Good sky or bad?

[Deforest]

On the plus side their highlights coverage of the prem is excellent - at 10ish on saturday you can watch an hours highlights of any of the games played not covered by sultana.

On the minus side - they've put so much of our money into our top tier at the expense of the other tiers that relatively few englishmen play there and many lower tier teams go to the wall.

 

[barky]

Bit of both. I voted bad though for plenty of reasons that I can't be arsed to type. This is what my dissertation at uni is based on so it would feel to much like work. :-*

 

[Gary]

Can't really say, I have Sky, but don't have the sports package.

Shame really!

Although I really enjoy Soccer AM and SSN.

 

[alter_boi]

i think we are slowing getting priced out of the game and ultimately this will be the games downfall with fewer people going to the game less money to pay players and the worlds talent going elsewhere

 

[windmill]

No, Rupert Murdoch is a f***ing ****! ;D

 

[clusternakker]

Good sky would be clean shaven, and bad sky would have a goattee beard

 

[into the trees]

I agree with Kimbokel

 

[Eastwood Red]

SSN is quality, especially Jeff Stelling on a Saturday ;D

Overall though I think it pumps too much money into the Premier League making it harder for teams from the Championship compete in the Premier League unless they somehow survive one season.

 

[RedDogChris]

Look at how promoted sides have fared in the premierleague since the introduction of Sky. Very depressing reading . A godsend to the big premiership clubs and a cancer to smaller lower league clubs basically.

 

[Eastwood Red]

Look at how promoted sides have fared in the premierleague since the introduction of Sky. Very depressing reading . A godsend to the big premiership clubs and a cancer to smaller lower league clubs basically.

Too true, the only good thing to come out of Sky is SSN and Jeff Stelling ;D

 

[mouldy]

If it weren't for sky then we wouldn't be getting any live coverage at all. I think it's a good thing.

 

[cmw]

Couldn't vote, don't agree with any.

I would've liked to have said bad but after watching some of the other coverage I must admit wishing sky had covered certain games.

 

[yam]

If it weren't for sky then we wouldn't be getting any live coverage at all. I think it's a good thing.

Like ITV's "the Championship"??

 

[Phooey]

The statistic that gets trotted out is that since Sky bought up the rights to most of the matches attendances have steadily increased.

What doesn't get mentioned is that people have more money and the hooligans have been (mostly) removed.

 

[yam]

Also the "glamour" teams have massive grounds now (isn't Old Trafford now about 75,000?) that are usually always sold out, that no doubt bumps up the average too.

 

[Gary]

Look at how promoted sides have fared in the premierleague since the introduction of Sky. Very depressing reading . A godsend to the big premiership clubs and a cancer to smaller lower league clubs basically.

And a stroke to teams like Leeds.

 

[mouldy]

Like ITV's "the Championship"??

Not live though is it. What about if we got in the play offs and someone couldn't get a ticket to the final or semis? How would they feel not even being able to watch it on telly?

The fans that didn't get to the Derby game would've been stuck with the words of Colin Fray. Sky provide us with that and therefore I am grateful it is there.

 

[winnits]

There was, um, live football before Sky you know!

 

[mouldy]

There was, um, live football before Sky you know!

I know but not as much as we have now because of sky. It would have to be a cup final for forest to get on telly without sky wouldn't it?

 

[thesquareone]

the sky looks wonderful today... hopefully a corking game with a three points coming our way!!