Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, October 04, 02:57:59pm

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

• How are they a better product at the moment? They're not. And no, i wouldnt argue they've earnt it at all. Do we even know if their games draw more fans anymore? Because outside of their fans, are they really an attractive proposition? I know plenty of people who would rather watch Ipswich v Palace than another United vs Liverpool snoozefest. Giving them virtually every match on TV just solidifies their position, revenue wise. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Tuesday, October 01, 10:45:44am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
  • Over the last 80 years they have been a better product - and have millions of fans worldwide. Which is why their matches will attract bigger audiences by some way. This is all the TV execs care about. Not saying I like it BTW - just that's how it is. I have always agreed with the ban on 3pm Sat games - but some of the platforms I watch here - not just for PL but NFL, they show EVERY game - you pick what you want (NT) -- ASPT, Tuesday, October 01, 11:19:40am (NoHost/114.129.187.208)
    • For the third time in the thread, the games Sky show domestically should have absolutely nothing to do with the number of worldwide fans they have. Its irrelevant. Their worldwide fans will be serviced by other providers. We're talking about games televised domestically. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Tuesday, October 01, 11:35:38am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
      • They have more fans everywhere. Incl in England. The tv execs have access to precise viewing figures and decide which games to subsequently play accordingly. It’s surely that simple no? (NT) -- ASPT, Tuesday, October 01, 12:11:33pm (114-129-187-208.ip4.superloop.au/114.129.187.208)
        • I'm obviously not making my point well - character count doesn't help. Inside. -- Same Old Story, Tuesday, October 01, 12:40:14pm (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
          • I take your point about oversees broadcasting revenues, but what about advertising revenues and Sky subscriptions? I don't subscribe to Sky because like you I like to be at the match itself. Last season I visited my local pub to watch Fulham live away at Brentford. The pub was empty The pub was near empty. If there is an archetypal top 6 game on (say Utd v Spurs), the pub will be full of people wearing the shirts of those teams. This is the reality that Sky will never let go of. (NT) -- Juana Aorta, Tuesday, October 01, 01:38:42pm (host-92-24-157-181.as13285.net/92.24.157.181)
      • Your anecdotal evidence of people you would rather watch X than Y doesn’t really mean much, tv companies aren’t stupid, they have so much data and decisions will be based on maximising viewers to maximise ad. revenue to generate profit. They look (rightly) after their own interests, clearly that’s by showing big teams more. I bet there are 20 Utd to every FFC fan in England, maybe even more, inevitably will mean more tv viewers. (NT) -- Henry1879, Tuesday, October 01, 12:19:25pm (croy-26-b2-v4wan-167127-cust1611.vm24.cable.virginm.net/82.38.22.76)
      • I think in general the prem is fair, look at la liga, where teams negotiate their own tv deals, the difference between Barca/Madrid and the rest is night and day. Domestically & internationally Liv/utd/ars etc, the legacy type teams generate so much interest/revenue I think it’d only fair tbey receive a slightly bigger piece of the pie, but overall I think the prem is well balanced in its momentary distribution. (NT) -- Henry1879, Tuesday, October 01, 12:22:33pm (croy-26-b2-v4wan-167127-cust1611.vm24.cable.virginm.net/82.38.22.76)
        • I've laid out a longer post inside a reply - fundamentally, of course i understand what you're saying, but i disagree with yourself and ASPT, i've laid out why, and it has all the hallmarks of a tedious, circular discussion, so i'll pull out here. I still don't think the distribution is right - you do - fair enough. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Tuesday, October 01, 12:43:24pm (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
          • Your longer post makes full sense, but others are also right to imagine that the marketing and ad sales execs call the shots, and they have families to feed and mortgages to pay. As they used to say, "nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM." Just change the names. (NT) -- b+w g., Tuesday, October 01, 01:25:27pm (68.52.159.143.dyn.plus.net/143.159.52.68)

  ---

• True but they were a better product.Past their sell by date and covered by green mould now..Contaminating the rest of the fridge now.Is it totally structural or could the right manager turn them round? (NT) -- HemelRog, Tuesday, October 01, 10:54:27am (5ec0f8a7.skybroadband.com/94.192.248.167)