Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
The Mail Bag

When Sky get the boot

Comments (31)

After all the goings-on across the park, it got me to thinking about the fabled billionaire owner everyone dreams about!

Keith Harris maintains no-one is seriously interested in Everton, and also says most of the recent takeovers have been out of necessity rather than choice, eg Portsmouth, West Ham, Liverpool. In other words, there are no more billionaires willing to invest; the City deal and Chelsea were one-offs... (that sounds like a contradiction as soon as I said it!)

Anyway, you can understand what he means... but I actually think he's wrong! The time can't be far away when the Premier League clubs, refuse the Sky TV money to generate their own TV revenue. Now I haven't got any figures (and I would be grateful if someone could enlighten me) to back any of this up, but surely it's quite simple maths: if say Everton reach the FA Cup Final or even the semis, what would be the viewing figures?

I believe the cup final is watched world wide, with an audience of say 350 million; if the cost was £5 pound per head, to view it live, the money to be split between the two clubs would be astronomical. Maybe the viewing cost might only be a pound, it would still mean we received somewhere in the region of 175 million for one game. What would Davey do with that?

So, the fabled billionaires out there must be aware of this; I believe it will happen in the next ten years. The money won't go out of football... it's waiting to come in!


Robert Daniels, Liverpool     Posted 09/10/2010 at 10:02:33

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Eric Myles
1   Posted 09/10/2010 at 15:11:33

Report abuse

That's why clubs are starting their own TV progamming, they're looking to the future when they can induvidually sell rights tyo Sky or whoever, or sell direct themselves.
Fran Mitchell
2   Posted 09/10/2010 at 15:13:06

Report abuse

I usually watch the cup final. If I get charged a quid to do so, unless Eveton are involved, I will find something else to do that afternoon. Along with many of those 350 million you talk about, also, what impact will this have on sponsorship if viewing figures are down?

Oh, and by the way, you're waiting for Rupert Murdoch to be given his marching orders, in this country... that does make me chuckle.
Brian Keating
3   Posted 09/10/2010 at 15:17:45

Report abuse

Football clubs doing their own TV deals is what's killed Italian football.

No one goes to the games anymore and only the top 4-5 club pull in any money. It would be a disaster for Everton.
Fran Mitchell
4   Posted 09/10/2010 at 15:32:10

Report abuse

indeed Brian, who would pay to watch Everton unless you're an Everton fan? And the current dross were playing, I wouldn't pay to watch that either.

Also, viewing figures: you plan to charge 5 quid a head, even in Asia, Africa and South America. A family of 5 need to pay 25 quid (sterling, change that to the local currency and you taking about a hefty fee which most can't afford) to watch.

Economics is not so black and white.
Eric Myles
5   Posted 09/10/2010 at 15:40:48

Report abuse

Fran #4, I don't think that they can yet tell how many people are watching a single telly yet, so it doesn't matter if it's a family of 5 or 100 watching, they'll still only get a single subscription. Also in 'poorer' countries they would charge cheaper fees, just like they do now.
Trevor Lynes
6   Posted 09/10/2010 at 17:23:18

Report abuse

It seems we are not viewed as a good investment by the moneymen... I see that Sheffield Wednesday have unearthed an interested party. God knows, everybody else seems to have a des.res except us!!
Robert Johnson
7   Posted 09/10/2010 at 17:58:03

Report abuse

The FA Cup Final is on the protected list of British sport's "crown jewels" - the FA is legallly required to sell the rights to a free-to-air broadcaster for live UK coverage. Which is a good thing, if you ask me.
Andy Crooks
8   Posted 09/10/2010 at 18:23:32

Report abuse

Brian Keating ? you are absolutely right. It would be the end of Everton and the end of British football. I have many reservations about Sky but this is as good as it gets.
Tony I'Anson
9   Posted 09/10/2010 at 18:16:03

Report abuse

All I can say is everyone on TW based in the UK can already watch the match live at 3pm on a Saturday from the comfort of their own PC. The quality is not great, but then again neither are most re-sold narcotics, but does it stop the addicts from using them? Not on your Nelly.

Anyone recall how Napster changed the Monopoly that WAS the music industry. Now you can even write your own book and get it published on Lulu.com - without a publisher, with books printed on demand after the sale goes through on Amazon.

So don't tell me that Sky are "slightly concerned" about this technology called the Interweb. Control it. No chance. It has been the greatest form of democracy and free speech the WORLD has ever seen and the money men better wake up to what's going on.

If you have never heard of the terms Socialnomics, then watch this video and tell me you think the business rules of footy are not about to change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZ0z5Fm-Ng

If you don't think football and it's followers are intrinsically linked to this phenomena, then think again.
Eugene Ruane
10   Posted 09/10/2010 at 19:33:14

Report abuse

It's an interesting and thought-provoking item Tony, even if (as suggested in the comments) some of the figures may not be 100% accurate.

Something I was sent recently (regarding online advertising) suggests in 'the future' WE might actually be able control our online logo intake -

http://vimeo.com/14566198

Here's hoping!
Mike Allison
11   Posted 09/10/2010 at 19:33:26

Report abuse

I agree that the Sky system is actually way better than the system in other countries, and way better than could possibly be the case here.

I also can't believe people are still saying things like Trevor in post 6. It's so irrelevant that it's hard to know where to start. Because Club X (and its been brought up EVERY time a club has changed hands, or there have even been rumours about it) has an 'interested party' it doesn't mean they're a rich, selfless potential investor who've chosen that club over Everton and that, yet again we've let our Abramovic/Mansoor get away.
Alex Kociuba
12   Posted 09/10/2010 at 20:47:08

Report abuse

I agree with Tony I'Anson 100%.
Dick Fearon
13   Posted 09/10/2010 at 20:45:30

Report abuse

Fran # 2. Since when has he been called Rupert? Even down here in Oz he is known as the Dirty Digger. To comply with USA law to buy Fox, he swapped his Aussie citizenship for a Yankee one. Using his vast media empire for his own ends he has more political clout than anyone else on earth.

When he wanted to expand his empire into China he married a very nice chinese girl. You might gather that I do not hold much respect for that bloke.

Tony I'Anson
14   Posted 09/10/2010 at 22:18:34

Report abuse

Thanks Alex for seeing the inevitable. Most good entrepeneurs do not invent ideas, they identify trends and make money from them.

Is that what the Dragons Den do every other episide to keep us "griped" to the next big thing?

Magnamole?

Hmmm, if an ice cream man from Scortland can do it, why a clever bunch of Toffee sellers:. "Everton's Dragons Den" hey MK?
Tony I'Anson
15   Posted 09/10/2010 at 22:28:13

Report abuse

Nar, apologies, must just be another hair-brained idea.
David Hallwood
16   Posted 10/10/2010 at 12:26:33

Report abuse

I keep hoping for the democratisation of football and the ending of the Murdoch monopoly ? ?I believe in unregulated free markets, except in my back yard?. Unfortunately what has got to be factored in is who controls the TV feeds from the grounds? If internet feeds really improve and take off, that will be the next battleground.
Tony I'Anson
17   Posted 10/10/2010 at 13:39:13

Report abuse

David (16): Clubs have all the power and the only reason they allow Sky in is due to the amount of money each Club gets. They will politely be shown the door if the money is not there.

Charging for direct feeds from any ground is already possible. The question is, would the "big 4" generate vastly more sums of money from overseas subscribers than any other clubs can generate.

From a selfish point of view, I would love to pay Everton for a TV season ticket to watch all the Everton games. And I would still make the 2-5 trips to the match as well.

Have I ever in 22 years been to watch Stirling Albion? ? No. I think I've been to watch either Celtic / Rangers about half a dozen times in that time, mainly due to freebee invitations. I am an Everton fan and watching other matches where there is no emotional involvement is just not the same and I can't be bothered watching really.
Charlie Percival
18   Posted 10/10/2010 at 13:58:39

Report abuse

we always get knocked out first round though, so we'd get 75p, what could Davey muster up with that? Ronaldos toe nail clippings?
Peter Getkahn
19   Posted 10/10/2010 at 13:37:18

Report abuse

This is a great bit of fantasy, but TV doesn't really work this way. By nature, broadcasting (as the name suggests) seeks to entertain a lot of people with the same programming. Millions of people watch the FA Cup Final as it's already in their subscription package. However, only people with a very specific interest will pay a specific fee for the privilege of watching the match. This will have a massive impact on viewing figures and your profit.

Similarly, people will realise that they are being squeezed and the sport's popularity will drop. Narrow-casting (which is what you are describing) is a great idea and will give clubs great revenues, but it will never attract massive audiences as it's very difficult to build a loyal following. By loyal I don't mean fans of Everton, I mean the vast majority of general Football watchers (the fools) who don't support Everton. There is wriggle room in the market, but the big money will always remain in broadcasting (how this is delivered is a different story).

Jay Harris
20   Posted 10/10/2010 at 15:10:43

Report abuse

Some very good points made.

Totally agree with Tony.

The internet and the world of computing is rapidly changing the landscape of everything especially communications and broadcasting. You can now communicate almost anywhere in the world instantaneously which, as Tony rightly points out, will benefit those with foresight.

Unfortunately Bill is a tortoise when it comes to EFC so dont expect us to pioneer anything. The last thing we pioneered was the Premier League with Sky and we didn't even take advantage of that.
Mike Allison
21   Posted 10/10/2010 at 15:15:27

Report abuse

The biggest clubs would love to be able to sell their own rights. If that happens, the rich will get even richer at the expense of the poor.

Imagine Man United and Liverpool having the £100M a year spending power of Real Madrid and Barcelona. Seriously, think about it. Whatever team you built through patience and good management could be taken apart by the big two if they fancied your players, as has happened at Valencia and Sevilla in Spain in the last few years. If they want your players, they can afford them and they can turn their heads.

If the revolution is about to happen it needs to be stopped. If you think football is unfair, biased to the 'Sky 4' and skewed to help the rich get richer now, just you wait until collective bargaining disappears. Fortunately, Premier League rules require clubs to vote on stuff like that, and it would require the turkeys to vote for Christmas to allow it to happen.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
22   Posted 10/10/2010 at 16:57:45

Report abuse

Tony,

I know I've given you the cold shoulder before... but the problem was that YOU expected US to do something.

Well, I'm turning it around on you. I don't know what your interweb skills extend to but the message of Socialnomics is that anybody can do it: the tools are available to all.

What you probably don't have is a space to load your stuff onto the interweb, and a ready-made audience with a common interest.

That's where we come in. We have loads of space, a modest readership of Evertonians, and we can probably do anything (within reason) your imgination can come up with. The catch is that we need YOU to create it for us. To come up with the material, the goods... whatever it is. We'll host it for you, free, gratis... (Everton related, of course!)
Tony I'Anson
23   Posted 10/10/2010 at 18:03:03

Report abuse

MK thanks for the offer. Working on stuff that may be relevant.
David Price
24   Posted 10/10/2010 at 18:55:01

Report abuse

Well done Robert for the article, generating some excellent posts.

Tony & MK, good luck, lads.

Robert Daniels
25   Posted 10/10/2010 at 19:21:37

Report abuse

Cheers, Dave; I think there must be more money available to clubs once Sky are out of the way. I know we live in the world of the super information highway, but if I could get every league game in the same quality as Sky, but from Everton, I would be prepared to subscribe even. Or pay as you watch.

I would like to know what the worldwide figures are for higher profile matches, v Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Spurs. I know these can be streamed most weeks, but the quality is usualy rubbish.

If say a million people are willing to pay, say £5 to view the next derby game, and the same for the other matches, that's £30 million just for six games; then you have cup games, Euros, etc.

There's a whole world of oppertunity out there for the clubs to increase their revenue. How many viewers from the States would we get if Landon and Howard were playing for us every week? Africa, Pienaar says a lot of Everton fans are emerging there too.

We need someone with forsight to carry us into the next generation of watching football on the box, TV or Internet.
Bill Slater
26   Posted 11/10/2010 at 08:53:01

Report abuse

Robert it is only a matter of time. I've been trying to fond out how the Portsmouth pub landlady got on in court. The lack of news about this in main stream media is not surprising.

And we think we are free with full access to information? My arse we are.
Robert Daniels
27   Posted 11/10/2010 at 10:01:25

Report abuse

Bill,

Yes, I forgot about her, that will be interesting.

Btw you're quite right we are still denied information at times, we can't even find out who really owns Everton.

Oh, and how much it may, or may not, be up for sale for!
Matthew Mackey
28   Posted 11/10/2010 at 10:57:09

Report abuse

Beware of the Murdoch machine. If it is threatened, it will fight you and bite you.

The old ozzie Murdoch is hell bent on world domination within the media/coimmunications sector. If he (ie, Sky) feel threatened by such an idea of clubs taking things into their own hands to get more direct access to the huge amounts of money out there, then they will conjure up something to enable them to retain control of such Media operations.

Murdoch should only be taken on by those who are prepared to put their head above the parapet and accept it could get nasty.

Tony J Williams
29   Posted 11/10/2010 at 11:28:00

Report abuse

There was a system like that previously on Sky £9.99 for a game.

It quickly got dumped, as not enough people would pay for it. Yes it was via Sky but obviously enough fans didn't want to pay a tenner to watch the games.

The problem was that it was selected games, I will never forget going to a social club to watch Everton, as there was no way in Hell I was paying a tenner to watch Everton v Wimbledon in my own home without lashing of alcohol in me.
Tony I'Anson
30   Posted 12/10/2010 at 08:27:03

Report abuse

I had a thought this morning and I've not heard it mentioned on here before.
So I searched for "Google sports broadcasting" and found this

http://www.4psmarketing.com/blog/google-set-to-revolutionise-sports-broadcasting

Google and the Board of Control for Cricket in India have struck a two-year deal, giving Google exclusive online rights for live and on-demand access of matches from the lucrative Indian Premier League on YouTube . Both parties will be sharing revenues from sponsorships and advertising.

Google, who owns YouTube.com, has the financial means and muscle to flex at Rupert "the bear" Murdoch to offer sports broadcasting. Are they using cricket in India which is just (if not more) popular than football over here as a test case.

My view is that Google/YouTube, will pay the PL for sports viewing rights, on a par with Sky, but with a global audience, offer it to the world for free or very little, at broadcast quality.

The Google model is all about performance related marketing so the chances are they'll just give it away and advertisers will bid to put their brnading along side the matches.
Tony I'Anson
31   Posted 12/10/2010 at 08:37:42

Report abuse

And 50 million viewers around the world (excluding the USA) prove there is demand for it.

http://www.switched.com/2010/05/04/google-eyes-youtube-for-broadcasting-live-sports/

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb


Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com



Recent Articles





Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.