Play off semis - and Sky Sports good/bad

[drummers grandad]

We're in Spain 14th and hope to able to get tickets for the final.
Least it'll be on TV so we just have to head for the Drunken Duck

 

[meerkat54]

Why are we bothered about dates and times for the play off games, we have not secured a play off slot yet. Long way still to go. !!:unsure:

 

[Jam_Man]

Why are we bothered about dates and times for the play off games, we have not secured a play off slot yet. Long way still to go. !!:unsure:

Think we will definitely finish in the play offs.

We only have to do better than 1 of 4 teams below us to do so.

 

[Ramsdenblue]

It seems to be a common misconception that Sly have any interest in sport.

They (Sly) are interested in money and use the money from (gullible?) subscribers to dictate when matches should be played. Blame must also go to the Football League (and partly to S.U.F.C.) for putting the wishes of the subscribers ahead of the real fans who attend matches.

It seems that sitting in front of the telly is valued whilst paying money at the gate is taken for granted.

I would suggest cancelling the subscription for any Sly paying customers reading this. The sooner this odious organisation stops interfering in our game, the better in my view.

Cancelled mine 18 months ago, the whole sherbang, got myself Sky free view for a one of payment of £25.00.
I also have BT sport, so between BT and free view i get to see plenty of football, whilst saving myself £720.00 a year.

Snr.

 

[Jam_Man]

It seems to be a common misconception that Sly have any interest in sport.

They (Sly) are interested in money and use the money from (gullible?) subscribers to dictate when matches should be played. Blame must also go to the Football League (and partly to S.U.F.C.) for putting the wishes of the subscribers ahead of the real fans who attend matches.

It seems that sitting in front of the telly is valued whilst paying money at the gate is taken for granted.

I would suggest cancelling the subscription for any Sly paying customers reading this. The sooner this odious organisation stops interfering in our game, the better in my view.

There is a very cynical perception of Sky Sports, but their involvement has transformed the game and whilst we have not received the same benefit Premiership teams have we have still benefitted from their involvement in the game. We have been on TV far more since Sky came along than prior, attendances throughout the country increased through all levels when the profile of the game was increased by them taking over.

Of course they have an interest, without the sport they then dont get those subscriptions, its in their best interest for football to be the most attractive product available.

They certainly dont put match attending supporters first of course, but they dont see it as just a spectator sport but the global TV product that it is.

Now why they think League Two play off semis need to be moved to a timeslot when surely their viewing figures are going to be minimal is another thing:smile:

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

There is a very cynical perception of Sly Sports, but their involvement has transformed the game .........

One of the beautiful aspects of football is that the game that I play on a Sunday is the same as is played at all levels and across the world ............ that still remains largely the same and so I cannot agree that Sly have "transformed the game".

They (Sly) have transformed when the professional games in the 1st division are played. That I can agree on. And I am sure there are supporters (by that I mean fans that attend the games) who are unhappy with that and again those for whom it is good (for instance, those that have to regularly work on a Saturday afternoon).

The biggest benefit of Sly's involvement surely goes to television audiences in the U.K. who don't go to games and in places like Malaysia, South Africa, India, United States, Australia etcetera who now dictate what games are on telly and when they are viewed.

I could then argue it is the mass audiences of places like China that are now "transforming the game".

Quite where that leaves the sad and silly people that attend games and shout encouragement for their team and create an atmosphere is something that the F.A. and the Football League need to think about ........ once they have sorted out their generous pension plans, company cars and their expense claims. :sad:

 

[Beefy]

It seems to be a common misconception that Sly have any interest in sport.

They (Sly) are interested in money and use the money from (gullible?) subscribers to dictate when matches should be played. Blame must also go to the Football League (and partly to S.U.F.C.) for putting the wishes of the subscribers ahead of the real fans who attend matches.

It seems that sitting in front of the telly is valued whilst paying money at the gate is taken for granted.

I would suggest cancelling the subscription for any Sly paying customers reading this. The sooner this odious organisation stops interfering in our game, the better in my view.

LOL, yeah heaven forbid people put money into the game and alow us to be on TV. What swines.

 

[Beefy]

One of the beautiful aspects of football is that the game that I play on a Sunday is the same as is played at all levels and across the world ............ that still remains largely the same and so I cannot agree that Sly have "transformed the game".

They (Sly) have transformed when the professional games in the 1st division are played. That I can agree on. And I am sure there are supporters (by that I mean fans that attend the games) who are unhappy with that and again those for whom it is good (for instance, those that have to regularly work on a Saturday afternoon).

The biggest benefit of Sly's involvement surely goes to television audiences in the U.K. who don't go to games and in places like Malaysia, South Africa, India, United States, Australia etcetera who now dictate what games are on telly and when they are viewed.

I could then argue it is the mass audiences of places like China that are now "transforming the game".

Quite where that leaves the sad and silly people that attend games and shout encouragement for their team and create an atmosphere is something that the F.A. and the Football League need to think about ........ once they have sorted out their generous pension plans, company cars and their expense claims. :sad:

Attendances are up on the pre-Sky days though. Look at the gates we were getting in the mid-80s. That's replicated across the board from the Champions League cartel to the lower-league minnow.

I don't give Sky credit for every improvement that we've seen in football since 1992 but they and their money have clearly been a contributory factor and I don't subscribe to the opinion that they're some monster who have destroyed our game. Do they care? Nope. Does McDonalds care about making burgers or Apple care about making iPads? That's capitalism.

 

[londonblue]

Attendances are up on the pre-Sky days though. Look at the gates we were getting in the mid-80s. That's replicated across the board from the Champions League cartel to the lower-league minnow.

I don't give Sky credit for every improvement that we've seen in football since 1992 but they and their money have clearly been a contributory factor and I don't subscribe to the opinion that they're some monster who have destroyed our game. Do they care? Nope. Does McDonalds care about making burgers or Apple care about making iPads? That's capitalism.

The problem is you don't really know why attendances are up. Don't forget the mid 80s was when hooliganism scared a whole load of people away from football. The increase in attendances also coincides with the authorities getting on top of that issue.

You could just as easily argue that attendances would have gone up even further if it wasn't for Sky.

 

[Beefy]

I think it is a combination of factors. Italia 90 & Euro 96 and the move to all-season stadia undoubtedly but the movement of football back into the mainstream as an acceptable pursuit and the wall-to-wall coverage which followed were a big part down to Sky. I don't really see how that is debatable.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

LOL, yeah heaven forbid people put money into the game and alow us to be on TV. What swines.

Well that game in the quicksand at the Care in the Community stadium was certainly a low on TV.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Just changed the thread title here. It has gone a little off topic but is a decent discussion so worth keeping going under a different guise.

 

[MK Shrimper]

We're in Spain 14th and hope to able to get tickets for the final.
Least it'll be on TV so we just have to head for the Drunken Duck

Are we? You could have checked first....I may have important meetings. Do I need to notify Mrs MK?

 

[wakes123]

It's difficult, I love watching sport, Sky Sports shows a heck of a lot of sports (all be it not the team I support too often), so I can't complain about them too much. Without Sky Sports News I think I would be pretty lost.

 

[londonblue]

I think it is a combination of factors. Italia 90 & Euro 96 and the move to all-season stadia undoubtedly but the movement of football back into the mainstream as an acceptable pursuit and the wall-to-wall coverage which followed were a big part down to Sky. I don't really see how that is debatable.

Because it's your opinion, and isn't necessarily fact.

The wall to wall coverage is definitely down to Sky, but football becoming acceptable and mainstream happened before that. In fact you could say Sky were the first to notice the trend and jumped on the bandwaggon. Who really knows, but to say you don't see how it is debatable is pretty short sighted IMO.

 

[TTS]

Why are people blaming Sky Sports ?

Sky Sports, for which I am a huge fan of by the way, is a by product of the Premiership, not the other way round ! The Premier League was formed because of the Clubs voting for it to happen. Sky were just strong enough and ballasy enough to bid the highest for it !

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I don't watch sport on Sky and I do watch sport in the flesh so the fact our end of season matches could well require me to travel over two days to watch 90 minutes if football means that all they are doing for me is getting in my way. Those who want to watch lots of sport on TV and are prepared to pay top dollar are happy and the top players who earn ridiculous amounts benefit but the game as a whole is not benefitting in the way it should IMO.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I don't watch Sky either - not when there are multiple streaming sites available :smile:

 

[Mick]

I don't watch sport on Sky and I do watch sport in the flesh so the fact our end of season matches could well require me to travel over two days to watch 90 minutes of football means that all they are doing for me is getting in my way. Those who want to watch lots of sport on TV and are prepared to pay top dollar are happy and the top players who earn ridiculous amounts benefit but the game as a whole is not benefitting in the way it should IMO.

It's looking about 50/50 whether we would get a local one or a distant one.

So, are you saying that for your convenience the only acceptable kick off time is Saturday afternoon or Sunday afternoon, in case it's a distant one? In this case it wouldn't be shown live. You are happy that the 70 - 80% of Southend supporters who wouldn't travel to a distant playoff, or the 60% who wouldn't travel to a near one, should forfeit the chance to watch it live .... for your convenience?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It's looking about 50/50 whether we would get a local one or a distant one.

So, are you saying that for your convenience the only acceptable kick off time is Saturday afternoon or Sunday afternoon, in case it's a distant one? In this case it wouldn't be shown live. You are happy that the 70 - 80% of Southend supporters who wouldn't travel to a distant playoff, or the 60% who wouldn't travel to a near one, should forfeit the chance to watch it live .... for your convenience?

Sounds reasonable to me.