(note the two r's at the end of viewer, stands for reaction)
I have done so and cut and pasted some of Algarves unarguable statistics. It didn't take long, maybe they need a bombardment of POLITE emails relentlessly pointing out their clear bias.
Personally I don't care not having Sky, but I want Charlton to have a fair share of the TV money.
Typical Norvern monkey bias....Leeds, Massive, Preston, Brighton all on!!!
You may be joking, but it certainly looks like Northern bias. Of course, it would need a lot longer time frame to prove it.
Four southern teams unrepresented. No northern teams unrepresented. No southern teams with more than one showing. Three northern and three midlands teams with more than one showing.
Still, it's the north. There's nothing else for them to do. Bless 'em.
waiting to hear Cadiff singing 'dirty northern b*strds* to us
Well I never received a reply from sky after I emailed yesterday. I thought the line of "you obviously hate my club so you must also hate my money and I will be cancelling my sky package, phoneline and broadband" might have got a response
Back when we were in the FAPL a group of us managed to persuade Sky and the FAPL that Charlton were not getting their fair share of live games. But we did it in part because we knew just how much money Charlton were losing out on. We (not just our group but Peter Varney) estimated that as a result of Sky agreeing that we'd been under represented, and making up for it, Charlton got around £1m extra TV money.
But we had a huge secret weapon. One of our group, a guy by the name of Trevor Puddifoot, was able to get hold of the TV ratings for all the games. We were able to show that Charlton games got far better ratings than their rank in the table of Sky appearances suggested. To their credit, Scudamore and the Sky head honcho Vic Wakeling, faced with that kind of data, engaged with us, and changed things.
I have all the stuff on file from that time, and in principle we could do the same thing again, except that
- I've no contact to Trevor. Does anyone else have access to the TV ratings? - Is it financially worth it? Does anyone have a factual knowledge of the TV access fees this season?
If anyone has a positive answer to the above, I'd be happy to try and create a similar document to the one that got us a result last time.
Personally speaking hoping the the home against the massives gets put back to the Monday as makes it much easier for me to get to. Wonder if sky will help me out for the first time in their life.
I say fk em, the mainly showed our home games or london games anyway
As previously stated by Airman, it is believed you only earn facility fee for home games, if it's local away games then disruption for travelling fans isn't that great. Why deny the many people who cannot attend games through reasons of age, incapacity, finance or geography the right to see a few games a season?
1) I actually think it may be wrong, but I am prepared for the better informed to put me right. According to this we had the maximum three live games in each of our three seasons in League 1. I know we did in the last season - more of that later. However we do know we have only had four games in total in the three seasons since.
2) One of those live games was away at Bristol Rovers - their solitary appearance as it happens - so we can see that that game alone attracted 405'000 viewers, which puts it in quite a high position as a crowd puller.
3) In our promotion season they showed the final of our three allowed games on December 31st, at tea time, probably the very worst slot of the year? A crucial game later in the run in would have pulled in thousands more.
4) They have never show us in a game where the opposition is one of the big pullers, or ever in a crucial game for either us or the opposition at the business end of the season. One game on the final day would probably up the average by 5 or 10k.
The other factors are mentioned. But all that aside, it just isn't fair, and it's beginning to feel like a deliberate snub when you look at the evidence. One of my biggest bug-bears is the four games Yeovil got when they were terrible...
Back when we were in the FAPL a group of us managed to persuade Sky and the FAPL that Charlton were not getting their fair share of live games. But we did it in part because we knew just how much money Charlton were losing out on. We (not just our group but Peter Varney) estimated that as a result of Sky agreeing that we'd been under represented, and making up for it, Charlton got around £1m extra TV money.
But we had a huge secret weapon. One of our group, a guy by the name of Trevor Puddifoot, was able to get hold of the TV ratings for all the games. We were able to show that Charlton games got far better ratings than their rank in the table of Sky appearances suggested. To their credit, Scudamore and the Sky head honcho Vic Wakeling, faced with that kind of data, engaged with us, and changed things.
I have all the stuff on file from that time, and in principle we could do the same thing again, except that
- I've no contact to Trevor. Does anyone else have access to the TV ratings? - Is it financially worth it? Does anyone have a factual knowledge of the TV access fees this season?
If anyone has a positive answer to the above, I'd be happy to try and create a similar document to the one that got us a result last time.
well...unless that's a code name you have for me, I distinctly remember getting the viewing figures for you! I remember getting the stats for a Blackburn MNF game and being quizzed as to why I wanted the data as they don't release it... Thought I was the heroic secret weapon for a moment there. Never been a hero secret weapon before. Sounds pretty cool to me.
I certainly know it cost me a fiver to get the post room guy to put it on Wakeling's desk!
Algarve I reassembled some of your data into an email to viewer reaction. Awaiting a reply but thevguy on the phone said the 'people at Osterley' would look at it. Maybe Osterley' is a clue, if any of us get communication to there it is getting to the decision makers. I would urge lifers to join an email campaign at least.
Seth, there's over 3,000 people at Osterley. I don't think a very high proportion make any meaningful decisions! I can find out the best people to deliver messages to, but only if you stop saying nasty things about us.
Seth, there's over 3,000 people at Osterley. I don't think a very high proportion make any meaningful decisions! I can find out the best people to deliver messages to, but only if you stop saying nasty things about us.
Whaaaaat? You are SKY? You are a good poster and lifer too! Loyal to Sky as well! Stop saying nasty things???? I will not be gagged!! I am not a number but a free man! I do admit to not liking Sky, especially because you subscribe AND have adverts, which makes Netflix better!
I say fk em, the mainly showed our home games or london games anyway
As previously stated by Airman, it is believed you only earn facility fee for home games, if it's local away games then disruption for travelling fans isn't that great. Why deny the many people who cannot attend games through reasons of age, incapacity, finance or geography the right to see a few games a season?
Sure I was being flippant. But surely nearly all of the above could see a few matches in person, we only get one or two on tv per season anyway, and televised football at championship level has never been widespread.
Livng abroad is a different broadcaster and not dependent on SKY I believe.
I do actually think contractually SKY should be obliged to divvy out the coverage evenly somehow, for the fans benefit if not the clubs.
I suspect we will get some coverage later in the season, if our squad rebuild has been a success.
Seth, there's over 3,000 people at Osterley. I don't think a very high proportion make any meaningful decisions! I can find out the best people to deliver messages to, but only if you stop saying nasty things about us.
Whaaaaat? You are SKY? You are a good poster and lifer too! Loyal to Sky as well! Stop saying nasty things???? I will not be gagged!! I am not a number but a free man! I do admit to not liking Sky, especially because you subscribe AND have adverts, which makes Netflix better!
I did come clean at the PotY awards but I'm guessing a few drinks later you forgot.
I agree with the ads thing. About 3% of revenue comes from advertising. I'm convinced subscriptions would go up if we didn't have them on the Sky channels. But I work for the one department that has no ads during the movies so you can't blame me!
Back when we were in the FAPL a group of us managed to persuade Sky and the FAPL that Charlton were not getting their fair share of live games. But we did it in part because we knew just how much money Charlton were losing out on. We (not just our group but Peter Varney) estimated that as a result of Sky agreeing that we'd been under represented, and making up for it, Charlton got around £1m extra TV money.
But we had a huge secret weapon. One of our group, a guy by the name of Trevor Puddifoot, was able to get hold of the TV ratings for all the games. We were able to show that Charlton games got far better ratings than their rank in the table of Sky appearances suggested. To their credit, Scudamore and the Sky head honcho Vic Wakeling, faced with that kind of data, engaged with us, and changed things.
I have all the stuff on file from that time, and in principle we could do the same thing again, except that
- I've no contact to Trevor. Does anyone else have access to the TV ratings? - Is it financially worth it? Does anyone have a factual knowledge of the TV access fees this season?
If anyone has a positive answer to the above, I'd be happy to try and create a similar document to the one that got us a result last time.
well...unless that's a code name you have for me, I distinctly remember getting the viewing figures for you! I remember getting the stats for a Blackburn MNF game and being quizzed as to why I wanted the data as they don't release it... Thought I was the heroic secret weapon for a moment there. Never been a hero secret weapon before. Sounds pretty cool to me.
I certainly know it cost me a fiver to get the post room guy to put it on Wakeling's desk!
hi Jimmy (RP, right?)
If that's the case, profuse apologies. Maybe Trevor did the analysis, once you had obtained the data.
It then begs the question, would you be able to repeat the trick? But even if yes, before we do that, we ought to nail down what the access fees are, and therefore the extent to which it matters to Charlton. In the FAPL, it mattered a lot.
Of course even if the access fees are very modest, if we put an amount on how much more Leeds have got over the last two seasons than Charlton, it might be worth pursuing as a Trust campaign.
Right now though I am up to my eyeballs with the Olympic Stadium campaign (big news on Monday) so I'll have to set this aside for a few days. I do have all the old files from the previous exercise though.
I can certainly try! My previous contact is quite senior now so I'll try him out. I also know some of the marketing people so they might have access. I'll see what I can do next week. Not sure what I can find out about access fees but again I'll give it a shot.
I can certainly try! My previous contact is quite senior now so I'll try him out. I also know some of the marketing people so they might have access. I'll see what I can do next week. Not sure what I can find out about access fees but again I'll give it a shot.
Top man Jimmy. If anyone else can help with the access fees question, please shout.
The facility fee was less than £100k three years ago, I believe. I think it was split 80-20, but the League then voted that the home club should have it all.
We were unhappy with the Palace game being moved to Friday night by Sky in September 2012 because we reckoned a lot of the facility fee would be offset by lost gate money and extra expenses, although I think in practice it did OK - it did mean that it wasn't priced as what later became a "gold" game, which had been the plan for that fixture.
Edit: looks like it's been £60k in the last few years and is now rising to £80k.
The facility fee was less than £100k three years ago, I believe. I think it was split 80-20, but the League then voted that the home club should have it all.
We were unhappy with the Palace game being moved to Friday night by Sky in September 2012 because we reckoned a lot of the facility fee would be offset by lost gate money and extra expenses, although I think in practice it did OK - it did mean that it wasn't priced as what later became a "gold" game, which had been the plan for that fixture.
Edit: looks like it's been £60k in the last few years and is now rising to £80k.
Hmm, it does not seem like a massive amount on its own does it? However if Leeds are on 8 times again this year, as seems very likely, and we are on 2 times again if we are lucky, the difference over two seasons between what the two clubs probably equals JBG's wages over the two seasons...
The facility fee was less than £100k three years ago, I believe. I think it was split 80-20, but the League then voted that the home club should have it all.
We were unhappy with the Palace game being moved to Friday night by Sky in September 2012 because we reckoned a lot of the facility fee would be offset by lost gate money and extra expenses, although I think in practice it did OK - it did mean that it wasn't priced as what later became a "gold" game, which had been the plan for that fixture.
Edit: looks like it's been £60k in the last few years and is now rising to £80k.
Hmm, it does not seem like a massive amount on its own does it? However if Leeds are on 8 times again this year, as seems very likely, and we are on 2 times again if we are lucky, the difference over two seasons between what the two clubs probably equals JBG's wages over the two seasons...
Leeds won't be on eight times at home, though (you'd think!). You'd have to figure there is an average net revenue/cost loss of £20k too.
I say fk em, the mainly showed our home games or london games anyway
As previously stated by Airman, it is believed you only earn facility fee for home games, if it's local away games then disruption for travelling fans isn't that great. Why deny the many people who cannot attend games through reasons of age, incapacity, finance or geography the right to see a few games a season?
Sure I was being flippant. But surely nearly all of the above could see a few matches in person, we only get one or two on tv per season anyway, and televised football at championship level has never been widespread.
Livng abroad is a different broadcaster and not dependent on SKY I believe.
I do actually think contractually SKY should be obliged to divvy out the coverage evenly somehow, for the fans benefit if not the clubs.
I suspect we will get some coverage later in the season, if our squad rebuild has been a success.
Yes, I see a few in person Raz, and I would like to see a few on TV too.
That we only get one or two on TV is the whole point I am making. Why do others get a half a dozen before Christmas and we get ( so far ) zero?
Sky is everywhere abroad, albeit illicitly, but it brings in a lot of revenue for the company nonetheless.
Why should we have to wait for "success" to get coverage when others are on four, five or six times before anyone knows how successful they will be? As I previously mentioned, from New Year 2011 until the end of our most successful season in years, we were on exactly no times...
It's a conspiracy I tell Ya! Where's me tin foil hat...
Apologies Jimmy. especially for forgetting after the POTY. Much of what I wrote is in jest, certainly not personal, tilting at windmills if you like. Mind you it seems clear that we ought to get a little more dosh out of Sky.
I say fk em, the mainly showed our home games or london games anyway
As previously stated by Airman, it is believed you only earn facility fee for home games, if it's local away games then disruption for travelling fans isn't that great. Why deny the many people who cannot attend games through reasons of age, incapacity, finance or geography the right to see a few games a season?
Sure I was being flippant. But surely nearly all of the above could see a few matches in person, we only get one or two on tv per season anyway, and televised football at championship level has never been widespread.
Livng abroad is a different broadcaster and not dependent on SKY I believe.
I do actually think contractually SKY should be obliged to divvy out the coverage evenly somehow, for the fans benefit if not the clubs.
I suspect we will get some coverage later in the season, if our squad rebuild has been a success.
Sky is everywhere abroad, albeit illicitly, but it brings in a lot of revenue for the company nonetheless. .
Comments
Well done for taking the time & making the effort to bring this issue to the attention of dear old Sky.
viewerr@sky.uk
(note the two r's at the end of viewer, stands for reaction)
I have done so and cut and pasted some of Algarves unarguable statistics. It didn't take long, maybe they need a bombardment of POLITE emails relentlessly pointing out their clear bias.
Personally I don't care not having Sky, but I want Charlton to have a fair share of the TV money.
Back when we were in the FAPL a group of us managed to persuade Sky and the FAPL that Charlton were not getting their fair share of live games. But we did it in part because we knew just how much money Charlton were losing out on. We (not just our group but Peter Varney) estimated that as a result of Sky agreeing that we'd been under represented, and making up for it, Charlton got around £1m extra TV money.
But we had a huge secret weapon. One of our group, a guy by the name of Trevor Puddifoot, was able to get hold of the TV ratings for all the games. We were able to show that Charlton games got far better ratings than their rank in the table of Sky appearances suggested. To their credit, Scudamore and the Sky head honcho Vic Wakeling, faced with that kind of data, engaged with us, and changed things.
I have all the stuff on file from that time, and in principle we could do the same thing again, except that
- I've no contact to Trevor. Does anyone else have access to the TV ratings?
- Is it financially worth it? Does anyone have a factual knowledge of the TV access fees this season?
If anyone has a positive answer to the above, I'd be happy to try and create a similar document to the one that got us a result last time.
http://www.cityam.com/206210/leeds-united-no-other-football-league-club-has-had-more-live-games-sky-sports-yorkshire
1) I actually think it may be wrong, but I am prepared for the better informed to put me right. According to this we had the maximum three live games in each of our three seasons in League 1. I know we did in the last season - more of that later. However we do know we have only had four games in total in the three seasons since.
2) One of those live games was away at Bristol Rovers - their solitary appearance as it happens - so we can see that that game alone attracted 405'000 viewers, which puts it in quite a high position as a crowd puller.
3) In our promotion season they showed the final of our three allowed games on December 31st, at tea time, probably the very worst slot of the year? A crucial game later in the run in would have pulled in thousands more.
4) They have never show us in a game where the opposition is one of the big pullers, or ever in a crucial game for either us or the opposition at the business end of the season. One game on the final day would probably up the average by 5 or 10k.
The other factors are mentioned. But all that aside, it just isn't fair, and it's beginning to feel like a deliberate snub when you look at the evidence. One of my biggest bug-bears is the four games Yeovil got when they were terrible...
I certainly know it cost me a fiver to get the post room guy to put it on Wakeling's desk!
I would urge lifers to join an email campaign at least.
You are SKY?
You are a good poster and lifer too! Loyal to Sky as well!
Stop saying nasty things????
I will not be gagged!!
I am not a number but a free man!
I do admit to not liking Sky, especially because you subscribe AND have adverts, which makes Netflix better!
Livng abroad is a different broadcaster and not dependent on SKY I believe.
I do actually think contractually SKY should be obliged to divvy out the coverage evenly somehow, for the fans benefit if not the clubs.
I suspect we will get some coverage later in the season, if our squad rebuild has been a success.
I agree with the ads thing. About 3% of revenue comes from advertising. I'm convinced subscriptions would go up if we didn't have them on the Sky channels. But I work for the one department that has no ads during the movies so you can't blame me!
If that's the case, profuse apologies. Maybe Trevor did the analysis, once you had obtained the data.
It then begs the question, would you be able to repeat the trick? But even if yes, before we do that, we ought to nail down what the access fees are, and therefore the extent to which it matters to Charlton. In the FAPL, it mattered a lot.
Of course even if the access fees are very modest, if we put an amount on how much more Leeds have got over the last two seasons than Charlton, it might be worth pursuing as a Trust campaign.
Right now though I am up to my eyeballs with the Olympic Stadium campaign (big news on Monday) so I'll have to set this aside for a few days. I do have all the old files from the previous exercise though.
We were unhappy with the Palace game being moved to Friday night by Sky in September 2012 because we reckoned a lot of the facility fee would be offset by lost gate money and extra expenses, although I think in practice it did OK - it did mean that it wasn't priced as what later became a "gold" game, which had been the plan for that fixture.
Edit: looks like it's been £60k in the last few years and is now rising to £80k.
That we only get one or two on TV is the whole point I am making. Why do others get a half a dozen before Christmas and we get ( so far ) zero?
Sky is everywhere abroad, albeit illicitly, but it brings in a lot of revenue for the company nonetheless.
Why should we have to wait for "success" to get coverage when others are on four, five or six times before anyone knows how successful they will be? As I previously mentioned, from New Year 2011 until the end of our most successful season in years, we were on exactly no times...
It's a conspiracy I tell Ya! Where's me tin foil hat...
Mind you it seems clear that we ought to get a little more dosh out of Sky.
Must admit I thought they'd switched satelites so the footprint didnt cover the continent, do they use big dishes?