British Cycling and Sky
SteppenHerring
Posts: 720
Does it bother anyone else that, having taken over British newspapers, sports broadcasting and basically having a stranglehold on UK politics, Murdoch is now taking over our pro cycling?
0
Comments
-
Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.0
-
As long as they put the money up for a strong team and it further raises the profile of the sport, I'm happy...0
-
Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
Clearly it depends who you talk to."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
are you sure? do you want cycling to go the way of the premier league? do you want sky to monopolise the broadcasting of cycling events? do you want to have to pay to view cycling websites?
ive no doubt thats what dear old rupert would like'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Why would he do that? What's the point of advertising your services exclusively to existing customers?
The whole purpose of the team is to grow the Sky brand in Italy, where it is the new kid on the block."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
That's not the 'whole' purpose at all.-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
phil s wrote:That's not the 'whole' purpose at all.
It is from Sky's point of view."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
There's no point in sponsoring a team and then making sure that only your existing customers see that sponsorship. If you want TV rights then you go and buy the TV rights. If you want to get your logo seen by lots of people then you go and sponsor a team. You don't do both at the same time, as it would be a total waste of money.0
-
Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
Indeed. It's team sponsorship not TV rights so a different kettle of fish to the footy situation. There was, however, a slightly sticky situation a few seasons back where now-defunct cable TV firm NTL not only had a hand in football broadcasting but also sponsored Newcastle United amongst other teams, which raised a few eyebrows and I've a feeling that legislation may have been subsequently tweaked.
Mind you, I did chuckle at Murdoch's son James's recent comments re. the BBC, which he felt had too much of a monopoly on UK journalism. People who live in glass houses.....
David
P.S. Is it just me or do an awful lot of football clubs seem to have online bookies as sponsors these days? Now that's something that maybe ought to be looked at - surely the sponsor has too strong a vested interest in the outcome of the team's fixtures?"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Why would he do that? What's the point of advertising your services exclusively to existing customers?
The whole purpose of the team is to grow the Sky brand in Italy, where it is the new kid on the block.
ive got some magic beans-do you want to buy them?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
fast as fupp wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Why would he do that? What's the point of advertising your services exclusively to existing customers?
The whole purpose of the team is to grow the Sky brand in Italy, where it is the new kid on the block.
ive got some magic beans-do you want to buy them?
I gave you a reasoned disagreement to your opinion, you said something about beans.
Why do you think Sky (which murdoch now hold a minority of) will want to buy up all cycling coverage, and (should they do this), what would be the purpose of them sponsoring a team? Will race organisers gain nothing from getting more for their TV rights, even if this is the case?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
i think that the initial sponsorship will be the thin end of the wedge- murdoch/sky are not altruists you know-look what theyve done to football as an example.'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
fast as fupp wrote:i think that the initial sponsorship will be the thin end of the wedge- murdoch/sky are not altruists you know-look what theyve done to football as an example.
That may be but AFAIK, the way ASO operated the tour (for example) needs to be on free to air channels.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
fast as fupp wrote:i think that the initial sponsorship will be the thin end of the wedge- murdoch/sky are not altruists you know-look what theyve done to football as an example.
If it is the thin end of the wedge, then it's the wrong wedge. Why would they not buy some TV rights, if this was the case? I repeat, ther eis no point advertising your product exclusively to people who already buy your product.
I am under no illusions that Sky want something out of the deal. They want publicity, on the continent particularly (as there's sod all to be had in the UK through cycling). Likewise, football ruined football through a top heavy structure of distributing TV money. Sky, i'll give you, did bring in 1200 kick offs and a stupid tribal view of what being a fan is.
However, they saved Rugby League as a professional sport in this country, it has gone from strength to strength since becoming a summer sport (at skys behest), and retained and nurtured it's reputation as a family sport."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
are you sure? do you want cycling to go the way of the premier league? do you want sky to monopolise the broadcasting of cycling events? do you want to have to pay to view cycling websites?
ive no doubt thats what dear old rupert would like
I'd love cycling to go the way of the Premiership - especially if SKY were the Man U of cycling and won everything!
As for SKY monopolizing all cycling events - personally I don't care as I subscribe to SKY. Plus things like the Tour have to be shown free to air.
Pay to view cycling websites? It's not porn. It's cycling - and there will ALWAYS be free websites to discuss cycling or view stories, etc.
Some people obviously have an axe to grind with Murdoch. Personally I don't think he actually has all that much say in the day to day decision making of things like SKY. And certainly not on the cycling team. More money in cycling is a good thing, no matter where it comes from.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:fast as fupp wrote:i think that the initial sponsorship will be the thin end of the wedge- murdoch/sky are not altruists you know-look what theyve done to football as an example.
If it is the thin end of the wedge, then it's the wrong wedge. Why would they not buy some TV rights, if this was the case? I repeat, ther eis no point advertising your product exclusively to people who already buy your product.
I am under no illusions that Sky want something out of the deal. They want publicity, on the continent particularly (as there's sod all to be had in the UK through cycling). Likewise, football ruined football through a top heavy structure of distributing TV money. Sky, i'll give you, did bring in 1200 kick offs and a stupid tribal view of what being a fan is.
However, they saved Rugby League as a professional sport in this country, it has gone from strength to strength since becoming a summer sport (at skys behest), and retained and nurtured it's reputation as a family sport.
i think widnes fans may disagree with your views on RL!'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Pokerface wrote:fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
are you sure? do you want cycling to go the way of the premier league? do you want sky to monopolise the broadcasting of cycling events? do you want to have to pay to view cycling websites?
ive no doubt thats what dear old rupert would like
I'd love cycling to go the way of the Premiership - especially if SKY were the Man U of cycling and won everything!
As for SKY monopolizing all cycling events - personally I don't care as I subscribe to SKY. Plus things like the Tour have to be shown free to air.
Pay to view cycling websites? It's not porn. It's cycling - and there will ALWAYS be free websites to discuss cycling or view stories, etc.
Some people obviously have an axe to grind with Murdoch. Personally I don't think he actually has all that much say in the day to day decision making of things like SKY. And certainly not on the cycling team. More money in cycling is a good thing, no matter where it comes from.
what a refreshingly innocent viewpoint! do you want the beans?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
Being a Wire, i'm sure they'd disagree with me on a lot of things.
Widnes were in SUperleague were they not? Then they got relegated, then blew about 5 chances to get back into superleague through the National League playoffs. Then the RFL (stupidly in my opinion) picked Celtic Crusaders ahead of them for expansion last year. Nothing to do with Sky. Two factor isn Widnes current predicament 1) Widnes were rubbish, then bottled a load of playoffs 2) The RFL wanted to grow the game in Wales.
The fact that they can still run a profitable business below the top level though and get the corwds in speaks for the games strength though, surely?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Being a Wire, i'm sure they'd disagree with me on a lot of things.
Widnes were in SUperleague were they not? Then they got relegated, then blew about 5 chances to get back into superleague through the National League playoffs. Then the RFL (stupidly in my opinion) picked Celtic Crusaders ahead of them for expansion last year. Nothing to do with Sky. Two factor isn Widnes current predicament 1) Widnes were rubbish, then bottled a load of playoffs 2) The RFL wanted to grow the game in Wales.
The fact that they can still run a profitable business below the top level though and get the corwds in speaks for the games strength though, surely?
perhaps you could tell that to my widnes supporting mate who thinks everyone has got it in for them.
as youre fairly local you perhaps will understand why people in my neck of the woods dont trust murdoch?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
fast as fupp wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Being a Wire, i'm sure they'd disagree with me on a lot of things.
Widnes were in SUperleague were they not? Then they got relegated, then blew about 5 chances to get back into superleague through the National League playoffs. Then the RFL (stupidly in my opinion) picked Celtic Crusaders ahead of them for expansion last year. Nothing to do with Sky. Two factor isn Widnes current predicament 1) Widnes were rubbish, then bottled a load of playoffs 2) The RFL wanted to grow the game in Wales.
The fact that they can still run a profitable business below the top level though and get the corwds in speaks for the games strength though, surely?
perhaps you could tell that to my widnes supporting mate who thinks everyone has got it in for them.
as youre fairly local you perhaps will understand why people in my neck of the woods dont trust murdoch?
I assume it's something to with the Sun's rather "creative" take on Hillsborough. Fair point.
As for your mate, I think every fan of every club thinks everyone has got it in for them. Incidentally, I like what Widnes are doing at the moment, good cup win with two of our YOungsters on loan and I think that when Celtic go belly up, as they surely will, the Chemics are the logical choice."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
are you sure? do you want cycling to go the way of the premier league? do you want sky to monopolise the broadcasting of cycling events? do you want to have to pay to view cycling websites?
ive no doubt thats what dear old rupert would like
I'd love cycling to go the way of the Premiership - especially if SKY were the Man U of cycling and won everything!
As for SKY monopolizing all cycling events - personally I don't care as I subscribe to SKY. Plus things like the Tour have to be shown free to air.
Pay to view cycling websites? It's not porn. It's cycling - and there will ALWAYS be free websites to discuss cycling or view stories, etc.
Some people obviously have an axe to grind with Murdoch. Personally I don't think he actually has all that much say in the day to day decision making of things like SKY. And certainly not on the cycling team. More money in cycling is a good thing, no matter where it comes from.
what a refreshingly innocent viewpoint! do you want the beans?
So the sum total of your argument seems to be "magic beans", "premiership" and "rugby league"?
I still don't see what the problem with SKY/Murdoch is?
Care to elaborate with actual sensical comments?0 -
Pokerface wrote:fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:Nope. You're pretty much alone on this one.
are you sure? do you want cycling to go the way of the premier league? do you want sky to monopolise the broadcasting of cycling events? do you want to have to pay to view cycling websites?
ive no doubt thats what dear old rupert would like
I'd love cycling to go the way of the Premiership - especially if SKY were the Man U of cycling and won everything!
As for SKY monopolizing all cycling events - personally I don't care as I subscribe to SKY. Plus things like the Tour have to be shown free to air.
Pay to view cycling websites? It's not porn. It's cycling - and there will ALWAYS be free websites to discuss cycling or view stories, etc.
Some people obviously have an axe to grind with Murdoch. Personally I don't think he actually has all that much say in the day to day decision making of things like SKY. And certainly not on the cycling team. More money in cycling is a good thing, no matter where it comes from.
what a refreshingly innocent viewpoint! do you want the beans?
So the sum total of your argument seems to be "magic beans", "premiership" and "rugby league"?
I still don't see what the problem with SKY/Murdoch is?
Care to elaborate with actual sensical comments?
its politics lad i dont like right wing lying capitalist gobshites like murdoch
now do you want those beans?
'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
fast as fupp wrote:Pokerface wrote:
I still don't see what the problem with SKY/Murdoch is?
Care to elaborate with actual sensical comments?
its politics lad i dont like right wing lying capitalist gobshites like murdoch
now do you want those beans?
It's not politics. It's BUSINESS.
And I'll gladly take those beans.0
