Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
English Football 2015-16 - Leicester City won the league English Football 2015-16 - Leicester City won the league

08-23-2015 , 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAIDS
spuds doing well in xG means ~nothing given that they've faced two meh teams, and the third team (stoke) had their key players either injured or not yet purchased
How dare you call Leicester a "meh team" they were top of the league 5 hours ago. That's championship winning form.
08-23-2015 , 03:55 PM
This may be a stupid question, but why do the xG graphs list penalties seperately (xG 1.2 + 1 pen)? Why isn't the penalty calculated as a 0.8 xG (or whatever the conversion% is)?
08-23-2015 , 04:23 PM
Not sure exactly why, but I like it anyway.
08-23-2015 , 04:23 PM
Sky Sports have lost the future Ashes coverage, BT have paid £350m for it.
08-23-2015 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consty
Sky Sports have lost the future Ashes coverage, BT have paid £350m for it.
I am surprised that the authorities didn't promote competition by having tests 1, 3 and 5 sold to one company and tests 2 and 4 to another.
08-23-2015 , 04:35 PM
BT gonna go hammer and tongs. Sky supposedly pulled out of la liga as well!
08-23-2015 , 04:37 PM
BT gonna go so hard for domestic EPL when it's up.
08-23-2015 , 04:40 PM
How are these huge deals mainly financed? Subscribtions, tv commercials, banner ads, other?
08-23-2015 , 04:42 PM
God knows with regards to cricket as it's pure aids. Who wants to watch that ****e.
08-23-2015 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xXDeuce7Xx
This may be a stupid question, but why do the xG graphs list penalties seperately (xG 1.2 + 1 pen)? Why isn't the penalty calculated as a 0.8 xG (or whatever the conversion% is)?
I imagine it is because it's better to use xG to highlight the chances from open play and just have penos or own goals as footnotes.
08-23-2015 , 04:46 PM
Man, BT are gonna blow sky out the water.

Especially if they manage to secure EE for £12.5 billion - which they should as it's only one company as ofcom allowed it.

BT deals on the phones are sick at the moment as well!
08-23-2015 , 04:47 PM
DS is correct. Because some pens are for a handball on the line and others a foul 18 yd out on a player facing away from goal I agree its best to not lump them all as even chances from open play
08-23-2015 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNHH
How are these huge deals mainly financed? Subscribtions, tv commercials, banner ads, other?
vast majority is subscriptions. i used to think sky were making a fortune from ads ala nfl carriers in yankland, but they aren't. presumably cos there arent 100 ads per game
08-23-2015 , 04:50 PM
Granularity is always prefered, if it doesn't distort or destroy the ability to comprehend the overall picture, I would assume.
08-23-2015 , 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAIDS
vast majority is subscriptions
Have the subs gone up a ton in recent years, or how does the math work out? If anything, and judging by me and my hipster friends, the # of tv subs is on a downtrend. Isn't the btvditw primarily based on domestic subs?
08-23-2015 , 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNHH
How are these huge deals mainly financed? Subscribtions, tv commercials, banner ads, other?
BT has been a phone/internet provider for the last 20+ years maybe longer. By a distance the biggest in the UK. They've just began getting into TV service which is why you see them going after anything they can. The company is worth like 5x what Sky is and can blow them out of the water in these bids.
08-23-2015 , 04:56 PM
yea sky are adding half a million new subs every year and HD (significantly more expensive than standard def) subscriptions are growing even faster than that

unfamiliar with the bt channel numbers specifically (most people get bt through sky afaik) but i expect their subs are following a similar trend since they got hold of the PL games

having said all that, the ashes might generate a much greater proportion of their revenue via ads because A) there are a lot more of them, B) they are in the middle of the game and so are hard to ignore, and C) it is pretty much exclusively rich old white men watching (A++ target audience)
08-23-2015 , 05:03 PM
Cant believe people are celebrating a company as utterly **** as BT getting a bigger stake in any activity. A company so **** and shady they make SKY look good.
08-23-2015 , 05:07 PM
BTs broadband >>>>>>>>>> skys too but still miles behind vm

They are giving free sports tv out with broadband subs. Plus i'm pretty sure bt has to offer phone lines nation wide too.

With them buying the biggest mobile network in the uk with the fastest 4g they can quickly expand there reach of broadband for the tv as there is via the internet and not satellite like sky, which should in theory kill vm tv, who will rely on offer superior broadband!
08-23-2015 , 05:11 PM
Milage is going to vary on who's broadband is better depending on who you ask, my experience is that customer service of sky>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cs of BT.

Thats not really the point though, BTs monopoly on the last mile of connectivity has been an absolute dragging leaden weight on the development of broadband and the greater economy thereby in this country.
08-23-2015 , 05:13 PM
did bt **** your sister and then never call or something

(you'd think they'd call given that they are bt)
08-23-2015 , 05:15 PM
Without BT we all would have had "superfast" years ago, but before that happened they had to squeeze the last bit of life out of the ****y copper strung to everyones roof.


No innovation has led to the introduction of "superfast", the technology and the infrastructure for fiber to the curb has been around for years, BT used all of there legacy of monopoly to stifle it.

I have worked with BT at a high level (sort of like a masters of BT) and they were incompetent ****s, anyone you ever meet who has also done this will tell you the same with no variance of milage.
08-23-2015 , 05:16 PM
Serves Sky right. BT only went into sports as a way of shoring up the broadband customers it was haemorrhaging to Sky. if Sky hadn't entered the broadband market (BT's core market in the UK), BT probably wouldn't have bothered.

I think I pay about £30 a month for line rental, broadband, BT TV (inc sports) and a modest mobile contract (250 mins, inlimited texts, 500gb data). That's pretty good value imo.

My experience of BT customer service is good. When i switched to them recently i had a problem getting BT sport on my TV, so they sent an engineer out to sort it. No problems since.
08-23-2015 , 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingweed
BTs broadband >>>>>>>>>> skys too but still miles behind vm

They are giving free sports tv out with broadband subs. Plus i'm pretty sure bt has to offer phone lines nation wide too.

With them buying the biggest mobile network in the uk with the fastest 4g they can quickly expand there reach of broadband for the tv as there is via the internet and not satellite like sky, which should in theory kill vm tv, who will rely on offer superior broadband!
vm WOAT customer service though
08-23-2015 , 05:24 PM
Agree with O.A.F.K on BT customer service, found them to be utterly useless ****s. That said I'm not celebrating them getting a big market share just explaining to PHNN why the TV ££ is increasing so much.

      
m