A little bird (lol) told me that the number of localised skysports subscriptions and local media coverage play a big part in allocating televised games
So I was right, one televised league game since December 31st 2011.
Lincs, if that is the case are you telling us that there are six times as many people subscribing to Sky in Hull as there are in SE London? And that because the Hull Daily Mail has coverage of, well... err... Hull, that the powers that be consider our monthly paragraph in the Sub Standard a reflection of our popularity compared with theirs? Sorry mate, not having it... ;-)
and if we'd been on live 8 times with all sorts of differing kick off times and and fixtures being moved after people had bought train tickets etc there would be loads of moans
not too bothered really , we've hardly been scintillating so no ones missed much not that any one has been in this most average of championships but it's a damn sight better than league one was
on a different note has anyone (be honest) watched one live league one game on telly this year , i know i havent
So I was right, one televised league game since December 31st 2011.
Lincs, if that is the case are you telling us that there are six times as many people subscribing to Sky in Hull as there are in SE London? And that because the Hull Daily Mail has coverage of, well... err... Hull, that the powers that be consider our monthly paragraph in the Sub Standard a reflection of our popularity compared with theirs? Sorry mate, not having it... ;-)
If you're talking fans of a particular club, Possibly that is the case. SE London has three teams and many fans of Chelsea, West Ham and other London clubs live in the area. It would be difficult for sky analysts to ascertain which ss subscriber supports which club. East Yorkshire on t'other hand has one league team, Hull, and I assume that Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Cleveland and Notts, Lincs, Derby etc. have more collective sky subscribers than SE7 and that those subscribers would rather watch Hull, Leicester, Forest et al than Charlton or Millwall. Whether you 'have it or not', you are not (I presume) a professional pollster or programme allocator. There must be some logic as to how games are selected and a highly professional outfit like sky must have its finger on the pulse of what will and will not sell
There must be some logic as to how games are selected and a highly professional outfit like sky must have its finger on the pulse of what will and will not sell
Partly its about what clubs are on - Man U etc will always attract more viewers than Charlton and that drives higher advertising interest. It's also about increasing sales of Sky subscriptions - in areas where their coverage/market penetration is weaker than in other areas they show more matches as that drives subscription levels.
Bear in mind that Sky make a loss on their coverage of football (and sport generally) but it's a good loss leader.
Orients in London, so like the Valley not too far from Isleworth?
I think I'm right in thinking that the TV trucks that Sky use are from a 3rd party and therefore not originating from Isleworth.
I did read a couple of years back that Sky coming to The Valley was one of their easier broadcast venues as all of the pre-cabling was done during the Prem years/West Stand redevelopment so they can literally just plug straight in.
There must be some logic as to how games are selected and a highly professional outfit like sky must have its finger on the pulse of what will and will not sell
Partly its about what clubs are on - Man U etc will always attract more viewers than Charlton and that drives higher advertising interest. It's also about increasing sales of Sky subscriptions - in areas where their coverage/market penetration is weaker than in other areas they show more matches as that drives subscription levels.
Bear in mind that Sky make a loss on their coverage of football (and sport generally) but it's a good loss leader.
agreed BFR but our discussion concerns more the Championship rather than 'super' teams like United. As to loss leader ? .. mmmmm .. sky has many worldwide rights to English football, BUT, you could be right
Lincs - I doubt that any of the CCC clubs will drag in more viewers than other teams with the exception of maybe Leeds who historically have always had a lot of support from outside their local catchment area.
What Sky want is to persuade the punters in areas where they are weak to fork out for subscriptions and that drives which games they broadcast. So I'm guessing that in Leicester for example they have fewer subscribers per capita than in SE London.
Regarding Sky being a loss leader - they have just bid £3bn for the rights to the Premiership. Do you really think that over the lifetime of that contract (three seasons) that they'll make that back in selling advertising and sponsorship? But it will persuade people to keep renewing their £30 a month or whatever it is subs.
Similarly with cricket - C4 made a loss on covering Test cricket and despite attracting fewer viewers than C4 (and therefore they make less from advertising/sponsorship) they offered considerably more money, but it drove a new demographic their way.
Orients in London, so like the Valley not too far from Isleworth?
I think I'm right in thinking that the TV trucks that Sky use are from a 3rd party and therefore not originating from Isleworth.
I did read a couple of years back that Sky coming to The Valley was one of their easier broadcast venues as all of the pre-cabling was done during the Prem years/West Stand redevelopment so they can literally just plug straight in.
I used to have a regular drink with a TV Sports broadcasting crew. They were Indians and spent winters here and summers covering cricket and other sports worldwide. They spent nearly all their time in England on the road and worked almost exclusively for sky, but sometimes for the BBC or ITV when sky allowed it and the BBC/ITV broadcast was not competing with a sky broadcast. They worked for an independent company whose name escapes me and as you say, sky contracted out the actual transmission jobs although sky very much called the shots. This is all down to competition/monopoly laws and, of course taxation matters
Sky must rely on sponsorship heavily and surely therefore responsive to particular viewing figures for which our away games to a typical FLC club are likely to be among the highest, right?
Sky must rely on sponsorship heavily and surely therefore responsive to particular viewing figures for which our away games to a typical FLC club are likely to be among the highest, right?
The majority of Sky sponsorships are locked in on long term contracts such as Paddy Power so individual games don't matter so much....obviously if Sky continued to pick games that not many people want to watch this affects the bargaining power with potential advertisers next time around.
Do 4 times as many people tune in to watch a Huddersfield game rather than one of ours.....I really doubt it, its just the way the fixtures have fell out this season.
Sky must rely on sponsorship heavily and surely therefore responsive to particular viewing figures for which our away games to a typical FLC club are likely to be among the highest, right?
Sky's sponsorship and ad revenue makes up 5% of their total revenue. The rest is subscriptions.
aye but you split those subscriptions, a large amount would be for a small number of clubs and not so many like ours and it becomes more important, and wasn't it the basis for our successful appeal to them for more coverage?
So I was right, one televised league game since December 31st 2011.
Lincs, if that is the case are you telling us that there are six times as many people subscribing to Sky in Hull as there are in SE London? And that because the Hull Daily Mail has coverage of, well... err... Hull, that the powers that be consider our monthly paragraph in the Sub Standard a reflection of our popularity compared with theirs? Sorry mate, not having it... ;-)
If you're talking fans of a particular club, Possibly that is the case. SE London has three teams and many fans of Chelsea, West Ham and other London clubs live in the area. It would be difficult for sky analysts to ascertain which ss subscriber supports which club. East Yorkshire on t'other hand has one league team, Hull, and I assume that Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Cleveland and Notts, Lincs, Derby etc. have more collective sky subscribers than SE7 and that those subscribers would rather watch Hull, Leicester, Forest et al than Charlton or Millwall. Whether you 'have it or not', you are not (I presume) a professional pollster or programme allocator. There must be some logic as to how games are selected and a highly professional outfit like sky must have its finger on the pulse of what will and will not sell
Well, my comment was a bit t in c, but as you have taken it all a bit serious I shall respond in a similar vain. As you say, it would be difficult for sky analysts to ascertain which ss subscribers support which club, so how do they do it then? You have assumed that they assume all Charlton fans only come from SE7 and then grouped together half the country to justify their coverage of teams from as far apart as Leicester and Middlesbrough. Why would a Derby fan want to watch Hull any more than Charlton? Why wouldn't a London Arsenal fan want to watch Charlton more than Nottingham Forest? Why were they happy to put us on three times between August and December 2011 but only once since then?
Covering the teams doing well at the top of the league is fair enough, but many teams higher in the list just don't fit in with that criteria.
Ohhahh... I would not be complaining about more TV coverage for the record, even if I still lived in the UK as I see the bigger picture ( pardon the pun ).
Some years ago Charlton stopped live tv coverage as it was not deem good news to show Charlton of in a badlight. Forget what years that was,but just maybe the fault could be else way other than Sky.
Some years ago Charlton stopped live tv coverage as it was not deem good news to show Charlton of in a badlight. Forget what years that was,but just maybe the fault could be else way other than Sky.
It's not up to Charlton how many times they are shown, that much I do know. The TV companies pay their money and by accepting their share the club are obliged to move fixtures for TV when they are asked to.
aye but you split those subscriptions, a large amount would be for a small number of clubs and not so many like ours and it becomes more important, and wasn't it the basis for our successful appeal to them for more coverage?
aye but you split those subscriptions, a large amount would be for a small number of clubs and not so many like ours and it becomes more important, and wasn't it the basis for our successful appeal to them for more coverage?
So I was right, one televised league game since December 31st 2011. mediocrity Lincs, if that is the case are you telling us that there are six times as many people subscribing to Sky in Hull as there are in SE London? And that because the Hull Daily Mail has coverage of, well... err... Hull, that the powers that be consider our monthly paragraph in the Sub Standard a reflection of our popularity compared with theirs? Sorry mate, not having it... ;-)
If you're talking fans of a particular club, Possibly that is the case. SE London has three teams and many fans of Chelsea, West Ham and other London clubs live in the area. It would be difficult for sky analysts to ascertain which ss subscriber supports which club. East Yorkshire on t'other hand has one league team, Hull, and I assume that Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Cleveland and Notts, Lincs, Derby etc. have more collective sky subscribers than SE7 and that those subscribers would rather watch Hull, Leicester, Forest et al than Charlton or Millwall. Whether you 'have it or not', you are not (I presume) a professional pollster or programme allocator. There must be some logic as to how games are selected and a highly professional outfit like sky must have its finger on the pulse of what will and will not sell
Well, my comment was a bit t in c, but as you have taken it all a bit serious I shall respond in a similar vain. As you say, it would be difficult for sky analysts to ascertain which ss subscribers support which club, so how do they do it then? You have assumed that they assume all Charlton fans only come from SE7 and then grouped together half the country to justify their coverage of teams from as far apart as Leicester and Middlesbrough. Why would a Derby fan want to watch Hull any more than Charlton? Why wouldn't a London Arsenal fan want to watch Charlton more than Nottingham Forest? Why were they happy to put us on three times between August and December 2011 but only once since then?
Covering the teams doing well at the top of the league is fair enough, but many teams higher in the list just don't fit in with that criteria.
Ohhahh... I would not be complaining about more TV coverage for the record, even if I still lived in the UK as I see the bigger picture ( pardon the pun ).
good points AA. Firstly, I was just commenting on a point made to me by a friend who works in TV about how games are allocated. And I can see the logic behind what she told me. Also, we can say for sure that teams near the top of the championship will get more TV coverage than those near the bottom. That of course is a moveable feast as teams climb and slide. Thirdly, as I outlined earlier, the number of subscribers over a (unknown to me how large) geographical area) will be computed to work out the most popular games for televising. Fourthly, your point about the 'Arsenal Fan'. Nottingham Forest is still perceived by many to be a glamour club, as is Leicester, probably Wolves, Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday, I am sure you could name others. To a certain extent the teams I have named are living on reputation, crowd size, their position in a heavily populated area and other nebulous statistical data. The metaphorical Arsenal fan would, I suggest, sooner watch one of the teams I have mentioned rather than 'poxy little Charlton, Millwall or Palace'. We are perceived by many fans and perhaps TV executives and programmers, as a lovely yet small and insignificant club which has had a few good years but is doomed to long term mediocrity and no wailing, outraged typing or shouting, no amount of analysis by die hard dyed in the wool CAFC fanatics will change that fact. In the long run I hope that my/our club proves them wrong. Last point. I love living in Lincolnshire as I am sure you enjoy your Algarve home, BUT at heart I am a Londoner until I die. Your Arsenal example ? .. Blow Arsenal, I would rather watch Manchester United, Everton or Norwich any day of the week. Last .. VERY last point, I hope that you are recovering nicely from your recent illness.
Comments
Lincs, if that is the case are you telling us that there are six times as many people subscribing to Sky in Hull as there are in SE London? And that because the Hull Daily Mail has coverage of, well... err... Hull, that the powers that be consider our monthly paragraph in the Sub Standard a reflection of our popularity compared with theirs? Sorry mate, not having it... ;-)
not too bothered really , we've hardly been scintillating so no ones missed much not that any one has been in this most average of championships but it's a damn sight better than league one was
on a different note has anyone (be honest) watched one live league one game on telly this year , i know i havent
Partly its about what clubs are on - Man U etc will always attract more viewers than Charlton and that drives higher advertising interest. It's also about increasing sales of Sky subscriptions - in areas where their coverage/market penetration is weaker than in other areas they show more matches as that drives subscription levels.
Bear in mind that Sky make a loss on their coverage of football (and sport generally) but it's a good loss leader.
I did read a couple of years back that Sky coming to The Valley was one of their easier broadcast venues as all of the pre-cabling was done during the Prem years/West Stand redevelopment so they can literally just plug straight in.
What Sky want is to persuade the punters in areas where they are weak to fork out for subscriptions and that drives which games they broadcast. So I'm guessing that in Leicester for example they have fewer subscribers per capita than in SE London.
Regarding Sky being a loss leader - they have just bid £3bn for the rights to the Premiership. Do you really think that over the lifetime of that contract (three seasons) that they'll make that back in selling advertising and sponsorship? But it will persuade people to keep renewing their £30 a month or whatever it is subs.
Similarly with cricket - C4 made a loss on covering Test cricket and despite attracting fewer viewers than C4 (and therefore they make less from advertising/sponsorship) they offered considerably more money, but it drove a new demographic their way.
Do 4 times as many people tune in to watch a Huddersfield game rather than one of ours.....I really doubt it, its just the way the fixtures have fell out this season.
Covering the teams doing well at the top of the league is fair enough, but many teams higher in the list just don't fit in with that criteria.
Ohhahh... I would not be complaining about more TV coverage for the record, even if I still lived in the UK as I see the bigger picture ( pardon the pun ).
Forget what years that was,but just maybe the fault could be else way other than Sky.
Last point. I love living in Lincolnshire as I am sure you enjoy your Algarve home, BUT at heart I am a Londoner until I die. Your Arsenal example ? .. Blow Arsenal, I would rather watch Manchester United, Everton or Norwich any day of the week.
Last .. VERY last point, I hope that you are recovering nicely from your recent illness.