UEFA Euro 2008 on ESPN/ABC

I would question that figure. Even if the airport was open and accepting flights for 20 hours a day, in four days you be looking at nearly extra 300 flights a day - virtually one every 4 minutes. Allowing a week doesn't improve things much either. Unless Vienna airport has undergone some massive expansion, it'd be tough to fit in that much extra traffic.

With typically 150 people on a plane, it'd also mean Russia taking over 150,000 fans to the tournament, which I'd think rather unlikely as it'd be by far the biggest away support in history.

 

The vast majority of the planes were private jets. Regular commercial airplanes were severley delayed though because of all the extra traffic.

Yes, you are missing something. Í was talking about espn's WC 2006 production which I don't think was in HD (and if it was, very few people had HD TV's back then). And I am big on "value for money". Do you not realize that just watching one or two matches in a pub is likely to run you a bill of at least $150 alone? $150 for 31 great matches is peanuts when there's no decent alternative.... Of course now that ESPN has gotten their act together, its obviously better to pay nothing.

 

a look at Vienna Airport's site says they had 190 charter flights and 650 small business jets over the whole tournament.

They could have all been from Russia, but it seems unlikely.


Regardless, although I'm not sure I'd be happy spending $5000, being there is the best way to experience a tournament.

for that price I'd be demanding my "pub" featured scantily-clad women dancing around poles.

 

Well, that's why I wrote "I think" and then put in brackets why even if they were broadcast in HD, very few people could take advantage of that (without buying a new TV or a more substantial cable/satellite package).

Here you go:

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/hd-service-fewer-hdtv/

And that was in Dec, 2006 (after lots of people probably bought HD sets for that NFL season). Fair to say only 7-8 million households had HD programming in June, 2006, yeah? Of which probably less than 50% had ESPN2 HD. So maybe 4% of households got to see all games in HD (I'm being generous I think) and ~7% got to see at least one match in HD by paying "$0 extra".

Probably some of the same die-hard soccer fans who paid $150 in 2004 went out to buy a new HDTV or buy HD (espn2) programming in May 2006, instead of waiting a few months when prices for HD went way down.

Are they "suckers" too?

*sigh* Obviously I was just pointing out how little $150 is considering people routinely blow that kind of dough on one or two nights of entertainment or a parking-ticket. Here we're talking 3 weeks worth of entertainment. Peanuts! Once you accept its not much, then

- anthems
- in-depth analysis at halftime
- pre-game show
- good announcers v crappy ones.

seems like a good deal.

 

And a flight from Russia to Vienna + game ticket cost $5000? more proof that you are a sheep...

That's why you are a sheep. A normal person doesn't have to go to the site to follow the Euro.

See, you are getting personal again. Knowing that you can't argue the issue, that's well expected.

 

And the NFL never estimated 1B viewers. All along, what they say are a "potential audience of 1B". That means they include all those people who subscribed to ESPN Asia, ESPN Latin America, all those channels that televised the Super Bowl, regardless of whether they watched it or not.

If the NBA used the same line, then the Yao vs Yi game would have > 1B viewers, since that game was available on a channel that's widely available in China.

 

You guys are missing the most important difference of PPV vs ESPN. When games are on ESPN, you don't have to worry where to watch. It's available at home, work (if your work has TV), any friend's house, any bar.

Without aguing that $150 makes you a sucker, and even giving you that it's not that much money, PPV still significantly limited your choices of places to view games. I don't know about you, but majority of U.S. population cannot spend Monday-Friday 12-4:30pm watching the games at home. I had to watch at work/bars partially/home/airplane even (jetblue).

Can't do that w/ PPV. $150 is just for home, then your friend's houae $150, then being forced to drop money at the bar. It's really $150 x 2-3-4.

 

Comcast cable agreed to carry ESPN2HD in the days leading up to World Cup 2006. In some cases, certain areas may have added ESPN2HD in the hours, if not minutes, before kickoff.

Time Warner (at least in Central Ohio) did not have ESPN2HD or ABCHD. Other HD cable companies did have ABCHD. At the time, ESPNHD was on a higher-priced HD package, as opposed to their "free HD" package of HD channels anyone could watch just by subscribing to digital cable, where ESPNHD and ESPN2HD are now.

At the time, Time Warner was involved in a squabble with Sinclair Communications over HD broadcasting. IIRC, Sinclair "claimed" that HD signals were more expensive to re-transmit, and therefore, TW should compensate Sinclair for these HD signals. TW didn't want to pass the cost onto the customers. (In Central Ohio, both ABC and FOX are Sinclair channels.)

The ESPN issue was something else that was rectified when Disney and Time Warner signed their newest deal last year that also added ESPNU to Time Warner's lineups, and ESPN Deportes in some areas.

 

Putting aside the fact that you clearly don't know what behaving like a sheep is, yes, a private jet from Russia to Vienna would (I imagine) cost at least that much.

And don't forget the hotel and food. And also don't forget the pathetic value of the American dollar against the Euro (or even its decline against the Swiss franc).

Best for you not to argue about the cost of a vacation in Europe as you clearly have little to no experience travelling anywhere.

A normal person/fan would love to experience the Euros live in Austria/Switzerland. But you're far from normal as we all know. Thank God for that...

 

True, that is the biggest problem of PPV. Which brings-up another point: there is no right or wrong here. Telling me I'm a sucker for paying $150 for Euro 2004 or $5000 (directly or indirectly) for Euro 2008 is like telling someone they're a sucker (or as rangers00 has re-defined the word: "sheep") for spending $5000 on a wedding ring. Without knowing anything about the person, such a statement is just idiotic beyond belief...

 

Sure. While one person may consider spending $150 for better colmmentary and anthems a frivolous expense, another one may find it to be a good deal - to the point of paying at 3-4 viewership locations. There's no right or wrong. That pretty much goes for anything in life - short of what's been deemed illegal*.

BUT, there is such a thing as a "norm" as decided upon overwhelming majority. And overwhelming majority would much prefer to watch these games for free on ESPN than to pay for on Setanta - as respective ratings for the 2 Euros show.

* Legality, of course, is also a "norm" as decreed upon overwhelming majority of a particular society.

 

Focusing on your lack of common sense and your forgetting of what you wrote, no, you can't tell us you meant private jet when you said:

"Hundreds of thousands of people, that's who. E.g: the days leading-up to Russia v. Spain, 1100 airplanes landed in Vienna from Russia alone."

You said "hundreds of thousands of people", since you said "hundreds", it meant at least two hundred. >200K people on 1100 airplanes (commercial airliner) is no big deal, but >200K people on 1100 private jets? It means at least 181+ people per private jet.

Have you ever travelled on a private jet? 181 fans travelling on each of 1100 private jets and paying $5000 per head?

Best for you not to argue, since I am here to pick apart what you wrote. The more you argue, the bigger hole you dig yourself into...

In other words, your claim that hundreds of thousands of Russians paying the same amount you sheepishly pay is not creditable. In other words, your have no way to whitewash your sheepy behavior.

Not at that price.

A normal person/fan would not spend $5000 for not much gain in value. E.g. even all the posters here are diehard soccer fans and love to watch the Euro, but they would rather spend $5000 on a year's tuition or 5 month's rent than experience the Euro, because experiencing the Euro isn't worth $5000 over watching the Euro on TV. If it's $50, I am sure 95% of the posters here would go for it.

That's not what you said, you said:

"The vast majority of fans followed from a distance (on TV). So I was going against the masses if anything."

So I am going along with the masses, you are going against the masses, your own admission.

Normal: constituting a norm

Norm: a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group

By the definition of normal and your own admission, you are not the normal one since you go against the masses...

 

Oh dear... pendantic arsehole alert.

Although its funny that you are again demonstating that plurality is not your strong suit (plural means "more than one", NOT "2 or more" ), lets recap:

I wrote: I spent $5000 on Euro 2008.
To which someone responded: "who does that, i love this game but 5,000 dollars in one month would leave my fam without alot."
I responded: "hundreds of thousands of people that's who. For example, 1100 planes alone flew from Russia to Vienna leading - up to the RUS - ESP match"

I did not write "hundreds of thousands of people went to Vienna in 1100 airplanes"

Context is everything. Nice try though.

 

Although I get your overall point (the fact that ESPN is more widely available channel to watch), I don't understand these "3-4 viewership locations" which costs "$150 times 3/4". If a friend and I both subscribe to the $150 package, we're each paying only $150 total (at most) even if I watch 5 matches at my friend's home.

 

Well, let's see what you attempt to write:

"Hundreds of thousands of people, that's who. E.g: the days leading-up to Russia v. Spain, 1100 airplanes landed in Vienna from Russia alone."

"Putting aside the fact that you clearly don't know what behaving like a sheep is, yes, a private jet from Russia to Vienna would (I imagine) cost at least that much. ($5000)"

1) So, do "the hundreds of thousands of people" related to the "1100 airplanes landed in Vienna from Russia alone"?

Apparently not since in this post, you wimped out with

'I did not write "hundreds of thousands of people went to Vienna in 1100 airplanes.'

even though you use the 1100 (Russian->Vienna) airplanes as example to illustrate the cost of $5000.

2) but then, the question remains, how did the Russians spend $5000 to fly to Vienna? you then have to resort to

"yes, a private jet from Russia to Vienna would (I imagine) cost at least that much."

In other words, you are still not able to indicate how the Russians got to Vienna, and how many of them.

1) commercial airliner? not a $5000 flight for hundreds of thousands of Russians, but you claimed "yes, a private jet from Russia to Vienna would (I imagine) cost at least that much."

2) private jet? your own wimp out on this article:

'I did not write "hundreds of thousands of people went to Vienna in 1100 airplanes.'

So take your pick...

Context is everything, but do you think I'll let you jump around this argument with two contradicting statements?

 

On post #998, you wrote:

"Regarding your other point, strictly speaking you didn't say anything incorrect. It's just the way you keep hammering home your "point" makes you look like an utter idiot."

Never mind what you said was against the masses, but you keep hammering home your "point" against Gosya must have made you look like an utter idiot.

THAT'S YOUR OWN LOGIC!!!

Not that I buy your logic, but it's always good to use your own logic against you...

I can't wait to see whether you

- keep making yourself look like an idiot (using your own logic), or
- wimp out...

 

Nope. Gosya introduced a *new* point which I mostly agreed with. I just don't know what he means by "$150 times 3 or 4" so I questioned that part of his post ONCE (and once only).

 

If it's a $150 at your house, and a $150 at your friend's house, that's $300. If your friend doesn't want to pony up the $150 b/c he's "lesser" fan than you, that's $300 coming out of your pocket.

That's all I was saying - $150 per POINT of viewing (not per match, or anything else).

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd scene.


We'll call it after 1000 pages (twice what we usually limit things to).


If anyone has something other than just point-by-point pissing matches, please feel free to start a new thread.