The word is, if Sky lose the football rights, they lose around 60% of the subscriber base. The theory has obviously never been tested, but you might notice they're putting a lot more heft behind their other products - broadband, movies etc. - recently.
Given that revenue is up 6% to £5,381m as of today, I'm not certain that they are making a loss on anything!
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.
Thanks for the good wishes, all seems well Lincs.
I would rather watch Barnet than Arsenal, but I was talking about the Arsenal "fan" who lives in SE London but also has a soft spot for the team he should support, not who I would watch. And sorry if I am labouring the point a bit, but Hull, Blackpool, Derby and Burnley are not going to appeal to him/her more than Charlton no matter how high in the table they are. And again how come we were appealing enough for the five months I mentioned, but suddenly even a derby against Millwall or Palace is deemed unsuitable?
As you say wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't going to change it, but we deserve to at least be heard even if we are ultimately ignored...
We seemed to go through a long run of being pants when we were on Sky at one point ( not sure why, Maybe the players couldn't hack the pressure? )
So maybe not being on Sky in this division has been a good thing , given the state of our pitch this season, I'm not sure you'd want too many fans of other teams to being seeing it.
Comments
Given that revenue is up 6% to £5,381m as of today, I'm not certain that they are making a loss on anything!
I would rather watch Barnet than Arsenal, but I was talking about the Arsenal "fan" who lives in SE London but also has a soft spot for the team he should support, not who I would watch. And sorry if I am labouring the point a bit, but Hull, Blackpool, Derby and Burnley are not going to appeal to him/her more than Charlton no matter how high in the table they are. And again how come we were appealing enough for the five months I mentioned, but suddenly even a derby against Millwall or Palace is deemed unsuitable?
As you say wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't going to change it, but we deserve to at least be heard even if we are ultimately ignored...
Swindon - 4 live games
Tranmere - 3 live games
Crawley - 3 live games
Shrewsbury - 2 live games
MK Dons - 2 live games
I don't understand it?!
So maybe not being on Sky in this division has been a good thing , given the state of our pitch this season, I'm not sure you'd want too many fans of other teams to being seeing it.