An interesting thought...

If you are an extra in a film or TV production you get paid for your part. No on expects you to pay to appear in a film.

Imagine yesterday's match without any fans present. All of us fans are an essential part of a televised football match for we create the atmosphere and excitement. I doubt all those armchair fans would bother with TV football if it was always played in an empty stadium.

We are therefore essential to the marketability of Sky's product and should be rewarded for adding value to it.

Any fan attending a televised match should in my opinion get in free and be paid a fee for his/her contribution to the success of the programme including royalties for repeat showings and overseas transmission.

If Sky and the clubs are unwilling to do this then I do not believe they should be permitted to show the faces of the people attending a televised game as this would be an invasion of privacy and an infringement of their human right to a private life.

 

Wasn't it Silvio Berlesconi, of all people, who sadly observed that the way things are going, re. the media [he was talking about SKY specifically] and football, that they will have to allow spectators in for free, or even pay them, to create the full stadium experience.

You know what to do - Cancel your subscriptions. It's you people with your SKY contracts that are giving them the power to dictate like this. Stop giving them the ammunition.

Discuss that little factoid..!

 

That sums it up nicely.

 

Love my Sky+ They'll have to rip it from my cold, dead hands.

 

I don't have Sky. I have never felt the need for it. When I am really. really old and can't get out of the house unaided then I might think about it but at the moment I am fit and have a life so I don't waste my money.

 

Silvio is Cortese's mate haha.

 

This is a joke right?

 

I am being deadly serious my friend.

 

So we should be paid to watch football? You would be such a minority that you would have no impact, besides there will be people who pay to go and watch a game that aren't complaining they are being ripped off by Sky and are just enjoying the football.

 

Im in a video on redtube, dont see me asking them for money

 

You know, I've never thought of that extra dimension to having a SKY subscription. That means that certain people are even worse ripped off than I thought. Here's my old argument about SKY, as far as the individual is concerned.

We pay a licence fee, right..? This is essentially to watch BBC television in its various forms. The BBC are the quality yardstick, in this country, which all other stations are judged by. Then we have ITV, CH4 and CH5, which are all terrestrial commercial stations, who have to maintain a level of quality simply because they can't fall too far behind the Beeb. However, the Beeb are kept in check so that they don't go off and become an entirely cerebral media outlet. This all sits reasonably well together. You know what your paying for with these. Either you pay directly with your licence fee, or you pay indirectly through the price of your goods [how otherwise would advertising be paid for..?].

Then we come to SKY. First, in order to have SKY, you have to pay a licence fee, as SKY transmit the BBC, and you can't opt out. Besides, remember the importance of that quality yardstick. Then you have to pay for the various SKY subscriptions. Anything between almost nothing to Le God knows what. OK, so what you say..?

Well here's the rotten bit. For all that potential subscription, you'd expect wall to wall TV, yes..? Especially stuff that interests you and yours. But here's the rub - they advertise to you during TV transmission times. This earns them extra revenue, of course, apart from your inflated subscription [or not, if it's free]. But wait..! While they're advertising to you, they aren't broadcasting TV programmes to you. So you are paying to be advertised to..!! And while they are advertising, it takes up TV broadcasting time, so they they don't have to have so many programmes to make or buy to fill their schedules. So it saves them and costs you in entertainment value. And wait just a Le God damn minute..! They repeat programmes too - often. So when they've ripped you off once with some sub-standard programme from the USA, which you've flicked to in desperation, instead of getting off your arse and doing something worthwhile, and lowered your expectation levels so that you can just about stomach it, a few hours/days later, they go through the process all over again. How many times do you want to be ripped off before you call enough..? Serious point, but don't take it to heart. Unless you want to.

please log in to view this image

Me..? I'm thinking of giving up TV entirely. BBC included, I barely watch more than one or two programmes a week anyway. Too busy riding my bike; trying to get proper noises out of my guitar; and writing this stuff.

please log in to view this image

 

I love the sports coverage that I get on Sky which is why I pay for it. I also use Sky+ a lot to record the programmes I like from all the channels and then I can watch them when I have the chance and speed up the adverts in between. I use Sky so pay for it..if you don't, you don't.

 

Oh, I can see you didn't take that to heart, Fran.

 

It's like dissing my child

 

OK, you're a special case then. But nobody else, ok..?

 

Rather have sky the Virgin tv tbh, sky has far more channels(in hd to) and is the least expensive of the both.

 

That's two.

 

Well I don't think Rupert Murdoch can survive on two subscriptions, so sure, you can keep them.

No more though..! That's it. The Premier League goes bust by next weekend.