scudamore, Premier League chief executive.

A payment of £17.9 million was also received by each club from international broadcast rights. International TV revenue distributed equally among the 20 clubs, following a new three year deal which came into effect in 2010-2011.

“Many have commented on the competitive nature of this season’s Barclays Premier League,” added Mr Scudamore. “The clubs deserve huge credit for putting on a fantastic competition. We believe the way we distribute broadcast income plays a part in allowing each club to compete at the highest level.”
 
Surely you knew this was going to happen anyway? Has it not been like this since... well.. forever?

The way I see it, the teams getting shown more than others are there for a reason
 
Forum Trolling Mackem Wrestling Ninja said:
Surely you knew this was going to happen anyway? Has it not been like this since... well.. forever?

The way I see it, the teams getting shown more than others are there for a reason
Click to expand...


TBH Yes. I have to admit that we have never been seen in my life time as a fashionable club. We used to be many years ago. "Team of all talents" And "The bank of England" Are just two quotes about Sunderland from the dim and distant past.
That's the thing with fashions, they change. We can already see the evidence with the quality of signings willing to ply their trade at the SOL.
Sky will catch up. They'll have too.
 
But it doesnt work like that. Most people already have a Sky subscription and have to just take what is dished up to them. Also, as I've said already, Every fan, no matter which club they support, pays the same subscription charge. I am not paying just to watch a Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool **** fest each season. If more and more people start to cancel their subscriptions because they are not seeing the teams they really want to watch (and from what I've seen every year more and more people are getting really pissed at this and are canceling) then Sky will lose money.



edit: Ok, most people dont have Sky, that was presumptious, but you get my drift.
 
SAFCOL said:
But it doesnt work like that. Most people already have a Sky subscription and have to just take what is dished up to them. Also, as I've said already, Every fan, no matter which club they support, pays the same subscription charge. I am not paying just to watch a Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool **** fest each season. If more and more people start to cancel their subscriptions because they are not seeing the teams they really want to watch (and from what I've seen every year more and more people are getting really pissed at this and are canceling) then Sky will lose money.
Click to expand...

You seriously think a multi-billion pound organisation like Sky havn't considered every single angle and worked out what will work best for them?
 
Forum Trolling Mackem Wrestling Ninja said:
You seriously think a multi-billion pound organisation like Sky havn't considered every single angle and worked out what will work best for them?
Click to expand...

That is a fair point. I guess they have very clever people who spout cack babble about demographics revenue streams and other such ****e. But hey ho, I have the right to tell em to stick their subscription up their arses. Which was my point at the begining.
 
SAFCOL said:
But it doesnt work like that. Most people already have a Sky subscription and have to just take what is dished up to them. Also, as I've said already, Every fan, no matter which club they support, pays the same subscription charge. I am not paying just to watch a Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool **** fest each season. If more and more people start to cancel their subscriptions because they are not seeing the teams they really want to watch (and from what I've seen every year more and more people are getting really pissed at this and are canceling) then Sky will lose money.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point mate.
Because any Football game on TV only ever involves two teams. The vast majority of the viewing public will be neutrals.
Neutrals want to see games with the best prospect for a good game. So for Sky it makes sense to concentrate on the most successful teams.
We all know we finished 10th. The Scum 12th. Yet to the great British public they are still seen as a bigger draw. Despite the fact that they are the second best team in Tyne and Wear.
 
CyprusMackem said:
Your missing the point mate.
Because any Football game on TV only ever involves two teams. The vast majority of the viewing public will be neutrals.
Neutrals want to see games with the best prospect for a good game. So for Sky it makes sense to concentrate on the most successful teams.
We all know we finished 10th. The Scum 12th. Yet to the great British public they are still seen as a bigger draw. Despite the fact that they are the second best team in Tyne and Wear.
Click to expand...

God Damn It, will people stop reasonably and logically pointing out that I have over reacted and don't really have a leg to stand on. I'm just annoyed, thats all. ;)
 
SAFCOL said:
God Damn It, will people stop reasonably and logically pointing out that I have over reacted and don't really have a leg to stand on. I'm just annoyed, thats all. ;)
Click to expand...

So Sunderland v Newcastle and Liverpool v Sunderland are not better games to watch than Man City v Swansea or Bolton v Man City, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back