Sky

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tipp blue said:
If punting those 3 is part of a cost cutting exercise, realistically how much are they saving? I'd be very surprised if it's more than a hundred thousand a year on each of them. Can anyone see them spending billions on PL rights? The money in the game is going to dry up sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I’d bet a lot more than 100k.

Way more in fact.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
I think these are two different issues, the total lack of live cricket on terrestrial TV isn't to be welcomed at all. For me I'd rather a channel that covered it properly in the past when given the chance, channel 4 or even channel 5 who took highlights when noone else bid, and was able to do it justice, rather than the bbc. I've just too many bad memories of their shocking and shoddy treatment. I totally agree though that it's massively missed.

However I wouldn't conflate that with greed at all, cricket absolutely needed the money, desperately so considering the parlous state of some of the counties. Sky stepped in offering a lifeline, the alternative was huge cost cutting with many counties going to the wall and jobs lost right left and centre. Cricketers even relatively top first class cricketers had to have jobs outside of the game in the summer months, only very recognised names made any money, and nothing like even other less well paid sports.

The BBC paid buttons for decades, having a monopoly on the rights, it thought it would always have them and invested nothing at all, relegated it to non coverage whenever any other sport was taking place, even trooping of the colour took precedence. It's actual coverage was absolutely abysmal with a fixed camera at just one end of the ground, so behind the keeper every other over, your view being totally obscured by the keeper, stumps and batsman, seeing how the ball behaved being absolutely impossible. The highlights were shown on the graveyard slot in the TV schedule, very late night or even early morning. In 2005 channel 4 made a counter offer and the TCCB couldn't get away fast enough. Channel 4 showed just how poor a job the BBC had been doing for years, it revolutionised coverage, analysis and actually invested in a few more cameras to cover it properly. Sky's offer came just in time as channel 4 could justify covering the ashes but not every series every summer against any non Aussie team. Their coverage just took it a stage further and improved matters again.

So while the need to get it back on terrestrial is very urgent and imperative, without Sky first class cricket might not even exist to the extent it does, it can't be just dismisses as greed, that's just simplistic and totally wrong imo.
Click to expand...
If they lacked money, whats wrong with amateur sport? If you think about it, why should good sportsmen be better paid than surgeons, scientists or great artists? Most people play sport for the love if it and don't need paying. Why not have a uswful job too? I remember enjoying rugby - and not so long sgo that was entirely amateur.

As for the beeb - I like that old style, at one end. Just like at the match. And i don't need the over analysis jibber jabbering on to enjoy the match. Ah well, we all have different preferences.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
Yes I agree on this too, but not at all the conclusion of it's all down to greed, that's just far too simplistic and just doesn't fit the 'case' history at all imo, it's far more complicated than that. However the need for some terrestrial coverage is very urgent indeed for precisely those reasons.
Click to expand...
I'd now like to backtrack on the greed thing too. Having said that companies and business structured organisations like the beeb do tend to act like greedy monsters irregardless of the best intentions of whoever is making decisions in them.

Anyway the upshot is for me, sports need to be available to all otherwise they risk losing their long term audience and participants for a short term gain.
 
I binned Sky off years ago but the massive amount of money the pay to clubs to clubs has allowed the clubs to attract and buy many good foreign players from around the world.
Another great plus is that because of Sky, we can all watch any game we cannot attend.

About the job losses.
I don't think Merson, Le Tiss or Thompson will have been earning anywhere near as much as £100,000.
 
GrandOldTeam said:
Pundits for me should have played at the very highest level as a minimum - preferably in recent years.

They also should be clear and easy to understand.

Their gender, sex, nationality, race etc shouldn't come into it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately sky clearly have a policy of 1 woman minimum per set of live matches (not knocking women, but I’m agreeing that it shouldn’t be chosen based on sex, and I’m also agreeing that it should be chosen based on if you’ve played at the top level)
 
Big shrug.

End of the day, no one really listened to what opinion they had, they were entertaining enough commentating on the games.

Compared to BT (layout is awful and comes across like a telethon) or the BBC (actually prefer it as it's not sensationalising, but it is bland), it was far more watchable.

Fundamentally who really cares that much? As long as it's watchable.

However...the whinge fest is purely down to what the reasons are to change it up now
 
H.H. said:
I don't think Merson, Le Tiss or Thompson will have been earning anywhere near as much as £100,000.
Click to expand...
Brennan said:
BBC journalists (off camera) can earn £50k nowadays. I’d have thought somebody doing a show like Soccer Saturday every week to hundreds of thousands of viewers would be on a fair bit more than 100k.

Could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Like you guys, I honestly do not know. I thought that 100k sounded too high to be honest. Nigh on 2 grand a week? Are they even paid on a proportionate regular basis? I do not know. Surely someone here can tell us.
 
Let's say that the Saturday panel sits as many as 30 times a season, that means to earn as much as £100,000 they would have to get £3,300 a show.
Can't see they could earn that much (although they will earn extra money through for all the sponsorship deals/advertising they do for Sky?)
 
H.H. said:
Let's say that the Saturday panel sits as many as 30 times a season, that means to earn as much as £100,000 they would have to get £3,300 a show.
Can't see they could earn that much (although they will earn extra money through for all the sponsorship deals/advertising they do for Sky?)
Click to expand...

Gary Neville gets £25k per show. Different level but still...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top