so this agenda thing.

[sir baconface]

In four words:
Press bias.
FFP agenda.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I just finished watching The Premier League Years 2013-14 and it really is astounding the difference in Tyler's attitude and voice when we score compared to his commentary on Liverpool or Utd goals. The 3-2 Liverpool win commentary is beyond belief.

Whenever City score he sounds like his dog's died.

Also notice how in the montage at the end, we barely feature apart from them showing goals from virtually all our losses last season. We won it for crying out loud!

Yes, I endured that whilst thinking exactly the same.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

15k a year for pub to have Sky is obscene if you ask me, it's no wonder a lot of them go for the foreign channel

I don't know enough about it but I'd have thought the days of Sky Sports(and bt) are numbered, say 15yrs, with the amount of streams available and the rising cost

Back on topic - I completely agree with your final point

 

[George Hannah]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

Quite so. it's what's called an agenda and it's unfair and corrupt. You have to be either blind or stupid not understand that too.

 

[Bill]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

Quite so. it's what's called an agenda and it's unfair and corrupt. You have to be either blind or stupid not understand that too.

brilliant comeback.

spot on mate.

 

[cibaman]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

Quite so. it's what's called an agenda and it's unfair and corrupt. You have to be either blind or stupid not understand that too.

I must be stupid (I'm not blind) because I don't understand why its unfair and corrupt for Sky to promote its service so as to maximise its
audience.

 

[laserblue]

I just finished watching The Premier League Years 2013-14 and it really is astounding the difference in Tyler's attitude and voice when we score compared to his commentary on Liverpool or Utd goals. The 3-2 Liverpool win commentary is beyond belief.

Whenever City score he sounds like his dog's died.

Also notice how in the montage at the end, we barely feature apart from them showing goals from virtually all our losses last season. We won it for crying out loud!

they didn't show yayas goal,or us lifting the cup,or throwing pellers up in the air,ooops sorry they fucking did,bluemoon fucking hell.

102 PL goals including many belters. Not one made their 'best goals of the season' section.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

Quite so. it's what's called an agenda and it's unfair and corrupt. You have to be either blind or stupid not understand that too.

I must be stupid (I'm not blind) because I don't understand why its unfair and corrupt for Sky to promote its service so as to maximise its
audience.

I assume George thinks it is unfair because he is under the impression that advertising coverage of upcoming games, and bigging up and praising of football teams should be in a direct correlation to on the field success and league table position- at the end of the previous season and during the current season. Well that is not how it works. If you believe that should be the case and sports media coverage should be impartial and without prejudice then it would be unfair, but a slant in perception and criticism is always going to be the case when ex players are employed as pundits. The alternative is that you employ people with serious journalistic integrity in a field that they don't want to work in and turn off a predominately working class audience primarily interested in entertainment rather than being informed.

On the issue of corruption, yes of course they are part of the Murdoch empire and until recently operated a virtual monopoly on live football broadcasts. You don't get into that position being whiter than white.

 

[Cellarite]

Just read something about pubs currently having to decide whether to renew their Sky subscription this season. It's £15k for the season but some pubs aren't taking it or renewing because they think it puts off the more lucrative restaurant trade if they're showing football.

Seems that pub licences are worth over £300m a year to Sky and the two biggest draws are the rags and Liverpool (and I suspect that applies to the domestic audience as well). So it's clearly in Sky's commercial interest to talk those two up and us down. Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind or stupid.

Quite so. it's what's called an agenda and it's unfair and corrupt. You have to be either blind or stupid not understand that too.

I must be stupid (I'm not blind) because I don't understand why its unfair and corrupt for Sky to promote its service so as to maximise its
audience.

Because as a broadcaster, it is their job to report on the league as a whole and promote the entire league. It is not their job to select their favourites and promote the over the other 18 clubs. As a major financial backer of the league, it could be seen as corrupt if they spoke more highly and showed more games (therefore handed over more money) of their favourite clubs with the sole intention of assisting their own profits.