I can't wait to see the next instalment in the bitter rivalry between Huddersfield and Nottingham Forest. Only 70 miles and two whole counties separate these great rivals.
Huddersfield are the home team. I think these teams have been picked, as none of them will be in the 3rd round of the Capital one Cup which takes place that week.
Huddersfield are the home team. I think these teams have been picked, as none of them will be in the 3rd round of the Capital one Cup which takes place that week.
Does that mean that we will not be on Sky until the semi-finals:-)
I can't wait to see the next instalment in the bitter rivalry between Huddersfield and Nottingham Forest. Only 70 miles and two whole counties separate these great rivals.
To be fair, I think their league position probably has some bearing on things - who could fail to be excited by 11th Vs 20th? (Yes, I know that may not be their league positions come the time, but they've announced these games now...)
Huddersfield are the home team. I think these teams have been picked, as none of them will be in the 3rd round of the Capital one Cup which takes place that week.
So they couldn't wait until Thursday to see if more teams were "available" for those two slots?
Sky pick their games based on what brings in the most viewing figures. Leeds and Forest both have a massive fan base so will attract viewers no matter where they are in the table. Let's face it, not many people in the country are going to want to watch Charlton vs Brentford so we get picked less. Simple as that.
If Sky had their way I'm sure they'd love to show Leeds every week.
As an example, I'd like to see each club shown at least once every 20 matches shown and no club should be broadcast more than three times within the same period.
The only rule that they have it that every team is shown at least once throughout the season.
I know that all of the teams being shown are not always at home, so they are not always getting TV money. But some teams will be getting an extra £500k compared to us this season. Very unfair.
I am happy to watch East Stirlingshire verses Alloa Athletic on Alba, if it is a decent game, a decent contest, that is what matters. Actually I am bored by the prospect of watching Arsenal v Liverpool for the umpteenth time. Anybody remember Danny Baker doing a series on Sunday League football? It included the 'Dick Coppock Cup' as well as the league. Loved that series.
Sky pick their games based on what brings in the most viewing figures. Leeds and Forest both have a massive fan base so will attract viewers no matter where they are in the table. Let's face it, not many people in the country are going to want to watch Charlton vs Brentford so we get picked less. Simple as that.
If Sky had their way I'm sure they'd love to show Leeds every week.
Not according to their reply to my e-mails (see earlier in the thread), quite the opposite, they claim (falsely) that they show the most successful teams.
Even if it were there are a few counter arguments, for example, in their solitary season in the Championship Yeovil were on 4 times, we have been on four times in three years and eight months (and counting). No one is going to convince me that Yeovil are a bigger crowd puller than Charlton.
How do they know what kind of figures they can get when we are on so little?
They could show us when we play Leeds, Forest, Derby or any of their other little favourites, if they are so sure that those clubs pull in the punters and we don't. That makes it fairer on us and means they get the viewers they need.
It's a bias against southern teams in general and us in particular.
Sky pick their games based on what brings in the most viewing figures. Leeds and Forest both have a massive fan base so will attract viewers no matter where they are in the table. Let's face it, not many people in the country are going to want to watch Charlton vs Brentford so we get picked less. Simple as that.
If Sky had their way I'm sure they'd love to show Leeds every week.
Not according to their reply to my e-mails (see earlier in the thread), quite the opposite, they claim (falsely) that they show the most successful teams.
Even if it were there are a few counter arguments, for example, in their solitary season in the Championship Yeovil were on 4 times, we have been on four times in three years and eight months (and counting). No one is going to convince me that Yeovil are a bigger crowd puller than Charlton.
How do they know what kind of figures they can get when we are on so little?
They could show us when we play Leeds, Forest, Derby or any of their other little favourites, if they are so sure that those clubs pull in the punters and we don't. That makes it fairer on us and means they get the viewers they need.
It's a bias against southern teams in general and us in particular.
Do you know who Yeovil were playing in those 4 games? I know for a fact that one of them was Leeds. Would be interested to know.
Latest e-mail to Sky, for the two of you who are interested...
Hello, me again,
I see you have added more games to the schedule – all four teams from north of Watford gap again, Derby and Forest’s 6th appearance, Burnley’s 5th and even Huddersfield get a 3rd appearance, meanwhile, down south MK, Reading, Bristol, Brighton, Brentford and Charlton, four between them.
And obviously still no game whatsoever for the latter two teams, even though Charlton have had a great start to the season, we are still being ignored.
It’s a joke to carry on telling us there’s no bias.
I am happy to watch East Stirlingshire verses Alloa Athletic on Alba, if it is a decent game, a decent contest, that is what matters. Actually I am bored by the prospect of watching Arsenal v Liverpool for the umpteenth time. Anybody remember Danny Baker doing a series on Sunday League football? It included the 'Dick Coppock Cup' as well as the league. Loved that series.
I think my old man had that on DVD! I'll have to find it, it was brilliant.
Latest e-mail to Sky, for the two of you who are interested...
Hello, me again,
I see you have added more games to the schedule – all four teams from north of Watford gap again, Derby and Forest’s 6th appearance, Burnley’s 5th and even Huddersfield get a 3rd appearance, meanwhile, down south MK, Reading, Bristol, Brighton, Brentford and Charlton, four between them.
And obviously still no game whatsoever for the latter two teams, even though Charlton have had a great start to the season, we are still being ignored.
It’s a joke to carry on telling us there’s no bias.
I've sent a mail to my contact, I'll see if we can find someone at the heart of this thing. Viewer Relations can't do much about it!
Thanks Seth. Up and down - I'm doing fine but the other half is struggling at night mostly. She had to stay at parents' to cheer her up. Hopefully a new door will help and they arrested someone last week so that's a start....
I know I have presented my views regarding SKY in pretty harsh terms, and you are closer to the heart of it than I am. Are we all being a touch paranoid to interpret SKY's position regarding us as quite deliberately antagonistic? The structure of the argument, and the evidence seems absolutely rock solid, if SKY simply work on viewing figures then it is a bit absurd. ITV rely on the advertising/viewing figures ratio to run their business, but SKY are much less dependent on viewing figures/advertising because SKY is fuelled by subscriptions. In the context of what I have written surely editorial decisions regarding football come from another place, as in what is an intriguing game, an overview of the whole competition(s), fairness to the spirit of the football/TV contract, responding to the importance of any individual game, or reflecting the more successful teams who have a chance of being in the SKY premiership. I have written in to SKY, used the customer relations route, and received no response whatsoever. I conclude that SKY as a business, or perhaps more accurately certain individuals within that business, hold Charlton and some others in contempt. What I would like most of all is not to be directed to the abyss of customer relations/cut and paste responses, but to access the individual people, by name and email, who make those decisions. Not to abuse them, certainly not, but to make a case, shame them, call them out as so called decent practitioners, show them up to being corrupt, and humiliate them with humour at their expense. I would also like to see a sustained campaign in whatever media exists, or phone ins, or other routes, to expose SKY for their bias and I think possible or potential corruption. Who is to say that those who choose which matches are televised are beyond the odd backhander from those clubs chosen who themselves gain some kind of financial benefit? I mean it is pathetic of me to turn down the SKY frontliners in Lewisham shopping centre who want to persuade me to subscribe, and I refuse to engage and moan to them about SKY's football coverage. I would really like to get right under the skin of the movers and shakers at SKY.
First up, you're not / we're not alone. There are plenty of clubs who feel undervalued. Last week I overheard a guy in Sports complain that Palace weren't on TV enough while I was in this thread! Most clubs outside of the top six feel under-appreciated by Sky.
I don't know enough about the process, but I know that when we presented the figures to the decision-makers before, and showed that their assumption that choosing Charlton wouldn't help viewing figures was completely wrong, they paid attention and did something about it.
My belief is that there is no conspiracy, just a misguided belief. I'd prefer say more after I've had a chat with people in the know. Pretty sure I can at least find out who they are...
Commercial TV, including Sky, gain revenue from showing adverts.
The higher the viewing figures, the more they can charge for adverts.
A Leeds game, will undoubtedly, nearly always, have more viewers, than a Charlton game.
I can only see this changing, if we are challenging for a play off place & Leeds are mid/lower table, with nothing much to play for.
It's plain as day, why Leeds are shown continually. It also follows, that other clubs, that are bigger than us or have recently been in The Prem, should also attract higher viewing figures.
So yes, Leeds, Notts Forest, Wolves, Derby, Sheff W, Burnley, QPR, Hull, Cardiff, Fulham, Middelsbro, possibly Brighton, should all get better viewing figures.
However, we are as attractive as the other 12, so yes we should have been scheduled for a few games.
Comments
Unfortunately it'll also be a match where if we lose 19-0 we'll get relegated and yes, because we'll in front of the cameras we'll manage it
even if we did manage to secure a slot, Sky would list our team as follows:
GK Mick Pope-had a good run in the team since deputising for Jordan Henderson
RB Chris Dolly-diminutive full back standing 5ft 3"
Pat Bowyer-German brother of former Charlton favourite, Lee
Alvin Diarra-Worthington Cup winning centre back from Canvey Island
Morgan Fox-product of West Ham's World Cup winning academy
Johan Berg Torgessen-good at free kicks and likes penguin sandwiches
Conrad Kashi-went from playing a Bond villain to playing professional football
Jordan Cousins-product of West Ham's infamous World Cup winning academy
Sergio Sanchez-made his debut against Dagenham & Redbridge and we can't be bothered to acknowledge our cock up or change it
Tony Watt-Irish genius noted for scoring a winning goal in the Champions League against Real Madrid
Simon Makienok-giant Dane stands 7ft 6" and rooms with Chris Dolly at away games
Manager-Guy Lozen-madcap Iranian who has been sent off 15 times this season already
If Sky had their way I'm sure they'd love to show Leeds every week.
As an example, I'd like to see each club shown at least once every 20 matches shown and no club should be broadcast more than three times within the same period.
I know that all of the teams being shown are not always at home, so they are not always getting TV money. But some teams will be getting an extra £500k compared to us this season. Very unfair.
Actually I am bored by the prospect of watching Arsenal v Liverpool for the umpteenth time.
Anybody remember Danny Baker doing a series on Sunday League football? It included the 'Dick Coppock Cup' as well as the league.
Loved that series.
Even if it were there are a few counter arguments, for example, in their solitary season in the Championship Yeovil were on 4 times, we have been on four times in three years and eight months (and counting). No one is going to convince me that Yeovil are a bigger crowd puller than Charlton.
How do they know what kind of figures they can get when we are on so little?
They could show us when we play Leeds, Forest, Derby or any of their other little favourites, if they are so sure that those clubs pull in the punters and we don't. That makes it fairer on us and means they get the viewers they need.
It's a bias against southern teams in general and us in particular.
I know for a fact another one of them was Brighton, BTW.
Hello, me again,
I see you have added more games to the schedule – all four teams from north of Watford gap again, Derby and Forest’s 6th appearance, Burnley’s 5th and even Huddersfield get a 3rd appearance, meanwhile, down south MK, Reading, Bristol, Brighton, Brentford and Charlton, four between them.
And obviously still no game whatsoever for the latter two teams, even though Charlton have had a great start to the season, we are still being ignored.
It’s a joke to carry on telling us there’s no bias.
I hope things are sound with you domestically after your bit of bother.
I know I have presented my views regarding SKY in pretty harsh terms, and you are closer to the heart of it than I am. Are we all being a touch paranoid to interpret SKY's position regarding us as quite deliberately antagonistic?
The structure of the argument, and the evidence seems absolutely rock solid, if SKY simply work on viewing figures then it is a bit absurd. ITV rely on the advertising/viewing figures ratio to run their business, but SKY are much less dependent on viewing figures/advertising because SKY is fuelled by subscriptions.
In the context of what I have written surely editorial decisions regarding football come from another place, as in what is an intriguing game, an overview of the whole competition(s), fairness to the spirit of the football/TV contract, responding to the importance of any individual game, or reflecting the more successful teams who have a chance of being in the SKY premiership.
I have written in to SKY, used the customer relations route, and received no response whatsoever. I conclude that SKY as a business, or perhaps more accurately certain individuals within that business, hold Charlton and some others in contempt.
What I would like most of all is not to be directed to the abyss of customer relations/cut and paste responses, but to access the individual people, by name and email, who make those decisions. Not to abuse them, certainly not, but to make a case, shame them, call them out as so called decent practitioners, show them up to being corrupt, and humiliate them with humour at their expense.
I would also like to see a sustained campaign in whatever media exists, or phone ins, or other routes, to expose SKY for their bias and I think possible or potential corruption.
Who is to say that those who choose which matches are televised are beyond the odd backhander from those clubs chosen who themselves gain some kind of financial benefit?
I mean it is pathetic of me to turn down the SKY frontliners in Lewisham shopping centre who want to persuade me to subscribe, and I refuse to engage and moan to them about SKY's football coverage. I would really like to get right under the skin of the movers and shakers at SKY.
I don't know enough about the process, but I know that when we presented the figures to the decision-makers before, and showed that their assumption that choosing Charlton wouldn't help viewing figures was completely wrong, they paid attention and did something about it.
My belief is that there is no conspiracy, just a misguided belief. I'd prefer say more after I've had a chat with people in the know. Pretty sure I can at least find out who they are...
The higher the viewing figures, the more they can charge for adverts.
A Leeds game, will undoubtedly, nearly always, have more viewers, than a Charlton game.
I can only see this changing, if we are challenging for a play off place & Leeds are mid/lower table, with nothing much to play for.
It's plain as day, why Leeds are shown continually. It also follows, that other clubs, that are bigger than us or have recently been in The Prem, should also attract higher viewing figures.
So yes, Leeds, Notts Forest, Wolves, Derby, Sheff W, Burnley, QPR, Hull, Cardiff, Fulham, Middelsbro, possibly Brighton, should all get better viewing figures.
However, we are as attractive as the other 12, so yes we should have been scheduled for a few games.
QPR on Friday 30th october @ 7:45pm
Still nothing for us....