SkySports+ + EFL

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


ColinHill said:
I dont doubt they are losing subscribers, people generally are struggling for spare money at the minute with the cost of everything rising and a sensible thing if needing money for more essentials is cancelling a TV contract which could be described as a luxury. The 10% increase just matches the increase in minimum wage, and generally how much most things have gone up, its the same every year with minimum wage increases, companies put their price up by an amount relatively similar amount. Noone is better off as Sky staff will have had an increase in April too to keep them at the level they should be.

www.statista.com

Sky: annual revenue 2022| Statista

In the fiscal year 2022, the British pay TV operator Sky generated a revenue of approximately **** billion British pounds.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

Have a look at that, bar an exceptional year in 2021 (Covid - people staying at home), SKy are still are generating 14bn in revenue. Think around £200m in profit for financial year 2022.

PL is predicable, 100% agree. How is that Skys fault?? Isnt it predicable because one team have a richer owner than the others and they started their ball rolling before FFP became stronger. I dont believe FFP /PSR or whatever it is called works properly anyway, it stymies competition, thats not Sky's doing.

I dont see the bubble of it bursting, it generates massive income through broadcasters all over the world. And it has aims to grow even bigger. Wait til games get played in the US, Asia, the PL will grow more and more.

Im not spouting propaganda, just my opinion. People want football back to how it was 40 years ago....the world has moved on. The way the future viewers of football want it will be different to someone in their 50s / 60s, hence all the 3 min you tube highlights, goals after games on apps. VAR is good for the armchair / online spectator, of which there will be a lot more than actually go to games. Streaming will be bigger and bigger and Sky will be a part of that.
Click to expand...
If Sky are inly making £200m profit on a £14bn turnover then they really need a long hard look at how they operate.
 
LondonBlade89 said:
Interesting debate to be had. I’m not sure had Sky not existed that we would necessarily still be in a world where our football leagues in England are the same as they were in the 70s (a time I guess you’re harking back to) but it’s an interesting “what might have been”.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even a twinkle in my old man's eye in the 70s haha, but I'm not really harking back to anything. I'm suggesting that football would be the same as a spectator sport if we didn't have these obscene amounts of money being pumped in to it. The only difference would be that the players we're watching wouldn't be as rich. They are the only beneficiary as far as I can see.

Some would argue that pitches and facilities (not relevant to Blades fans anyway) have improved for spectators, but given that clubs lose more money, is that even an argument? The losses may well have actually stifled infrastructure improvements.
 
VictoryBlade said:
Sorry bit of a novice here, how do i watch this as a one off game?
Click to expand...
No legal way to watch from home if you are in the UK and don't have Sky. Easiest way will be to find a dodgy Internet stream. Otherwise you need a SUTV match pass and a VPN. Or go to the pub (presuming pubs with Sky can show Sky+ games).
 
You can get a Now day pass to watch Sky Sports but it costs £14.99.

Pubs will be able to show the streaming games but ours is on the Sky Sports+ channel anyway which is a proper channel.
 
Working Class Hero said:
I wasn't even a twinkle in my old man's eye in the 70s haha, but I'm not really harking back to anything. I'm suggesting that football would be the same as a spectator sport if we didn't have these obscene amounts of money being pumped in to it. The only difference would be that the players we're watching wouldn't be as rich. They are the only beneficiary as far as I can see.

Some would argue that pitches and facilities (not relevant to Blades fans anyway) have improved for spectators, but given that clubs lose more money, is that even an argument? The losses may well have actually stifled infrastructure improvements.
Click to expand...
If Sky or whoever had not come along when they did the game would have died a death as a mass spectator sport- attendances crap facilities crap players technically inferior (in the main) and it would have just got worse.
The facilities wouldn't be as good the resources inferior and the game standards would drop throughout the pyramid leaving an inferior product - which would then be replaced by another worldwide sport dragging the money in -
 
Ginger Gnome said:
You can get a Now day pass to watch Sky Sports but it costs £14.99.

Pubs will be able to show the streaming games but ours is on the Sky Sports+ channel anyway which is a proper channel.
Click to expand...
Its only 26.00 quid for Sky sport+ 6 month with NOW
 
ATL Recs said:
If Sky or whoever had not come along when they did the game would have died a death as a mass spectator sport- attendances crap facilities crap players technically inferior (in the main) and it would have just got worse.
The facilities wouldn't be as good the resources inferior and the game standards would drop throughout the pyramid leaving an inferior product - which would then be replaced by another worldwide sport dragging the money in -
Click to expand...
It didn't die a death in other countries that don't have the same level of silly money, and is better for it from a spectator's point of view.

Why would players have got worse? The difference today is down to improvements in coaching and sports science, not Sky's money. Those improvements have been made even in countries that have hardly any TV money whatsoever.

The facilities on a match day are the same now as when I was a nipper, pre-Sky. That goes for every Blade that doesn't sit in the John Street stand and for many fans throughout the pyramid.

Sky's initial investment was relatively modest anyway, but it paved the way for the level of money that dictates everything nowadays, and I honestly don't think we'd see much difference without it. It just goes out of the pockets of the big investors and in to the pockets of players/agents, nothing really changes in-between from a fan's point of view.
 
nopigfansintown said:
The wider issue here is that the game is more financially unviable than it has ever been. Almost every football club is losing vast quantities of money and being propped up by an owner. If you don't spend above your means and attempt to operate somewhat like a business. (like United last year) the TV companies scold you for being 'bad for the product'.Ticket prices keep going up despite our money being a fart in the ocean of football finance (relatively speaking) to the extent that the staple working class fans can't afford to watch some clubs.. Our influence as supporters in guiding the development of the game has wained significantly , unsurprisingly in line with the increase in TV money, and resultant TV company power: he who pays the piper calls the tune. This is TV's game now - not the spectator guided sport it was designed to be. Championship footballers are now multi millionaires. Premier League footballers have movie star/rock star status in terms of earnings. Compare what they earn as a % to the 12-20% of the tournament income the tennis players get. It's mad.

Most sports and forms of entertainment are run like standard capitalist enterprisers. Not football. For that reason Sky etc has done nothing much to increase its financial viability. It has made football players incredibly wealthy, changed the nature of football for spectators at matches, and made the financial burden far more onerous for owners, to such an extent that we have countries running clubs. It's biggest success, I'd argue, is in gaining global hegemony - the best players largely play for the richest clubs here now. At one time it was Italy or Spain.
Click to expand...

It’s not really Sky that created the issue of football clubs being financially unviable, it’s the owners competing with each other which pushed up wages and transfer fees.

Jack Walker with Blackburn, Abramovich at Chelsea, Sheikh Mansour at Man City. Each of those owners bought a club at a time when they had deeper pockets than the rest of the league. Wages and transfer fees increased as a result.

Could it be argued that Sky started it by increasing the income? Maybe, but it was the owners chasing success on the pitch which created the current financial situation of football clubs.
 
Dkc said:
Looks like there's more than one game on Sky Sport+ tonight. Barnsley and Chesterfield's games are also being televised. If you have Sky Sports or the Sky app there will probably be multiple Sky+ channels but there seems to be only one Sky+ option in my IPTV Sky folder. Presumably it will have our game (as well as the Preston and SUFC channels in the EFL folder)
Click to expand...

Sky Sports+ is the front end channel so there will always be a game on that like there is on Sky Sports Football. All the other games at that time will be through the interactive service ie red button via the Sky Sports+ channel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dkc
Upton_Blade said:
Sky Sports+ is the front end channel so there will always be a game on that like there is on Sky Sports Football. All the other games at that time will be through the interactive service ie red button via the Sky Sports+ channel.
Click to expand...
There's sky sports + the channel then there's sky sports + the streams which is basically a bigger version of red button. Quite why they had to confuse people I dunno!
 
Working Class Hero said:
The biggest trick that Sky ever pulled was convincing clubs and fans that their broadcasting rights money was a good thing.

Clubs now lose more money than ever and fans pay more money than ever. We watch the exact same players that we would have done without the Sky money (OK a few may have gone abroad but there'd be no difference really), the only effect has been that they're now 10 times richer, along with their agents.
Click to expand...

Without the billions that Sky had put in, the PL would have nowhere near the attractiveness it has compared to other European leagues, you would not be able to attract the players that have played here, you'd not be able to attract the coaches that have improved all players, be they English or from anywhere else, the entire product would be worse and you would see a lot more of the likes of Bellingham taking their talents to the continent. To claim that we'd be watching much the same game is as wide of the mark as the average Conor Sammon attempt on goal
 
Wasn't going to have sky anymore but just been offered 12 months sports for 20 a month so took it
 

jt64 said:
Without the billions that Sky had put in, the PL would have nowhere near the attractiveness it has compared to other European leagues, you would not be able to attract the players that have played here, you'd not be able to attract the coaches that have improved all players, be they English or from anywhere else, the entire product would be worse and you would see a lot more of the likes of Bellingham taking their talents to the continent. To claim that we'd be watching much the same game is as wide of the mark as the average Conor Sammon attempt on goal
Click to expand...
Even though the other leagues haven't had those billions? I'm not saying the league would be the same if it was bankrupt and can't pay coaches, I'm saying the obscene money it gets doesn't make any difference other than to players. If it has the same funding as any other European league we would be literally no worse off as fans.

Also, I'm a Sheffield United fan, we're not in the Premier League and I'm not watching players that are there because we play where the money is.
 
Working Class Hero said:
Even though the other leagues haven't had those billions? I'm not saying the league would be the same if it was bankrupt and can't pay coaches, I'm saying the obscene money it gets doesn't make any difference other than to players. If it has the same funding as any other European league we would be literally no worse off as fans.

Also, I'm a Sheffield United fan, we're not in the Premier League and I'm not watching players that are there because we play where the money is.
Click to expand...
They have their own, less significant, but still A LOT, amounts of TV money.
 
Working Class Hero said:
Even though the other leagues haven't had those billions? I'm not saying the league would be the same if it was bankrupt and can't pay coaches, I'm saying the obscene money it gets doesn't make any difference other than to players.
Click to expand...

Right at the start of the Premier League, the English champions lost to the Scottish champions. That is how irrelevant the English league was at the time. You think you're going to get the likes of Pep, Klopp etc bothering to come to manage in England if the level of play is that bad? You think you're going to get the likes of Haaland and Rodri choose Man City over, say, Barcelona, if the money wasn't in the PL? It makes a difference to everything. Arsenal would still be playing at Highbury, Spurs would still be playing at White Hart Lane, England would have lost in the group stages of the Euros rather than the final, we would be starting Coulibaly over Blaster because someone would have bought Blaster.

And let's be clear, if Sky didn't buy into it, someone else would have. It might be delayed a few years, but media in the 90s changed forever, and football did with it
 
metalblade said:
Be aware a recent update fucked up the Sky stream boxes and all the sound was a second or so behind peoples lips moving, it has never been fully cured so you have to fuck around on your TV settings to get lip sync with the picture, sometimes it's ok other times not so good whatever you do. Then there are the issues where the box just freezes and that's with everything wired to the router and not using wi-fi.
Click to expand...
Iv noticed this too
 
jt64 said:
Right at the start of the Premier League, the English champions lost to the Scottish champions. That is how irrelevant the English league was at the time. You think you're going to get the likes of Pep, Klopp etc bothering to come to manage in England if the level of play is that bad? You think you're going to get the likes of Haaland and Rodri choose Man City over, say, Barcelona, if the money wasn't in the PL? It makes a difference to everything. Arsenal would still be playing at Highbury, Spurs would still be playing at White Hart Lane, England would have lost in the group stages of the Euros rather than the final, we would be starting Coulibaly over Blaster because someone would have bought Blaster.

And let's be clear, if Sky didn't buy into it, someone else would have. It might be delayed a few years, but media in the 90s changed forever, and football did with it
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct, and yet I don't think that would make one ounce of difference to my hobby or that of the average fan. My experience would be the same.

To the fans of the top 6 it would, they'd be watching a different product week in week out. I'm still not sure it's better though, even for them.
 
Pay about £68 a month I think for full Sky that’s inclusive of their best broadband. All sports, documentaries etc, I think that’s excellent value. I also have a dodgy for TNT which I’ve had issues with. I pay for the reliability and the fact the game is live. Each to their own I guess and I understand money is tight for people atm. UTB

*Also have a season ticket before anyone labels me an armchair.
 
Dkc said:
The tech to detect if someone is using a VPN has got a bit smarter. I use Nord VPN to access BBC iPlayer from outside the UK, and it doesn't work half the time. Not saying a VPN won't work with SUTV, it probably will still work this season, but may not work forever. It would be a bit shit if you paid for a match pass and a VPN and it still didn't work.

I doubt SUFC give a shit where people who buy match passes are located, but the EFL will.
Click to expand...
Interestingly when I was in the Netherlands when the Euros were on, could use I player with no VPN with no issues. No idea why?
 
I would rather rather listen to United on my wind up radio than buy a subscription to sky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dkc
Bartleby said:
Out of interest why does it have to be set up on a firestick? I presume you wipe the Fire OS and put summat else on so can't it be on any computer? Is it just beacuse it's convenient for connecting to a tv? Like I say, just out of interest.
Click to expand...
It doesn't, it's just an app
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sothall_Blade
Blades players sat with the fans
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
HD8 Blades
HD8 Blades
S
Pigs game on TV? Where/how are you watching it?
3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
11K
Caveblade
Caveblade
ITALIANO BLADE
take the shackles off play with 2 wingers in a more attacking formation
Replies
3
Views
309
ITALIANO BLADE
ITALIANO BLADE
Tony Currie
Tom Cannon and Jonjoe Kenny signed?
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Belvedere Blade
Belvedere Blade
W
EFL cup
Replies
8
Views
1K
cornerstone
C

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