Just settled down to watch it as an antidote to today but it’s not on any of national channels. It’s on sky! I thought the national team were supposed to be accessible to all. It’s not as if the FA need murdoch’s money. Denying most of the country the opportunity to watch the game is hardly building on the good will factor that is currently out there. Damn. I was looking forward to it.
England game
- Thread starter octopus
- Start date
Skullduggery Pleasan
Vital Reserves Team
Never mind.
Strictly is on.
Decent footwork and people who are prepared to give their all.........
Strictly is on.
Decent footwork and people who are prepared to give their all.........
Nations League is exclusive to Sky.
The regular friendlies will be on ITV.
Edit: Highlights on ITV tonight at 11:05pm.
Last edited:
SteveTreacle
Vital 1st Team Regular
Sky is a national channel. Everyone’s got the opportunity to watch it - just get sky or go down the pub id you’re too tight to get sky! It’s the way sport is now whether football, cricket or rugby - terrestrial channels largely aren’t interested unless it’s presented on a plate to them for nothing and doesn’t interfere with their schedule of largely moronic programmes on prime time.
Good on sky for supporting football and sport I say.
By national channel I meant free to view. It’s the national team. I shouldn’t have to go down the pub to watch it even if back in kent. Over in Belfast it’s not really an option.
Sky supports its own pockets and that’s fair enough but the idea they are supporting the national team is laughable.
Murdoch aside, Sky’s football coverage is top notch and I miss Geoff on a Saturday but I don’t watch enough of it warrant a subscription. I agree prime time tv crap, all the more need to put the football on.
Alderman Barnes
Vital Squad Member
I can't watch it anyway where I am but it's a bloody disgrace if you live in England and can't watch the national team without paying for it. Same as the cricket - you can't fault Sky's coverage, but it's no good if no-one can see it, or has to shell out money that they haven't got, or has to ask their parents to shell out the money that they haven't got. When I was a kid you could see international or county cricket every day in the summer on BBC2. Kids these days don't give a toss about cricket because they don't know it exists, or if they do, it's such a pain in the arse to actually see any.
Sure, Sky and others pump tons of money into football, but how much of it ends up where it's needed? It all goes to the top clubs, so that the competition becomes ever more sclerotic, and mainly ends up in the pockets of top players and their agents to piss up the wall on golden Bentleys, Beckham pants and sleeve tattoos.
Sure, Sky and others pump tons of money into football, but how much of it ends up where it's needed? It all goes to the top clubs, so that the competition becomes ever more sclerotic, and mainly ends up in the pockets of top players and their agents to piss up the wall on golden Bentleys, Beckham pants and sleeve tattoos.
Detritus
Vital Squad Member
I'm assuming you're on a wind up
ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
You have to pay a licence fee for the BBC channels
Skullduggery Pleasan
Vital Reserves Team
Completely agree 58.
Sky (and in fact the whole Murdoch empire) exists for those with a lot more money than sense. How else can you justify something where "the media" pay to advertise and "the punters" pay to watch the adverts? Both sides contribute. Brilliant!
It's a very clever Business Plan. Buy up something that isn't on TV, put it on your TV channel and then use your newspapers to promote it so that it appears to be the most important thing in the world. I may not like the guy but you have to take your hat off to him for that. He makes a lot of money.
SteveTreacle
Vital 1st Team Regular
I generally find the vast majority of those against Sky are those who haven't got it or have a political beef with Murdoch (or both).
I love it and find it excellent value. I pay about £100 a month for my package and have the top one - all Sports, Movies, Entertainment, kids, four Sky Q boxes (which I can move - so loved watching the cricket, World Cup and other sport in the sun on the patio in the summer) plus top internet package and phone with all calls. Combined with Sonos surround sound in the living room and a speaker in every room it's a spot on entertainment package.
Some people need to live in the real world. Pretty much all sports are mainly or solely on Sky (or BT) these days as are a lot of premium dramas and comedies. You can keep moaning back to the old days, but satellite and cable is here to stay and gives a dedicated coverage to sport and entertainment. I'd also say that BBC and ITV just aren't interested in paying for sport and would rather churn our moronic reality TV, like the X Factor, a million, a million and one baking programmes, and an array of programmes where you watch people in a room, house, in a jungle or on an Island. Some of you seem to think that they deserve to be automatically handed premium sports coverage for nothing, just for them not to cover it properly (I remember the days of Test Cricket on BBC and C4, when it was interrupted by horse racing and other guff every 5 minutes - C4 even changed the start time to 10.30am so it didn't clash with hollyoaks, and if it did and over-run, they cut the coverage of the cricket early!).
I get more than my money's worth each month with the sport alone, but watch (and download) a huge amount of boxsets and films, both to watch at home and on the iPad on Skygo on my fairly lengthy commute to work.
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
For the record, sky does not cost 100 quid a month. Sky plus 4 boxes, all movie channels, hd, phone, top tv package and internet does.
Sky sports costs very little by itself.
ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
A Now TV Sky Sports day pass is £7.99 (or £12.99 for a week). If you want to watch England against Switzerland tonight, that's how much you need to pay - £7.99.
Baghdad_Rob
Vital 1st Team Regular
Can't blame the BBC for it being on Sky. UEFA owns the rights and will sell the broadcasting rights to the channel that bid the highest. The BBC could match Sky's bid but I suspect the vast majority of BBC viewers who aren't into football would probably object to the idea of the license fee going up £50 a year so that the BBC can screen half a dozen international matches live. And it wouldn't just be bidding for the England matches. I am sure the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would also demand equal viewing rights for their own nations.
I doubt the extra revenue that ITV could demand from adverts during half time would be anywhere near being enough to match any of the satellite channels or the likes of Amazon or Netflixs in the future.
I doubt the extra revenue that ITV could demand from adverts during half time would be anywhere near being enough to match any of the satellite channels or the likes of Amazon or Netflixs in the future.
Skullduggery Pleasan
Vital Reserves Team
Personally, I go out. And talk to people. I hope you're taking vitamin supplements coz it sounds like you don't have time to get out..
I used to have the full Virgin package, and was paying something ridiculous a month when I actually thought about what I was USING (rather than GETTING in the package). As my youngest son now installs for Virgin, I could get the same thing for a hell of a lot less, but I don't simply because I wouldn't use enough of it to make it worth my while. I'd rather go out to a match, or the cinema or whatever than sit indoors staring at a TV screen. And if I'm on a commute, I've got books on my Kindle. I also have Netflix.
Two of my kids have the full Sky package (one other naturally has Virgin) and the biggest problem when I'm visiting them is finding something decent to watch. Even though they've both got Prime as well. The "terrestrial" channels may have a lot of moronic programmes, but neither Sky, Virgin or BT have anything better in my opinion.
I may not like Murdoch (or Branson for that matter) as people, but I do admire how they've promoted things that people didn't want to watch on TV up to the level of "cannot do without". The reason that Holyoaks would have priority over cricket is that more people watch Holyoaks. A lot more (but certainly not me).
If you want to watch (largely) minority programmes and pay for the privilege then that's your business. Good on you for supporting those things. You pay an awful lot for the privilege. However, the reason you pay that much is because you are prepared to do it. It is true that if "everyone" was to cancel their subscriptions the price would drop like a stone. As I alluded to earlier, Murdoch promotes his TV via headlines and articles in his other media, artificially making people think it's important.
Personally, I find it hugely frustrating to watch a lot of sports on the box. It's much better to be there live as you can see what's going on rather than what the director decides. Football wise, I watch Gillingham (England and Ayr too) and can't be doing with watching sport just for the sake of watching it when I don't have any real connection to what's on the field (or track or whatever).
