Topic: Sky Sports

[Paul JH]

Ok, not wanting to turn this into a 'I hate Sky Sports News' hate thread (but it might), I just wanted people's opinions on it as a channel itself, i.e, what it has done for Sports 'news' coverage and if anyone actually thinks it's any good (I've yet to meet anyone who does).

I'm going to base this purely on football reporting (which lets face it. they'd be fucked without), because for ME, it's becoming more and more insidious. And I'm actually finding myself thinking it's become a mouthpiece for the rich clubs of the country and not much else.

Because they report rumour as FACT, and because they have unknown sources for their scoops (Sky Sports understands) a lot of their reporting is coming across as shit stirring or just blatant tapping up of players. I know, I know, 'no shit Paul'... 

Well known Sky whore, Harry Redknapp was on the other day, being interviewed by that prize c*nt Jim White (crawling up his arse and starting every sentence with 'Harry') where he just flat out asked him which players he liked, or would like, and to which Redknapp then did his usual 'Oh, so and so is great, triffic player' and I just sat there thinking 'is this not just blatant tapping up?'

Aside from them turning the first day back in training, a day that usually passes by without fuss, of premier league clubs, into a MASSIVE news story, and the gimp with the touchscreen monitor showing us facts and figures and repeating over and over that Chelsea want Modric, it seems to have turned into a channel for Man Utd, Chelsea and City, putting positive spins on anything they do, highlighting minor issues at the clubs and just off-hand reports of anything else. The Modric thing they keep repeating over and over, as if doing so will help Chelsea get him.

E.g. Reporting we'd had a bid for Downing turned down. If this was Man U or Chelsea, they'd have cut to a report about it. Not us. They simply said 'bid turned down' and moved on to the next story.

So is it just me entering Andy@Allerton levels of paranoia? (sorry Andy). Or is it becoming more and more a mouthpiece for rich clubs, i.e. Chelsea and City, and a propaganda channel for all things relating to them and Utd?

Or is it just what it is, a shit channel reporting rumour as fact and courting those clubs simply because they are where the money, scandal and 'big stories' are, even if they have no genuine substance? And if it IS, what the fuck has happened to Sports reporting?

Me personal opinion, is I fucking hate it as a channel. Except for Natalie Sawyer. AND, before anyone says 'well stop watching it' I don't, but it does get the odd airing.

[Something Else]

Its just a 24 hour advert for whats on the other channels, hence why I found it weird it went off freeview.

Soccer saturday is ok, but generally filled with c*nts.

Its also a tool for them to make buckets of money through sky bet.

Sky understands MON is about to be the manager of Fulham, odds are 7-1 on sky bet quick go bet.

MON out the race to be manager of Fulham, its no Mark hughes, oddes are 7-1 on sky bet, hurry up.

No, its not Hughes now, but bet on Jol, or on Hodgson, or whoever, just bet money

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Manchester United became successful after Sky turned up and put their boot into football.

[itsgunnabebarnes!]

The only thing i use sky sports news for is highlights of sport of have missed. Goals from the game, wickets from test matches, important momants in golf etc.

[...]

Manchester United became successful after Sky turned up and put their boot into football.

 

[Paul JH]

Manchester United became successful after Sky turned up and put their boot into football.

Sorry Andy, wasn't having a pop in that post above, just using your RAWK persona to make a point!

I agree by the way. Which is why I think it's in their best interests to just focus on City and Chelsea as well now. It's where the money is. But in that respect, with the way they report, with the focus on them, does it shape the game too? Or is that pushing what they actually do to more important levels than they are?

By shape the game, I mean give the big clubs a mouthpiece and 'help' them.

[CarraIsBoss]

Sorry Andy, wasn't having a pop in that post above, just using your RAWK persona to make a point!

I agree by the way. Which is why I think it's in their best interests to just focus on City and Chelsea as well now.

Or perhaps it's just the simple fact they give the most air time to the most popular clubs.

[ghost1359]

Used to love it, but as I've got older & wiser come to realise that it's nothing more than sensationalist bollocks. More often than not huge deals are made out of tiny 'stories', facts are often left out in aid of a good headline & whenever they 'EXCLUSIVELY REVEAL' anything you can garuntee that some poor bastard at the echo, or the sunday herald or something like that has broken the story 5 hours before & has been given absolutely zero recognition. Then there's the obvious Fergie, Redknapp love ins which are just baffling to say the least, The whole channel is extremely odd & I barely watch it anymore.

[helen the llama]

Only good things on it are Soccer Saturday after 3pm and Monday Night Report.
Everything else tends to be EPL focused.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Sorry Andy, wasn't having a pop in that post above, just using your RAWK persona to make a point!

I agree by the way. Which is why I think it's in their best interests to just focus on City and Chelsea as well now. It's where the money is. But in that respect, with the way they report, with the focus on them, does it shape the game too? Or is that pushing what they actually do to more important levels than they are?

By shape the game, I mean give the big clubs a mouthpiece and 'help' them.

I think anything that publicises anything 'helps' mate.

If a referee sees a penalty that should have gone to Bolton Wanderers at the Reebok and they don't give it then no one cares. It is barely mentioned and it is soon forgotten.

If a referee sees a penalty for one of the Sky favoured clubs denied then they bang on about it. It becomes public domain. It is moved into the collective conciousness. Other media publications looking around for news mention it. Football fans see it and mention it. Football forums mention it. The official gets slandered and slagged off and hassled. This leads to future decisions being altered.

Influence is influence. Ferguson doesn't have to do anything because he has Sky doing it for him.

Same with the coverage of Carra's tackle on Nani. It was covered by Sky to the point of hysteria. This prompted fans to react. Websites to go into meltdown and other media sources to get on their soapboxes. This then led to the belief in the public domain that 'Manchester United are hard done to' and 'Liverpool get all the decisions'.

The latest shite from the Manchester United chairman (Or whatever he is) is just another way of getting this put into the public domain and collective conciousness. Decisions which are high profile are enacted differently from decisions which are low profile. Some referees seem to want a quiet life. Some want to avoid the limelight. Some make a point of being right up there and bloody minded.

But Influence is influence. Anything that makes any official at any point think about any decision differently than any other decision is wrong.

[INABITSKI]

Come home from work and will put it on and see if any major confirmed news.
If the cretin that is Jim White is on air, the channel gets changed.

Him and the transfer gimp are just vile creatures. Charlotte Jackson, makes the viewing a lot easier.
They need to fill the 24 hrs airtime with something and more often than not, it is shite.

I find it rather strange they have one of the hardest and best known sporting events taking place, a team in it called Team Sky and yet they show very little coverage or mention any news from that.

No one gives a fuck where Ashley Cole went on holiday.

[ghost1359]

Soccer saturday is a comedy show with a loose basis around football, the same as what's it called, you know the one I'm thinking of with Tim lovejoy & Helen Chamberlain in the good old days. When it comes to actual football, there are very few on that panel that actually know what they're talking about. I value charlie nicholas opinion. Although he's an Arsenal fan he's usually pretty fair & will call it how he sees it, Thommo's not bad aswell. The usual suspects however don't have a fucking clue about the game, Le Tossier, Merson, Stelling all talk out of their arse.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Tend to enjoy it when its muted..

[jaygraham]

Its an advert for Sky Sports.  The term "news" is probably embarassed to be linked with it. (or so sky sources are telling me)

[Matt8Pie]

It's embarrassing, the presenters are arrogant c*nts and that interview Jim White did with James Mckenna pretty much summed up the channel as a whole. For a football league, the emphasis always seems to be on the above mentioned clubs and you're correct about sporting decisions. If it's the Mancs who are denied a penalty it'll make front page news, if Bolton aren't given one then who gives a toss?

Opinion is opinion and not fact which is a simple rule they seem to forget. They brainwash all the idiots like the S*n and other "newspapers" do into shaping their football opinions instead of thinking for themselves and their bullshit agendas then get passed on to me via gobshite fans who have no common sense or actual reading from a game.

The thing that really pisses me off, that REALLY gets on my nerves, is when some prick who knows nothing about our football club comes to me and tells me Rafa ruined our club because Sky told him so.

[Zanchent]

It's cringeworthy. If I want news I'll go online and find out everything I need to know in five minutes. That fat c*nt who does the transfer news really is a sad reflection on society.

[alex.]

I haven't had Sky for nearly a year now, it's great.

[Frank.]

Only good things on it are Soccer Saturday after 3pm and Monday Night Report.
Everything else tends to be EPL focused.

It is an English football channel..

[ghost1359]

It is an English football channel..

SkySPORTS news. Really?

[LF]

Fans always accuse the media of bias but its all subjective. example

On Sunday for example, Liverpool were dominated by Birmingham City at St Andrews and tuning into the radio expecting to hear praise being lavished upon McLeish’s men, instead I was met with a plethora of views on Liverpool’s wrong doings as opposed to what Birmingham did right. They feebly skimmed over positives from the Midlands side, focusing on questions over Torres being isolated or Gerrard being played in the right position.

The fact was, Birmingham midfielder Barry Ferguson’s intelligent marshalling of the England’s stand in skipper nullified at least some of the threat he possess, whilst Roger Johnson and Scott Dann did not let Torres have a sniff when called into action.

An extension of Birmingham’s unbeaten home record to 17 games was achieved on Sunday and yet this stat got a measly mention. Had that happened at Old Trafford or Anfield, even though it is the norm, the media would have reminded us of it unremittingly.

http://www.footballfancast.com/2010/09/football-blogs/does-bias-towards-top-clubs-tarnish-the-premier-league

Some of us would argue its bias against us seeing how sky chose to focus negatives about us. This Birmingham fan argues its towards us.  Fact is papers seek out the story that sells. That piece of reporting was kicking us when we were down. Anyone else remember when we were doing relatively well under Hodgson and the media were full of praise for us?  Certain writers have personal preferences and let it get in the way but generally no major newsgroup actively seeks out to promote certain clubs. It's all about the stories that sell. 

[Frank.]

SkySPORTS news. Really?

Meant sport.

[ghost1359]

Fans always accuse the media of bias but its all subjective. example

Some of us would argue its bias against us seeing how sky chose to focus negatives about us. This Birmingham fan argues its towards us.  Fact is papers seek out the story that sells. That piece of reporting was kicking us when we were down. Anyone else remember when we were doing relatively well under Hodgson and the media were full of praise for us?  Certain writers have personal preferences and let it get in the way but generally no major newsgroup actively seeks out to promote certain clubs. It's all about the stories that sell. 

That is one thing that really pisses me off. Happens constantly, example. When we lost to Spurs at home. Spurs played a great game yet every pundit going kept banging on about how we looked toothless. Spurs played us perfectly at our own game that day! They did to us what we've been doing to teams for the past 5/6 years. Took the lead, flooded the midfield & picked us off on the break. A perfect away display yet all they could talk about was how shit we were 

[R.A.La]

Teletext with pictures. I don't believe a word they say on there.

As Andy said above, they carry far too much influence. Refs know that if they make a contentious decision against certain clubs it will be shown ad infinitum from 38 different angles in super slow-mo untill they prove (rightly or wrongly) that the ref was wrong. Refs have become scared to make decisions against Sky's favoured teams. Just look at Louis Garcia's "ghost" goal against the Chelsea.

I hope at some point in the future the whole corrupt house of cards comes tumbling down, but there is no corruption in English football it's the best product in the world, Sky said so.

[ghost1359]

Meant sport.

my apologies

[LF]

but there is no corruption in English football it's the best product in the world, Sky said so.

rather because its extremely unlikely.

[R.A.La]

rather because its extremely unlikely.

You don't think they carry too much influence?

[LF]

You don't think they carry too much influence?

the media always had lots of influence.  I was talking about the supposed corruption ring to benefit certain clubs in the UK

[LF]

btw people should read the Italian job by vialli and marcotti. it explains why its stupid to think there could be corruption in the PL just because of what happened in the Serie A. one of my personal pet peeves 

[legendkiller]

Hicks interviews . Enough said .

[LF]

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=253981.msg6634660#msg6634660

Vialli and Marcotti - The Italian Job

''If I were a referee I am hundred per cent sure that I would much rather work in England than in Italy,'' says Sven-Goran Eriksson. ''This country is fantastic for referees. Nobody questions their decisions and, most of all, nobody ever questions their honesty'' . He may be exaggerating a little. In the last few years England have severely criticized referees (especially foreign ones, as Urs Meier, the Swiss official who disallowed Sol Campbell's goal at Euro 2004, discovered], but we are light years away from Italy. In fact, even the Meier case, the papers leading the witch-hunt were tabloids, which take a rather playful attitude towards the sport while the heavyweight boradsheets were more muted. In Italy, there is no distinction. The 'serious' papers go after referees with as much gusto as the daily sports papers.

'I prefer the English approach as a manager too,' says Eriksson. ''The more time I spent in Italy, the more I became like an Italian. My first year in Italy, I still had the Swedish mentality. I wasn't interested in things like the draw to determine who our referee would be in the next match. Then, year after year, I noticed I was changing. My last season in Italy, I waited for the referees assignment to come out with great anticipiation. And I began asking myself whether the referee was honest....

Think about it. This is what we spend time worrying about in Italy. What the hell are we supposed to do if he's not honest? Change tactics because a referee might not be honest? If you think about it, it's madness.

Indeed it is. But the referees assignment, which come out every Wednesday ahead of the weekends matches, are huge news in Italy. It's as if a parallel sports is based around match officials. But unlike most sports, the sport of referee watching has no winners, only a group of frustrated individiuals.

Most Italian conspiracy theorists will tell you that the only time referees were assigned by a random draw, rather than to specify matches by a refeers association, Verona won the title. Yes, little Verona, who captured the scudetto in 1984-1985. The implication is clear. In 1984-1985, referees namess were drawn out of a hat for the last time. This meant the luck of the draw determined which official attended a match so 'big' teams could not assign themselves 'friendly' referees - or make sure that Verona got a referee who would 'sort them out' by making them drop points.

Conspiracy theorists maintain that the sytem changed after that season to ensure that a small provincial team could never again win the title. And, indeed, since then, in typical Italian fashion, the system has changed almost annually. We've had the Referees' Association assigning specific officials to specific games [ as is the case in England], the logic being that some matches are tougher than others and therefore should be given to high-rated referees. We've had a hybrid system, whereby fixtures were divided into tiers according to difficulty, referees placed in each tier ( supposedly according to ability), then a draw made within each tier. And we've tried both having one man in charge and, untill 2004-2005, two men, one allegedly looking out for northern teams, the other closer too the Roman teams, because the clubs could not agree on one person and vetoed each other's choice. At this level I don't believe in conspiracy.

It's hard to see similar conspiracy theories taking hold in England, largely because the referees are rarely discussed, either by fans or the media, 'only when something really, really big happens, like in Machester United-Tottenham,' Mourinho says, referring to referee Mark Clattenburg who did not see the ball cross Roy Carroll's goal line. 'I'll give you an example. We had the same referee twice last season and in two games, with two controversial decisions, he cost us five points. If I were in Portugal I would come out and say, '' The Referee has something against us," so that the next time he referees us, he is already under pressure. He will want to be careful not to appear anti our team. Here in England, I can't do that because nobody remembers who he is. Nobody wants to talk about him. Here I can't do a thing. There is much more respect for the institutions and, because of that, every-body behaves differently.'

It's refereshing to hear Mourinho candidly admit that he would 'create problems' for a referee who had made two mistakes against him. It's one of the oldest tricks, which preys upon basic psychology. If you give an interview before a match and say, I don't think that referee likes us, he's always trying to hurt us. I hope he can have a good game, I really do, because his natural instinct is to be good against my team, you can have a profound effect on the game. The referee will be aware of what you said and may go out of his way to prove he is not biased. In doing so, he may give you the benifit of the doubt on more than one occasion. The public will be scrutinizing the match, mindfull of what you said, which will only increase the pressure on the referee: he will know that if he rules against your team, you;ll be joined in protest by the media. In Italy every manager - indeed, every  player - knows this. Not everybody engages in it, but everyone is aware of the mind game played by the referees and coaches.

'I thought it was bizaree when the referee's names would be announced and my teammates would all immediately begin talking about him and discussing his merits,' says Ray Wilkins. ' I really did not care, but to them it was important.'

Marcel Desailly agrees: "In Italy, I knew all the referees' he says, 'All of them. It was impossible not to know them, it was the only topic of discussion, both in the papers and in the dressing room. Here in England, on the other hand they are never talked about. Honestly, I could not tell you the name of a single English referee. They all look the same, at least to me.'

Earlier in this book I talked about how in Italy we are prone to thinking cynically, to expecting the worst. We assume that nothing is as it seems, that there is always something behind it. We ven have a word for it: dietrologia, literally "backology' - the study of what is "at the back' , or 'behind'.

There is always a conspiracy, always a vendetta....' says Graham Poll. 'I officiated at a World Cup game involving Italy, and after the match the centre-forward came up to me and said, ''The assistant killed you''. His thinking was that the linesman had made some mistakes to ruin my reputation as a referee in this tournament.' So, linesman couldn't just have had a bad day: there must have been something behind his poor performance.

'Peope in Italy are more instuling, in England they are more abusive,' says Poll. In Italy angry fans accuse referees of being corrupt while in England they call them incompetent. 'Neither is particularly pleasant. But I would be called uselss than corrupt. I'm happy that in England, we're never accused of intentionally favouring one team over another. We have to have that credibility in decision-making.'

The problem is that the facile suspicions undermine credibility. They plant the seed of doubt: 'What if there is a conspiracy? Part of the problem is that, when people believe that others are conspiring against them, they themselves begin to conspire. Sometimes I am shocked at the degree to which we are ready to believe the worst of others. One of the reasons Collina retired from the game in the summer of 2005 was that the Referees Association had criticized him for not asking permission in writing before he signed a sponsorship contractt with Opel. The fear was that, since Opel sponsor Milan, it would be inappropriate for them also to sponsor a referee.

Mourinho would love to come back to England eh? Since the mentality is all increasingly becoming like what he prefers. such a pity these new generation of post sky conspiracy hugging deluded c*nts want to make the PL Serie A v2 

[-Willo-]

I like it, to be honest.

[Tommy_W]

Used to quite enjoy it - especially Soccer Saturday. Not watched it since it disappeared off Freeview though

[Dick_Emre]

Familiarity breeds contempt...  and that is how I'm starting to feel watching these show ponies at work.

Sky Sports News understands.. deliberate pronounced pauses on the fuckin stupid transfer window stories... Bryan Swanson's stupid gob... The other silly  cnut with his sources and his telephones... Claire wotsernames permaglued fake smile... Jim White thinking every fcuker is deaf... Sky Sports insistence that footy was invented in 1992 and nothing else won before that counted (then the slimey u-turn when all of a sudden it suited Sky to use Manures 19 League Title wins in their stats)... David Craig and his ill fitting teeth.. making clubs look stupid by getting the cameras out on the Chelsea/bedsheet brigade when it suits.. announcement that a SENSATIONAL STORY FROM MAN CITY is coming up only for it to be that some bloke may or may not be interested in signing  for them

Soccer(?) Saturday is good but the rest of it - they can shove it.

PS.. whats this shit , I tried to write c*av and it comes up as Chelsea.

[ghost1359]

making clubs look stupid by getting the cameras out on the Chelsea/bedsheet brigade when it suits.

Hate it when they do that, some of the stuff I've heard from the mouths of supposed Liverpool fans on that program has left me open mouthed.

[1892tillforever]

Hollow, meaningless wank. The Smash Hits magazine of sports news channels. More fiction than any bestselling novel and brainwashing to the point of 1984.

[b_joseph]

Offer nothing that you cant find out for yourself...or already know. Liverpool agree with Charlie Adam, I saw that breaking news on Bloomberg and then came on here to see what was being said.

Probably a complete waste of money and would be best served just being a hour program that comes on in the morning..the early evening...late at night.

Not that ESPN are the end or and be all but Sky Sports could really learn something from how they do Sportscenter over there.


Some cracking females though.

[markay_stinkay]

My sources understand that it is infact Natalie Matterface.

[ghost1359]

Hollow, meaningless wank.

Sounds like how I start my day

[andymanlfc]

Is anyone watching it now? That little shite in the blue tracksuit is doing my nut in!

[didi]

Hicks interviews . Enough said .

yea totally agree....they coudint get enough exclusives with the prick could they and then make it out like he was hard done by