Wellington Phoenix Men

THE SKY PETITION. SIGN IT.

143 replies · 1,644 views
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.
You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?
 
You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
 
If that is the case then are you suggesting that sky is deliberately putting on lower rating sport?  what could possibly motivate it to do that? 
 
Now I completely agree that live A-League should always be shown ahead of any non-live or replayed sport, fundamentally that's what sky survives on because it commissions very little of its own programming.  but if the A-League does rate better why wouldn't they be doing that?

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.
You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?
 
You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
 
If that is the case then are you suggesting that sky is deliberately putting on lower rating sport?  what could possibly motivate it to do that? 
 
Now I completely agree that live A-League should always be shown ahead of any non-live or replayed sport, fundamentally that's what sky survives on because it commissions very little of its own programming.  but if the A-League does rate better why wouldn't they be doing that?
Thats is exactly the question everyone is trying to get an answer from sky about.
 
Fact is theyre playing rubbish (that clearly wouldnt rate better) ahead of live football,so their current reasons theyre giving dont match up to their actions. I know certain people have their own theories as to why,and given skys track record i tend to agree with those theories.
 
So no,i cant answer your question,but thats my point...why would they do such a thing..?

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Well I can think of one answer, which may not be popular, but to me it is the best explanation. 
 
A-League football rates poorly.  There I've said it.
 
Conspiracy theories that SKY want football to fail in NZ are really quite ridiculous, again, why would that be in their interests?
 
I still think that sky have a duty to their customers to show live sport to which they have already acquired the rights in preference to replays, but is it really that hard to believe that Perth Glory vs Adelaide doesn't rate well?
 

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I know,i hate conspiricies too..but when you look out at what theyre putting on instead of the football,you cannot tell me it rates considerably or even slightly better than the game would have.
And ok even if it does rate slightly better,as you said,surely their duty to customers to show LIVE sport where possible should take precedent over an extra half a dozen people watching 3rd round golf highlights (which is also on the exact same time on the highlights channel) to give just one example.
It all adds up to being very dodgy...

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
Well I can think of one answer, which may not be popular, but to me it is the best explanation. 
 
A-League football rates poorly.  There I've said it.
 
Conspiracy theories that SKY want football to fail in NZ are really quite ridiculous, again, why would that be in their interests?
 
I still think that sky have a duty to their customers to show live sport to which they have already acquired the rights in preference to replays, but is it really that hard to believe that Perth Glory vs Adelaide doesn't rate well?
 
Without competition in New Zealand they make a profit and perhaps are willing to stick with what is working for them, i.e. very little local and A-League football. This is just speculation but perhaps they don't have the confidence to try and expand the football-watching market in fear that they'll sacrifice too much of what works.
I just want to be as vocal as possible about it, Sky have backed us into a corner in which we are a bit frantic take all the coverage we can get, and we might as well try our hardest to get what we can until circumstances change.
It really does suck.
You know we belong together...

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oska, the second part I completely agree.  I'm afraid the first doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.  Sky make money by attracting subscribers, that is their business model.  By expanding the range of sports that they show they should have the potential to attract new subscribers.  That would point to them showing live A-League unless it doesn't rate, which goes back to my original point...

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
signed #96,
if we can get all of the YF people on their then they may take some notice/

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
#100
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Signed. #104

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
#105
 
Done.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Done #113
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
120
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
loyalgunner wrote:
Does anybody actually think SkyTV will care about some online petition?
 
Well, that Facebook group about mobile phones made the news recently, as have countless others.
 
There's no harm in trying and it's better than sitting on your arse dismissing the idea.
 
Exactly! Just signed up. We're now over a hundred!
 
BUT, I think we need to get the numbers into the thousands to make an impact.
 
So get your mates to sign up. At home or at work. Everyone in your office. Your flatmates. Your spouse. Your kids. Be creative.
 
If you can't get off your arse to promote this, don't come b*tching back to this site later if nothing improves.
 
 
 
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I agree with james dean on this. I have dealt with sky over a number of years across many various issues and the one thing people seem to forget sky don't just make money from subscriptions they make it from advertising as well. Last year world of football was sponsored heavily by Adidas, if they didn't want to do that this year, that is probably one of the reasons why it got axed. not Sky's fault, Adidas's fault.
 
Last year Nike advertised in and around A-League matches. if they pulled the plug on that this year, there goes another revenue stream. If the games other than Phoenix rate so poorly, no-one will spend money to advertise around it, and they are caught in a catch 22. even if the viewing numbers didn't drop but the sponsor pulled out, they would probably have to scrap some coverage otherwise they would be losing money.
 
Golf replays, rugby replays, and other shows that get repeated again and again, do so because advertisers want their product associated with that sporting event, or have paid for a show that they sponsor to appear a certain number of times , at good viewing times.
Why would sky bump a 3rd repeat of a golf replay that they are getting paid to show, in order to show a live football game that they are losing money on?.
 
It doesn't make sense, so unless you want Sky NZ to go the Setanta way and buy the rights to everything then fail to sell enough advertising and subscriptions to pay for it and go bust, then you should be grateful they are at least making any sort of effort to show A-league football when it rates so poorly.
 
There are a lot of assumptions in all that but im just trying to point oput the obvious that a lot of you are fogetting whilst you are raging at SKY
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
*125
 
Dam it Sky Tv and your monopoly.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
You make a good point there.

Lets hope we get this petition up into the big numbers. And some company sees that there is a profit to be made in sponsoring football. And we get games.

Keeping Positive.

All Aboard the Phoenix/ All Whites Bandwagon!!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
UberGunner wrote:
I agree with james dean on this. I have dealt with sky over a number of years across many various issues and the one thing people seem to forget sky don't just make money from subscriptions they make it from advertising as well. Last year world of football was sponsored heavily by Adidas, if they didn't want to do that this year, that is probably one of the reasons why it got axed. not Sky's fault, Adidas's fault.
 
Last year Nike advertised in and around A-League matches. if they pulled the plug on that this year, there goes another revenue stream. If the games other than Phoenix rate so poorly, no-one will spend money to advertise around it, and they are caught in a catch 22. even if the viewing numbers didn't drop but the sponsor pulled out, they would probably have to scrap some coverage otherwise they would be losing money.
 
Golf replays, rugby replays, and other shows that get repeated again and again, do so because advertisers want their product associated with that sporting event, or have paid for a show that they sponsor to appear a certain number of times , at good viewing times.
Why would sky bump a 3rd repeat of a golf replay that they are getting paid to show, in order to show a live football game that they are losing money on?.
 
It doesn't make sense, so unless you want Sky NZ to go the Setanta way and buy the rights to everything then fail to sell enough advertising and subscriptions to pay for it and go bust, then you should be grateful they are at least making any sort of effort to show A-league football when it rates so poorly.
 
There are a lot of assumptions in all that but im just trying to point oput the obvious that a lot of you are fogetting whilst you are raging at SKY
 
i think you are just making another assumption..

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Feverish wrote:
UberGunner wrote:
I agree with james dean on this. I have dealt with sky over a number of years across many various issues and the one thing people seem to forget sky don't just make money from subscriptions they make it from advertising as well. Last year world of football was sponsored heavily by Adidas, if they didn't want to do that this year, that is probably one of the reasons why it got axed. not Sky's fault, Adidas's fault.
 
Last year Nike advertised in and around A-League matches. if they pulled the plug on that this year, there goes another revenue stream. If the games other than Phoenix rate so poorly, no-one will spend money to advertise around it, and they are caught in a catch 22. even if the viewing numbers didn't drop but the sponsor pulled out, they would probably have to scrap some coverage otherwise they would be losing money.
 
Golf replays, rugby replays, and other shows that get repeated again and again, do so because advertisers want their product associated with that sporting event, or have paid for a show that they sponsor to appear a certain number of times , at good viewing times.
Why would sky bump a 3rd repeat of a golf replay that they are getting paid to show, in order to show a live football game that they are losing money on?.
 
It doesn't make sense, so unless you want Sky NZ to go the Setanta way and buy the rights to everything then fail to sell enough advertising and subscriptions to pay for it and go bust, then you should be grateful they are at least making any sort of effort to show A-league football when it rates so poorly.
 
There are a lot of assumptions in all that but im just trying to point oput the obvious that a lot of you are fogetting whilst you are raging at SKY
 
i think you are just making another assumption..
and I'll assume
"you dont know what your doing..."
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
my wife and I are #127 & 128

VUW AFC - Victoria University Football for life

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Who the hell watches Deaker the first time around let alone the third and 4th?? Last night he was on at about 1:30 then again at 2ish on another channelFFS
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Deaker sells his own advertising during his show, will be part of the contract that it gets shown x number of times. It is exactly the point UG is making, think about golf coverage - what are the ads of? Golf gear, Sky sells the ads in golf stuff and by playing it more they get more advertising revenue.
LG, Deaker is a twat yes but I bet he would rate higher than Adelaide v Perth

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Not necessarily rate higher but bring in advertising revenue.
 
But if that were the case then deaker on sport and rugby replays etc would be on 24/7 and no other sport would be showing. Also,how does kayaking bring in more revenue (ala opening game of the season)? And exactly the same golf highlights on 2 channels at once? It still doesnt add up im sorry.
 
There is also the fact that sky already have the ablitiy to show the LIVE coverage,they have the rights to show it. Their should be a duty as the only sports broadcaster,to its subscribers to show the content. They could very well invest in football,its popularity is growing,as is the league,ratings wouldnt have been as high for NRL when it began but it was given the chance. therefore SKY arent willing to let footballs popularity grow,which given track record isnt surprising to many people.
 
Im no conspiracy theorist,this is just the way it adds up to me.
 
 

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Skys primary duty is to its shareholder to return a profit. End of. Yes it would be nice if they thought more about a duty to is subscribers to show live sport but there duty is to turn a profit for its shareholders and thus need to show things that are going to make money. A-League football doesn't

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yes, but that doesnt mean SKY is necessarily acting in it shareholders interests by not showing Shane Smeltz first game for Gold Coast United. If they made an effort to market the league and used the like of Smeltz and Moss, esp in a world cup qualification year, to promote interest in the A League beyond the Phoenix they might find they develop a product that is more popular than re-runs of the Mastcard Minniesota Links Championship.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
They are sitting on a much more marketable product in the A-League than half the stuff they televise, let's be honest.
 
I'm sure even their shareholders don't jizz every time they see kayaking showing on their expensive TVs.
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Signed, didn't catch my number :o
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sky's annual report is public record. google it to see their financial report for 2008.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Just signed, #144.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

UG have u signed it?

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
To be honest, maybe I am not fussed for EVERY A-League game, but what is most annoying so far is the CHOICE of games from Sky. This week it's Central Coast v Newcastle which to me is probably the least attractive of the fixtures.
 
Last week the match of the round, Brisbane v Gold Coast, a derby, Gold Coast's first ever competitive match, and New Zealander & ex-Phoenix player Shane Smeltz's debut, and yet the game is not shown until the Tuesday!!
 
They seem to just be choosing any old match as a token gesture and are not showing the games that actually are likely to get the higher ratings!
 
They may say it rates poorly, but who is to say there isn't more interest this season? Certainly I feel like I am more interested in watching the other games with the 2 new teams and a bit more variety as a result of that. Not sure if anyone else feels the same?
 
At the end of the day, without seeing the other games you don't end up feeling like Phoenix are part of an actual league competition, it's like they are just playing friendlies every other week!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
#150  
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.




You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?

�

You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
Well take into the cost of hosting a LIVE A-League matches compared to delayed golf coverage. Plus alot of old people would watch golf and half of them couldn't even name an A-League team. Football is no where near as big (In terms of viewership) as golf in NZ and unless there was a Phoenix game on live golf (or delayed) will always be ahead of any other A-League match.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.




You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?

 

You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
Well take into the cost of hosting a LIVE A-League matches compared to delayed golf coverage. Plus alot of old people would watch golf and half of them couldn't even name an A-League team. Football is no where near as big (In terms of viewership) as golf in NZ and unless there was a Phoenix game on live golf (or delayed) will always be ahead of any other A-League match.
 
They have the rights to the games, and just take the Fox Sports feed though don't they?? So surely it should cost them next to nothing on top of what they already pay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.




You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?

�

You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
Well take into the cost of hosting a LIVE A-League matches compared to delayed golf coverage. Plus alot of old people would watch golf and half of them couldn't even name an A-League team. Football is no where near as big (In terms of viewership) as golf in NZ and unless there was a Phoenix game on live golf (or delayed) will always be ahead of any other A-League match.

�

They have the rights to the games, and just take the Fox Sports feed though don't they?? So surely it should cost them next to nothing on top of what they already pay?
No ones knows for sure I think. They would have to pay something to Fox per game shown probably a low amount but I imagine they get for free highlights of golf and delayed golf coverage rights when they buy live golf.wellyphoenixfan2009-08-13 18:31:52
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Tegal wrote:
wellyphoenixfan wrote:
Being realistic this will change nothing. Sky only care about viewer numbers not about people saying they will watch it but don't end up watching it. So basically just watch every single A-League game if you want something to change.




You dont believe that viewer numbers rubbish do you..?

 

You cant tell me golf highlights would get higher viewing numbers than LIVE A league football.
Well take into the cost of hosting a LIVE A-League matches compared to delayed golf coverage. Plus alot of old people would watch golf and half of them couldn't even name an A-League team. Football is no where near as big (In terms of viewership) as golf in NZ and unless there was a Phoenix game on live golf (or delayed) will always be ahead of any other A-League match.

 

They have the rights to the games, and just take the Fox Sports feed though don't they?? So surely it should cost them next to nothing on top of what they already pay?
No ones knows for sure I think. They would have to pay something to Fox per game shown probably a low amount but I imagine they get for free highlights of golf and delayed golf coverage rights when they buy live golf.
 
If only they would actually answer customer e-mails eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
giddyup wrote:
#150  
 
 

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
My impression is that they pay a fee for A-League coverage that includes all matches, and all that is happening here is they are choosing not to show them.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
hard news have you signed?

ive got a song that wont take long, Adelaide are rubbish.. the second verse is same as the first.. ADELAIDE ARE RUBBISH

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
My impression is that they pay a fee for A-League coverage that includes all matches, and all that is happening here is they are choosing not to show them.
 
That's what I thought, although pretty sure that information came from here
 
Perhaps if anyone from Sky was prepared to communicate PROPERLY then we'd find out these things.
 
Alas, their behaviour seems similar to sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LALALALALALALALALALALALAAAAAAAAAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
My impression is that they pay a fee for A-League coverage that includes all matches, and all that is happening here is they are choosing not to show them.
If that is true (which I doubt) then it leaves two possibilities. One being that golf highlights get more viewership numbers then live A-League games or that this is a conspiracy against us/football fans. Half of you seem to believe the second one
Permalink Permalink