Crazy.
SKY Coverage
Smashing game was Melbourne v Brisbane, and thanks to Sky's impenetratable commercial logic you got to watch it in lousy quality on a computer screen. Or not at all.
The games tonight were worthy of 10 years supply of golf highlights
I've sent an email off to Skytv director of sport and will post any response
I've sent an email off to Skytv director of sport and will post any response
And what are Sky playing tonight at 7 when the Sydney-Adelaide game is on?
That's right, more golf highlights!
That's right, more golf highlights!
I know we can debate the merits of a petition but it is being pro-active and cannot do any harm.
Why dont we have the sky petition available at todays game to get the signature numbers up
[QUOTE=Ard Righ] [QUOTE=Tony P]There has to be a solution or a compromise. We need to keep putting pressure on Sky.[/QUOTE]
Does the FFA not have an opinion on Sky's sh*t A-League coverage? It doesn't look good for them either if they're trying to grow the game to keep the AFC bosses happy. [/QUOTE
Does the FFA not have an opinion on Sky's sh*t A-League coverage? It doesn't look good for them either if they're trying to grow the game to keep the AFC bosses happy. [/QUOTE
Maybe out of leftfield, but... what about FIFA?
Okay, it's not their problem, directly, but I can't believe that someone in high places couldn't be persuaded to have a gentle word in the ear of Sky, or Fox, and suggest that to retain the rights to football, ongoing, it would be wise to support the game in their own backyard.
Along the lines of: we don't own all the rights to football, but we own a big chunk of them. And we have influence with those who control the rest. (EPL?)
A word from someone up the chain in FIFA to remind Fox/Sky that it smiles on broadcasters who actively support the world game, and frowns on those who don't, could work wonders.
We may be poor cousins in world footballing terms, but we are part of world football.
Yes, Sky is making more money from showing repeats of golf highlights than from live A-League games. It just tells us a lot about the A-league, that's all.
golf channel then.
If they feel the need for a golf channel, they will introduce one. In the mean time they do what brings them the money, and it ain't the A-league.
If they feel the need for a golf channel, they will introduce one. In the mean time they do what brings them the money, and it ain't the A-league.
Then if SKY are not making money from the A League, do the decent thing and let go of the rights instead of leaving us all in limbo. I could then subscribe to live A League through the Asian Confederation website and guarantee a high quality stream. And in terms of quality, last nights games more than showed the progress being made in this league and a seemingly collective decision to play with more attacking options in each team this season.
I can't believe we missed 11 goals last night!!! 
For those who say A-League doesn't bring them the money - how can they know that this season?? They haven't shown enough games to know otherwise!!
Also, Phoenix home games will have 8000 of the potential viewers at the actual games anyway!!!
It's a pity the 4 Kings or somewhere can't get an Aussie satellite so they could show all these games plus SPL and all the other stuff on Foxtel.
Then if SKY are not making money from the A League, do the decent thing and let go of the rights instead of leaving us all in limbo.
Firstly, they probably are making money from what (and when) they are showing.
Secondly, are there any takers for the rights? I imagine both TVNZ and TV3 are just waiting to buy these rights, eager to show millions of passionate A-league supportes their favourite game ... or maybe not?
Sky probably got these right reasonably cheap since there are no other takers. And they are showing games that generate some interest, i.e. the Phoenix games. And even if they are not making much money from these games (and I imagine this to be the case), they are sort of showing their "loyalty" to NZ sports, creating feel-good image. This is just pure business decision, based on money, image etc. And other A-league games do not feature in these considerations, full stop. (Notwithstanding few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites, which for Sky is just a drop in the ocean 
)
)
Then if SKY are not making money from the A League, do the decent thing and let go of the rights instead of leaving us all in limbo.
Firstly, they probably are making money from what (and when) they are showing.
Secondly, are there any takers for the rights? I imagine both TVNZ and TV3 are just waiting to buy these rights, eager to show millions of passionate A-league supportes their favourite game ... or maybe not?
Sky probably got these right reasonably cheap since there are no other takers. And they are showing games that generate some interest, i.e. the Phoenix games. And even if they are not making much money from these games (and I imagine this to be the case), they are sort of showing their "loyalty" to NZ sports, creating feel-good image. This is just pure business decision, based on money, image etc. And other A-league games do not feature in these considerations, full stop. (Notwithstanding few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites, which for Sky is just a drop in the ocean )
)Not really a 'drop in the ocean' - this is sparsely populated New Zealand you are talking about?
I mean how many Sky subscribers are there, and of those, how many also have Sky Sports? Probably less than you imagine.
I mean how many Sky subscribers are there
As of 31 December 2008, SKY had 759,069 subscribers.
That would be 322 times the number of Phoenix members.
I mean how many Sky subscribers are there
As of 31 December 2008, SKY had 759,069 subscribers.
That would be 322 times the number of Phoenix members.
Yeah well it's also 300 times the members of Wellington Lions etc etc etc, what's your point?
Phoenix season ticket holders do no make up the entire football supporting population of New Zealand!
My point is that few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites is a drop in the ocean of 759000 subscribers.
Any more questions?
-S.O.N2009-08-16 14:10:31
My point is that few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites is a drop in the ocean of 759000 subscribers.
Any more questions?
Yes, how many of those are Sky Sport subscribers?
Answers on a postcard please.
Yes, how many of those are Sky Sport subscribers?
Enough to make few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites a drop in the ocean.
Yes, how many of those are Sky Sport subscribers?
Enough to make few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites a drop in the ocean.
Source?
If you can't provide the numbers to back up your argument then please stop until you can.
my guess is that bxela's source is his/her work computer
only a guess, but ...
I cancelled my sky (well, it was Telstra, but meh) at the end of last season's EPL - I don't watch TV unless it is something that I actually want to watch. i.e. Football.
We were about to renew until all this drama started. So all this talk about being a drop in the ocean is...well:
They lost $99 install.
Plus at LEAST $960 a year from me.
Plus my brother has CANCELLED sky because of this: less another $960 a year.
Plus my Father has taken off Sky Sports, lost at least $200 a year.
Plus my Uncle has taken off Sky Sports, Lost at least another $200 a year.
That is $2,420 lost from my family alone, so far, because of this decision. And that is just in subscription fee losses. I don't know how to calculate the knock on effect this decision has on Advertising (friend no longer tells friend about what they bought from an advert they saw during a sport game because the sport game no longer exists).
Money talks.
We were about to renew until all this drama started. So all this talk about being a drop in the ocean is...well:
They lost $99 install.
Plus at LEAST $960 a year from me.
Plus my brother has CANCELLED sky because of this: less another $960 a year.
Plus my Father has taken off Sky Sports, lost at least $200 a year.
Plus my Uncle has taken off Sky Sports, Lost at least another $200 a year.
That is $2,420 lost from my family alone, so far, because of this decision. And that is just in subscription fee losses. I don't know how to calculate the knock on effect this decision has on Advertising (friend no longer tells friend about what they bought from an advert they saw during a sport game because the sport game no longer exists).
Money talks.
my guess is that bxela's source is his/her work computer
Yes you would have to wonder where he/she works.
only a guess, but ...
My point is that few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites is a drop in the ocean of 759000 subscribers.
If no one else will ask the question I will: Do you work or are you associated with Sky at all?
Any more questions?
I'd recommend subscribing to dinxbeau on youtube until sky sort their sh*t. He normally has highlights up within a few hours.
My WE WANT ANSWERS NOW SKY banner was flipped by the wind and disintegrated by rain tonight 
I think sky answered us by giving us a full night and morning of EPL.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
[QUOTE=Stefan]I think sky answered us by giving us a full night and morning of EPL.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.[/QUOTE]
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.[/QUOTE]
i take it you didn't have sky last year?
It will be practically the same I should have said.
It will be practically the same I should have said.
Far from it. We got 3 or 4 games live a weekend. not the 2 they are shwoing now.
Also when one was delayed it wasn't 48 hours after the event..
Scottishbhoy2009-08-16 20:12:16
My point is that few hundred dissatisfied yellowfeverites is a drop in the ocean of 759000 subscribers.
If no one else will ask the question I will: Do you work or are you associated with Sky at all?
Any more questions?
No I am not.
Joined two years ago, only 11 posts, clearly you are the type of person who only speaks when something needs to be said!
Kudos
.
Kudos
.
It will be practically the same I should have said.
It isn't though - last season nearly every game was on live, this season nowhere near every game is on live.
Steve-O2009-08-16 21:58:53
aggreed, if their genuinely isnt room in the schedule then i can be somewhat flexible and watch it the next morning............however 4 days later in the middle of the day when im at work and have already seen the highlites show 2 days beforehand makes no sense whatsoever!
aggreed, if their genuinely isnt room in the schedule then i can be somewhat flexible and watch it the next morning............however 4 days later in the middle of the day when im at work and have already seen the highlites show 2 days beforehand makes no sense whatsoever!
I will agree. four days later is f**king stupid.
golf channel then.
Don't encourage them
Considering we already have a rugby channel that plays the same content as SS1 at the same time, a Golf Channel would probably have shown the same highlights on two channels rather than play any football...
but hey if its a free golf channel then they can pile all the golf on that for those who have piles from watching that mutch golf!!!!oooooooooh the intensity haha
I think sky answered us by giving us a full night and morning of EPL.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
No its not
I think sky answered us by giving us a full night and morning of EPL.
Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
Ahem bullsh*t last year you had back to back games live saturday/sunday nights LIVE not replayed 14 days later Live. Sky are truly the piss on the issue, there were some great games we missed out on this weekend for what replays of golf and a fishing show they're having a laugh Also. Football isn't the only sport. You can't say that they are ruining football for new Zealand. I would think that not showing some Australian a league team games is pretty pro kiwi.
I don't like rugby. But it's the national sport. Get over it. I have.
This years coverage is practically the same as last years.
giddyup2009-08-17 15:12:28
If they feel the need for a golf channel, they will introduce one. In the mean time they do what brings them the money, and it ain't the A-league.
If Sky are being smart, then they will be looking to balance their portfolio. As far as NZ goes, there are sports that have matured about as much as they're going to and there are sports that have the capability for growth. A balanced programming portfolio will mix both of those so that Sky can make money not just today, but enable them to grow their return for future years. Within this current economic climate, you could argue that Sky have gone into short-term decision-making mode. They wouldn't be alone in that approach.
However, they already have the rights to those games. Delaying coverage for four days almost certainly guarantees a minimal audience for those matches, which potential advertisers know. Delaying coverage by four days will therefore guarantee a loss. This would be the case for just about any content they have - A-League, Golf, Rugby - unless it is something that has headline appeal to begin with.
From a viewer's perspective, showing the same programe in consecutive timeslots across different channels, as they have with the golf highlights, makes no sense. They reply I got from Sky implied that they had to do this to satisfy the conditions of getting the highlights in the first place.
Just looked at this weekends fixtures and it looks like the Nix game is the only live A-league game this weekend. But to be fair for most of the games it because of live Air NZ Cup, NRL, Cricket (Black Caps and Ashes), but on Sunday instead of Perth v Newcastle they have:
SS1 - Sky Sports: Whats On, ITM Fishing Show, Sport 365, Rugby: This Given Sunday
SS2 - NRL DELAYED
SS3 - Ice Hockey Live, NASAR H/L, Bike Rider TV
So much for commited to showing live sports