Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Mar 5, 2009 19:10:18 GMT
Once upon a time we all enjoyed watching football on the TV for free; mind you I believe it was only FA Cup and England games that would have been shown on BBC or ITV. As we know Sky with their pay per view changed all that, but we were then able to watch Premiership games live and see a game on most nights. We all have our own views on what the TV money has done to the sport and how unfairly it has been distributed, only the big guns getting all the cream, but could things change, could we see an end to so much live football on TV?.
Why do I ask I hear you say, well Setanta has missed a £10 million payment that was due to the Football Association this week. While they claim they will meet their commitments, they are hoping to try and renegotiate several of their current deals. Plus they have only won one of the two key Premier League packages it had been hoping to retain in the recent rounds of bidding for the 2011-2013 live TV rights.
Setanta’s deal to cover the BSP runs out at the end of next season and will they want to try and win the contract again? and will they even be able to afford to put in any bids that would stand a chance of winning contracts to cover any games. Before they took over the Premiership games they show, they were the ones you paid sky £50 for a season ticket to watch, I’m sure they were called Prem Plus. Even at £10 per a month the asking price would be £120 per a year.
As we know they put up the prices this season and many cancelled their contracts, others were offered a cut price deal, that worked out even cheaper than what they were paying last season. People are feeling the pinch and making savings are the order of the day, such things as Setanta TV will often be the first cut made and when you think that TV companies are suffering a very large shortfall in advertising revenue, even they will need to look at what cuts they will need to make.
Is the £10 million a yearly payment? Or one of just many it has to pay the FA during the year, while we know payments made to BSP clubs is not much, just how much per a game to TV companies have to pay the Prem teams? Even sky TV may see a big reduction in people taking up their service, freeview these days has over 60 channels, and yes I know many have so many repeats on them, but you can still always find something you want to watch.
If more people give up paying to have Sky and Setanta then in the short term, you could see pubs doing very well out of it. Just think of the savings going to a local pub and having to pay only for a pint and then watching the game for free. I say in the short term, as I believe the TV companies will see a reduced income and therefore will have to consider making cuts, football could be one of them, as the price they pay is very scary figures.
ITV are now making job cuts and programs are to go, mind you I’m not to happy that the best two programs that are on TV on a Sunday night are two that will now be got rid of. Heartbeat and The Royal, well I would love these two as I loved the 60’s.
Lets just say Sky and Setanta decided that football was just too expensive in today’s troubled times and just covered other sports that were more affordable. What would this do to the English game? Surely top clubs would see a big drop in income and may have to look at the wages they pay players. This could have the effect of foreign players no longer seeing the Prem as the place where they can earn the most. If that was the case then it could open the doors for so many more English players, who as things stand, will never get the chance to play at the top level.
Would you be happy to go back to free football TV? Only getting to watch the FA Cup and England games, well I would not mind too much and I have never agreed that sky should show any England games; they should only ever be free and be on the BBC or ITV channels.
|
|
Fonda
TFF member
Talking absolute football...
Posts: 384
|
Post by Fonda on Mar 5, 2009 19:20:33 GMT
You can certainly have too much of a good thing. And i think the TV coverage of football is a decent example of that. Remeber the halcyon days when the only football we witnessed on TV was on Sportsnight with Steve Ryder, Midweek Sport Special with Elton Welsby or The Big Match with the great Brian Moore? What we have now is over-kill and it's destroying the game. The clubs might be grateful for the money, but i think in the long-run, the game will suffer from over-exposure. Watching footy on the TV used to be an event. Remember the coverage of the Cup Final? Watching the teams leave the hotel, followed all the way by a helicopter! Interviews with the players on the team coach. With football of some kind on TV every night of the week now, interest levels and attendances can only diminish. Less is more.
|
|
|
Post by gandalfgull on Mar 6, 2009 9:09:38 GMT
I would love for it to go back to the good old days which made the FA Cup and England games on the telly special. I don't have Sky or Sultana as I really only enjoy going to a game unless it is a national game or final. My friends often work their social life around 'getting back to the match'
I do however like the idea of some games being shown in pubs as this could be the saving of some of them (maybe inc post offices too as they have big tellys too these days!). Over the next few years I see football changing in total as the bigger clubs that have relied on the prawn sandwich brigade start to suffer. The ones to survive will be smaller clubs with a true local following and those bought by these billionairses.
|
|
jerry
TFF member
Posts: 165
|
Post by jerry on Mar 6, 2009 11:30:00 GMT
I can't see Sky ever voluntarily giving up the rights to the Premier League, their entire business plan depends on large numbers of subscribers. I would imagine that a majority of Sky subscribers initially only got it to watch the football. As you say Dave, there are over 60 channels now available on Freeview, so not much reason to fork out for Sky other than the football. Without the EPL Sky would be dead in the water which is why they are prepared to pay such vast sums for the rights. Actually, the Beeb are planning to show some live games from The Championship next season. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2008/12/plenty_to_look_forward_to_in_2.htmlScroll down to the fourth paragraph after the picture of Andy Murray!
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Mar 6, 2009 12:21:10 GMT
Jerry, If you visited Sky's main site at Isleworth, I am sure you would be surprised to see that the Sky Sports building is just one of 14, which in total employs tens of thousands of people, most of whom are working in other departments. The football section within that is just one of many, and you may be surpised to learn that the biggest expanding of those at the moment is actually darts, not football. Sure, the football rights are probably the single most important thing Sky owns, but don't expect them to disappear if football disappeared from their portfolio. Currently the work site is being expanded with a new hi-tech set of studios, offices and production areas which will also see the Piccadilly Line re-routed at some point - I am sure Ealinggull and Chris Hayes have seen the work that is going on, possibly being delayed by some of the junction work on the A4 after Gillette Corner as well. From what I can glean out of the regular Intranet statements, Sky were actually keen to keep things where they are regarding the Premier League with the next contract, but Setanta attempted to get their Monday night package of games on the cheap after spending a ridiculous sum of money to get hold of rights to the Guinness Premiership rugby union next season. That is a sport where viewing figures on Sky are way down on, because of the quality of the league being so much poorer now international players are rested from many games as part of their contract. Add in a lot of top players heading to the salary-cap free French Top 14 and that is certainly not money well-spent. Dave was spot on with regards to his opening post about Setanta. They seem to have some kind of idea that their money, coming all from banks and individual financiers as it does, will never run out but they are coming to the stark realisation that money does not grow on trees...hence defaulting on their payment this week. The fact that their subscriptions are down, cancellations are up and people are no longer keen to add £10-15 to their Sky payment for quality of programming that is not particularly high outside the live games doesn't seem to have hit home. They may soon pay 'the ultimate price' which would probably see someone like ESPN move in on their territory with more of a part of the British action - they already own the likes of Wisden, Cricinfo, Soccernet, etc, plus have the backing of the Disney Corporation, so maybe continuing to cover the BSP would be ideal for them (that's for the dear departed Dave Shaw of course!). And despite working for Sky, I also believe there is far too much football on the TV now, and far too much football not being played on Saturday afternoons to fit in with TV and the plethora of competitions played. I don't see it happening, but I would much rather see the end of the 'no live games to be shown at 3pm on a Saturday' ruling and have one played then, and one more played on a Sunday. I'm not saying who should have them, but I know who would cover them best And I also agree that England games should always be shown on terrestrial TV, whoever bids the most for it. Of course if the Beeb and ITV end up not wanting them or sadly in these times not being able to afford to cover them, then there has to be a backup plan. You imagine now what people are used to with regards to watching live sport, would they be able to cope without some kind of live sport on every day? Would they cope just seeing highlights from the West Indies for example? Remember in the past, overseas England tours were not covered. I fear for sporting coverage on the main five channels. You may soon be limited to the Formula One on the BBC, and the odd game of football between the rest of the main broadcasters. When you see that mainstays of programming like The Bill are being cut because of financial troubles, sports are going to follow...hence the BBC cutting back their racing coverage to only 13 days a year from 2010 as has been mooted. There will soon come a time when Live Score will be the only sport on BBC on Saturday afternoons all year round apart from maybe the World Snooker Championships and the indoor bowls, plus of course the Olympics which will remain a priority based on the BBC website's main banner! BBC - The Olympic Broadcaster - (and not a lot else) Sadly it's not just going to be sport that suffers. Channels are going out of business with regularity, and I see now that Virgin Media are trying to sell some of their channels (Dave, Living, etc) because of money troubles....do you seriously think anyone will pay £500m for them in this climate?? I know there are people out there who consider Sky to have been bad for sporting coverage, but I couldn't honestly see it even if I wasn't a little biased as someone in their employ. Maybe just a little overkill on some things, but given that subscriber numbers are still going up, who am I to argue?
|
|
Fonda
TFF member
Talking absolute football...
Posts: 384
|
Post by Fonda on Mar 6, 2009 13:35:28 GMT
I would much rather see the end of the 'no live games to be shown at 3pm on a Saturday' ruling and have one played then, Not sure i agree that would be a good thing. If there was live Premiership football on a Saturday afternoon, surely that would further damage attendances lower down the leagues? I assume that's the reason for the ruling as it stands currently? What would be the advantages that you can see Andy?
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Mar 6, 2009 19:21:41 GMT
If people are that desperate to watch 3pm Saturday games, they are easy enough to find on the internet, so I'd imagine if they were made official, the impact on attendances lower down the leagues would be minimal. I would expect, if it were to happen and I am not saying for one moment it will, there would be a limit on the amount of times a team was shown live in that particular slot to stop attendances at Woking plummeting when Man Screw are on, or Stevenage complaining when Spurs are being shown.
I can see where you are coming from Shane, and would guess your reasoning behind the ban is correct, but the Saturday game has become so diluted now it's getting silly.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Mar 7, 2009 7:51:16 GMT
I am part of the ever-decreasing number of people who will never subscribe to Sky. Yes, people should have the freedom to watch what they like, just as people should be free to support whichever football team they choose to do so, but how depressing most people's choices are!
Unfortunately, there are too many people who seem to see no contradiction in moaning about the decline of the 3pm kickoff and then sitting back on the sofa on a Sunday afternoon to watch wall-to-wall football courtesy of their or their publican's Sky subscription.
|
|
|
Post by capitalgull on Mar 7, 2009 10:22:06 GMT
I am part of the ever-decreasing number of people who will never subscribe to Sky. Yes, people should have the freedom to watch what they like, just as people should be free to support whichever football team they choose to do so, but how depressing most people's choices are! Unfortunately, there are too many people who seem to see no contradiction in moaning about the decline of the 3pm kickoff and then sitting back on the sofa on a Sunday afternoon to watch wall-to-wall football courtesy of their or their publican's Sky subscription. Is that you Mr Harris? Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree? But whoever you may be, you are spot on regards both parts of the post. Most television is absolute rubbish these days, yet I still end up watching hours of it. Happily, though, I would never go out of my way to watch a football match that involved another British club apart from perhaps the FA Cup final or a Champions League final...not even England anymore.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Mar 10, 2009 17:23:50 GMT
Some great views on the thread and Andy has given plenty of details in his post and the fact is that Sky has given us all so much more live sport to watch than ever before, but as we know at a price.
I was hoping some would have given their views on the question I asked in the opening post( quoted above) and that was just what would happen to the game at the very top, if all TV money was to end. Would it on the long term help the English game? or would it really harm it?
|
|