Sky TV is...

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Topplayersleave said:
I've known Wolves get less than 4000 for League games, in a stadium with two sides condemned
I'm sure they had rough times back then, but no worse than us.

And at least their horrendous times followed on from some very good times
Our horrendous times followed on from some not horrendous but not good times either
Click to expand...


I was astounded at how poor some of the Wolves averages were around that time.

As you say, they had had far more success than us over the preceding 25 years or so, and yet in 1985-6 they barely averaged 4,000 and in the following season (their first in division 4, they averaged only 5,754 even though they finished in fourth place.
 



Sean Thornton said:
Sorry your Lordship. I'll know my place in future.

No evidence to prove you wrong young man but in my 20 years of covering football as a freelancer on multi camera outside broadcasts (roughly 2,500 matches) I’ve never experienced the use of fake atmosphere
( l did know what happened. So did everyone else, particularly after Sky explained. Don't think you've broken that story two weeks after the event. However you've provided no evidence to back your claim that it's never used for atmosphere. So it's just an opinion like it is for those who claim otherwise).
Click to expand...
 
Red buttons not working........sky sports is #*#**** Shit
 
oldblade said:
You are probably right that there will always be a gap between the larger and smaller clubs and there probably always has been a gap. However I think that over the years that gap has widened to the extent that even pretty large clubs like Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Leeds, Villa stand very little chance of winning the league.

In the late 50s to early 60s in the space of 4 seasons Wolves, Burnley and Ipswich all won the league. You may argue back that Leicester won it a couple of years ago, but will that be followed up by clubs like Southampton and Everton winning it within the next 3 years. Very doubtful.

I think there can be little doubt that money has made the top of the football pyramid significantly less competitive.

In the 1960s a total of 8 different clubs won the league.

Since the advent of the premier league 26 seasons ago, a total of only 6 clubs have won the league. And regardless of what Liverpool supporters may think, that number is very unlikely to increase at the end of this season.
Click to expand...

In the 26 seasons prior to the formation of the Premier League, 8 clubs won the League. Hardly a massive increase on the Premier League’s 6 winners.

Maybe it just like any sport? You always get periods of domination by one club/team before they fade away and it’s someone else’s turn.
 
YES Blade said:
In the 26 seasons prior to the formation of the Premier League, 8 clubs won the League. Hardly a massive increase on the Premier League’s 6 winners.

Maybe it just like any sport? You always get periods of domination by one club/team before they fade away and it’s someone else’s turn.
Click to expand...


It's actually 9. Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Leeds United, Everton, Arsenal, Derby County, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa. In other words 50% more. It's all opinion, but I would consider that to be a significant difference.

And in the 26 seasons before that it was 12. Double the number that have won the premier league.

My point is that money has reduced the competitiveness of the league and I think that is reflected in the declining number of clubs winning the league title.
 



oldblade said:
It's actually 9. Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Leeds United, Everton, Arsenal, Derby County, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa. In other words 50% more. It's all opinion, but I would consider that to be a significant difference.

And in the 26 seasons before that it was 12. Double the number that have won the premier league.

My point is that money has reduced the competitiveness of the league and I think that is reflected in the declining number of clubs winning the league title.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I only counted back 25 years and missed off Man U.

In those 26 years, you still had Liverpool dominating by winning 10 titles and in contrast Man U dominating the Premier League era with 12.

I don’t know what any of this proves, without comparing it to other European leagues to be honest. I just think people get misty eyed over the good old days before Sky, when there are positives and negatives from both times and neither is far superior than the other.
 
Had to chuckle at their commentator last night saying we signed Fleck from Rangers for £1m.
 
oldblade said:
It's actually 9. Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Leeds United, Everton, Arsenal, Derby County, Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa. In other words 50% more. It's all opinion, but I would consider that to be a significant difference.

And in the 26 seasons before that it was 12. Double the number that have won the premier league.

My point is that money has reduced the competitiveness of the league and I think that is reflected in the declining number of clubs winning the league title.
Click to expand...
It has but that started with the abolition of the maximum wage. The Sky money has just exacerbated it.
 
YES Blade said:
You are correct, I only counted back 25 years and missed off Man U.

In those 26 years, you still had Liverpool dominating by winning 10 titles and in contrast Man U dominating the Premier League era with 12.

I don’t know what any of this proves, without comparing it to other European leagues to be honest. I just think people get misty eyed over the good old days before Sky, when there are positives and negatives from both times and neither is far superior than the other.
Click to expand...


I think what it shows is that a declining number of teams have been winning the league title over the last 50 years.

I don't think it's a misty eyed view of the good old days. There really are significantly fewer clubs in with a realistic chance of winning the league title than used to be the case 50 years ago.

In the 1950s 6 different clubs won the league, in the 1960s it was 8 and in the 1970s it was 6 again.

There seems to me to be a link between the increasing amounts of money going into football and the declining number of clubs winning the league or having any realistic hope of doing so.
 
BushBlade said:
It has but that started with the abolition of the maximum wage. The Sky money has just exacerbated it.
Click to expand...

I agree. The abolition of the maximum wage enabled the larger clubs to outbid the smaller clubs on transfer fees, signing on fees and wages.

Before that the smaller clubs could hang onto their players. Hence Tom Finney stayed at Preston, etc. If settled and happy there was little point in him moving as he'd earn no more money.

Like anything new, to start with the effect seemed minimal, but it grew over time and as you say the increasing amounts of TV money has probably magnified this.
 
Got another airing at Reading last night.

Don't recall the comms apologising for that, but they made sure to apologise for the cut-off F bomb heard when Billy scored!

People swear at the football, get oer it Sky.
 
Topplayersleave said:
In Division Four we once got a higher attendance than Liverpool got for a European Cup match, and we often got more than many top flight teams for their League games

The gap was there but it could be closed or at least narrowed. And for a club like United with good support it was easier then than what it is now because the club turnover was largely based on their attendances and sponsorship deals only

What's so annoying is Reg Brierley is on film telling everybody how football is going to change ( and he was bang right )
But he did nothing about it and allowed our status as one of this countries genuine potentially big clubs to slide on by without so much as a whimper
Click to expand...

Any hard facts?


Please
 
since1889 said:
Got another airing at Reading last night.

Don't recall the comms apologising for that, but they made sure to apologise for the cut-off F bomb heard when Billy scored!

People swear at the football, get oer it Sky.
Click to expand...
Why should Sky ‘get oer it?’

It’s before the watershed, do you hear swearing on any programmes shown before 9pm?

I’ll answer it for you......... generally NO, but if you ever did it’s on a live show and the presenters will apologise.
 
since1889 said:
Got another airing at Reading last night.

Don't recall the comms apologising for that, but they made sure to apologise for the cut-off F bomb heard when Billy scored!

People swear at the football, get oer it Sky.
Click to expand...
It does make me laugh; they’re the ones who shove microphones all over the place- what are they expecting?! Pity there wasn't one underneath those dickheads gobbing off at Sterling the other day; imagine the grovelling apologies for that.
 
Bladesthorpe said:
Talking of ludicrous why did they keep zooming in on the bloke in the red and white shirt when showing our fans, he looked like a cross between Hitler and a Porto star.
Click to expand...
I thought the camera work was rubbish Saturday. In the past it's been spot on. How many times did they focus on the managers when play was going on? How many close ups of corners were there which means you can't get any perspective? How often do they zoom in and again you miss the action? The quality of vision mixer/director has definitely declined over the years.
 
makblade said:
There is no better coverage of Live football than Sky can offer. It just irks the fuck out of me that they constantly rip off customers with Sky high subscription costs. They could easily charge half the current fee and still make a healthy profit.

...and don't even get me started on the fkin extra charge for HD

WANKERS
Click to expand...
As I have mentioned before, anyone who pays the price Sky ask for is mad. Just phone them and tell them you can't afford it and want to cancel and they will reduce the monthly cost.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Slim Man
The Jairo hour
2 3
Replies
87
Views
7K
Edgar Allan Poo
Edgar Allan Poo
Silent Blade
Distance from your house to BDTBL according to Google Maps
7 8 9
Replies
247
Views
10K
Super Furry Blades
Super Furry Blades
bertieblade
Sky fixture reveal
Replies
21
Views
4K
Pintor75
Pintor75
Sothall_Blade
Blades players sat with the fans
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
HD8 Blades
HD8 Blades
W
By hook or by crook
Replies
2
Views
603
Guesty
Guesty

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom