Reading away now on Sky

[SJN-Fox]

:icon_cry: That's right, rub it in.

 

[Blue Maniac]

So anyone who has a job that means they must work on a Saturday afternoon will never see a live match?

Why would they want to? Clearly they've made the choice to work on Saturdays, so football isn't a major part of their life like it is for the people who go to every game. Everybody has different priorities. But I don't think that those who do attend should be inconvenienced to accommodate people who don't. Why should I be forced to take half a day off work and get home at 3am just to let some part-time fans watch the game?

 

[muzzy magic]

gutted....2 away games i wanted to go to but doubt i'll get there cos of work

 

[indierich06]

Why would they want to? Clearly they've made the choice to work on Saturdays, so football isn't a major part of their life like it is for the people who go to every game. Everybody has different priorities. But I don't think that those who do attend should be inconvenienced to accommodate people who don't. Why should I be forced to take half a day off work and get home at 3am just to let some part-time fans watch the game?

Just playing devil's advocate here - A lot of people don't have a choice about working Saturdays. The past few jobs I've had have required me to work weekends. Football is a high priority for a lot of people, but not as high as paying bills and putting food on the table.

Also, a lot of people - especially in the current financial climate - can't afford to get to every home and away game and might relish the opportunity of getting to see a game on tv that they might not have seen otherwise. This doesn't make them any less a fan of the club than you are, it just means your expendable income is greater than theirs.

Why should these fans be forced to forgo ever going to an away match during the week, or watching their team on television because fans with more money want an easier trip to and from the match?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Just playing devil's advocate here - A lot of people don't have a choice about working Saturdays. The past few jobs I've had have required me to work weekends. Football is a high priority for a lot of people, but not as high as paying bills and putting food on the table.

I've never had a job that has required me to work Saturdays. I simply wouldn't accept one. Obviously paying your bills is the important thing, but I'd never be prepared to put myself in a position whereby I'd sacrifice a large part of my personal life for the sake of a job. Some people are, even to the extent of giving up spending time with spouses or children in order to earn a few extra quid. I appreciate that, but I'm not one of those people.

Also, a lot of people - especially in the current financial climate - can't afford to get to every home and away game and might relish the opportunity of getting to see a game on tv that they might not have seen otherwise. This doesn't make them any less a fan of the club than you are, it just means your expendable income is greater than theirs.

Nobody's arguing that they're more of a fan than anybody else - it's a futile and nonsensical argument. But I don't see why I should be so massively inconvenienced just so those who can't/won't go to the game in person can have something to watch after Coronation Street. Incidentally, why is it necessary to move games to show them on tv? I know this point has been made, but it really needs emphasising.

Why should these fans be forced to forgo ever going to an away match during the week, or watching their team on television because fans with more money want an easier trip to and from the match?

You're saying that I should pay more just because other people have less money? It's not just about an easier trip, it's about not having to spend £12 getting a taxi home from the bus station at 3 in the morning, not having to spend £56 on a hotel room for the night, not having to pay peak rates getting the first train back to Leicester the next day just to be in time for work. By the end of October, City will have played seven midweek away games. Is this really fair on the fan who actually turns up to matches, particularly if that fan relies on public transport?

 

[alex]

Playing devil's advocat a minute - are we suggesting we would like the football to be at the place it was pre-Sky? Whilst it may not have served us the true greats of the game, do we not agree that post Sky money the players and Premier League itself is the best in the world? Would it be without the money? Is it better this way?

 

[SwedeFox]

I've never had a job that has required me to work Saturdays. I simply wouldn't accept one. Obviously paying your bills is the important thing, but I'd never be prepared to put myself in a position whereby I'd sacrifice a large part of my personal life for the sake of a job. Some people are, even to the extent of giving up spending time with spouses or children in order to earn a few extra quid. I appreciate that, but I'm not one of those people.

I totally agree with Blue Maniac here. For me matches on television is something entirely positive, but I wouldn't complain if Sky stopped showing them if it was for the sake of fans etc. I have the choice to move to England if it meant that much to me.

I guess the very same argument could be used regarding global warming etc - people up here say they have to use a car because of work etc. Well don't live in the middle of nowhere then! It's all about priorites as BM pointed out.

And I don't want to start a global warming discussion...

 

[Matt_B]

Out of interest, and for one of you stattos out there, in the olden days when teams used to just play at 3pm on a Saturday (no midweek games) how did they fit all the games into a season? Was the season longer? Or has there never been a time when we didn't have midweek games?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Playing devil's advocat a minute - are we suggesting we would like the football to be at the place it was pre-Sky? Whilst it may not have served us the true greats of the game, do we not agree that post Sky money the players and Premier League itself is the best in the world? Would it be without the money? Is it better this way?

Football might still be for the fans if it weren't for Sky. As it is, football is now for a group of people Sky refers to as 'subscribers'.

Out of interest, and for one of you stattos out there, in the olden days when teams used to just play at 3pm on a Saturday (no midweek games) how did they fit all the games into a season? Was the season longer? Or has there never been a time when we didn't have midweek games?

No, the season wasn't longer, games have always been played midweek. (Incidentally, City played on consecutive days back in December 1993 - surely absurd.) My argument is, and always has been, that leagues should be smaller, meaning fewer games, and games should be played at weekends as often as possible. Midweek games should be local games, not Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Reading, QPR, Barnsley, Bristol City and Crystal Palace away.

 

[bocadillo]

Out of interest, and for one of you stattos out there, in the olden days when teams used to just play at 3pm on a Saturday (no midweek games) how did they fit all the games into a season? Was the season longer? Or has there never been a time when we didn't have midweek games?

I've been watching football for over 50 years and in that time there have always been midweek games. But there were only two kick-off times - 3 on a Saturday or 7:30 on a Tuesday or Wednesday (depending on club). It's simply not possible to play 46 games in less than 9 months without playing midweek.

And remember that there also used to be League Cup replays and FA Cup second (and further) replays to be fitted in. And a lot more postponed games.

 

[bocadillo]

...football is now for a group of people Sky people refers to as 'punters' or 'mugs'.

Ture

(Incidentally, City played on consecutive days back in December 1993 - surely absurd.)

That would presumably have been at Christmas or Easter. Traditionally clubs played three games over both Christmas and Easter.

My argument is, and always has been, that leagues should be smaller, meaning fewer games, and games should be played at weekends as often as possible. Midweek games should be local games, not Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Reading, QPR, Barnsley, Bristol City and Crystal Palace away.

I honestly don't think that the number of clubs per league is the problem. It always used to be possible to fit in 46 games. It's the new 'initiatives' that have caused the difficulties.

 

[alex]

Football might still be for the fans if it weren't for Sky. As it is, football is now for a group of people Sky refers to as 'subscribers'.

A popular thing to say, for sure, however stats would indicate that attendances are up and have been steadily increasing since SKY took over.

 

[Macky]

A popular thing to say, for sure, however stats would indicate that attendances are up and have been steadily increasing since SKY took over.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that attendances are up because of Sky's influence.

 

[highland fox]

I must be one of the very few who like to watch the football on sky and I'm pleased they show so many matches.I can't afford to go to matches and have to work a lot of weekends and nights so without sky I would see very little football.

 

[alex]

But it doesn't necessarily mean that attendances are up because of Sky's influence.

Ture, however I was answering the point (which is a widely held belief) that SKY was killing the game for the supporter, when actually stats would not back that theory up.

I think for the nostalgic supporter the move to SKY, the move to the a stadia like the Walkers, to games on different days, to the offside rule change, to squad numbering system, the list goes on, but in all of this has frustrated that type of fan. I get that, but at the same time I see a lot that the money of SKY has bought improving the game for us all too.

I am on the fence a bit on this actually, I think I am nostalgic yet appreciate the standard of watching and of the football on display in this country.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Ture, however I was answering the point (which is a widely held belief) that SKY was killing the game for the supporter, when actually stats would not back that theory up.

I think for the nostalgic supporter the move to SKY, the move to the a stadia like the Walkers, to games on different days, to the offside rule change, to squad numbering system, the list goes on, but in all of this has frustrated that type of fan. I get that, but at the same time I see a lot that the money of SKY has bought improving the game for us all too.

I am on the fence a bit on this actually, I think I am nostalgic yet appreciate the standard of watching and of the football on display in this country.

Good post, but I still think the people putting money directly into the game deserve better treatment.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Good post, but I still think the people putting money directly into the game deserve better treatment.

SKY would argue that their subscribers put maybe four or five times more money directly into the clubs/game than the match attending fans.

The 'better treatment' is that clubs can afford better players to watch!

 

[bocadillo]

SKY would argue that their subscribers put maybe four or five times more money directly into the clubs/game than the match attending fans.

The 'better treatment' is that clubs can afford to pay players like Mattock money far beyond the dreams of the man in the street, inexorably leading to the kind of situation he now faces.

I think you're right.

 

[camberwell fox]

SKY would argue that their subscribers put maybe four or five times more money directly into the clubs/game than the match attending fans.

The 'better treatment' is that clubs can afford better players to watch!

I agree with that. For me, being in London with conflicting priorities means i can't get to hardly any home games and only a few 'local' London ones. For me this means i look forward to the sky games, and i would happily pay extra to see my team on the box; £15 would not make it unwatchable at that kind of price.

Being close to Reading and QPR will mean i attend the games and not take the easy option of TV, but i definately sympathise with those fans who can't make the journey.

Jeff's suggestion seems sound, as i would pay £15 to watch a fair proportion of our games that i just can't get to, and i would think the fans who regularly spend their hard earned £££'s on attending games will do so regardless of sky especially if the difference in price is negligable.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Still nobody's explained to me why Sky's coverage of the game has to inconvenience the people attending the games. I've no problem with Sky broadcasting games, but why do they insist on doing it at a time that means I pay anything up to £50 extra to attend a game?