Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 15:59:17 GMT
No good saying you know somethink we don't know ....if you do share it with us and let us be the judge otherwise don't bother saying you do as it's means nothing As for sky you were the biggest moaning minnie of all time about Ipswich not being on sky (tr fault again no doubt ) but as soon as sky rolled into town sure enough you moan about them being on !!!! Yes I accept that I moaned because Ipswich were never on Sky in 2007, but excuse me when did I moan about us being on Sky last season  , never I think you will find, and yes as a matter of fact it was down to TR that we were not on TV that year, as we had a home meeting scheduled with Swindle, but TR changed it because he felt it would be an embarrassment for us, being beaten by the Robins, but guess what, we bloody beat you, and the nefarious tactics of TR to upset the riders at tapes didn't work either..pah!!! I for your information, I didn't say I know something you don't, what I said was that you are not party to everything that happens, although you will have us believe you do. So what it boils down to is the fact that you think the sun shines out of TR's backside, and Sky are the saviour of British speedway, and I, well I'm just a humble Ipswich fan...what do I know, and I should know my place and have no opinion, and not defend my promotion or my opinion that the Sky deal stinks, and more is lost by the home promotions than is gained by them being there. And I still stand by my opinion that more people would watch live speedway if it wasn't on the TV. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 16:09:39 GMT
No good saying you know somethink we don't know ....if you do share it with us and let us be the judge otherwise don't bother saying you do as it's means nothing As for sky you were the biggest moaning minnie of all time about Ipswich not being on sky (tr fault again no doubt ) but as soon as sky rolled into town sure enough you moan about them being on !!! Sky deal stinks If the figures quoted are anywhere near correct, i would have to agree with your comment 100%. It stinks real bad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 16:27:00 GMT
If the figures quoted are anywhere near correct, i would have to agree with your comment 100%. It stinks real bad. Well Hatcham, this guy knows all, as he was genghis' beloved Oxo's promoter in 2006.:
The Sky deal does seem rather poor in comparison to other sports they have the rights to, but on the whole, the coverage is good and you would think the exposure would have helped push the sport forward. Doesn't seem to be the case though?
In 2006 Elite League Clubs were paid around £35k each from the sky pot for the full season. £3k was paid to the home club for a Monday night fixture to compensate for change of race night and loss of attendance. This fee only really covered for the loss of around 200 supporters.
Just as a matter of interest, I was looking back on the full cost of a home and away meeting and have the home and away fixtures against the then AE Hammers as an example. The cost for the 2 fixtures inc of wages, stadium rental, insurances, catering, medical cover, away riders money, staff/progs etc came to approx £17,000.00. When you consider that you try to cover these costs from your home attendances and factor in sponsorship, you can see why clubs lose so much money in a season. Clubs really need an absolute minimum of 1500 paying supporters to stand a chance of covering costs and we all know that not so many attract that amount of fans.
I hope that Sky do stay on board because I don't see any other networks offering that kind of money to cover the sport. Even if it does seem poor in comparison, the exposure is still of major importance and a good selling point for clubs when seeking sponsorship. Couple of years back it was £3000 for the home team and £1000 for the away team. I believe that it changed last year resulting in the away team not being paid anything, as it really only had an effect on the host club when meetings were televised. Perhaps the host club payment increased but I'm not sure. When you actually break the figures down, you kind of realise that Elite Clubs actually only receive what equates to around £2000 per home meeting for an entire season of Sky sponsorship, which is kind of pathetic really, given the sports so called standing on Sky re. average viewing figures.
Yes it's true that JP lost an absolute fortune and remember BB saying he lost around £100k in 07. Dugard owns the stadium, so if you add another £30k which is the minimum most Promotions are paying for stadium rental each season, he lost in the region of £70k last year. That was the amount lost at Oxford in 06. RR at Arena lost a substantial amount too in 06. Agree with your comments about other clubs just being bankrolled by wealthy owners and the main concern there is what happens when they eventually tire of throwing money away?
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2009 16:35:09 GMT
If the figures quoted are anywhere near correct, i would have to agree with your comment 100%. It stinks real bad. Well Hatcham, this guy knows all, as he was genghis' beloved Oxo's promoter in 2006.:
The Sky deal does seem rather poor in comparison to other sports they have the rights to, but on the whole, the coverage is good and you would think the exposure would have helped push the sport forward. Doesn't seem to be the case though?
In 2006 Elite League Clubs were paid around £35k each from the sky pot for the full season. £3k was paid to the home club for a Monday night fixture to compensate for change of race night and loss of attendance. This fee only really covered for the loss of around 200 supporters.
Just as a matter of interest, I was looking back on the full cost of a home and away meeting and have the home and away fixtures against the then AE Hammers as an example. The cost for the 2 fixtures inc of wages, stadium rental, insurances, catering, medical cover, away riders money, staff/progs etc came to approx £17,000.00. When you consider that you try to cover these costs from your home attendances and factor in sponsorship, you can see why clubs lose so much money in a season. Clubs really need an absolute minimum of 1500 paying supporters to stand a chance of covering costs and we all know that not so many attract that amount of fans.
I hope that Sky do stay on board because I don't see any other networks offering that kind of money to cover the sport. Even if it does seem poor in comparison, the exposure is still of major importance and a good selling point for clubs when seeking sponsorship. Couple of years back it was £3000 for the home team and £1000 for the away team. I believe that it changed last year resulting in the away team not being paid anything, as it really only had an effect on the host club when meetings were televised. Perhaps the host club payment increased but I'm not sure. When you actually break the figures down, you kind of realise that Elite Clubs actually only receive what equates to around £2000 per home meeting for an entire season of Sky sponsorship, which is kind of pathetic really, given the sports so called standing on Sky re. average viewing figures.
Yes it's true that JP lost an absolute fortune and remember BB saying he lost around £100k in 07. Dugard owns the stadium, so if you add another £30k which is the minimum most Promotions are paying for stadium rental each season, he lost in the region of £70k last year. That was the amount lost at Oxford in 06. RR at Arena lost a substantial amount too in 06. Agree with your comments about other clubs just being bankrolled by wealthy owners and the main concern there is what happens when they eventually tire of throwing money away?
--------------------
Badge, going back a promoter at Oxford, Waggy also told me that he recevied £3000 for a home meeting on Sky, and £1000 for an away meeting. And Sky could set their own rate for other additional non-league meetings. For the 2005 British Final at Oxford, Waggy recevied a paltry £1500, even though the TV coverage lopped around 800 off the previous year's attendance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 16:40:24 GMT
So obviously, the payments haven't gone up since 2006  . Or not by much.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 16:51:50 GMT
Surely its not how much each club gets but how much good is been done by showing speedway on Sky.Its not so many years ago that the EL clubs wouldve killed for a chance of the kind of coverage they are getting now.As such Sky is the only way of getting speedway to a wider audience,we dont get much coverage in the national press or on any other media outlet so Id be grateful to Sky for their showing an interest in speedway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2009 17:02:43 GMT
Surely its not how much each club gets but how much good is been done by showing speedway on Sky.Its not so many years ago that the EL clubs wouldve killed for a chance of the kind of coverage they are getting now.As such Sky is the only way of getting speedway to a wider audience,we dont get much coverage in the national press or on any other media outlet so Id be grateful to Sky for their showing an interest in speedway. Screm, but if people are staying at home and watching the Sky coverage INSTEAD of going to meetings, then it is costing British Speedway valuable money. It clubs lose out on £20,000 from a Sky meeting, then this is what they should be paid for them, not a piss-taking £3,000. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:03:04 GMT
I'd take anything any speedway promoter said about finances with a pinch of salt. With tax write off's and cash in going into the back pocket rather than the till I personally doubt the losses clubs report are a true picture.
Sure some clubs have no doubt haemorrhaged money, like Reading for example under the BSI banner, but that was JP and his arrogant attitudes fault.
Many of speedways promoters claim to be successful businessmen but it does make you wonder when they know what their average weekly gate is, and should also know roughly what their expected weekly/monthly outgoings are going to be, but still can't balance the books more evenly and report tens of thousands of pounds worth of losses.
The Sky money per live meeting is poor, but shouldn't promotions be out drumming up extra finances in the form of meeting sponsorship when TV exposure is available? I know this year with the economic climate being the way it is, sponsorship may be harder to come by, but it certainly shouldn't have been the case during the past decade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:04:11 GMT
No good saying you know somethink we don't know ....if you do share it with us and let us be the judge otherwise don't bother saying you do as it's means nothing As for sky you were the biggest moaning minnie of all time about Ipswich not being on sky (tr fault again no doubt ) but as soon as sky rolled into town sure enough you moan about them being on !!!! Yes I accept that I moaned because Ipswich were never on Sky in 2007, but excuse me when did I moan about us being on Sky last season , never I think you will find, This is what you said after the ippo v swindon sky match year . And I agree with the other Ipswich fans, Sky can go sling their hook then we won't have to upset all you "true" speedway fans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:12:41 GMT
I'd take anything any speedway promoter said about finances with a pinch of salt. Especially the ex-promoter who is being quoted in this instance.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:23:41 GMT
The Gaffer is a shining example Kev, but there's been many more just like him, just with better hairstyles.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:25:52 GMT
Surely its not how much each club gets but how much good is been done by showing speedway on Sky.Its not so many years ago that the EL clubs wouldve killed for a chance of the kind of coverage they are getting now.As such Sky is the only way of getting speedway to a wider audience,we dont get much coverage in the national press or on any other media outlet so Id be grateful to Sky for their showing an interest in speedway. Screm, but if people are staying at home and watching the Sky coverage INSTEAD of going to meetings, then it is costing British Speedway valuable money. It clubs lose out on £20,000 from a Sky meeting, then this is what they should be paid for them, not a piss-taking £3,000. And what about the people who go to other speedway meetings because they watch it on sky .? I would expect it more than makes up for the money loss on one tv one race night a week so in fact it is makeing speedway valuable money . |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2009 17:26:07 GMT
The Gaffer is a shining example Kev, but there's been many more just like him, just with better hairstyles. I think young H was referring to "Lanzilla" and not the Wagster. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 17:28:11 GMT
The Gaffer is a shining example Kev, but there's been many more just like him, just with better hairstyles. Actually I wasn't refering to Waggy, it was the muppet that took over from him that I was on about. edited to say Sube is correct again. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2009 17:28:37 GMT
And what about the people who go to other speedway meetings because they watch it on sky .? And where exaclty are these people Orion? |
|
, never I think you will find, and yes as a matter of fact it was down to TR that we were not on TV that year, as we had a home meeting scheduled with Swindle, but TR changed it because he felt it would be an embarrassment for us, being beaten by the Robins, but guess what, we bloody beat you, and the nefarious tactics of TR to upset the riders at tapes didn't work either..pah!!!
. 
