SKY... money grubbing bastards

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Bryan R » Sun, 06 Feb 2000 04:00:00


I'm appalled that, for the first time in I don't know how long, I will
not be able to see the Six Nations games on Canadian TV. I must go
instead find a pub that is open and request that the games be put on.
Even in the past, when TSN hardly ever showed rugby, and when it was
shown it was at least a week later, the Five Nations were always
shown. Not every game, but usually a good half of them were shown.
Last year, CTV had excellent coverage, sometimes on the same day,
sometimes on the next day, and then they took another step forward
with same day (sometimes live) coverage of the World Cup. Now we are
informed on the day before the event that "Due to rights issues beyond
our control, CTVSportsnet will not be showing the Six Nations Rugby
Tournament". I don't know exactly what this means, but I will surely
send a comment or five to CTV inquiring as to why exactly this is.
This statement is not enough. It will not do. If the rights to the
games were placed at a ridiculously high level, then one cannot blame
CTV, SKY or whoever has the rights must be blamed. If this is the
case, as I know it was in Ireland for the Irish game, then this is a
travesty. SKY should have their ***y heads beaten in for preventing
geniune rugby fans all over the world from viewing one of the world's
great sporting events because of a couple green bills. The fans in
Ireland especially should be crying ***y *** about this. How can
they not let Irish people watch their own national team play? It's not
like they're playing in Tasmania or the friggin' arctic, it's right
accross the Irish Sea fod God's sake! Surely the IRFB must have some
say in this. We are supposed to be trying to expand our game by
showing it to people all over the world, not denying even the home
unions from watching their own games...

a very angry canadian

bryan ray

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Richard Whitcomb » Sun, 06 Feb 2000 04:00:00

England were twice kicked out of the 5N championship for the deal with sky
but with their typical crawling got let back in on both occasions AND got to
keep the deal.

--

Regards

ICQ: 1556459
South Wales, UK

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Michae » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

You've really got it in for the English haven't you richard ?
Typical crawlers huh ?
It's the old inferiority complex again.
No need for it old chap, we are all equal.


Quote:
> England were twice kicked out of the 5N championship for the deal with sky
> but with their typical crawling got let back in on both occasions AND got
to
> keep the deal.

> --

> Regards

> ICQ: 1556459
> South Wales, UK


 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Richard Whitcomb » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Just the fact whatever they do they manage to doctor it into sounding like
they were the ones in the right. Phrase "... always come out smelling of
roses" comes to mind.
There was the Sky deal which gave them a lot more money than other nations
in royalties, theres the extra euro cup places and other things.
We were all born equal except in the mind of the typical english
administrator it seems.

--

Regards

ICQ: 1556459
South Wales, UK


Quote:
> You've really got it in for the English haven't you richard ?
> Typical crawlers huh ?
> It's the old inferiority complex again.
> No need for it old chap, we are all equal.



> > England were twice kicked out of the 5N championship for the deal with
sky
> > but with their typical crawling got let back in on both occasions AND
got
> to
> > keep the deal.

> > --

> > Regards

> > ICQ: 1556459
> > South Wales, UK

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Vince Morga » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Don't know how to break this to you but ....

1. SKY is not a charity.

2. They paid LOTS of dosh for the rights to televise the English games.

3. They are NOT going to 'give'  transmission rights for these games away to
anyone - be they Irish or Canadian or Belgian. If a television company
wishes to show the England home games then they have to pay SKY some
money.... a fair bit of money at a guess

4. Obviously the Irish and Canadian tv companies concerned could not afford
to pay or would not pay SKY for the broadcast rights ... so no games on
their channels. SKY own the broadcast rights, they paid money for them so
THEY get to set the cost of them. If enough people are willing to pay it but
the Irish and Canadian compaies aren't ... well tough shit.

5. SKY do not give a flying toss for RU, RL, football basketball or even
croquet ... they're not in the business of expanding any game except where a
'return' in advertising/broadcast revenue is percieved.  They don't give a
toss for the average sports fan .... they want sports fans to buy dishes and
SKY Digital and generate revenue for the company..... that's all there is to
it really

Vince

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by garjo.. » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Don't know how to break this to you but ....

> 1. SKY is not a charity.

> 2. They paid LOTS of dosh for the rights to televise the English games.

> 3. They are NOT going to 'give'  transmission rights for these games away
to
> anyone - be they Irish or Canadian or Belgian. If a television company
> wishes to show the England home games then they have to pay SKY some
> money.... a fair bit of money at a guess

> 4. Obviously the Irish and Canadian tv companies concerned could not
afford
> to pay or would not pay SKY for the broadcast rights ... so no games on
> their channels. SKY own the broadcast rights, they paid money for them so
> THEY get to set the cost of them. If enough people are willing to pay it
but
> the Irish and Canadian compaies aren't ... well tough shit.

> 5. SKY do not give a flying toss for RU, RL, football basketball or even
> croquet ... they're not in the business of expanding any game except where
a
> 'return' in advertising/broadcast revenue is percieved.  They don't give a
> toss for the average sports fan .... they want sports fans to buy dishes
and
> SKY Digital and generate revenue for the company..... that's all there is
to
> it really

All totally correct Vince. Also the most compelling article for not letting
SKY get the contract when it runs out. Maximum numbers of viewers and
therefore fans is what'll help the game not qick fix cash from Mr Murdoch. 6
Nations on PPV would be the ultimate goal for SKY - which means about 1
tenth of the usual audience having to pay 10 to watch what was free before.
--
Cheers Drive!

Gareth

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Vince Morga » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

As you say I'm SURE PPV 6 Nations would get them drooling and I'm equally
sure that if they get hold of the broadcast rights then it sooner or later
it will be. SKY's inability to obtain full 6N rights was probably their only
major failure - in the sporting arena - to date and its not one they took
lightly.

BUT .... with the RFU in debt with Twickers and with even Leics losing one
million last year - they won the league, have good support and sponsorship
but STILL lost one million - and Bath posting similar losses this week ( so
God knows what other clubs are losing - RU clubs make RL look like models of
financial probity which, trust me, is a difficult task ) is RU in any
condition to refuse future SKY offers?

RU is now in such a  state of flux that SKY can an probably will make
further inroads into the game. Currently ongoing there is :

1. The RFU / Rob Andrew blue print   .... will they move the 6N .. will
everyone agree to that? Will the other Unions take the chance that moving
the 6N may - if not kill then adversely affect - the annual cash cow ? Will
the EFDR clubs agree to the plan? The Welsh clubs are certainly pissed off
about it ...

2. Walkinshaws British league ..... Welsh & English club favourite ... but
I'm not sure whether this involves a restructured season ??? Will SKY cover
this new league? If not who will?

3. The proposed Celctic league ....I've read a little about it - but it may
have just been one of Stephen Jone's more fevered wet dreams...

4. The bond issue ...... which I think means that all the money and power
returns to the Unions and the clubs ( ie the chairmen etc who have spent
LOTS of cash so far ) become subservient to the boards again. I'm pretty
sure the reasoning will be " We'll pay off your debts .... contract your
more expensive players...etc etc.... IF you agree to do as you are told..."
... can you see Walkinshaw and his friends standing for that?

I means these aren't minor details these are fundemental major changes to
the game and no one can seem to agree on them.  In this atmosphere - with
Clubs and Unions looking for money then SKY will take advantage if they can
.....

Vince

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by John William » Mon, 07 Feb 2000 04:00:00

On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 21:24:15 -0000, "Vince Morgan"

Quote:

>BUT .... with the RFU in debt with Twickers and with even Leics losing one
>million last year - they won the league, have good support and sponsorship
>but STILL lost one million - and Bath posting similar losses this week ( so
>God knows what other clubs are losing - RU clubs make RL look like models of
>financial probity which, trust me, is a difficult task ) is RU in any
>condition to refuse future SKY offers?

A small point is that Leicester changed their financial year to
coincide with the RFU or something, making the last financial year 14
months, including the non-revenue generating May and June. The 12
month loss was "only" 800,000 pounds :-).

Quote:
>RU is now in such a  state of flux that SKY can an probably will make
>further inroads into the game. Currently ongoing there is :
>1. The RFU / Rob Andrew blue print   .... will they move the 6N .. will
>everyone agree to that? Will the other Unions take the chance that moving
>the 6N may - if not kill then adversely affect - the annual cash cow ? Will
>the EFDR clubs agree to the plan? The Welsh clubs are certainly pissed off
>about it ...

I think current contracts mean the 6N can't be moved for a couple of
seasons, minimum.

Quote:
>4. The bond issue ...... which I think means that all the money and power
>returns to the Unions and the clubs ( ie the chairmen etc who have spent
>LOTS of cash so far ) become subservient to the boards again. I'm pretty
>sure the reasoning will be " We'll pay off your debts .... contract your
>more expensive players...etc etc.... IF you agree to do as you are told..."
>... can you see Walkinshaw and his friends standing for that?

I think the English RFU for one are quite against a bond issue. It's
not as if it generates new money, it just gets the projected revenue
for the next x years shoved up front with lots of strings attached by
whoever supports the bond.

All the best

John Williams.

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by stev » Wed, 09 Feb 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 21:24:15 -0000, "Vince Morgan"

>>BUT .... with the RFU in debt with Twickers and with even Leics losing one
>>million last year - they won the league, have good support and sponsorship
>>but STILL lost one million - and Bath posting similar losses this week ( so
>>God knows what other clubs are losing - RU clubs make RL look like models of
>>financial probity which, trust me, is a difficult task ) is RU in any
>>condition to refuse future SKY offers?

>A small point is that Leicester changed their financial year to
>coincide with the RFU or something, making the last financial year 14
>months, including the non-revenue generating May and June. The 12
>month loss was "only" 800,000 pounds :-).

I can't believe this figure they have the best gates in England and they
are one of the most successful sides. Quins's black hole I can
understand but not Tigers

--
steve

 
 
 

SKY... money grubbing bastards

Post by Vince Morga » Wed, 09 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Well it was Leics who gave out the figures and it was highlighted again at
the start of the season when they obtained a very nice sponsorship deal that
would net them one million over the next four years ( I think it was four
years I may be wrong on that point )  but all the articles dealing with the
sponsorship  pointed out that they had posted a loss 'in the region' of one
million for the previous year.

Suprised me too .... but Bath are pissing money away too .... wages are
still far too high I guess.

Vince