| Sky - good, bad or ugly 15:59 - Jul 25 with 2914 views | CFW |
More and more in recent weeks I have been having 'discussions' with friends, family and anyone else who wanted to join in about the influence Sky TV has had on our national game. To be fair to Sky sports everything it does is to a very high standard. The coverage of football, cricket, darts, motor racing is very, very good and I am like a lot of other people that really could not do without the Sky Sports channels.
So what is my point? Through the money invested in the game we are now in a situation where the gap between the Premier League is bigger than ever, the amount of money being paid to clubs and then onto the players is frankly obscene. We are now close to players being transferred into the Premiership for £100 million - sorry this is wrong, so, so wrong.
Not having a go at any other club because the club that I care about deeply have done exactly the same thing in recent years but teams like Palace, Bournmouth, Sunderland, West Brom are now bidding £30 or £40 million for players. Not only that the players they are bidding for are really not very good.
Our football clubs are being bought by foreign multi-millionaires who lets be honest know nothing about our game, the players or supporters. Clubs are rich mans toys till they get bored or finally realise that they will never ever get their money back or run out of money themselves.
Where does all this end? I have no idea but it is no good people keep on saying it is the best league in the world because it is not. We should look at the way the German Bundesliga is managed. Great stadiums, very well attended matches and no where near the amount of over paid 'costa kickable' players.
Our National game is in tatters which I do not blame Sky TV for but clubs do not produce home grown players anymore because it is easier to simply go out and buy them - we are in a sad situation and I cannot see any end to it.
In another thread I said that I had not enjoyed my football in the recent past - I wonder how many others feel the same about the way our game is and has gone. |  | | |  |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:08 - Jul 25 with 2287 views | blacky200 |
I agree that the problem with the national game is that clubs are buying rather than producing players but it goes deeper than that as any promising youngsters are hoovered up into the big clubs vast academies and many do not make it out. Those that do are generally at least 3-4 years behind in development because they have not played in the first teams. An example of this is Theo Walcot. The level he is playing at now is where he should of been in his early 20s and would of been if he had stayed at southampton and played regular first team football.
In general I think Sky has been OK for our sport. It would of been better if things like wage caps had been bought in at the same time. |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:09 - Jul 25 with 2284 views | Mytch_QPR |
Bad. And ugly.
I won't give them my money and I'm fed up with KO times being altered. They are the reason why the likes of Peter Odemwingie arrive at a club heading for relegation, desperate for more ££££s.
As for the Transfer Day w*nkfest, I'm glad we're out of the big spending days. Give me players who want to wear the shirt and put a shift in. |  |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:13 - Jul 25 with 2257 views | daveB |
Sky is not to blame, if it wasn't Sky putting money in it would be BT or Virgin and the product would be the same. Blame the FA and the owners of football clubs for ruining football in the last 2 decades rather than the broadcaster They have handed all the power to tv companies rather than protect what they had |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:16 - Jul 25 with 2250 views | LongsufferingR |
Definitely bad and ugly, but I don't think we can pin too much of the blame for England on clubs not bringing young players through as England were even worse in the 70s and early 80s when the number of foreign players in England could be counted on the fingers of two hands. |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:28 - Jul 25 with 2212 views | BasingstokeR |
Is the coverage objectively "very, very good" and based on what? |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:33 - Jul 25 with 2183 views | Lblock |
I agree completely with the OP
They've been good..
They've been bad..
And sometimes ugly
First off - the coverage is absolutely second to none and it is going to get better. As I've insinuated on here before, but now I've handed my notice in I'll just say it, I'm currently working at Sky in Osterley. The project I'm on involves Sky News and Sports coming together to be, and I quote, "the worlds premier digital media delivery platform". The plans they have are fantastic and for a technophobe like me pretty mind blowing.
The money has been good for parts of the game but parts only
So the bad.. well, the money and the coverage! The influx of dosh has been badly managed and the coverage cares about live fans last and no consideration at all for attending fans. The game is detached from us, it's created a horrible sub culture of want it now blingy vacuum's.
And the ugly... well Richard Keys for a start was no oil painting!!! See above for the ugly side, some "fans" talking about football now makes my skin crawl.
However, as a footnote, I can confirm that ugly is a word that quite obviously doesn't feature in their recruitment policy on campus -- it's not just the SSN's girls who are lookers -- even the girls in the coffee shops get top marks!!!!
(Still not sure why I'm leaving a job 6 minutes from my front door, where there's football on all day and I'm surrounded by stunners!!!!!) |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:39 - Jul 25 with 2160 views | Toast_R |
A simple few rule changes would make a world of difference.
a) No more then 4 non British or Irish players or can be selected for a starting eleven. (A non appealable three point deduction for any club that breaks this rule).
b) Academies can no longer accept non British players
c) Clubs can only appoint a manager or coach during pre season. If the Coach/Manager is removed during the season, the club is placed under a transfer embargo and the team captain takes over basic manager duties.
d) Only 2 Teams qualify for the Champions League and two for the Europa League.
e) The rules will be reviewed after six years.
And finally, ticket prices no more then £20 across the board. |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:40 - Jul 25 with 2158 views | CamberleyR |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:16 - Jul 25 by LongsufferingR |
Definitely bad and ugly, but I don't think we can pin too much of the blame for England on clubs not bringing young players through as England were even worse in the 70s and early 80s when the number of foreign players in England could be counted on the fingers of two hands. |
If we're judging how poor a national team we had in the past because we failed to qualify for a few major tournaments then I disagree that England were worse in the 70s and 80s. Yes we failed to make the finals/knockout stages of three successive tornaments in the 70s but that was bad luck with who we happened to be drawn against.
74 WC - Poland - Finished 3rd in the tournament
76 Euros - Czechoslovakia - Winners
78 WC - Italy - Finished 4th
We were the only team to beat Czechoslovakia in the '76 tournament (qualifying + finals) and the great Dutch team were the only other team to beat Italy in the 1978 WC (qualifying + finals). And that took an Arie Haan 35 yard worldy to do that! Fine margins. [Post edited 25 Jul 2016 16:46]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:47 - Jul 25 with 2129 views | Dorse |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:16 - Jul 25 by LongsufferingR |
Definitely bad and ugly, but I don't think we can pin too much of the blame for England on clubs not bringing young players through as England were even worse in the 70s and early 80s when the number of foreign players in England could be counted on the fingers of two hands. |
I'm sure there were more than 12... |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:50 - Jul 25 with 2111 views | CFW |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:13 - Jul 25 by daveB |
Sky is not to blame, if it wasn't Sky putting money in it would be BT or Virgin and the product would be the same. Blame the FA and the owners of football clubs for ruining football in the last 2 decades rather than the broadcaster They have handed all the power to tv companies rather than protect what they had |
Sky started all this by offering a vast amount of money for coverage. BT paid loads more than they wanted simply to launch their equivalent but they would never have paid so much if Sky had not started so high in the first place. | | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:52 - Jul 25 with 2102 views | CFW |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:28 - Jul 25 by BasingstokeR |
Is the coverage objectively "very, very good" and based on what? |
Based on their coverage - look at BT sport it is awful. Sorry but when Sky presents a sport the coverage is second to none. | | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 17:02 - Jul 25 with 2074 views | CamberleyR |
I'm beginning to wonder how football might have turned out in a paralell universe had Sky not won the original Premier League TV contract for £300m (I think it was) and if ITV, who everyone was expecting to win the bidding war, had prevailed.
No doubt about it Sky needed that contract to boost subscriptions because if memory serves me correctly,in those days in the early 90s they were losing money quicker than Tony Fernandes having his pants pulled down and were a gnat's chuff away from going under. | |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 17:12 - Jul 25 with 2048 views | markrtid |
Fugly
Get yourselves an android/Kodi box. You wont regret it. Trust me. |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 17:28 - Jul 25 with 2001 views | Northernr |
Their coverage is absolutely superb. Their effect on the sport in this country is almost entirely regrettable and irreversible. |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 17:57 - Jul 25 with 1965 views | Juzzie |
IMO clubs don't produce as much home grown talent because they need to buy overseas players so Sky can sell TV rights in those countries.
I cannot see the interest abroad being as big as it is, outside of maybe Man U and Liverpool, if the PL was 80% national players.
So yes, to a degree I do blame Sky for the demise in home grown players. Look at Chelsea, didn't they have some 25+ home grown players all loaned out a few years back? |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 18:00 - Jul 25 with 1955 views | RANGERS4EVER |
It has had such a bad effect on the national sport, and has probably taken out a lot of the life of football.
But Super Sundays are great, and I do admit I couldn't live without it |  |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 18:19 - Jul 25 with 1908 views | paulparker |
When Sky first came on the scene in around 91 they were very good
They had the coverage of the FA cup & I think the old Simon cup ( look it up kids there is a great game between Newcastle and tranmere on YouTube ) and had Andy gray and Martin Tyler who were suberb and way a head of there time giving commentary
Again when they had the rights of the premier league the coverage had gone up a gear
Gone were the days of elton welsby and the usual Liverpool and man Utd games , every one got featured you had a 2 hour build up you had Andy gray and his boot room , you had Monday night football it really was an exciting time for us football nuts as you only had about 6 games a year if you were lucky and a ten minute clip of the old first division goals at around 11.30 on a Saturday night
Sky were also good for pubs and drinkers , back in the early nineties pubs shut at 2.30 on a Sunday
( remember getting in 3 pints before the bell rang) they cottoned on that most blokes didn't have sky and wanted to carry on drinking and watch the game, a year later pubs stayed open its now changed the course of Sunday drinking
Also soccer Saturday is a must see if you don't go to the games yes it's camp and theatrical but it's the best thing on sky sports
Now the bad stuff is its getting worse every year it's so Ott now
Yes sky hyped the games but not to the extent of now it's gone into American style NBA mode
We have ed chamberlain , Thierry Henry , Carragher and co who are so over the top who love the sound of there own voices and won't tell it how it is , it's made average players millionaires , it's priced the average man out of the game , it's even priced groups of young lads from going
It's made some of the big clubs monsters , they go all over the world selling the brand , look at the farce in China today man Utd should be playing Stockport or bury FFS not travelling around the world selling t shirts to Asians , we now have the WAGS making it a soap opera who is shagging who ? , young players are millionaires without kicking a ball and are stuck in academies driving cars they shouldn't , every year the wages go up toure on 250k a week do me a favour
The FA cup is irrelevant because finishing fourth is now the big thing
The game in this country is the pits it's like a reality show now I don't recognise the game I would play 4 times a week or would talk about 24-7 , I've now cancelled sky sports and I don't miss the thing anymore what so ever |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 22:26 - Jul 25 with 1726 views | TacticalR |
@CFW 'Our football clubs are being bought by foreign multi-millionaires who lets be honest know nothing about our game, the players or supporters. Clubs are rich mans toys till they get bored or finally realise that they will never ever get their money back or run out of money themselves.'
Don't forget the good old days. This is from Duncan Hamilton's book about Clough, 'Provided You Don't Kiss Me' (2008):
'He held the view that directors as a breed were parasitical freeloaders with an appalling ignorance of, and scant appreciation for, both his worth and the game itself. Most, he said to me, fell into one of three categories: duplicitous, devious back-stabbers ('they'd have given Julius Caesar a good goingover'), feckless sycophants ('who hide in dark corners when the flak flies') or egotists ('running a football club gets their photograph on the back page of newspapers — nowt else ever would').
Clough subscribed to the Len Shackleton view. The ninth chapter of Shackleton's autobiography Crown Prince of Soccer was called 'The average director's knowledge of football'. Beneath that title, the page was left blank. 'Most directors are shithouses,' Clough would frequently say in conversation. 'They only know where to find the free drink and the free food. If we win, it's "Oh Brian, lovely to see you!" If we lose, it's "What a bastard the manager is," and lots of muttering behind closed doors.'' |  |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 22:40 - Jul 25 with 1707 views | essextaxiboy |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 18:00 - Jul 25 by RANGERS4EVER |
It has had such a bad effect on the national sport, and has probably taken out a lot of the life of football.
But Super Sundays are great, and I do admit I couldn't live without it |
I have a full sky Package and havnt watched a full Prem match that doesnt involve the Rangers for a couple of years at least .
I record MOTD and delete them all without watching .
The Sky money has taken the game I was obsessed with for years and turned it into a "customer experience"
I want us to go up for the winning experience, but its always an anti climax once you get up there.
I like football to be edgy , tribal, honest and a proper commited contest not the gravy train that Sky oversees.
If we ever went bust I could quite happily live without it . |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 23:06 - Jul 25 with 1667 views | HendonHoop |
I got very cheesed off with them a few years back when they got too big for their boots and moved the great freeview Sky Sports News Channel over to the pay channel. I always thought that Saturday afternoon Soccer Saturday always whetted my appetite for watching more football on other days and since then things for me have gone a bit flat. | | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 03:59 - Jul 26 with 1591 views | FredManRave |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 17:57 - Jul 25 by Juzzie |
IMO clubs don't produce as much home grown talent because they need to buy overseas players so Sky can sell TV rights in those countries.
I cannot see the interest abroad being as big as it is, outside of maybe Man U and Liverpool, if the PL was 80% national players.
So yes, to a degree I do blame Sky for the demise in home grown players. Look at Chelsea, didn't they have some 25+ home grown players all loaned out a few years back? |
I watched The Class of 92 for the first time just last night. Beckham had to wait until he'd played 25 first team games before he could get his hands on his new Company Car, a Honda Prelude that was a 1 year lease!
What happened with those guys will never be repeated, basically these days there is just such an obscene amount of money involved in the game that no manager would be willing to risk, let alone be given the time to do so, bringing in so many new academy players straight into the first team. And I'm not talking specifically about 6 because that will undoubtedly never be repeated again but even just a couple of academy players getting a chance and being given time is an extremely rare occurrence.
Money (therefore SKY) is completely ruining the game, imo, although the many armchair fans must be loving it. But the wanting everything right here, right now, without wanting to spend time and patience to get it (similar to the way life has changed these days) is making a monster of the game. I keep reading that football will, one day, eat itself but I can't see it personally. However, if it did it I'm sure the bread would be buttered on both sides.
It's not just football, it's so many things these days that are changing so quickly due to technology and "progress". Just not so sure it's all for the better. [Post edited 26 Jul 2016 4:55]
|  |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 07:51 - Jul 26 with 1474 views | Hoop_Du_Jour |
From the OP: "I am like a lot of other people that really could not do without the Sky Sports channels."
Yeah, really you can do without them, you choose not to. You are the problem I fancy, not Sky.
I've had Sky and Cable, both crap. I resent paying to watch adverts and repeats. Haven't been near sky for ten years and you couln't pay me enough to have it again. But that's just me, I'm sure I'm in a minority . |  | | |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 09:07 - Jul 26 with 1399 views | Monahoop |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 16:40 - Jul 25 by CamberleyR |
If we're judging how poor a national team we had in the past because we failed to qualify for a few major tournaments then I disagree that England were worse in the 70s and 80s. Yes we failed to make the finals/knockout stages of three successive tornaments in the 70s but that was bad luck with who we happened to be drawn against.
74 WC - Poland - Finished 3rd in the tournament
76 Euros - Czechoslovakia - Winners
78 WC - Italy - Finished 4th
We were the only team to beat Czechoslovakia in the '76 tournament (qualifying + finals) and the great Dutch team were the only other team to beat Italy in the 1978 WC (qualifying + finals). And that took an Arie Haan 35 yard worldy to do that! Fine margins. [Post edited 25 Jul 2016 16:46]
|
England were poor in the mid 70's mainly due to their manager at the time, Don Revie. A one trick pony manager at Leeds beforehand who thrived on bullying others to get success, he was found out when he took over the national side. England had great players, [Stan, Dave and Gerry amongst them], Revie had no idea how to use them or how to select a settled team. He was out of his comfort zone at Elland Road. His only credible result what I can remember was a 5-1 bashing of Scotland in a Home International game, Scotland being arguably better or at least as good as England at the time. Anyway, enough of him.
Sky. Bad and Ugly. A typical product of the sensationalist modern age. |  |
| There aint half been some clever bastards. |
| |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 09:32 - Jul 26 with 1373 views | CamberleyR |
| Sky - good, bad or ugly on 09:07 - Jul 26 by Monahoop |
England were poor in the mid 70's mainly due to their manager at the time, Don Revie. A one trick pony manager at Leeds beforehand who thrived on bullying others to get success, he was found out when he took over the national side. England had great players, [Stan, Dave and Gerry amongst them], Revie had no idea how to use them or how to select a settled team. He was out of his comfort zone at Elland Road. His only credible result what I can remember was a 5-1 bashing of Scotland in a Home International game, Scotland being arguably better or at least as good as England at the time. Anyway, enough of him.
Sky. Bad and Ugly. A typical product of the sensationalist modern age. |
His first game in charge, a 3-0 win at Wembley against Czechoslovakia (Dave Thomas came on as sub and made the first two IIRC) and a 2-0 Alan Hudson inspired win a few months later over world champions West Germany were probably the other highlights along with the 5-1 Scotland thrashing you mention a few months after that.
Sinificant that these were all within his first year in charge and it did go downhill soon after that. Probably also worth mentioning that he lost his two best midfielders, Gerry and Colin Bell within a few months of each other to long term injuries (Bell didn't really play again). Not defending Revie at all though as I remember he did make some bizarre selections and was a helpless tinkerer.
As I said though it was fine margins. Even with the bollocks that he made of the WC qualifying campaign, we were still only 2 or 3 goals short of qualifying at Italy's expense. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
? Trying to understand why people think its so good in more detail and not just using the limited comparisons available.