Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
Alternatively the chief executive could have taken the opportunity provided by her appearance on Sky yesterday to make a point live on air - you can do this in an amenable way yet still get your message across to the broadcaster effectively. As in: "It's a surprise to see you here. We were beginning to think Sky didn't know where The Valley was."
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
BT will show our games : - )
Seriously, good points. No one at Sky hates Charlton, they just go for the games they think will get the highest viewing figures. They may be wrong or be right but that is their rationale.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
Alternatively the chief executive could have taken the opportunity provided by her appearance on Sky yesterday to make a point live on air - you can do this in an amenable way yet still get your message across to the broadcaster effectively. As in: "It's a surprise to see you here. We were beginning to think Sky didn't know where The Valley was."
Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
Then make their life difficult by not having anyone of interest to them available and make it clear why.
Face and nose cutting come to mind.
If I was the owner (lucky for everyone I'm not) then I'd be very tempted but KM is an employee and poking fun at or limiting the very little coverage we get from a major player and source of funds would draw as much criticism as it would praise.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
Alternatively the chief executive could have taken the opportunity provided by her appearance on Sky yesterday to make a point live on air - you can do this in an amenable way yet still get your message across to the broadcaster effectively. As in: "It's a surprise to see you here. We were beginning to think Sky didn't know where The Valley was."
As I said about 24 hours ago without making it sound like I should be / wanted to be the chief exec ?
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
So you are suggesting that Yeovil with their 8 wins and 37 points in 13/14 were given four appearences as opposed to our single showing for commercial or football reasons?
This is certainly not a pop at you Jimmy, and it's certainly very interesting to have input from someone on the inside, but from the evidence I cannot see anything but bias.
Henners also says that they will show the games that will get the highest figures, but we have had such a paucity of recent appearances to judge by, how do they know?
Like I said earlier in the thread, they never show games we have AGAINST clubs with more pulling power or that are crucial to other clubs either. This is the crux of my argument about bias. They are showing Derby, Forest and Wolves several times between now and November, we are playing all three by the end of August, but don't get a sniff.
Let me just remind you one more time - unless we get a game inbetween the 8th of November and New Years eve we will have had four live games in four whole calendar years...
Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
Then make their life difficult by not having anyone of interest to them available and make it clear why.
Face and nose cutting come to mind.
If I was the owner (lucky for everyone I'm not) then I'd be very tempted but KM is an employee and poking fun at or limiting the very little coverage we get from a major player and source of funds would draw as much criticism as it would praise.
They don't show us anyway, you could say what do we have to lose?
Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
Then make their life difficult by not having anyone of interest to them available and make it clear why.
Face and nose cutting come to mind.
If I was the owner (lucky for everyone I'm not) then I'd be very tempted but KM is an employee and poking fun at or limiting the very little coverage we get from a major player and source of funds would draw as much criticism as it would praise.
You do remember that she's supposed to be chief executive, not a receptionist? That entails more than smiling at people and doing what you're told.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
Alternatively the chief executive could have taken the opportunity provided by her appearance on Sky yesterday to make a point live on air - you can do this in an amenable way yet still get your message across to the broadcaster effectively. As in: "It's a surprise to see you here. We were beginning to think Sky didn't know where The Valley was."
As I said about 24 hours ago without making it sound like I should be / wanted to be the chief exec ?
How would you find the time for trawling message boards looking for snide comments to make?
You really have no idea whatsoever if you think I have ever had the remotest interest in being chief exec.
Even though I cannot get to home games any more and just go to away games in my area, it would be nice to see us on Sky, but if it means losing (as we normally do) I would rather not:-)
Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
Then make their life difficult by not having anyone of interest to them available and make it clear why.
Face and nose cutting come to mind.
If I was the owner (lucky for everyone I'm not) then I'd be very tempted but KM is an employee and poking fun at or limiting the very little coverage we get from a major player and source of funds would draw as much criticism as it would praise.
You do remember that she's supposed to be chief executive, not a receptionist? That entails more than smiling at people and doing what you're told.
Maybe she just thinks sarcasm isn't the way forward or is hard to to carry off in her third language.
And whether we think she does her job well or not we both know that a CEO does the vast majority of their work out of the view of the press or public.
I don't suppose for a minute there is any functioning bias against lil old charlton in the fetid corridors of M"rd0ch's rancid organ cos what difference does it make to them/him.
Good effort Algarve, but it is a bollocks reply and they probably know it, they simply have no shame, and they can snort and snigger after they press send.
I have to send similar emails but for another department, and I know some of the VR team. They are professional, and often find themselves agreeing with what the rants they receive. There's no answer they realistically could have given that would satisfy anyone on here. In my experience, those who do rant and complain tend to not understand the logistics and technicalities of why the issues exist. That could well be the case here.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
So you are suggesting that Yeovil with their 8 wins and 37 points in 13/14 were given four appearences as opposed to our single showing for commercial or football reasons?
This is certainly not a pop at you Jimmy, and it's certainly very interesting to have input from someone on the inside, but from the evidence I cannot see anything but bias.
Henners also says that they will show the games that will get the highest figures, but we have had such a paucity of recent appearances to judge by, how do they know?
Like I said earlier in the thread, they never show games we have AGAINST clubs with more pulling power or that are crucial to other clubs either. This is the crux of my argument about bias. They are showing Derby, Forest and Wolves several times between now and November, we are playing all three by the end of August, but don't get a sniff.
Let me just remind you one more time - unless we get a game inbetween the 8th of November and New Years eve we will have had four live games in four whole calendar years...
It's the self-fulfilling prophecy that the media works to. They give more coverage to those teams that attract more interest. The teams that attract most interest are those that get most coverage. Concentrating coverage on fewer teams means less research etc etc. Life is simpler this way. Can you imagine the panic in Sky HQ if 5 teams from the lower half of the PL (last season) occupied the top 5 positions at Christmas !
Leeds vs burnley on at the mo , not that you'd realise that! Focus is all on Leeds and how they are going to get promoted this season blah blah blah! The Leeds nutter owner has said however that he will sell up and be off if Leeds aren't in the premier league by 2017
I've told SKY not to show any of our away games till our away/home fans ratio gets better I've asked them to show more home games for us to help in the above ratio
So a big head to head match between Charlton v Queens Park Rangers isnt worth showing because?
- London Derby - Newly relegated Premier League team looking to adjust - New look Charlton team
Whilst Brighton v Forest is worth showing because:
- One team is under a transfer embago - Neither team finished close to the Play-Offs - Ermmm... Help me out here people
If you are based in London and the game is in London it could be less attractive to work on if for instance there's no travel allowance, no overnight stay allowance, no excuse for the other half for not coming home after the game instead of going out on the town if the match being covered is far away enough to claim you can't travel back. Obviously it's extremely unlikely TV matches are being picked on that basis and Teams like Charlton Brentford Fulham and qpr will have their fair share of televised home matches by the end of the season
Comments
To be fair one fan whining about Charlton would just get ignored or I'd get a newbie to blag it.
We're not talking about the Third Reich here. Nor is it a conspiracy, although there's definitely and undeniably an elitist attitude in Sports (marketing and the management, not the production teams). It's a business that does the maths and figures out what's best for its own ends.
In the absence of the FL's intervention, there's two obvious ways as I see it to affect the situation. Firstly, the club needs to put itself on the map through performance, and secondly, someone could show Sky that adding more Charlton games wouldn't be detrimental to their figures.
We can attempt do the latter and it helps to be realistic about what we're dealing with and understand why they seem to think otherwise.
Seriously, good points. No one at Sky hates Charlton, they just go for the games they think will get the highest viewing figures. They may be wrong or be right but that is their rationale.
They will regret it when we are top all season Would have been funny for us but seem like whining from a little club to everyone else. If it wasn't cut. I doubt those pieces are actually live.
If I was the owner (lucky for everyone I'm not) then I'd be very tempted but KM is an employee and poking fun at or limiting the very little coverage we get from a major player and source of funds would draw as much criticism as it would praise.
This is certainly not a pop at you Jimmy, and it's certainly very interesting to have input from someone on the inside, but from the evidence I cannot see anything but bias.
Henners also says that they will show the games that will get the highest figures, but we have had such a paucity of recent appearances to judge by, how do they know?
Like I said earlier in the thread, they never show games we have AGAINST clubs with more pulling power or that are crucial to other clubs either. This is the crux of my argument about bias. They are showing Derby, Forest and Wolves several times between now and November, we are playing all three by the end of August, but don't get a sniff.
Let me just remind you one more time - unless we get a game inbetween the 8th of November and New Years eve we will have had four live games in four whole calendar years...
You really have no idea whatsoever if you think I have ever had the remotest interest in being chief exec.
And whether we think she does her job well or not we both know that a CEO does the vast majority of their work out of the view of the press or public.
Focus is all on Leeds and how they are going to get promoted this season blah blah blah!
The Leeds nutter owner has said however that he will sell up and be off if Leeds aren't in the premier league by 2017
(I am aware that Sky are only committed to show 2 games BTW).
I've asked them to show more home games for us to help in the above ratio
They've blanked me
21/9/15: Derby v Burnley 7.45pm KO
24/9/15: Forest v Huddersfield 7.45pm KO
Notts Forest
Sheff Wed
Derby
Wolves
Middlesbrough
Is the Football league's lovin' table, Leeds would probably have the title wrapped up by March.
Forest vs Middlesbrough live on 19 September
MK Dons vs Derby live on 26 September
Leeds will be fuming, only shown once in the whole of September, despite their rip-roaring start to the season (15th in the table, 4 draws, no wins).
Least our fans wont have to get up at silly o'clock to travel to either Blackburn and Cardiff