Games moved for SKY

[Lizz]

Can't remember which season, a few years back we went out for lunch on Christmas Day at a hotel. There was a diner on his own. Somehow or other we got talking and it turned out he was a Spurs fan who couldn't drive, and was going to see Spurs play Villa on Boxing Day - he was too worried to risk travelling by coach in case there were traffic/mechanical problems. He had a family, who he'd left alone in London to spend Christmas in Birmingham to ensure he didn't miss the game [think Stan Collymore scored a hat trick].

[peter w]

That Spurs move is fookin shit.

Yep and even worse for Spurs fans.

Bollocks to them.

It's that attitude that has allowed TV to fuck us around as they fit.

Doin't be silly. Its the fact that Sky have bought the game that allows them to fuck us around as they see fit, not whether we give a shit about Spurs' fans travel plans on Boxing Day. Frankly, that idea is absurd.

Once again you show your remarkable talent for missing the point.

If, as fans, we showed some collective responsibility we could try to do something about it. However, the reality is that the only time any of us give a shit is when it impacts on us personally. It isn't Sky's fault, they're paying the money but it is the PL that carve up the amount of games on offer causing them to be shifted. If the PL were less greedy they could limit the number of games televised. The PL is made up of the clubs in it. If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Coming from someone with your track record in appraising our managers that is some feat for me to miss a point.

As if Sky give a shit what we think. If they game went ahead at 3pm and no-one turned up the game would still be shown. We're there to help sell the Premiership experience and not because of how we contribute to Sky's showing of the game.

as for missing the point, again, I can only take you to your even more absurd line in the above paragraph, " It isn't Sky's fault..." Bloody hell Chris, talk about not knowing arses from elbows. But that's okay I'll keep missing the point and you can keep filling me in.

[Chris Harte]

If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Really? I seem to remember asking a while back who Sky's sponsors were so that I could stop contributing to their products, in order to just do my own thing against fixtures being pissed about. All you wanted to do was bang on about how it wouldn't work, yet now you're talking about a boycott yourself?

[Chris Smith]

That Spurs move is fookin shit.

Yep and even worse for Spurs fans.

Bollocks to them.

It's that attitude that has allowed TV to fuck us around as they fit.

Doin't be silly. Its the fact that Sky have bought the game that allows them to fuck us around as they see fit, not whether we give a shit about Spurs' fans travel plans on Boxing Day. Frankly, that idea is absurd.

Once again you show your remarkable talent for missing the point.

If, as fans, we showed some collective responsibility we could try to do something about it. However, the reality is that the only time any of us give a shit is when it impacts on us personally. It isn't Sky's fault, they're paying the money but it is the PL that carve up the amount of games on offer causing them to be shifted. If the PL were less greedy they could limit the number of games televised. The PL is made up of the clubs in it. If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Coming from someone with your track record in appraising our managers that is some feat for me to miss a point.

As if Sky give a shit what we think. If they game went ahead at 3pm and no-one turned up the game would still be shown. We're there to help sell the Premiership experience and not because of how we contribute to Sky's showing of the game.

as for missing the point, again, I can only take you to your even more absurd line in the above paragraph, " It isn't Sky's fault..." Bloody hell Chris, talk about not knowing arses from elbows. But that's okay I'll keep missing the point and you can keep filling me in.

I'm never sure if you really are thick or if it's all just an act.

It's always convenient to blame everything on Sky, but they're just the punter it is the PL that is whoring itself. Of course the sums that they offer makes it difficult to say no; difficult but not impossible.

They, and by they I mean the clubs, want the money that Sky put on the table so have steadily increased the number of games they're willing to sell. It doesn't inconvenience people like you, who rarely go, so you don't care and are happy to laugh at fans of other clubs who are put out.

It is the PL who control the game and ultimately it is their responsibility that so many games are moved to satisfy (a) their greed and (b) stay at home fans who want wall to wall football to watch.

[peter w]

If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Really? I seem to remember asking a while back who Sky's sponsors were so that I could stop contributing to their products, in order to just do my own thing against fixtures being pissed about. All you wanted to do was bang on about how it wouldn't work, yet now you're talking about a boycott yourself?

Sometimes you have to shift an argument to fit a post. Surprised that Chris has succumbed to it mind.

[Chris Smith]

If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Really? I seem to remember asking a while back who Sky's sponsors were so that I could stop contributing to their products, in order to just do my own thing against fixtures being pissed about. All you wanted to do was bang on about how it wouldn't work, yet now you're talking about a boycott yourself?

I'm talking about putting pressure on the clubs collectively, not Sky. It will never happen, we're all only concerned about it when it imapcts on us personally.

As I've explained twice now, although Sky are putting up the money I say it is the PL who are taking it and causing/allowing games to be moved.

[peter w]

Okay, I'm thick. I can live with that. I rarely go, yes another point I can't argue against. Can't remember where I was laughing at other fans though. But I'm sure the odd inaccuracy shouldn't stop you in your tracks.

As for the rest of your Sky stuff you're now just arguing on their behalf for the sake of it and I don't think you believe in it either. Well Chris Harte already showed up your contradiction in his post so it proves that you don't believe a word of what you're posting.

If you do, and genuinely believe that Sky don't change games as and when they and they alone choose then fair enough. You bizarre gentleman you.

[peter w]

If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Really? I seem to remember asking a while back who Sky's sponsors were so that I could stop contributing to their products, in order to just do my own thing against fixtures being pissed about. All you wanted to do was bang on about how it wouldn't work, yet now you're talking about a boycott yourself?

I'm talking about putting pressure on the clubs collectively, not Sky. It will never happen, we're all only concerned about it when it imapcts on us personally.

As I've explained twice now, although Sky are putting up the money I say it is the PL who are taking it and causing/allowing games to be moved.

The PL sign a contract with Sky who offered the most money. They can do what they like with kick-off times thereafter. Same as anyone who won the contract to the rights to show the majority of PL games live. You haven't got an argument you're just having one.

[Chris Smith]

Okay, I'm thick. I can live with that. I rarely go, yes another point I can't argue against. Can't remember where I was laughing at other fans though. But I'm sure the odd inaccuracy shouldn't stop you in your tracks.

As for the rest of your Sky stuff you're now just arguing on their behalf for the sake of it and I don't think you believe in it either. Well Chris Harte already showed up your contradiction in his post so it proves that you don't believe a word of what you're posting.

If you do, and genuinely believe that Sky don't change games as and when they and they alone choose then fair enough. You bizarre gentleman you.

Do you really not know how it works?

The PL offer a number of packages of games for sale each time the contracts are renewed. That's why we get a certain number of Saturday lunchtime games, Saturday evening games, Sunday lunchtime games, Sunday afternoon games and Monday night game. Once those packages are sold the TV companies get to pick which ones they want with some agreed criteria around guaranteeing each side x number of appearances and that their will be other moves due to cup ties etc.

If they cared more for the fans who attend games and less about the money then they'd sell fewer pacakges and less of us would be inconvenienced.

[Chris Smith]

If the fans of those clubs worked together to boycott merchandising, pies, programmes etc or refused to attend games on a Monday night for example then the clubs would soon change their tune.

Really? I seem to remember asking a while back who Sky's sponsors were so that I could stop contributing to their products, in order to just do my own thing against fixtures being pissed about. All you wanted to do was bang on about how it wouldn't work, yet now you're talking about a boycott yourself?

I'm talking about putting pressure on the clubs collectively, not Sky. It will never happen, we're all only concerned about it when it imapcts on us personally.

As I've explained twice now, although Sky are putting up the money I say it is the PL who are taking it and causing/allowing games to be moved.

The PL sign a contract with Sky who offered the most money. They can do what they like with kick-off times thereafter. Same as anyone who won the contract to the rights to show the majority of PL games live. You haven't got an argument you're just having one.

No, they can't.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works but as usual it doesn't stop you from spouting.

[peter w]

Almost there Chris. The only stipulation is that there no games broadcast live in the UK at 3pm on a Saturday. As for the other slots that's for Sky to fill as they see fit. They won't put games on during the week at 2pm for obvious reasons and won't saturate their own market by putting games on live every night.

The reasons games rarely get moved into midweek to be shown live is a totally different issue altogether and is to do with fixture pile-ups, Cup games, internationals, and not wanting wall-to-wall football damaging the product.

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

The games are sold in time slot packages by the PL. Sky (or ESPN for that matter) do  not decide them.

[cdward]

I think we all know what the PL and Sky think of us fans. "Bollocks to them" was probably the phrase that was used.

[peter w]

The games are sold in time slot packages by the PL. Sky (or ESPN for that matter) do  not decide them.

So who moved the Villa kick-off time?

[Chris Smith]

The games are sold in time slot packages by the PL. Sky (or ESPN for that matter) do  not decide them.

So who moved the Villa kick-off time?

One of the packages includes a Boxing Day game and forces the kick off to be moved as the PL don't want televised games shown at the same time as the others.