|
Post by scooter on Sept 7, 2010 22:43:36 GMT 1
I choose not to have sky - it is a choice because i could afford it, but on value for money terms it would annoy me, and i don't care for Murdoch If I want to see a game I go to the pub and spend an enjoyable couple of hours watching the match with my mates I still think I get excellent value for my tv licence fee (worth it for the radio and website) - I am a bit annoyed at losing SSN on freeview, but it is their choice, and I will get used to watching proper news I suppose
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 7, 2010 22:59:08 GMT 1
isnt that a contradiction ? in some instances a tv licence can cost more per year than sky sports i know what you mean though, i cancelled sky and just bought a HD freeview recorder not a lot on there and not even got HD round here yet my sky ran out yesterday but it still works today hopefully it might last until after the game £145.50 for 12 months (colour!) tv licence Sky Sports pack is £20 per month to add on to an existing subscription = £240 for 12 months Guess it could work out similar if you just had one SS channel but doubt many people bother doing that as sods law what you want is on another channel. i did say in certain instances its cheaper than a tc licence bt vision offer sky sports for £6.99 a month
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 7, 2010 23:09:57 GMT 1
I tried looking into bt vision, and it is certainly not as simple as just signing up to sky sports for £6.99 a month, you have to take out other packages, buy their box etc - I couldn't be bothered to be honest
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Sept 8, 2010 0:10:49 GMT 1
As a England fan who cannot sensibly afford to subscribe to Sky I am financially alienated from my national football team. Is this what the FA want? The rugby league was really interesting tonight....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 1:15:32 GMT 1
£68 for sky?! We've been getting it for close to a year and a half for £25 a month all in (all channels, phone and internet) Why on earth would you pay those scumbags £68 rather moronic given the options available
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Sept 8, 2010 6:49:06 GMT 1
Sky have their new found friends in the Tories in kind of power. You can, therefore, forget about the protected list of free to air events. We were on the point of getting Ashes cricket back but our wonderful new hybrid government have already put the mockers on that. I think you'll find that the ECB did a damn sight more in making sure that the Ashes/ Test Cricket stayed put on Satellite its called £££££££££££££'s and Giles Clarke was adamant that it would be the ruination of Crickets finances if they had to go back to Terrestrial coverage.
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on Sept 8, 2010 7:51:11 GMT 1
Sky have their new found friends in the Tories in kind of power. You can, therefore, forget about the protected list of free to air events. We were on the point of getting Ashes cricket back but our wonderful new hybrid government have already put the mockers on that. I think you'll find that the ECB did a damn sight more in making sure that the Ashes/ Test Cricket stayed put on Satellite its called £££££££££££££'s and Giles Clarke was adamant that it would be the ruination of Crickets finances if they had to go back to Terrestrial coverage. *ing on a good old anti-Tory/Murdoch witchhunt does no favours for your karma on here fella, I'd be careful what you post
|
|
|
Post by wibbin on Sept 8, 2010 8:21:42 GMT 1
A friend and I were talking about this last night after the match.
Neither of us had Sky so went out to watch it however both siad that was each sky channel avaliable on an individual basis then we would both subscribe and have the sky sports channels for say £5 each per month so £20 and throw in SSN for free.
We reckoned that 75% of subscribers have SkySports and thus would still subscribe and that the remaining 25% would be made up from new subscribers.
We wondered if all the Sky platform was done like this whether they would make more/less or an equivalent sum? I assume they have looked at this but dont know.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on Sept 8, 2010 8:23:19 GMT 1
P.S the TV Licence scheme is outdated and doesn't work anymore. I they need to come up with something new. The BBC don't provide enough quality entertainment to justify it anyway and they want more" What complete rot. The BBC do brilliant entrainment and are value for money. Compared to sky who buy the vast majority of programs from the states, charge you money to watch it then show adverts. I think that the main thing that annoys me about Sky is not only you pay to watch but the adverts as well, If I pay to watch something I don't want the adverts.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Sept 8, 2010 8:30:56 GMT 1
I think you'll find that the ECB did a damn sight more in making sure that the Ashes/ Test Cricket stayed put on Satellite its called £££££££££££££'s and Giles Clarke was adamant that it would be the ruination of Crickets finances if they had to go back to Terrestrial coverage. *ing on a good old anti-Tory/Murdoch witchhunt does no favours for your karma on here fella, I'd be careful what you post
|
|
|
Post by shrew54 on Sept 8, 2010 8:42:43 GMT 1
I haven't had Sky since it went digital, and I won't pay their inflated prices for sport I know thsi has been highlighted before, but I watched last nights game on this website------> Stuff u murdoch I have watched loads of other stuff on there including Town at Rotherham last season
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Sept 8, 2010 10:02:31 GMT 1
I do have sky sports, however I feel that the England national football team's games should be on terrestrial tv, and it's absolutely ridiculous that it isn't. What is even more annoying is that there wasn't even a highlights program on terrestrial either.
In fact, there wasn't a highlights program on sky either. As it is I was out playing football last night so i haven't actually seen the vast majority of the match - I was hoping that I could catch up with the highlights late last night, but no.
And for the fella saying that 'I pay, therefore it's only right I get some exclusive for that money', well fair enough you should get something exclusive - however not the England national football team. Sky subscribers already get the Premier league, the majority of Champions league, and League cup games exclusively. In fact as a subscriber, I was unaware Sky had any of the England games and this wasn't even a consideration for my subscription.
Further more I do wonder why it is that the people who looked into the runnings of sky and interfered so that BT, Virgin etc were allowed to have sky sports due to it being 'in the customer's interests', have allowed the situation with sky to continue where as if you want the sports channels, you have to have them on top of an entertainment package that you have to pay for which you may not want - I don't and that's extra money that goes out that isn't my choice.
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Sept 8, 2010 10:39:51 GMT 1
Well, after all that anger you people should be glad. Last night I had to sit with my friends in the pub watching a woeful game, England are quite frankly awful, but you know the press will hype them up. Adam Johnson was the game changer, quality player. However, whilst you was watching that drivel, I was fortunate enough to keep seeing the updates of a well deserved 6-1 victory for Deutschland.
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Sept 8, 2010 12:10:40 GMT 1
Well, after all that anger you people should be glad. Last night I had to sit with my friends in the pub watching a woeful game, England are quite frankly awful, but you know the press will hype them up. Adam Johnson was the game changer, quality player. However, whilst you was watching that drivel, I was fortunate enough to keep seeing the updates of a well deserved 6-1 victory for Deutschland. You sound like a German version of Kopthis. How come you weren't watching your team? Very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 8, 2010 12:21:23 GMT 1
£68 for sky?! We've been getting it for close to a year and a half for £25 a month all in (all channels, phone and internet) Why on earth would you pay those scumbags £68 rather moronic given the options available Sorry its £71 not £68... Full Channel Package £51, Mulitroom £10 and HD £10 (Interested to know how you get EVERY channel for £25??)
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 8, 2010 12:32:57 GMT 1
surely the morals here lie with the fa we pay all that money for a manager who flopped at the world cup and as a result seemingly need to sell the games to the highest bidder to pay for it i'd rather pay an english manager a modest rate to do the job its not as if you can make transfers i know peter taylor isnt doing much this season but he did well in his role for england he's probably on peanuts compared to capello and may even do a better job capellos full contract is worth £40M that is ridiculous even if we won everything going someone half decent would do the same job for £1M £39M would go a long way to improving grass roots levels and also sticking 2 fingers up at sky only my opinion before someone quotes me 432 reasons why that isnt possible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 13:33:42 GMT 1
It's called playing the game. Sky will rinse you for all they can, so by keeping sky on their toes, suggesting i might leave, taking advantage of the numerous special offers sky remains £25 for all the channels minus the box office.
Johnson played well, but the game changer, absolute rubbish my friend. We'd already gone 1-0 up and had already taken the game to the gold-hoarding scroats
|
|
limacharli
Midland League Division Two
And in comes Sobers bowling from the Gasworks end!!
Posts: 222
|
Post by limacharli on Sept 8, 2010 13:34:42 GMT 1
I get hot under the collar on this debate as I pay £73 pm for Sky (multi room x 4 ) and in my opinion if I have Sky to access digital tv why the hell should I have to pay a licence fee surely Sky should pay the BBC for their programmes .
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Sept 8, 2010 13:39:50 GMT 1
surely the morals here lie with the fa we pay all that money for a manager who flopped at the world cup and as a result seemingly need to sell the games to the highest bidder to pay for it Your point still stands. But it's the Swiss FA that sold it to the highest bidder - Sky. People pay Sky to make yourself one of the "exclusive" few. Sky then have to go out and make sure you are "exclusive" by excluding anyone who doesn't have their product. And also to make sure people want their exclusivity. And the capitalist world turns. If people didn't sign up to Sky, they wouldn't bid for the rights and then they'd end up somewhere everyone could access them. (Then maybe Peter Taylor would be manager. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 18:02:13 GMT 1
I do have sky sports, however I feel that the England national football team's games should be on terrestrial tv, and it's absolutely ridiculous that it isn't. Rights are owned by the respective FAs, who will sell to the highest bidder where possible i.e. the Swiss FA sell rights of last night's match to SKY so for away games it is out of the hands of the British Government.
|
|