BoxRec

A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

Fat Git wrote:

veriton wrote:blahblahblah etc

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 43190.html

Just so the clueless bullshite ends here, check the link out...

pure genius. so is it sky or BT then...? sky dont even have monopoly in the uk, but you think they control rights for the whole globe

veriton wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

veriton wrote:blahblahblah etc

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 43190.html

Just so the clueless bullshite ends here, check the link out...

pure genius. so is it sky or BT then...? sky dont even have monopoly in the uk, but you think they control rights for the whole globe

You don't even know what a 'live feed' means - you thought, for some reason - that a 'live feed' means that the Koreans get to watch Andy Gray and Richard Keys (or whoever is hosting that shite these days) with the rest of the planet. If you had more of a clue, we wouldn't be having this - frankly silly - discussion.

PredatorHayds wrote:A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

is it depressing?

magwitch wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

is it depressing?

Not really I found it quite inspiring.

Really good book about boxing and also that era.

PredatorHayds wrote:A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

Does Emile reveal whether he's a top or a bottom?

reggaereggae wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

Does Emile reveal whether he's a top or a bottom?

No I'm waiting for the sequel to find out

PredatorHayds wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:A mans world about Emile Griffith is the best book I've read so far this year.

Does Emile reveal whether he's a top or a bottom?

No I'm waiting for the sequel to find out

Excellent.... To my understanding in the gay community, the toughest guys like a bit of role reversal and like the bottom position..... Ahem... So I'm told

Why The pro's are going to the Olympics

Fat Git wrote:

veriton wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 43190.html

Just so the clueless bullshite ends here, check the link out...

pure genius. so is it sky or BT then...? sky dont even have monopoly in the uk, but you think they control rights for the whole globe

You don't even know what a 'live feed' means - you thought, for some reason - that a 'live feed' means that the Koreans get to watch Andy Gray and Richard Keys (or whoever is hosting that shite these days) with the rest of the planet. If you had more of a clue, we wouldn't be having this - frankly silly - discussion.

The Premier League film the games and then sell the rights, to Sky/BT in the UK and others abroad, NOT the other way round.

I have a friend who works for 'Premier League TV'. Google it, Sky merely buy rights for UK viewing, just because it's from the same camera, don't think it's Sky filming it. It isn't.

For reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31379128

"The Premier League has sold television rights to its games for a record £5.136bn, 71% above last time.

Sky paid £4.2bn for five of the seven TV packages while rival BT paid £960m for the other two in the record TV rights auction. The deal will run for three years from 2016."

I don't think Sky would be paying £4.2bn for their own video, do you?

They are paying for the rights to broadcast.

You don't seriously believe the PL has their own set of cameras and broadcast equipment do you?

orbtastic wrote:They are paying for the rights to broadcast.

You don't seriously believe the PL has their own set of cameras and broadcast equipment do you?

My understanding is that they do, actually, and that all camera men etc work for the Premier League (my friend is an editor on TV and works for 'Premier League' not BBC or Sky or BT Sports).

Either way, not the point, Sky do NOT benefit from overseas broadcasts, which was the point put forward previously. Sky simply pay to show UK coverage and make not a penny from Star Sports or Al Jazeera etc.

I'm not convinced the PL has any broadcast equipment.

I do agree with what you're saying about International rights but if you look at this table here, there's a LOT of countries and a lot of different companies and whenever I go to live PL matches, I don't see one from each company.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... deals.html

Plus on top of that, MOTD is BBC and they have delayed rights so presumably they either have a broadcast unit at each ground or they nick a feed?

There's usually only a couple of vans at televised matches. I don't go that often enough to pay attention, nor care that much

orbtastic wrote:I'm not convinced the PL has any broadcast equipment.

I do agree with what you're saying about International rights but if you look at this table here, there's a LOT of countries and a lot of different companies and whenever I go to live PL matches, I don't see one from each company.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... deals.html

Plus on top of that, MOTD is BBC and they have delayed rights so presumably they either have a broadcast unit at each ground or they nick a feed?

There's usually only a couple of vans at televised matches. I don't go that often enough to pay attention, nor care that much

I think the equipment line is a bit of a red herring really, regardless of who owns those cameras.

Try this, under Broadcast: http://www.premierleague.com/content/pr ... ct-us.html

Either way, the point I was making is that Sky and BT gain no benefit from Kuala Lumpur or Seoul for showing a game, as the local broadcaster will have their own 3yr broadcast rights deal in the same way as Sky and BT do in the UK.

Article seems to sum it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... oadcasters

Surely if you're the one who's paid through the nose for the broadcast rights in the UK and you're out-laying all the equipment/manpower etc, you don't just give away the feed to the other 20 counties who have paid the PL for territory broadcast rights? You'd want something back, whether that be from the PL or from the other broadcaster?

orbtastic wrote:Surely if you're the one who's paid through the nose for the broadcast rights in the UK and you're out-laying all the equipment/manpower etc, you don't just give away the feed to the other 20 counties who have paid the PL for territory broadcast rights? You'd want something back, whether that be from the PL or from the other broadcaster?

No because it's not your product you're selling. That will be reflected in the price of broadcast rights that they pay the Premier League. It's a bit like going to the O2 and streaming a fight from your phone; you don't have the right to and it's not your 'product'. The Sky/BT 'product' is sold in the UK, so they can sell their coverage within the UK, not outside the UK.

Yeah I get that.

So how do they sort the feed out then? They just kinda do it on good faith? Get a phone call from Sanjay the night before and they're good to good?

MarkMcBurney wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

veriton wrote:
pure genius. so is it sky or BT then...? sky dont even have monopoly in the uk, but you think they control rights for the whole globe

You don't even know what a 'live feed' means - you thought, for some reason - that a 'live feed' means that the Koreans get to watch Andy Gray and Richard Keys (or whoever is hosting that shite these days) with the rest of the planet. If you had more of a clue, we wouldn't be having this - frankly silly - discussion.

The Premier League film the games and then sell the rights, to Sky/BT in the UK and others abroad, NOT the other way round.

I have a friend who works for 'Premier League TV'. Google it, Sky merely buy rights for UK viewing, just because it's from the same camera, don't think it's Sky filming it. It isn't.

For reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31379128

"The Premier League has sold television rights to its games for a record £5.136bn, 71% above last time.

Sky paid £4.2bn for five of the seven TV packages while rival BT paid £960m for the other two in the record TV rights auction. The deal will run for three years from 2016."

I don't think Sky would be paying £4.2bn for their own video, do you?

Sky cameras film at all premier league grounds, they bring in Sky cameras, technicians and everybody else to make sure this party running.

Sky (and BT) pay for the rights to show the games.

Whose satellite is it? The satellite which able to broadcast the games to all these far flung parts of Asia?

No, it isn't the FA's satellite, up there in space.

orbtastic wrote:They are paying for the rights to broadcast.

You don't seriously believe the PL has their own set of cameras and broadcast equipment do you?

He does.

MarkMcBurney wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not convinced the PL has any broadcast equipment.

I do agree with what you're saying about International rights but if you look at this table here, there's a LOT of countries and a lot of different companies and whenever I go to live PL matches, I don't see one from each company.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... deals.html

Plus on top of that, MOTD is BBC and they have delayed rights so presumably they either have a broadcast unit at each ground or they nick a feed?

There's usually only a couple of vans at televised matches. I don't go that often enough to pay attention, nor care that much

I think the equipment line is a bit of a red herring really, regardless of who owns those cameras.

Try this, under Broadcast: http://www.premierleague.com/content/pr ... ct-us.html

Either way, the point I was making is that Sky and BT gain no benefit from Kuala Lumpur or Seoul for showing a game, as the local broadcaster will have their own 3yr broadcast rights deal in the same way as Sky and BT do in the UK.

Course they do, though they function under different companies such as ESPN and Fox, they are all owned by the same man, Rupert Murdoch! It is Sky cameras, technicians, sound men and engineers that make sure that those games are broadcasted and then shunted into space. Without Sky, English football would still be the poor relation in comparison to the Italians, Germans and Spanish leagues.

I don't claim to be an expert, but Sky definitely bring at least some of their own cameras when showing live games, I've seen it with my own eyes plenty of times.

Fat Git wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not convinced the PL has any broadcast equipment.

I do agree with what you're saying about International rights but if you look at this table here, there's a LOT of countries and a lot of different companies and whenever I go to live PL matches, I don't see one from each company.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... deals.html

Plus on top of that, MOTD is BBC and they have delayed rights so presumably they either have a broadcast unit at each ground or they nick a feed?

There's usually only a couple of vans at televised matches. I don't go that often enough to pay attention, nor care that much

I think the equipment line is a bit of a red herring really, regardless of who owns those cameras.

Try this, under Broadcast: http://www.premierleague.com/content/pr ... ct-us.html

Either way, the point I was making is that Sky and BT gain no benefit from Kuala Lumpur or Seoul for showing a game, as the local broadcaster will have their own 3yr broadcast rights deal in the same way as Sky and BT do in the UK.

Course they do, though they function under different companies such as ESPN and Fox, they are all owned by the same man, Rupert Murdoch! It is Sky cameras, technicians, sound men and engineers that make sure that those games are broadcasted and then shunted into space. Without Sky, English football would still be the poor relation in comparison to the Italians, Germans and Spanish leagues.

So, to confirm, you seriously think that Sky benefit financially from TV coverage in Asia?

EDIT: I think you'll find that this company actually own the satellites, not Sky TV... http://www.ses.com/4232583/en

MarkMcBurney wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote: I think the equipment line is a bit of a red herring really, regardless of who owns those cameras.

Try this, under Broadcast: http://www.premierleague.com/content/pr ... ct-us.html

Either way, the point I was making is that Sky and BT gain no benefit from Kuala Lumpur or Seoul for showing a game, as the local broadcaster will have their own 3yr broadcast rights deal in the same way as Sky and BT do in the UK.

Course they do, though they function under different companies such as ESPN and Fox, they are all owned by the same man, Rupert Murdoch! It is Sky cameras, technicians, sound men and engineers that make sure that those games are broadcasted and then shunted into space. Without Sky, English football would still be the poor relation in comparison to the Italians, Germans and Spanish leagues.

So, to confirm, you seriously think that Sky benefit financially from TV coverage in Asia?

Yes, because a lot of the companies that show the games in Asia are subsidiaries of the Murdoch empire.

Fat Git wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
Course they do, though they function under different companies such as ESPN and Fox, they are all owned by the same man, Rupert Murdoch! It is Sky cameras, technicians, sound men and engineers that make sure that those games are broadcasted and then shunted into space. Without Sky, English football would still be the poor relation in comparison to the Italians, Germans and Spanish leagues.

So, to confirm, you seriously think that Sky benefit financially from TV coverage in Asia?

Yes, because a lot of the companies that show the games in Asia are subsidiaries of the Murdoch empire.

Then it's not 'BSkyB' that benefit, but the overall holding company

Besides, Murdoch owns no part of ESPN, which broadcast in a lot of countries.