Is there a reason why you think a Rugby match would take precedent over a Premier League game?

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, and later now in response to you, there is a Europa League round the Thursday before, so the game has to take place on Sunday.

Maybe you can shed light on why the kick-off is 3pm rather than in one of the recognised "TV slots" though?

The most likely explanation is so that Welsh TV can show an FA Cup 1st round match on Sunday lunch

So that it finishes before Swansea starts

Is there an actual policy on this? It only seemed to be recently that the non-televised Sunday games all had KOs matching the TV games. Previously there was often a 3pm KO when there was an extra game not being televised.

That was suggested before.

However Welsh TV won't be showing the Swansea v Manchester United game - so why would the Premier League game's kick off time be considered in relation to that?

In addition there are three other Premier League games that day - at midday and 2.15pm (the other game moved due to Europa League is kicking off at 2.15pm).

And the final TV slot is a much later 4.30pm !

Interesting to note that the Premier League website still say time TBC for this game. However Manchester United confirmed a 3pm kick off a few weeks back.

You're right - that was the case previously; pretty much all of the rescheduled non-UK televised games kicked off at 3pm.

However every single match moved over the past couple of seasons - and so far this season - has taken place in one of the TV slots.

So the countries that can show more than one EPL game at a time, can?

They can anyway, whatever the time

I'm guessing that rather than have one game overlap with two others (rearranged 3pm kick off) they felt it better if a rearranged match only clashed with one (running concurrently) which might be why they changed it.

But if a provider is using two (or more) channels to show the games that doesn't change if the matches kick off at 3pm or run in one of the UKTV slots,

You're right they can.

The audience, however, is short changed of the start/finish of matches if the schedules are not the same...

Yep, that's what I said

So we are still lacking a reason why Swansea v Manchester United is kicking off at 3pm.

Thanks guys, for a reply to my question earlier, why are sky giving so much build up to Chelsea v Liverpool.

Surely it cant be just because its a FNF Game, what is the difference between it being a Friday Night Game, Premier League Live, Super Sunday or Monday Night Football, it is just a match, nobody is gonna subscribe just because of ooh look Sky are showing Football on a Friday, like they hadn't been doing it for years, even though Football League.

In 2 weeks time when the Super Toffees play Palace, I expect 3 days of coverage.

Nice little montage showing us Ronald Koeman and Alan Pardew

I have noticed in recent weeks a lot of adverts for Now TV passes specifically aimed at things like Chelsea v Liverpool. Also, I've been seeing adverts pop up offering Sky Sports half price for 3 months including a paper advert in this month's World Soccer Magazine. Probably not for this thread but I'm not sure that things look particularly rosy for Sky at the moment.

Talking of adverts, this is the 1st sky match I've watched this season. At least half of half time is advertisements.
Why employ extra pundits if you're gonna do this?

Although I agree that a premium subscription channel should have less - rather than more - ads, the game does have a 90 minute build-up plus 45 minutes post-match,,,

And at half time, after a pretty explosive 1st half....

Well they can't really tell some or all of their advertisers to do one just because the first half turns out to be more worth talking about than usual. There is a set amount of ad-time, that's not going to change.

I'm not normally one for half time punditry so it may have always been like this (has it?)
It seems odd to pay Souness, Henry & Carragher to do nothing.
And yes they be on for an 1 hour before and 1 hour after but who watches that?

What an utterly bizarre response

"What an utterly bizarre response"
I could say exactly the same

I appear to have arrived in the playground

You could; there'd be no context for it though

Bangs head. Nurse we have another one.

Oooohhh, there's no comeback on that.

Your responses have gone from bizarre to ridiculous

Here's a reminder of what you said.


Of course, they also just turn up in the studio and know their stuff - no research whatsoever.

A bizare post that suggested that if nobody was watching (check the ratings thread btw) they shouldn't get paid.

I think you're relaxing just a little too much for a Friday night (obviously a substance or two taken).

Ooh well edited.
OK, without any fancy editing.
My original point was all about half time.

I'm sure there's a few who watch the pre game stuff, and a lot more who watch the post match stuff. But I guess the key audience is 7.45 - 10.15.
And the reason for my post tonight. I missed most the 1st half, thought id catch up at HT.

Huh?

No edits whatsoever - fancy or otherwise; you really should read your own posts before responding with smartassery.

Your original post:-


Point out, please, where and what I edited - apart from leaving out the first line which was a question I can't answer - and stop looking for a fight.

No fighting here. Goodbye

Can't you answer?

What did I edit exactly?

A bizarre string of posts to say the least