Sky lose court case ruling over footy games in pubs [POLL]

[York Ham(mer)]

It's not the ruling of the court. It's the legal advice to the court by their legal bod, the advocate general.

[shammy]

Yes, someone made the point earlier in this thread that the clubs have made nothing out of Skys Brand Premiership. West Ham (and many many other clubs) have never been in as much debt. As for us, the poor old fans, we have never paid more for tickets, matches are often played at innapropriate times and we remain basically at the whim of Sky TV. The only people who have done well are the players and their agents, earning far more than is reasonable. The whole thing is a disgrace and we should demand the end of this monopoly.

[Up the Junction]

A wee poll now added....

[Hampshire Hammer]

A wee poll now added....

For balance should you have also added the following options?

- Subscribe to ESPN
- Subscribe to dodgy foreign satellite channel

:lol:

[Upton Larks]

Yes, someone made the point earlier in this thread that the clubs have made nothing out of Skys Brand Premiership. West Ham (and many many other clubs) have never been in as much debt. As for us, the poor old fans, we have never paid more for tickets, matches are often played at innapropriate times and we remain basically at the whim of Sky TV. The only people who have done well are the players and their agents, earning far more than is reasonable. The whole thing is a disgrace and we should demand the end of this monopoly.

The increased money in football has never really gone into the club coffers, or to the benefit of fans, it has gone almost entirely on exagerated player wages that have grown disporoportionately. Clubs have attemtped to keep up with the Jones' and inflated player wages and ****ed out transfer fees without the income to achieve that. It is a mirror of the UK economy over the past 25years, where increase in profit and revenue has gone on executive pay and a bonus culture, rather than on greater productivity or benefit to the nation. The average Joe believes he should be having a greater standard of living, so has borrowed and become indebted to achieve that. For Average Joe in the nation at large read Portsmouth or Leeds in football.

[uptonparkhurst]

I don't give a monkey's about any other team but West Ham, even if they're on a free stream.
Usually we are only on SKY when we are cannon-fodder for the "big" clubs, so I'm not going to fork out for any package where
95% of the content is of no interest to me at all. Fans of the "big" clubs, on the other hand, get to see their team play regularly.
"Packages" are just a way of making you pay extra for a bundle of junk you don't want in order to get the one thing you do want.

However I would gladly blow the moths out of the wallet to pay for a subscription to "West Ham" TV even if it only showed the
away games ( and hopefully the youth team games).

[Wembley1966]

This actually won't make much difference to the Sky money clubs receive IMHO.

This only affects the Sky Commercial Cards which are based on the rateable values of the clubs/pubs that take Sky and many are dropping out in favour of Foreign systems or not showing Sky at all due to the high charges.

I think it applies to all cards and could make Sky more money. There's a huge UK expat community out there in Europe that want Sky and either register the viewing card with friends back in the UK or buy through third-parties abroad. If it is legitamised then they will get many more subscribers in Europe.

[Denbighammer]

Being as we've hung our hat on SKY money over the next 4/5 years and beyond I think people celebrating is a little short sighted.

The clubs that are going to be able to afford to make up the difference are the clubs with the rich benefactors.

The 'free market' that may occur if the current TV deal expires might see clubs selling their own packages of TV rights would spell absolute disaster for clubs as small as West Ham and even more for teams in the lower leagues.

It would be ideal for people like me, cant afford to go to matches and a 500mile round trip away but would surely encourage people who would normally go and live fairly local to not actually go anymore, reducing atmosphere in the ground and revenues for the clubs?

[beckton]

It would be ideal for people like me, cant afford to go to matches and a 500mile round trip away but would surely encourage people who would normally go and live fairly local to not actually go anymore, reducing atmosphere in the ground and revenues for the clubs?

And the likes of Barry Hearn really would have something to moan about if Spurs, West Ham and Arsenal games were being broadcast live at 3pm.

[Concerned of Canvey]

[quote="Wembley1966 I think it applies to all cards and could make Sky more money. There's a huge UK expat community out there in Europe that want Sky and either register the viewing card with friends back in the UK or buy through third-parties abroad. If it is legitamised then they will get many more subscribers in Europe.[/quote]

No this purely relates to clubs and pubs in the UK using EU decoders and cards.

This is perfectly legal for domestic users and anyone in the UK can do it if you want to, Sky Italia for example even have English commentators. You can get EU packages showing more Premier League football including 3:00 kick-offs and that is legal.

The illegal bit as far as Sky and the Premier League have been arguing is when these systems are used publically in pubs/clubs etc.in the UK and this is what has been challenged.

Showing 3:00 games in pubs/clubs contraveens a seperate Premier League 'Black-out' rule and would probably still be prosecutable if the European Court accepts this ruling.

[Trap1]

Todays ruling serves Sky right for the bullying way in which they protect there dominant position.

The reality is that foreign tv channels showing EPL football does very little by way of damaging Sky's income. It is unlikely that this ruling will change that.

Pub owners that have invested in foreign satellite tv do so because they

a. Want 3pm Saturday football

b. Cheaper rates

Those who solely buy because of option a often keep sky on top of it so that they can broadcast other sports like six nations rugby and international cricket. Those who go for option b or both make a very small percentage and do little to damage Sky's income.

Residential customers are unlikely to follow suit because the costs are prohibitive. The prices often range from £800 upwards, Sky Italia costing £1500. All you get of any use is live football, and most of us will agree that it isn't going to excite the missus or kids!!

Sky should have let the status quo continue rather than try and crush the small pub small owner. They aren't losing out because of this, look how profitable this ruling will work out for them when it comes to Sky dishes in Spain.

The announcment today gives the consumer choice and will help reduce the cost of subscription sports packages for our beleagured pubs who Sky have been taking the piss out of for years. The EU ruling will not affect attendances but does send out a signal to the television industry that the union is about free trade not convenient closed doors for the purpose of milking the customer.

[James P]

The illegal bit as far as Sky and the Premier League have been arguing is when these systems are used publically in pubs/clubs etc.in the UK and this is what has been challenged.

Showing 3:00 games in pubs/clubs contraveens a seperate Premier League 'Black-out' rule and would probably still be prosecutable if the European Court accepts this ruling.

Whilst this makes sense, I thought the whole reason pubs and clubs were being so brazen in their advertising of Prem football through foreign feeds was because of the Hampshire test case meaning no prosecutions could be brought until it was resolved.

If the 3pm blackout rule wasn't being contested, and would remain in place even if Sky lost the test case, why aren't pubs being prosecuted for breaking it?

[Jackanakanory]

How does one go about getting on of these satellite systems for their own home?

The ones that show the footie on the Saturday..cos lets face it the streams are not the best quality.

[carnage]

The poll is flawed.

When I watch football at home I watch it on Skysports, but I dont subscribe to Skysports for football. The inference in the poll is that if you subscribe to Sjysports its to watch football on it at home.

[carnage]

Sky will just change their pricing for pubs, which at the moment is rediculous. It is based on rateable value and they knew they could charge it It will not eat in to their income, they will just pass it on to the home subscriber.

[Trap1]

How does one go about getting on of these satellite systems for their own home?

The ones that show the footie on the Saturday..cos lets face it the streams are not the best quality.

Without knowing your personal circumstances (ie what the family watch), I would say its a total waste of money. I give Sky £600 a year in subs which includes everything. If you want a foreign sattellite football provider you gonna need a dish about £50, a decoder about £100 but most of all a subscription which will take you over the cost of having Sky in the first place.

Examples

Sky Italia £1500

Nova £800

Sky Germany £900

BulgariaSat (can't remember the exact name) £350

Tring is the cheapest at £250 but you can expect to pay more for dish and decoder and cam.

Stick to the Net mate, if your laptop has a HDMi cable port then you're going to get a better experience.

[PrawnSandwich]

I don't give a monkey's about any other team but West Ham, even if they're on a free stream.
Usually we are only on SKY when we are cannon-fodder for the "big" clubs, so I'm not going to fork out for any package where
95% of the content is of no interest to me at all. Fans of the "big" clubs, on the other hand, get to see their team play regularly.
"Packages" are just a way of making you pay extra for a bundle of junk you don't want in order to get the one thing you do want.

However I would gladly blow the moths out of the wallet to pay for a subscription to "West Ham" TV even if it only showed the
away games ( and hopefully the youth team games).

This.
I'll go down the pub or watch it on a stream but I won't subscribe to something that doesn't cater for what I'm interested in.
Watch some champions league matches when they are on ITV or what have you and the thing that pisses me off is this 'fans of the Premier League' bull**** that means I am supposed to root for the Gooners or what have you.
I am not a fan of the 'Premier League', I'm a fan of West Ham, regardless of the league they are in and I'll try to watch them whether it's in the ground (rarely due to distance), on a big shiny screen in the pub (not often) or a home on a jerky stream (regularly) because that's what's on offer to support my team.

[Concerned of Canvey]

Whilst this makes sense, I thought the whole reason pubs and clubs were being so brazen in their advertising of Prem football through foreign feeds was because of the Hampshire test case meaning no prosecutions could be brought until it was resolved.

If the 3pm blackout rule wasn't being contested, and would remain in place even if Sky lost the test case, why aren't pubs being prosecuted for breaking it?

Pubs are being prosecuted for showing 3:00 kick-offs but there are so many places breaking the rules (Eu systems, Non EU systems, Domestic systems and 3:00 kick-offs) as far as Sky are concerned they don't have enough people to enforce it accross the country.

Sky are turning a blind eye to EU Sysems only whilst this is going on although they still publicly state that is illegal and they have the money and legal team to bully most landlords into accepting it as the law.

I am familiar with a few venues that have kept Sky and have a EU system so they can show 3:00 games as well but they don't advertise it externally as it is asking for trouble and Sky as a rule won't raid an existing customer.

[QuintonNimoy]

Being as we've hung our hat on SKY money over the next 4/5 years and beyond I think people celebrating is a little short sighted.

If only someone would murder the entire Murdoch family we could give our money to Sky with a clear conscience.

[Trap1]

If only someone would murder the entire Murdoch family we could give our money to Sky with a clear conscience.

Better still, Jeremy **** could make a sensible ruling on the BSKYB/News Corp case.