Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[accies1874]

I'd hazard a guess that St Mirren are not alone in this regard. I think our only away game on Sky was actually the trip to St Mirren. Has there been another televised league game apart from that which hasn't been a derby or involved Rangers or Celtic?

Motherwell v Hibs
Dundee v Hibs
Motherwell v Dundee United

[accies1874]

Think our last non-OF away game on Sky was Dundee in May 2018, although we did play St Mirren on BT in May 2019.

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think it is as per the original deal. It was made clear at that stage that it would be four per ground, and that's why, for example, Edinburgh and Dundee derbies haven't all been shown.

However, I believe that there was a renegotiation in 2020 which permitted Sky to show up to 5 from each ground (and 6 from Celtic Park) in exchange for the concessions on streaming etc. Incredibly thick Rangers-minded journalist "Bruce Archer" made an arse of himself last year by claiming that this actually consituted extra games on the deal (ie an increase from 48), which it did not. I'm not sure if it's still in place now.

It’s definitely in place this season because Dundee Utd are already on 4 home games (2xRangers, 1xCeltic, 1xDundee), and have Celtic coming up on Sky in a couple of weeks. 

Same with Hearts (2xCeltic, 1xRangers, 1xHibs), who have Rangers coming up.

[Clown Job]

Slightly off topic but I see FIFA has announced its launching its own streaming platform to show live football 

Edit: It’s free and will have archived footage. 

Clicky

Quote

By the end of 2022, FIFA+ will be streaming the equivalent of 40,000 live games per year from 100 Member Associations across all six confederations, including 11,000 women’s matches. FIFA+ offers live coverage from Europe’s topflight leagues to previously unserved competitions from around the world in men’s, women’s and youth football. From launch, 1,400 matches will be live streamed monthly on FIFA+, rising rapidly.

Quote

Ahead of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, FIFA+ will be home to every FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women’s World Cup™ match ever recorded on camera, totalling more than 2,000 hours of archive content. For the first time ever, this entire archive will be available to fans. Fans will have the ability to watch full-match replays, highlights, goals and magical moments all in one place. The FIFA+ Archive will launch with more than 2,500 videos dating back to the 1950s, with many more to come throughout the year.

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Clown Job

[johnnydun]

16 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Slightly off topic but I see FIFA has announced its launching its own streaming platform to show live football 

Edit: It’s free and will have archived footage. 

Clicky

 

Hilarious if Sky sports are taken down by FIFA.

[accies1874]

Slightly off topic but I see FIFA has announced its launching its own streaming platform to show live football 
Edit: It’s free and will have archived footage. 
Clicky

By the end of 2022, FIFA+ will be streaming the equivalent of 40,000 live games per year from 100 Member Associations across all six confederations, including 11,000 women’s matches. FIFA+ offers live coverage from Europe’s topflight leagues to previously unserved competitions from around the world in men’s, women’s and youth football. From launch, 1,400 matches will be live streamed monthly on FIFA+, rising rapidly.

Ahead of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, FIFA+ will be home to every FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women’s World Cup[emoji769] match ever recorded on camera, totalling more than 2,000 hours of archive content. For the first time ever, this entire archive will be available to fans. Fans will have the ability to watch full-match replays, highlights, goals and magical moments all in one place. The FIFA+ Archive will launch with more than 2,500 videos dating back to the 1950s, with many more to come throughout the year.

 


(But only if that includes qualifiers because, well... y'know)

[Jinky67]

6 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I actually think Sky might get themselves into difficulty in the near future.

As far as I can see the percentage of overall subscription revenue spent on showing English games is starting to dwarf the sports top up subscribers. At some point people who subscribe to Sky for reasons other than sport are going to suggest that their money is being redirected away from what they are paying for. 

Netflix et al are stepping up non-sports output which then may see people cancelling subs. Indeed, the move from analogue to digital TV and Sky's early dominance of the satellite market might be the only thing saving them at the moment.

The final nail might be if pubs start to see people drifting away as they can't afford going out as much and bin their commercial subs.

Don't buy shares in Sky.

The money is already redirected into other areas hence the significant investment in Sky original content across cinema and tv and the investment in building their own studios at Elstree. 

The doomsday what if scenario has been spoken about a number of times especially during Covid as to if the clubs took ownership of their own TV deals or if Amazon decided to really challenge Sky for the rights and as for Netflix they are one of Sky’s biggest partners and had quite a lot of creative input into the new Sky Glass platform so anything they do will be likely in partnership with Sky and not in competition with. Sky staff are trained to actively promote Netflix content after all.

Can’t deny Sky haven’t made their bread on the back of the Premier League but with Comcast now in control Sky are diversifying and not as reliant on the Premier League so whilst it would be a blow it wouldn’t put any nails in the coffin never mind the last one.

 

[Derry Alli]

18 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

That’s why IPTV was invented.

*citation needed*

[Alert Mongoose]

1 hour ago, Jinky67 said:

The money is already redirected into other areas hence the significant investment in Sky original content across cinema and tv and the investment in building their own studios at Elstree. 

The doomsday what if scenario has been spoken about a number of times especially during Covid as to if the clubs took ownership of their own TV deals or if Amazon decided to really challenge Sky for the rights and as for Netflix they are one of Sky’s biggest partners and had quite a lot of creative input into the new Sky Glass platform so anything they do will be likely in partnership with Sky and not in competition with. Sky staff are trained to actively promote Netflix content after all.

Can’t deny Sky haven’t made their bread on the back of the Premier League but with Comcast now in control Sky are diversifying and not as reliant on the Premier League so whilst it would be a blow it wouldn’t put any nails in the coffin never mind the last one.

 

This post was brought to you in conjuction with Sky public relations department.

[Jinky67]

28 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

This post was brought to you in conjuction with Sky public relations department.

I do have a vested interest as both an employee of them and someone who has savings invested as shares

What i’ve shared with you there isn’t commercially sensitive or hard to find out nor am i unhappy that my mortgage, security and kids futures aren’t at risk because the company i work for haven’t had the foresight to have contingencies in place if the golden goose of the EPL was taken away.

Skys churn numbers are the lowest they have been for over a decade and they are no longer just a UK brand so what you posted just isn’t the reality.

Now that isn’t to say i don’t think or would like to see better coverage of Scottish football of course i would however some of those questions need to be asked of those selling the game to broadcasters as to why they value it so little

Edited April 12, 2022 by Jinky67

[NorthernLights]

I've been reading that this season Sky have once again not used their full quota of available games. Does anyone know how many they have/will shown v how many they could?

[The Master]

5 minutes ago, NorthernLights said:

I've been reading that this season Sky have once again not used their full quota of available games. Does anyone know how many they have/will shown v how many they could?

I think they’ve shown 35, meaning they’re 7 short. They might show one from the final day of the bottom 6, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 

[Ray Patterson]

32 minutes ago, NorthernLights said:

I've been reading that this season Sky have once again not used their full quota of available games. Does anyone know how many they have/will shown v how many they could?

It's 48 they have in the deal, they've shown 35 + 7 scheduled, which is 41.

They might show two more on the final day - but probably won't tbh.

[gaz5]

I do have a vested interest as both an employee of them and someone who has savings invested as shares
What i’ve shared with you there isn’t commercially sensitive or hard to find out nor am i unhappy that my mortgage, security and kids futures aren’t at risk because the company i work for haven’t had the foresight to have contingencies in place if the golden goose of the EPL was taken away.
Skys churn numbers are the lowest they have been for over a decade and they are no longer just a UK brand so what you posted just isn’t the reality.
Now that isn’t to say i don’t think or would like to see better coverage of Scottish football of course i would however some of those questions need to be asked of those selling the game to broadcasters as to why they value it so little

Obviously don't wish you and yours any harm Jinky, but I think, personally, Sky are likely to see attrition, or at the very least people unwilling to pay current prices, rocket in the coming quarters, particularly as we reach Q3/Q4.

At over £115 a month (for me anyway, without sports or movies) for TV, Phone (which many don't use) and Broadband and their prices going up, it's an easy switch for people to cut that for Netflix and cheaper (often better) broadband.

It's the first thing on my hitlist to go to make up for the rise in energy prices and I don't really think I'll be any worse off as sky is really just a convenience these days, with so many other options. I know I'm not the only one with that plan.

Personally, I'm offloading my equity in any company who's product I consider "discretionary spend". I reckon I'll be able to buy it back cheaper, if I want to, in 18 to 24 months.

[Jinky67]

57 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Obviously don't wish you and yours any harm Jinky, but I think, personally, Sky are likely to see attrition, or at the very least people unwilling to pay current prices, rocket in the coming quarters, particularly as we reach Q3/Q4.

At over £115 a month (for me anyway, without sports or movies) for TV, Phone (which many don't use) and Broadband and their prices going up, it's an easy switch for people to cut that for Netflix and cheaper (often better) broadband.

It's the first thing on my hitlist to go to make up for the rise in energy prices and I don't really think I'll be any worse off as sky is really just a convenience these days, with so many other options. I know I'm not the only one with that plan.

Personally, I'm offloading my equity in any company who's product I consider "discretionary spend". I reckon I'll be able to buy it back cheaper, if I want to, in 18 to 24 months.

It’s a busy period just now with many people reacting to the current cost of living, from the 1st of April calls coming in we’re about 20% over forecast however I see daily how many customers we cancel and although it’s a really difficult period for many people there are usually options to help those who are struggling and for many of them sometimes that is to remove things like sports/cinema as a 1st option.

People have to do what’s right for them just now and I don’t have the right to judge anyone however my post was more in reply to the suggestion Sky may be in trouble due to people cancelling or unsubscribing from sports etc or that if they lost rights to the EPL the house of cards would just tumble. That just isn’t the reality nor is it reality that the company’s sustainability relies solely on the English Premier League and that’s not me trying to be a dick or controversial but just to offer a view from someone who is actually in the know.

I also take your point on cost, I’m in a privileged position with regards to that and I don’t know how I would feel having to pay for it if roles were reversed especially now Scottish Power want £450 a month. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Jinky67

[Dons_1988]

£115 a month without the sports? Is that serious? 

That’s absolutely wild. 

[gaz5]

£115 a month without the sports? Is that serious? 
That’s absolutely wild. 

£116. Bill came in this morning. No sports or movies. I'm going to cancel at the weekend.

[SuperSaints1877]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

£115 a month without the sports? Is that serious? 

That’s absolutely wild. 

Nah surely that’s not right just for TV?
That must include fast broadband, mobile, etc. 

 

[gaz5]

Nah surely that’s not right just for TV?
That must include fast broadband, mobile, etc. 
 

Yes, that's what I said. [emoji846]

TV, phone (which I don't use) and (normal) fibre broadband. I can do without all 3.

[Dons_1988]

23 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Yes, that's what I said.

TV, phone (which I don't use) and (normal) fibre broadband. I can do without all 3.

Even including all 3 that’s mad. I pay £60ish for BT including sports, broadband and tv.