Football is a more complex case, due to the variety of product available.� English Premier League football brings in a significant number of subscriptions for SKY - hence why they pay top dollar for the broadcast rights year after year.� It was one of the first significant products the company had, before they had rights to rugby, league or cricket, and was also one of the first to be moved to the satellite network from the UHF option... and the subscribers have followed, paying their money and showing their value... and in return they get numerous live matches, highlights shows, previews etc.
�
The sad reality is that other football - namely A-League and local NZ stuff - simply doesn't have the numbers.� And more to the point, with perhaps a few hundred excpetions (if that) it doesn't bring in any extra subscribers (out of the current nationwide pool of 750,000)... if 10,000 new subscriptions were taken up purely for Phoenix/A-League games, and the audience numbers shot up similarly, then the powers that be would sit up, take notice and respond accordingly.� But so far they've had no reason to.
�
Some people claim there is a big silent audience that would watch domestic football, for example if it was on... and yet several years ago, when SKY broadcast an NZFC highlights show each week, the audience numbers were lucky to exceed four figures in many instances... granted, it wasn't helped by the talentless git doing the game highlight voiceovers, but the facts are that the "people" saying they needed/deserved/were entitled to such a show, didn't consume the product on offer and the numbers clearly illustrated that. The times when matches are shown, like an NZFC final or whatever, is usually because either NZF pays for the cost of the broadcast, or SKY simply decides to do them a favour (which they are under no obligation to do).
�
With the A-League, it is most likely a case of cost outweighing return... unlike the English stuff, which is purchased ready-made, the Phoenix coverage needs to be produced locally... for example, last season there would be four presentation/commentary�"staff" per match, plus editors etc to make buildup highlights, match coverage director and producer - all flown down from Auckland for every home match... that adds up to a lot of money across a season, and despite any contribution from the club or FFA, it most likely wasn't recouped back, let alone exceeded, by revenue.� Perhaps a revamp this year, with one staffer instead of four, makes better financial sense... perhaps that one person makes his own way to Wellington, or accepts a lesser per match fee... and did the quality of product produced by four really justify the extra cost, if one is seen as doing an adequate job for the audience?� these are the things that I imagine would factor into SKY's thinking, rather than what to football audience is "entitled" to.�
�
When the Kingz were in existence, costs were less as the broadcast sites were in Auckland, and it wasn't until Season 2 that the audience numbers allowed the cost of televising to approach break-even point... and after that it steadily declined... Phoenix audience numbers may be up, but there are greater costs too... all comes back to numbers.
�
�Now I'm no SKY apologist, and I believe there are many things that could be done at no significant extra cost that could massively enhance their football coverage - but at the end of the day they are making business decisions.� And they will know that even if people angry with this decision�do cancel their subscriptions, it will only number in the hundreds, maybe less ... and they will no doubt be recouped in other ways.
�
The best solution is to find a genuine audience of 20,000 people who watch what they say they will, act in concert, and wield some financial muscle through their subscriptions... but sadly that doesn't currently exist.� If SKY lost English Prem coverage, they would lose a big number of subscriptions - if they stop showing A-League, they'll lose hardly any.
�
And the cost of producing match day coverage will preclude any of the free-to-air networks from picking it up, unless they find a sponsor with big cash.
�
Hate to sound all gloomy and depressing, and am not suggesting people don't contact SKY to voice their thoughts - that's your right as a customer.� But just expect to hear numbers - more football hours broadcast than any other sport, a wide range of product, demand in other areas etc.
The simple fact is that when most Phoenix fans also watch the premiership there is little that could be done in terms of cancellations - people want to watch that and aren't going to cancel their subs.
Second, pay TV is supposed to be about choice. SET UP A FOOTBALL CHANNEL and give people the opportunities rather than cancel the matches and leave people without a subscription or an option to watch the matches.
Thirdly, you are apologising for SKY because these are all exactly the arguments that they are going to put forward. Sky is a business, but it is a business that exists for its customers. If it makes a decision that pisses them off but which they can do very little about because they want to watch the premiership then that's f**ked. The fact is that less content dilutes the existing content. If you remove the f**king other matches then the remaining phoenix matches mean jack because everyone knows that the level of interest will drop if you can't watch the other matches . This is such a kick in the f**king teeth, and sky have been doing it for years (who remembers that the premiership was the ONLY sport not screening on SKY 1 when digital came in meaning EVRY sad f**ker had to spring out where if all you wanted to watch was code you just bought the $16 a month pack).
PS: save costs, stop wasting money flying those auckland guys down and get some decent local people who are on the ground involved. And you simply do not need 4 commentators (well 3 plus that lout elrich who can barely string a sentence ogether and fred who puts you to sleep) for a football matchjames dean2009-07-27 08:57:29
But that's what fan sites do to people. 
.
