Really thought I had a good chance of seeing the QPR game on holiday, hey ho. End of the day, can only assume that when we are on the viewing figures are crap.
Bizarre considering that Leeds were mid table last season having sold their best player McCormack, and have shown no signs that they will be serious promotion contenders or even that they will play particularly good football. I'm just glad that the Hull game wasn't shifted to the Sunday as I'll be at the Oval!
Bizarre considering that Leeds were mid table last season having sold their best player McCormack, and have shown no signs that they will be serious promotion contenders or even that they will play particularly good football. I'm just glad that the Hull game wasn't shifted to the Sunday as I'll be at the Oval!
Irrelevant where they will finish. Leeds are probably the biggest club in the Championship, whereas we are one of the smallest, hence Sky's decision .
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
But its irrelevant in terms of 'best supported' teams. its the TV ratings that Sky use as their yardstick. Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either. But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
I assume sky want the ratings to attract advertising revenue, and the viewer has to pay a subscription as well as endure the advertisements. Win win for sky, and money for the Premiership so their clubs eventually create a closed shop by default. Glad I go elsewhere or thieve the coverage on the internet rather than pay sky any money. If I subscribed, the feeling would be a bit like a vegetarian eating in McDonald's
Bizarre considering that Leeds were mid table last season having sold their best player McCormack, and have shown no signs that they will be serious promotion contenders or even that they will play particularly good football. I'm just glad that the Hull game wasn't shifted to the Sunday as I'll be at the Oval!
Irrelevant where they will finish. Leeds are probably the biggest club in the Championship, whereas we are one of the smallest, hence Sky's decision .
I wasn't thinking so much about our absence but more about the excessive coverage of Leeds
They may be the biggest club, but they are also probably the least liked by everyone else in the division! They don't have a famous manager who might attract the neutrals, or been recently relegated from the PL either.
To be fair to Sky, half the people on CL, don't go regularly to Charlton.
So if they aren't that interested .........
Sone of Algarves post was more in reference to ex pats, however I wonder how many of our games will be available on the internet? Does any one know how we find out?
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
But its irrelevant in terms of 'best supported' teams. its the TV ratings that Sky use as their yardstick. Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either. But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
Taking your point entirely Greenie - but why not put on Charlton v Leeds or Charlton v Derby if that opposition is so attractive, rather than Charlton v Ipswich as they did last year?
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
But its irrelevant in terms of 'best supported' teams. its the TV ratings that Sky use as their yardstick. Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either. But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
Taking your point entirely Greenie - but why not put on Charlton v Leeds or Charlton v Derby if that opposition is so attractive, rather than Charlton v Ipswich as they did last year?
Hmmm, fair point. I wonder if their is any info available on which teams get the bets or worst viewing figures, I assume that Ipswich would get a fair few, certainly more than us.
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
But its irrelevant in terms of 'best supported' teams. its the TV ratings that Sky use as their yardstick. Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either. But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
Taking your point entirely Greenie - but why not put on Charlton v Leeds or Charlton v Derby if that opposition is so attractive, rather than Charlton v Ipswich as they did last year?
Hmmm, fair point. I wonder if their is any info available on which teams get the bets or worst viewing figures, I assume that Ipswich would get a fair few, certainly more than us.
Not many more though - they only averaged a 1000 more than us in a season where they made the play offs...
Are we any worse of a draw than Rotherham v Burnley? Is an opening weekend London derby against a newly relegated team that are always in the news likely to be less interesting than Brighton v Forest? Sorry I just don't buy into that, we were the 13th best supported team in the league last year, and we finished 12th, we are certainly not "one of the smallest" by any means.
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
But its irrelevant in terms of 'best supported' teams. its the TV ratings that Sky use as their yardstick. Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either. But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
Taking your point entirely Greenie - but why not put on Charlton v Leeds or Charlton v Derby if that opposition is so attractive, rather than Charlton v Ipswich as they did last year?
Hmmm, fair point. I wonder if their is any info available on which teams get the bets or worst viewing figures, I assume that Ipswich would get a fair few, certainly more than us.
Not many more though - they only averaged a 1000 more than us in a season where they made the play offs...
I was referring to armchair fans. My old man lives in that part of the world and when either Ipswich or Naarch are on telly the pubs are rammed.
Sky have announced another 8 championship games to be shown live so was half expecting us to be featured at least once, guess I was wrong! Oh look Leeds again, cu#ts!
I'm glad we're not on telly Saturday afternoon 3pm is good for footy and for away travellers who buy train tickets in advance this is good news Whatever fixture gets moved there will be a moan up Just be happy it is what it is !
Comments
Unpleasant, but huge club in the end of the day.
I'm just glad that the Hull game wasn't shifted to the Sunday as I'll be at the Oval!
Leeds are probably the biggest club in the Championship, whereas we are one of the smallest, hence Sky's decision .
As for relegation odds being any kind of indicator, as previously mentioned Rotherham are on, and not even in a derby game with the massives.
We lose out on the money Sky pay and less exposure means less advertising income, so whilst I understand it may be inconvenient to have to get to the game three hours early and that our notoriously poor displays on TV seem to be some kind of hoodo (they are not) the club really suffers from this clear bias against us - look at the year we won League 1 when they decided to show all our quota in the first half of the season, including the shittiest kick off time of the year - tea time on new years eve.
There are lots of ex-pats like me and people who don't get to the games regularly, and I think we (the club) deserve a fair crack of the whip.
Of course looking at the opposition in run in, it maybe that from mid March we are on every other week, but I doubt it.
Even my Leeds supporting mate out here agrees that they are not good to watch.
Its obvious that when we are on, the neutrals do not watch us and I would make the assumption that the neutrals are not interested in QPR either.
But, when we are top of the league at Xmas, with an 18 point lead, are also in the FA cup semi final by April then we will be all over Sky, and the supporters who have abandoned or sceptred isle will be happy. ;o)
So if they aren't that interested .........
Glad I go elsewhere or thieve the coverage on the internet rather than pay sky any money. If I subscribed, the feeling would be a bit like a vegetarian eating in McDonald's
They may be the biggest club, but they are also probably the least liked by everyone else in the division! They don't have a famous manager who might attract the neutrals, or been recently relegated from the PL either.
Does any one know how we find out?
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/football-on-sky/competitions/championship
On second thought lets not go there.
Leeds x1
Burnley x1
Birmingham x2
Cardiff x2
QPR x2
Boro x1
Fulham x1
Blackburn x1
Wolves x1
Forest x1
Ipswich x1
Mk Dons x1
Derby x1
So only us and Brentford not shown in 3 months yet some teams shown 3 or 4 times.
Are you watching... Are you watching
Are you watching, SkySportsOne
Are you watching, SkySportsOne
Saturday afternoon 3pm is good for footy and for away travellers who buy train tickets in advance this is good news
Whatever fixture gets moved there will be a moan up
Just be happy it is what it is !