Sky trying to get Mitrovic in ref's bad books

[Nick Bateman]

Apart from taking a pro-Swansea stance by having one of their token Swansea fan in the studio, Sky's post match showed 2 incidents involving Alexander Mitrovic negatively, something they could do to Liverpool's Mané, or half a dozen Chelsea miscreants every week but don't. This shows a "poor loser" mentality from this organisation which unashamedly displays it's bias.

Sky obviously do not wish Fulham to compete with Chelsea  next year, with chairman Bruce Buck's choice of PL overseer lifelong Chelsea  supporter David Pemsel stepping down in disgrace before he even took office! Chelsea  have not had a player red-carded in over 100 mathces, a fact mentioned by Martin Tyler last weekend.

With media giant Amazon moving in, Sky TV's corrupting stranglehold over English football is coming to an end and they will soon not be able to control what officials do or think, as they have for so many years.

[Logicalman]

Hey, whilst Sky wishes to promote Fulham week-in and week-out by televising their games in the hope we'll get thrashed (but not as yet) then let them publicize us for free!  :005:

The good thing is that other viewers will easily see that they are talking trash, and that will neither turn the nuetrals against Fulham, or do Sky's tarnished reputation any good. A win-win, one might say!  :033:

[bobbo]

I like it nick.
I'd like to think they aren't bias , but they most certainly are. I unfortunately had to go watch my mates boy playing tonight and couldn't get anything on my phone so didn't know the score until the 68th minute in the car I was then listening to the again bias comment from that knownothing p***t Ian Holloway 
, he's embarrassing . So bias.

[Nick Bateman]

Agreed chaps. While Fulham keep winning they are dumb-founded, boggled and confused as to their direction. As we continue to grow exponentially, do they stop showing Fulham entirely, that is the question?

[Arthur]

I unfortunately had to go watch my mates boy playing tonight and couldn't get anything on my phone so didn't know the score until the 68th minute in the car I was then listening to the again bias comment from that knownothing p***t Ian Holloway 
, he's embarrassing . So bias.

How can anyone listening only to a radio commentary know whether it is biased?

Of course, it would be unusual if your derogatory opinion of Ian Holloway (which, logically, has to be based on more than just his views on tonight's game) hadn't coloured your judgment.

[Arthur]

As we continue to grow exponentially, do they stop showing Fulham entirely, that is the question?

If we are 'growing exponentially', as you say, I guess we can hope to hit top spot in the league sometime in February (if not sooner). If you think that Sky would go the last two-or-three months of the season without once showing the club that's top of the table, I'll happily wager you otherwise.

[toshes mate]

My cure to biased Sky commentary is to turn the TV audio off.  In this way I cannot be influenced by anyone else's perception of the game, bias or no bias.  It doesn't work without earplugs when others watching with me want the audio on but I am not a fan of things stuck in ears so I tend to grin and bear it.  Not sure that Sky's attitude to us is anything other than their belief that there are bigger potential audiences for all their advertising income revenue among other familiar named clubs which is my way of saying Sky just don't care about neutrality and never have done. 

I note the comment about Amazon but I feel the same issues apply since these media companies are only interested in our money.  They only know one loyalty and that is to themselves. The saddest thing is that many football clubs are getting to be that same way too.  I wish we could get back to the game being more important than the money surrounding it.   

[filham]

Don't bother with Sky . Watch FFCTV with the commentary by a nicely biased Gentleman Jim, it is so sweet to the ear.

[Moltobueno]

Nick Bateman and no mention of Joe Hart? :005: