|
gently caress tha police comin straight out the underground Bet ole wishes he could go back to wes brown
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
* My inefficiencies at defending
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
that’s four things
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 08:43
|
|
|
RideTheSpiral posted:that’s four things Lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
Wow, I never knew he was class of 93
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
funkybottoms posted:"gently caress, gently caress the police" imo You make a salient point. But to counter: Guillotine the stupid millionaire footballers. (Or at least laugh at their troubles.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Footballers are workers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 10:58
|
|
|
Bundy posted:Footballers are workers.  it is gross how much they’re paid, but it’s better in their pocket than club owners scooping even more up - and those are literally the only two options. The magical third option where tickets cost a fiver and sky sports is affordable to anyone are a fairy tale that runs against the interests of literally every person with decision making power in the game
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Could Sky make more money if they made individual games purchasable? Like, you would lose some full subs but be propped by more people buying individual games
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Could Sky make more money if they made individual games purchasable? Even if they could make slightly more (which they probably wouldn't) the variable revenue through the year wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 13:22
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Even if they could make slightly more (which they probably wouldn't) the variable revenue through the year wouldn't be worth it. Also even if they wanted to they can't, contractually, and probably never will. The EPL have always been dead-set against that sort of thing because otherwise the revenue-sharing model completely breaks down - good for the big clubs, bad for the little, potentially catastrophic for the FA because that's the first step towards the clubs negotiating their own deals and there goes the gravy train. The compromise they reached with Now TV selling one-month or one-weekend subs seems to work okay for all concerned (apart from the punters but who gives a gently caress about them?) but only works because Sky have already bought and paid for the tranches of games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Could Sky make more money if they made individual games purchasable? I really doubt it. What would they charge per game? I wouldn't think it would be less than £5 and probably closer to £10. Even at £5, that would be 6 games for the price of the Sky Sports monthly sub which gets you that many in a weekend probably and all of the other sports, too. Maybe they could offer subscriptions where you get all of 1 club's games, but that would mean televising every game which obviously wouldn't work what with the 3pm blackout and BT having games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:I really doubt it. What would they charge per game? I wouldn't think it would be less than £5 and probably closer to £10. Even at £5, that would be 6 games for the price of the Sky Sports monthly sub which gets you that many in a weekend probably and all of the other sports, too. Championship games already have their own streams
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Could Sky make more money if they made individual games purchasable? Traditional wisdom is no. People are habitual subscribers and will stay subscribed to things even if they're not actively using them, because cancelling would be a hassle and a bunch of other reasons. Once you hook someone in, chances are they will stay hooked unless something drastic happens, whereas with individual matches on demand you have to get people to make that purchasing decision every game, which is a lot harder to sustain. One of the podcasts I listen to is hosted by a guy who is management at some international corporation (he hasn't said which one, for obvious reasons) that does a lot of on-demand video streaming stuff. Apparently the Premier League have explored a variety of options as they're waking up to the fact that traditional cable subscriptions are becoming a thing of the past, and people are moving to á la carte streaming services. They have hired companies to do analysis on the various scenarios (PL moving to a purely online subscription service, matches being sold on-demand, rights being split up among various streaming services etc) and the general feeling is that there is a vast market they're not currently reaching because many people don't want to pay 50 moneys a month for a cable subscription, and they could potentially make a lot more money with streaming options. Apparently the leading option is a dedicated PL streaming service, but the problem is producing content for that streaming service in-house. The PL currently offer in-house commentary on all the matches for foreign services that don't have their own commentary teams as well as their own weekly magazine shows, but that's still a far cry from the studio setups, pundit lineups and other filler stuff you'd need to sell a dedicated streaming service to people. But I guess it's the direction we're moving in. Mickolution posted:I really doubt it. What would they charge per game? A few years ago the Finnish national hockey league moved first to a dedicated cable channel, then a bunch of dedicated cable channels (basically enough channels to broadcast all the games in a single round at once), and finally online, offering both monthly subscriptions as well as VOD options. The monthly subscriptions are by far the better deal even if you only watch a game or two a month; individual games cost close to 10€ apiece, whereas a monthly pass for one team's games is 19,99€. Obviously the idea is to hook everyone in as subscribers and keep their subscriptions auto-renewing as people forget to cancel them, and buying individual games is intended to be prohibitively expensive. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Aug 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Iirc sky tried this once before waaay back in like 2000 or 2001 and it didn’t last more than a season
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:Iirc sky tried this once before waaay back in like 2000 or 2001 and it didn’t last more than a season I feel like that time frame everyone was stealing sky off ITV Digital
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Der Shovel posted:Apparently the leading option is a dedicated PL streaming service, but the problem is producing content for that streaming service in-house. The PL currently offer in-house commentary on all the matches for foreign services that don't have their own commentary teams as well as their own weekly magazine shows, but that's still a far cry from the studio setups, pundit lineups and other filler stuff you'd need to sell a dedicated streaming service to people. Most/all US sports have this setup and it's pretty great. The problem for the PL is Sky and international broadcasters. Anything like this would have to wait until the deals with broadcasters are up and aren't new one starting this season? They would need to be sure that they'd make up the money, because naturally broadcaster deals would shrink dramatically if people had a streaming option. jesus WEP posted:Iirc sky tried this once before waaay back in like 2000 or 2001 and it didn’t last more than a season Do you mean Prem Plus? That ran for a while, 2001-2007. Iirc, it stopped because the package that had been the ppv games was sold to Setanta, not necessarily because it was a failure. They used to have a special offer where you could get all of the ppv games for a one off payment, which made it a bit pointless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Most/all US sports have this setup and it's pretty great. The problem for the PL is Sky and international broadcasters. Anything like this would have to wait until the deals with broadcasters are up and aren't new one starting this season? They would need to be sure that they'd make up the money, because naturally broadcaster deals would shrink dramatically if people had a streaming option. Prem Plus was actually even worse than that, the idea was you could buy individual games rather than the (ludicrous) 4-channel Sports package - but you still needed a Sky HD subscription *and* a basic Sports package, if you bought more than 2 or 3 games it was pointless and if you bought less than that you were paying monthly for poo poo you never used. This was Sky's somewhat hilarious attempt to get around the EU competition case against winner-take-all rights auctions and the effective monopoly they gave broadcasters - "See! We're not quite as predatory as we could be!". In theory at least, because of the equal-matches clause (each Premiership team got the same amount of live matches, guaranteed) it was cheaper for someone to only buy the individual games including their team, which did address one of the main thrusts of the complaint I suppose When that case finally went through and the rights auctions were split into tranches there was no point in keeping the system going (it probably never made a profit because nobody consumes televised football that way). Setanta coming along the season after was a result of that breakup, not the cause of Sky dropping PPV games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
selling monopoly broadcast rights to sports events is such unbelievable garbage. anyone who wants to broadcast a thing should be able to pay a fee for it gently caress this bt for champions league, sky for premier league and pizza hut tv for carabao cup or whatever is next
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Prem Plus was actually even worse than that, the idea was you could buy individual games rather than the (ludicrous) 4-channel Sports package - but you still needed a Sky HD subscription *and* a basic Sports package, if you bought more than 2 or 3 games it was pointless and if you bought less than that you were paying monthly for poo poo you never used. This was Sky's somewhat hilarious attempt to get around the EU competition case against winner-take-all rights auctions and the effective monopoly they gave broadcasters - "See! We're not quite as predatory as we could be!". In theory at least, because of the equal-matches clause (each Premiership team got the same amount of live matches, guaranteed) it was cheaper for someone to only buy the individual games including their team, which did address one of the main thrusts of the complaint I suppose By Sky HD do you mean just a Sky digital (as it was then) sub? That's what we had when I remember using it. Didn't know you also had to have sports, that's a load of shite. Sky having a monopoly sucked, but once it was broken up, it cost the viewer much more to get the same amount of games. goddamnedtwisto posted:Setanta coming along the season after was a result of that breakup, not the cause of Sky dropping PPV games. Yeah, that's what I meant. I worded it wrong. I think the PPV games were the shittier package, which is what Setanta bought. Mickolution fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Aug 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Sky Already have the day passes for Now TV which is basically the same as a PPV package. I don't know why they don't make it available on the set top box too
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
RideTheSpiral posted:selling monopoly broadcast rights to sports events is such unbelievable garbage. anyone who wants to broadcast a thing should be able to pay a fee for it have to say im hapy with the situation, the worlds most expensive players paid by morons subscribing to Sky Adverb and i get to watch all the good bits on motd for nothing? oil have some of that
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Sky Already have the day passes for Now TV which is basically the same as a PPV package. I don't know why they don't make it available on the set top box too I think they're classed as separate companies under the one group or something like that. I used to work in support for Sky and asked someone still working there about Now TV a while ago and he said they didn't deal with it at all. Possibly some sort of competition laws or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:have to say im hapy with the situation, the worlds most expensive players paid by morons subscribing to Sky Adverb and i get to watch all the good bits on motd for nothing? oil have some of that i cancelled my license fee and threw my tv in the bin because of black lives matters
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
RideTheSpiral posted:i cancelled my license fee and threw my tv in the bin because of black lives matters On that note: https://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/latest-statement-07-08-2020/august/club-update/ Starts normal, veers off slightly halfway through 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
i think harry is innocent
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:By Sky HD do you mean just a Sky digital (as it was then) sub? That's what we had when I remember using it. Didn't know you also had to have sports, that's a load of shite. You're absolutely right, HD didn't come around until the very end of that, but now I can't remember if Prem Plus was tied to Sky Plus or not - it was certainly tied to a service that wasn't a sports package. (I'm a mug who was paying for the whole package at the time). Mickolution posted:I think they're classed as separate companies under the one group or something like that. I used to work in support for Sky and asked someone still working there about Now TV a while ago and he said they didn't deal with it at all. Possibly some sort of competition laws or something? Now TV has always been weird because they take such pains to obscure that they're part of Sky. Given it was conceived and launched at the height of both the Fox attempt to take over Sky and the NoTW hacking scandals it's possible that it might have been deliberately set up to be easily ejectable as a separate entity if Ofcom did actually withdraw Sky's licenses while the Murdochs were in charge of it and/or the Newscorp takeover tainted the Sky brand too badly. Now I'm fairly sure a big chunk of their customers are people who cancelled their Sky subs during all that and Sky have realised the value of having a non-Sky brand to capture them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Christoph Metzelder is a nonce pass it on
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
This is related to wearing masks somehow. https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1301781225582014465
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
The one minor positive is that the replies aren't the poo poo show I might have expected. He also posted this in response to someone, though. https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1301811850292719616
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
Hey don't worry guys we all just took it out of context. No he won't explain how, but we did. https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1301856100359245829
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
Yaya Toure axed from Soccer Aid for posting porn in the Whatsapp group 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Bacon Terrorist posted:Yaya Toure axed from Soccer Aid for posting porn in the Whatsapp group Maybe they thought it was home made and were disgusted that he hadn't invited them along to take part? Or just like perverse sick poo poo like just one man with a woman. No roasting, no high fives, no teamwork.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
Apparently it wasn't just a pornographic video, but also the assurance that he would bring 19 women like the one in the video to the team hotel for the charity event for the team to, uh, utilize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Now that’s a team player
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Toure sounds like a good teammate, what’s the issue?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:08
|
|
Zaodai posted:Apparently it wasn't just a pornographic video, but also the assurance that he would bring 19 women like the one in the video to the team hotel for the charity event for the team to, uh, utilize. And yet Kyle Walker actually did that and still has a job
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Obviously the problem is that he ruined the surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
We got a three-fer - in "Footballers Are Quite Thick and Love to Violate Social Distancing PLUS Dumb Englishmen Abroad with BONUS Have Sex with Teammate(s) Present" story #3,927: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...n-to-hotel-room The Guardian posted:Gareth Southgate has vowed to protect Mason Greenwood and Phil Foden despite sending the players home after they disrupted England’s preparations for Tuesday night’s game against Denmark by inviting two women to the team hotel in Reykjavik, breaking coronavirus isolation rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
The Mirror has an article where one of the models says she was talking to Greenwood for a few days before England flew to Iceland, but didn't know he played for United and didn't even know who Phil Foden was. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/icelandic-model-breaks-silence-phil-22644184
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:42
|
|
