Sky is very flexible on which packages customers can choose. The average Sky customer is missing a trick if the full price is paid. I only ever pay half price. Near the end of the contract just threaten to leave / leave in the close season. It works every time. The vast majority of football punters will only pay for football on Sky if they are watching most of the worlds best players. The present system works well. BT only became involved to help its broadband business. Whether Murdoch pays slightly more or less makes little difference to most people or to the game in general. The vast majority of the cash only ends up in the players and agents pockets anyway.
There is a long but interesting article about how the largest teams around Europe are creaming off the bulk of the money that come to the football authorities, and how it is actually beginning to make the game less attractive. It quotes the great GT as saying it is all about greed, and it is the TV companies that have fuelled this greed. Capitalism running out of control currently within the game in the top leagues, and the clubs outside the elite have no chance. Football was once a game in England where every small town had their very own football team, but today the money is not being shared fairly, and they are left asking their faithful fans to provide them with a meal. Do we want to see this wonderful tradition lost? Eventually when the fans get fed up with just watching the same half a dozen large clubs winning nearly every game, maybe there will be a major rupture in the money supply as fans say they would like to see a more competitive league. www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/champions-league-superclubs-liverpool-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9330431.htm
TV has channelled money into football that was not there before. I cannot share this negative view, certainly in the English game. Apart from a couple of reckless examples most English clubs seem to be surviving well. The percentage of income paid to players and agents is certainly too high, any future squeeze on income is bound to affect this area first. Even Alan Sugar said you needed to be mad to own a football club, obviously way before the silly money came along. Certainly WFC have benefitted by the present set up. Without Murdoch's money the Pozzos would not have invested. We may have bombed like Bolton with owners such as Baz and / or the salad boys.
I think you have missed the point of the article. Yes WFC have done well out of the TV money with owners who realised that the money was in the EPL, not Spain, and not Italy. That is why they made us their number one club. Look at the accounts and you will see a picture of a club that could collapse without the cash from TV as it doesn't filter down to the Championship. The figures in the article show how it is being hovered up more and more by six clubs in England, and sooner or later those six clubs will want to to form their own super league with clubs across Europe who are as well off as they are. What then? Will Sky want to pay the huge amount of money to show second-rate games such as Watford v Bournemouth? This article is not negative at all, but is trying to look to the future of what may happen if nothing changes.
You need to accept that the average football fan will pay handsomely to watch the big clubs. The present huge deals are primarily because of these top clubs, they deserve the lions share. Clubs like Watford and Bournemouth are extremely fortunate to share in this bonanza, the unfashionable clubs currently do disproportionately well financially. It is up to those EPL clubs that annually flirt with relegation to have player contracts which reflect the financial implications of a new period in the Championship. I'm not sure a European super league would be as much as a financial success as the present EPL or European equivalent leagues. There are already enough European competitions. I have every confidence the Pozzos possess enough experience and ability to successfully handle WFCs potential relegation. In some ways it might be quite enjoyable if we became more a promotion chasing West Brom than a Sunderland.
This is what I pay for all the EPL games. I can see full matches at a later time, too, not just live. Coverage is provided by a local provider but it is not as good as last season when Bein sport ran the coverage for the same cost but included La Liga and the Bundesliga.
The whole mega Corp subscription scenario sucks.. The ordinary viewer has to sign up for more and more packages to watch the same menu of matches... The sooner this is dealt with the better...
You are far from the first person that I have seen express this view. The trouble is that no one actually wants to deal with it.
The attempt to stop Murdoch's Sky dominating the EPL by splitting up the allocation of matches has unfortunately backfired. The FA has a responsibility to achieve the best deals but punters having to sign up to several companies is a pain and relatively more expensive than when Sky was the only player.
I used to be with sky. I originally went with it because the satellite signal was better where I live. I also like watching test match cricket and Watford games when they were on. But I don't have time to watch cricket all day (sadly) and I realised that the only tv I watched was almost entirely on free to air channels so I stopped being a mug gettin robbed by Murdoch, bought a humax box and stream Watford games and use torrents to watch the occasional programme only available on satellite. I can watch cricket highlights on Youtube when not on Channel 5. I also have Netflix and Prime which are good value. I hope and think that the opening up of broadcasting channels such as Netflix and Prime that Sky's expensive offering will soon have to change.
You would be very welcome here, Scullion, but I think immigration would be somewhat bemused when you run, head down, towards a corner. They would then get quite upset when you run round five of them, go back into the arrivals hall and run round the same five again.
Despite my comment above Scully is still my favourite WFC player of all time, he was magical to watch in full flow.
The govt. (I forget which flavour) commissioned a review into televised sport, led (I think) by david davies. It seemed to me that his report missed a trick - indeed I wrote to my MP about it, (but as she is Tory lobby fodder I didn't get a response). It is my belief that ALL international sporting events (i.e. those involving a national team) should be available on free to air. All the rest, region,club.individual, can be subscription-based ( I would prefer it if each individual entity (eg a football club) negotiated its own access rights.)This simple arrangement might revive the interest in cricket in particular - which is currently being lost. I will not pay one penny to anything to do with Murdoch - he has already done more than enough damage to this country.
I would be interested to know how many clubs (of the 92) you think are surviving well enough to be a reasonable investment, based on their accounts.i.e. you would be prepared to invest money in them, that you would be unhappy to lose. From your observation, it would have to be over 90 %. Really ?
Very few FL clubs have gone out of business which is surprising as most run their clubs badly by spending far too much of their income on player purchase and wages. Despite this serious flaw most seem to survive. I would not invest in any football club apart from buying a season ticket. Of course shrewd investors such as the Pozzo can make significant financial gains once in the EPL. Wasn't there talk of the Pozzo's selling a minority stake a couple of years ago which valued the club at near the £300 million mark?
