Should there be a cap?

You
FoxEye said:
My biggest problem as stated previously is that I'm forced to have Sky TV, therefore (even without paying for Sports channels), it's my money that's being used for these astronomical fees and wages.

And Sky keep putting the price up every year by >10%. Sure I could cancel the contract and live without TV, but it's hardly fair. Sky should have just pushed the price of the Sports package up, and let those who genuinely want to fuel this industry's madness do so. The rest of us who just want to watch Discovery, Nat Geo, etc, get a raw deal.
Click to expand...
You have a VPN right?

Subscribe to fubo.tv in the USA $35 a month, rolling contract, every single Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, Bundesliga and whatever other league game takes your fancy. Cancel it at the end of the season.

Or find alternative methods of watching football.

Still, for me, a season ticket is cheaper than SKY TV
 
TallPaul1878 said:
Just take a look at how footballers gathered around Bradley Lowry in his final days. Tell me any other group of "artists" that puts that amount of charitable effort back into their communities.

Again I can only speak for the club I support, but Everton In The Community have won awards for their charitable endeavours. With special classes and activities for underprivileged children. Pretty much all of the big Premier League clubs have big charitable presences in their communities.

Tell me what do pop stars and movie stars do besides snort coke and get plastic surgery?
Click to expand...
What do you think makes footballers different from movie stars in terms of charitable work?

Do you honestly think this comes from the players themselves?

It's all the work of the club's PR teams. Image rights are taken very, very, very seriously in football. A player's image is worth almost as much as his on-field talent. Clubs are very good at getting their players to take part in events which will bring good publicity, and hence increase the worth of their image rights.

If you think that's a bit cynical, then let's flip your question on its head again. What makes footballers different to movie stars? Why would they be innately more charitable?
 
FoxEye said:
My biggest problem as stated previously is that I'm forced to have Sky TV, therefore (even without paying for Sports channels), it's my money that's being used for these astronomical fees and wages.

And Sky keep putting the price up every year by >10%. Sure I could cancel the contract and live without TV, but it's hardly fair. Sky should have just pushed the price of the Sports package up, and let those who genuinely want to fuel this industry's madness do so. The rest of us who just want to watch Discovery, Nat Geo, etc, get a raw deal.
Click to expand...

Do you know for sure that the cost is subsidised by the non-sports related income?

Even then - so what? You don't have to get Sky TV, why not just use freesat if regular TV reception is bad where you are? Discovery is available via amazon channels, no one is forcing you to use Sky to watch that. Sky subsidiary NowTv is pretty reasonably priced too
 
TallPaul1878 said:
You

You have a VPN right?

Subscribe to fubo.tv in the USA $35 a month, rolling contract, every single Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, Bundesliga and whatever other league game takes your fancy. Cancel it at the end of the season.

Or find alternative methods of watching football.

Still, for me, a season ticket is cheaper than SKY TV
Click to expand...
I don't watch football! I said I watch Discovery, Nat Geo, etc. I said that people buying the Sports package should have their bills increased but not the rest of us :p

I don't care about football, at all. Watching one group of mercenaries half-heartedly go up against another group of mercenaries doesn't do much for me :p
 
FoxEye said:
What do you think makes footballers different from movie stars in terms of charitable work?

Do you honestly think this comes from the players themselves?

It's all the work of the club's PR teams. Image rights are taken very, very, very seriously in football. A player's image is worth almost as much as his on-field talent. Clubs are very good at getting their players to take part in events which will bring good publicity, and hence increase the worth of their image rights.

If you think that's a bit cynical, then let's flip your question on its head again. What makes footballers different to movie stars? Why would they be innately more charitable?
Click to expand...

The clubs encourage the players to get involved with charitable events of course. Players like Jermaine Defoe take it upon themselves to become close friends with the families and break down on television when a snotty nosed sports reporter informs them of the news that a kid has had a turn for the worst.

My point stands. Players are held to a different standard to other "artists". Nobody expects anything of actors, nobody complains about their wages. It's always footballers that have a big target on their backs.
 
FoxEye said:
I don't watch football! I said I watch Discovery, Nat Geo, etc. I said that people buying the Sports package should have their bills increased but not the rest of us :p

I don't care about football, at all. Watching one group of mercenaries half-heartedly go up against another group of mercenaries doesn't do much for me :p
Click to expand...
Then you don't really understand how Sky packages work.

Football fans PAY for SKY Sports separately. You aren't subsidising their viewing.
 
FoxEye said:
My biggest problem as stated previously is that I'm forced to have Sky TV, therefore (even without paying for Sports channels), it's my money that's being used for these astronomical fees and wages.

And Sky keep putting the price up every year by >10%. Sure I could cancel the contract and live without TV, but it's hardly fair. Sky should have just pushed the price of the Sports package up, and let those who genuinely want to fuel this industry's madness do so. The rest of us who just want to watch Discovery, Nat Geo, etc, get a raw deal.
Click to expand...

As someone who has never bothered with satellite, I don't know how so many are prepared to often pay £50+ pcm to Sky (just for the tv shows).

I watch ~2-3 hours of Amazon Video a night tops, my better half gets it at student rate Amazon Prime price (£39 per year?). Barely watch any Freeview on the TV.

I've literally just googled that you can get Discovery through Amazon for £5pcm after a 7-day free trial as a Prime add-on.
 
caps will make no difference to ticket prices, the mainstay of a clubs income is not taken at the turnstyle it is obtained through the ridiculous TV rights money and the large sponsorship and comercial deals.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

as you can see match day income is not where the majority of clubs money comes from. Arsenal are clearly gouging the hell out of their fans who must be mugs to carry on paying to see a specialist in failure at work.
 
Sliver said:
There are many things he doesn't understand. Sky packages are just the tip of the iceberg lol! .
Click to expand...

Literally, we are on a tech website where you would half expect people to be relatively up to date with modern technology.

The only reason I have a tv package is because they threw it in free with the internet package at zero cost. I'm on Virgin "mates rates" I have Amazon Prime, which is a bargain considering I shop a lot on Amazon anyway, and Netflix 4k. The kids adore Netflix and have it on their tablets too. They all have their own sub accounts so can only watch kid friendly shows.

Sky TV is for luddites still stuck in 1993.
 
UTmaniac said:
As someone who has never bothered with satellite, I don't know how so many are prepared to often pay £50+ pcm to Sky (just for the tv shows).

I watch ~2-3 hours of Amazon Video a night tops, my better half gets it at student rate Amazon Prime price (£39 per year?). Barely watch any Freeview on the TV.

I've literally just googled that you can get Discovery through Amazon for £5pcm after a 7-day free trial as a Prime add-on.
Click to expand...
Going off topic here, but there is no other place than Sky that will give you all the channels.

Discovery
Discovery Science
Discovery History
National Geographic
Nat Geo Wild
Eden
Animal Planet
Yesterday
History
PBS America

NowTV has Discovery (regular) and Nat Geo I think, only. In SD. Btw, you know NowTV *is* Sky, right?
TalkTalk has a couple of them, in SD only.
BT has a couple of them in HD... but BT is also paying billions to the EPL.

Literally the *only* place that gives you the channels above is Sky. And that's why I begrudgingly have them.

e: Sliver and co, instead of being ******s why don't you cut personal insults and stick to the points/facts? Too much to ask?
 
TallPaul1878 said:
Then you don't really understand how Sky packages work.

Football fans PAY for SKY Sports separately. You aren't subsidising their viewing.
Click to expand...
If you think it's as cut-and-dried as that, and that non-Sports subscribers aren't subsidising them (keeping the cost of the Sports package down), then you are the naive one, who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

My package price has increased >10% every year for the last 5 years, going from £18, to £22, £25 then a massive hike to £35. You also have a lot less scope for customising the packages vs years ago, when you could pick/choose channels.

Sky *really* want every customer to have the full bundle, so they keep add-on prices (movies, sports) down by spreading the cost of those to all their subscribers.

If we *just* paid for what we want, Sports subscribers would pay a *lot* more, and I'd pay less.
 
wildman said:
caps will make no difference to ticket prices, the mainstay of a clubs income is not taken at the turnstyle it is obtained through the ridiculous TV rights money and the large sponsorship and comercial deals.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-b
FoxEye said:
Going off topic here, but there is no other place than Sky that will give you all the channels.

Discovery
Discovery Science
Discovery History
National Geographic
Nat Geo Wild
Eden
Animal Planet
Yesterday
History
PBS America

NowTV has Discovery (regular) and Nat Geo I think, only. In SD. Btw, you know NowTV *is* Sky, right?
TalkTalk has a couple of them, in SD only.
BT has a couple of them in HD... but BT is also paying billions to the EPL.

Literally the *only* place that gives you the channels above is Sky. And that's why I begrudgingly have them.

e: Sliver and co, instead of being ******s why don't you cut personal insults and stick to the points/facts? Too much to ask?
Click to expand...
I have those channels on Virgin. I pay about £46 for phone, broadband and TV.

I think for the broadband speed that I have alone it would cost approximately £40 so it's a non issue for the phone and TV. When I first signed up it was the only option for fibre optic broadband, I think they finally bothered to lay fibre in our town but I had already signed up by then. Also "mates rates" is a nice discount.
Click to expand...
 
No Virgin here, btw.

Virgin does not cover the whole country, only the most profitable parts. Virgin has no presence in this entire county! And no plans to come here.

e: Virgin only in 3 places in the entirety of the South West (none in Cornwall): Plymouth; Torquay; Exeter.

Virgin are in large cities only.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
If you think it's as cut-and-dried as that, and that non-Sports subscribers aren't subsidising them (keeping the cost of the Sports package down), then you are the naive one, who doesn't understand what he's talking about.


My package price has increased >10% every year for the last 5 years, going from £18, to £22, £25 then a massive hike to £35. You also have a lot less scope for customising the packages vs years ago, when you could pick/choose channels.

Sky *really* want every customer to have the full bundle, so they keep add-on prices (movies, sports) down by spreading the cost of those to all their subscribers.

If we *just* paid for what we want, Sports subscribers would pay a *lot* more, and I'd pay less.
Click to expand...

Your package price is not increasing because of Sky Sports being subsidised. It is being increased because you insist on paying it out of brand loyalty. It's like people who refuse to change their car insurance and keep getting new increased premiums.

Don't do it. Find alternative methods to get the TV channels that you want. I'm not talking about getting illegal streams via a KODI box. I'm talking about moving to a NOW TV box or using alternative subscription services.

I know you enjoy all of your documentary channels but is it absolutely vital that you get every single one of them? Would it hurt so bad if you found a much cheaper way to get 90% of them?

I wasn't directing the "luddite" insult at you personally. I know people that are paying £90 a month for a full Sky package and it's just insane to me.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
Your package price is not increasing because of Sky Sports being subsidised. It is being increased because you insist on paying it out of brand loyalty. It's like people who refuse to change their car insurance and keep getting new increased premiums.

Don't do it. Find alternative methods to get the TV channels that you want. I'm not talking about getting illegal streams via a KODI box. I'm talking about moving to a NOW TV box or using alternative subscription services.

I know you enjoy all of your documentary channels but is it absolutely vital that you get every single one of them? Would it hurt so bad if you found a much cheaper way to get 90% of them?

I wasn't directing the "luddite" insult at you personally. I know people that are paying £90 a month for a full Sky package and it's just insane to me.
Click to expand...
Believe me I've researched this extensively. You lose about 50% of those channels if you leave Sky.
You also lose HD. NowTV (also a Sky company!) only have TWO of those channels.

TalkTalk has about 5 but all in SD.
BT has most in HD but again, BT is ****** expensive, and pays billions for sports rights. No point switching to them... More expensive even than Sky.
PlusNet (BT) has few channels, and in SD again, to differentiate from parent company BT's offering.

FreeSat has none of those channels.
FreeSat from Sky has none of those channels.

So tell me who do you propose I should switch to then? Or is your new proposal "You don't need those channels anyhow."
 
dowie said:
I think they'd be playing elsewhere if they were paid less money here. I guess it depends what you want from English football, if you want it to be less popular, not followed worldwide and just played between smaller clubs using local players on a modest wage then I'm sure you could still derive plenty of entertainment from it. But then again I think some people would be drawn to some other league where the very best players from the UK and the rest of the world play at the highest standards.

In fact no one is forcing you to watch premiere league matches, there are local clubs near to most people where you can go and be entertained at a much lower price watching people on much more modest wages.
Click to expand...

I don't actually watch them :p

I can't stand top flight football across any league which is bold considering my cousin is a premier league player!
 
FoxEye said:
Believe me I've researched this extensively. You lose about 50% of those channels if you leave Sky.
You also lose HD. NowTV (also a Sky company!) only have TWO of those channels.

TalkTalk has about 5 but all in SD.
BT has most in HD but again, BT is ****** expensive, and pays billions for sports rights. No point switching to them... More expensive even than Sky.
PlusNet (BT) has few channels, and in SD again, to differentiate from parent company BT's offering.

FreeSat has none of those channels.
FreeSat from Sky has none of those channels.

So tell me who do you propose I should switch to then? Or is your new proposal "You don't need those channels anyhow."
Click to expand...
Personally I usually terminate my contract at the end of the 12 months and then come back as a new customer for the discounts. But there's no use blaming football fans for your Sky price hikes. That's just Sky's M.O. it's what they do. They've increased Sky Sports year on year too. Most of the money in football comes from foreign TV rights now.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
You

You have a VPN right?

Subscribe to fubo.tv in the USA $35 a month, rolling contract, every single Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Ligue 1, Bundesliga and whatever other league game takes your fancy. Cancel it at the end of the season.

Or find alternative methods of watching football.

Still, for me, a season ticket is cheaper than SKY TV
Click to expand...

Point your VPN at Germany.

Dazn.de

10 euro a month. German commentary mind, and not all games, but great quality. Has rugby, NFL NHL NBA etc too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom