Ssb - snooker the limit for sky

[wildJONESEYE]

barney francis is a true media professional who knows exactly what he is talking about.

bbc and eurosport are doing good business with snooker? really? depends whether you consider the glass is half empty or half full. bbc only carries a little over half of the ranking tournaments - in fact, they haven't covered any of the tournaments to date in the 2012/2013 season - and eurosport is not much better. coverage of the paul hunter classic on eurosport international was sporadic - the QF and SF matches were not shown live and they only started showing the final somewhere around the middle of frame 2, all in favor of other programming such as skiing and cycling.

absolutely respect sky's decision not to show any snooker unless it is shot clock based tournaments. barney francis' assessment about snooker being too slow and not being a ratings puller is right on the dot (and i'm pretty sure the sky team would have done research and studies on this). what barry hearn should do is listen closely to what barney francis has to say and hopefully he will make sweeping changes to the game.

http://www.dnaindia.com/speakup/repo...to-ipl_1635675

dont talk through your ****ing arse Barney ****ing twat **** francis hasent got a clue in **** what people want

[gavpowell]

then prove him wrong with facts, not conjecture about what might be or not be.

Why? You didn't, you just announced him as a true media professional who knows exactly what he's talking about. I freely admit to having never heard of Barney Francis and having no idea whether he's competent or not. I will therefore not endorse him without any obvious evidence besides "well he's MD of Sky Sports, so he must be brilliant"

So what has Barney Francis actually done that has earned this ringing endorsement from you, whoever you are?

And if snooker without a shot clock is "too slow and not a ratings puller" why did last year's world championship final enjoy five-year-high viewing figures in recent years?

[arbitrage]

Why? You didn't, you just announced him as a true media professional who knows exactly what he's talking about. I freely admit to having never heard of Barney Francis and having no idea whether he's competent or not. I will therefore not endorse him without any obvious evidence besides "well he's MD of Sky Sports, so he must be brilliant"

So what has Barney Francis actually done that has earned this ringing endorsement from you, whoever you are?

And if snooker without a shot clock is "too slow and not a ratings puller" why did last year's world championship final enjoy five-year-high viewing figures in recent years?

so you are arguing w/o even knowing who barney francis is or even bothering to look up his profile on the net. how difficult is it to type "barney francis sky sports" on google and read?

barney francis joined sky in 1999 and has been previously been the executive producer of test cricket, premier league and UEFA champions league programmes. he was appointed MD in 2009. what deutsche bank has to say about bskyb:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...lysts-say.html

so he is (and has been) a successful producer of highly rated sports programmes w/in one of the leading subscription sports channels in the world - he needs no endorsement from me - and certainly doesn't need one from 'whoever you are', who is too lazy to even read up on his profile before talking about his competency.

as for your last point, my own personal view is that it is because of the resurgence of ronnie O. and i stress personal view because i don't want people or stalkers coming and asking 'where's the proof?' etc.

[gavpowell]

I am perfectly capable of typing his name into Google, but you were the one who vouched for him, so I wished to know what basis you had for such praise. Aside from which, Google merely appears to return a few credits from his CV (executive producer, MD of Sky Sports) - it gives no actual insight into his abilities, merely saying he's been involved in some things, and then you link to Deutschebank saying Sky as a whole is doing tremendously well.

I'm aware of that, but I used to work for a large media organisation that remained successful despite half of the senior managers being cretinous goons. I was merely pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic - just because someone is in charge of a large company, doesn't make him an expert, which is why I asked what he had done to impress you so much.

Eg: Barry Hearn is known to me. As the founder of Matchroom sports, he has been involved with the management of many leading snooker stars, gaining fame as a flamboyant promoter of the likes of Willie Thorne, Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor, particularly through the infamous Snooker Loopy single. Also a boxing promoter, he famously staged the Bruno v Bugner fight at White Hart Lane, negotiating the TV deal with a young Greg Dyke. He went on to manage a host of fighters including Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank, securing TV deals for much of their careers.

He has subsequently become head of the PDC(I think it is) and transformed darts in terms of prize money and popular appeal, including TV rights and successful contracts with the Alexandra Palace as a venue for certain events. Similar successes with 10-pin bowling and even fishing have increased his empire and he currently sits as the majority shareholder in WorldSnooker, where he has again vastly increased prize money, created a host of new events in new territories to expand the game, secured a new venue in the Alexandra Palace and negotiated sponsorship and TV deals for a variety of events, as well as devising the Premier League format in the same vein as the Prizefighter format in boxing.

This makes him an ideal candidate to discuss creating a market for a sport and broadening its appeal. I may not agree with him all the time and I do not trust him as the benign figure he pretends to be, but he has a pedigree that shows first-hand experience of transforming the fortunes of a sport.

Mr Francis is the head of Sky Sports and has been credited as an executive producer for football and cricket.
What did Mr Francis do in his capacity of executive producer? How does that relate to his ability to judge what works for snooker?

So far, the things you list are all events without a shot clock, and aren't even short-format events, so at the moment, I see no reason to trust his judgement on snooker, because I see no evidence he has any in-depth knowledge of the sport.

I said last year's World Championship - 2011(Trump v Higgins) - that's nothing to do with Ronnie.

You're coming across as very aggressive and your mention of "stalkers" seems a little odd - are you being pursued across the Internet by people?

[arbitrage]

I am perfectly capable of typing his name into Google, but you were the one who vouched for him, so I wished to know what basis you had for such praise. Aside from which, Google merely appears to return a few credits from his CV (executive producer, MD of Sky Sports) - it gives no actual insight into his abilities, merely saying he's been involved in some things, and then you link to Deutschebank saying Sky as a whole is doing tremendously well.

I'm aware of that, but I used to work for a large media organisation that remained successful despite half of the senior managers being cretinous goons. I was merely pointing out what I saw as a flaw in your logic - just because someone is in charge of a large company, doesn't make him an expert, which is why I asked what he had done to impress you so much.

Eg: Barry Hearn is known to me. As the founder of Matchroom sports, he has been involved with the management of many leading snooker stars, gaining fame as a flamboyant promoter of the likes of Willie Thorne, Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor, particularly through the infamous Snooker Loopy single. Also a boxing promoter, he famously staged the Bruno v Bugner fight at White Hart Lane, negotiating the TV deal with a young Greg Dyke. He went on to manage a host of fighters including Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank, securing TV deals for much of their careers.

He has subsequently become head of the PDC(I think it is) and transformed darts in terms of prize money and popular appeal, including TV rights and successful contracts with the Alexandra Palace as a venue for certain events. Similar successes with 10-pin bowling and even fishing have increased his empire and he currently sits as the majority shareholder in WorldSnooker, where he has again vastly increased prize money, created a host of new events in new territories to expand the game, secured a new venue in the Alexandra Palace and negotiated sponsorship and TV deals for a variety of events, as well as devising the Premier League format in the same vein as the Prizefighter format in boxing.

This makes him an ideal candidate to discuss creating a market for a sport and broadening its appeal. I may not agree with him all the time and I do not trust him as the benign figure he pretends to be, but he has a pedigree that shows first-hand experience of transforming the fortunes of a sport.

Mr Francis is the head of Sky Sports and has been credited as an executive producer for football and cricket.
What did Mr Francis do in his capacity of executive producer? How does that relate to his ability to judge what works for snooker?

So far, the things you list are all events without a shot clock, and aren't even short-format events, so at the moment, I see no reason to trust his judgement on snooker, because I see no evidence he has any in-depth knowledge of the sport.

I said last year's World Championship - 2011(Trump v Higgins) - that's nothing to do with Ronnie.

You're coming across as very aggressive and your mention of "stalkers" seems a little odd - are you being pursued across the Internet by people?

since i am not barney francis, i am not in a position to tell you what his day to day activities as a producer were. my opinion of whether he is capable of judging whether a certain programme would work on his network, stems from the prima facie evidence on hand which are his credentials in producing programmes with high ratings and his management of a successful network (and the assumption he would only make a commercial judgment whether to carry a certain sport after sourcing a fact-based, carefully researched opinion from his team). you are asking for evidence that is literally impossible for a person looking in from the outside to know - it's like asking an outsider to assess the competency of a head of a nuclear research program based on his knowledge about a particular screw used in the reactor.

networks decide whether to carry programs usually after conducting careful research and the fact that sky is extremely commercially successful means they are doing the right things with respect to programming. if they decide that they won't carry traditional snooker because of ratings issues, then more likely than not, they are making an informed decision as such.

well, apart from ronnie, trump is the other massive drawcard in snooker - and my personal opinion is because they are literally 'shot clocks' anyway (flair and talent aside of course).

apologies if i sounded aggressive. no, just stalkers on this site - which seems odd - considering this is a site about snooker, not politics etc.

[gavpowell]

But you said the analysis was "right on the dot" about it not being a ratings puller, and yet you don't appear to have any evidence to back that up? I just find it odd you're praising this guy as possessing great insight when you seem to know very little about what he;s actually done, hence reputation by association. He may be a genius beyond compare for all I know, but where's the evidence? Has Sky Sports become significantly more successful as a result of his appointment? Is his appointment the only thing that could be said to be responsible for any possible success? It all seems a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc, and that's just not empirical thinking.

Barry Hearn did the same thing, which annoyed me immensely - "We've shortened the UK championship's match lengths and the crowds have turned out in droves." - yes but you also moved the venue from Telford back to the showpiece city of York, and offered deals on the ticket purchases that were not in place before...

As the the O'Sullivan/Trump thing, the tournament itself was still without a shot clock, and therefore to suggest a shot-clock is essential seems without any evidential base.

[Looki]

apologies if i sounded aggressive. no, just stalkers on this site - which seems odd - considering this is a site about snooker, not politics etc.

You're not stalked by anyone on this forum. Answering your posts is not stalking even if someone disagrees with you, it's normal conversation. What comes to politics, you're the one who has tried to compare so called stalkers' and dinos' views to republicans and tea party people. So much for good conversation.

Btw, what, in your opinion, is proper conversation? Calling people names? Taking it personal when someone disagrees? That's the way you come across at times.

[Gerry Armstrong]

IMHO, as a now ex but long time Sky employee, Sky Sports would take the Snooker World Championships and show it on Sky Sports in a heartbeat if it was available to them to show "Exclusively". That is Sky's MO i.e. Exclusive Coverage.

If it's not Exclusive coverage of the big events they're just not interested.

[arbitrage]

But you said the analysis was "right on the dot" about it not being a ratings puller, and yet you don't appear to have any evidence to back that up? I just find it odd you're praising this guy as possessing great insight when you seem to know very little about what he;s actually done, hence reputation by association. He may be a genius beyond compare for all I know, but where's the evidence? Has Sky Sports become significantly more successful as a result of his appointment? Is his appointment the only thing that could be said to be responsible for any possible success? It all seems a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc, and that's just not empirical thinking.

Barry Hearn did the same thing, which annoyed me immensely - "We've shortened the UK championship's match lengths and the crowds have turned out in droves." - yes but you also moved the venue from Telford back to the showpiece city of York, and offered deals on the ticket purchases that were not in place before...

As the the O'Sullivan/Trump thing, the tournament itself was still without a shot clock, and therefore to suggest a shot-clock is essential seems without any evidential base.

i wrote:

(and the assumption he would only make a commercial judgment whether to carry a certain sport after sourcing a fact-based, carefully researched opinion from his team)

networks decide whether to carry programs usually after conducting careful research and the fact that sky is extremely commercially successful means they are doing the right things with respect to programming. if they decide that they won't carry traditional snooker because of ratings issues, then more likely than not, they are making an informed decision as such.

'right on the dot' is my personal view. as is sullivan/trump. and i wrote as a disclaimer 'i stress personal view because i don't want people coming up and asking "where is the evidence?" etc.'

[Gerry Armstrong]

As I said above, if the major events were available for Sky to broadcast i.e. the WC's, The UK and the Masters then Sky would cover them.

They're not interested in the rest if they can't have the big events, and that decision is a World Snooker decision, nothing to do with Barney Francis.

[Tred]

Have always thought that the Premier League is a bit like an extended version of Pot Black, it's great to be able to watch a few frames every week but it's hardly the kind of event that's going to pull in loads of viewers. The best thing about it is the occassional presence of Clive Everton in the commentary box.

Yes, there is some scope for SKY to expand its snooker coverage and I agree that if they were given exclusive rights to one of the major tournaments they'd pull out all the stops. The shootout and the Seniors both have a very similar feel to them. It's very much a "filler" sport for them at the moment. If they resurrected the Hoffmeister World Doubles it would be straight on SKY!

Let's face it - the biggest cuesports event on SkySports is the Mosconi Cup but AFAIK that's the only "live" pool event they show these days. I guess it's ideal for them as it is almost "Darts meets Ryder Cup"...

One thing that really annoys me about SKY's sports coverage is the continual hype, they feel like they have to keep on brainwashing you that you're watching the best sporting event/league/tournament etc in the planet...