I think it's been pretty awful I'm afraid. The on-screen graphics are pointlessly intrusive. At no point have I listened to any of the pundits and come away thinking I've learned something, unlike with Carragher and Neville or even some of ITV's team. Jake Humphrey encourages the kind of matey, joshy sub-BBC coverage that I cannot abide. The build up to games is air filled with no substance whatsoever. The giant pitch in the studio has proven to be a preposterous white elephant. Even Baker and Kelly, whom I adore, have not hit the heights and it's noticeable they've fallen back on the tried & tested interview with an ex-footballer. Helen Skelton has been hopelessly out of her depth presenting the Sports Panel.
The only thing I can give them credit for is Darren Fletcher, who has settled into TV commentary nicely. I am dreading BT starting Champions League coverage on what I have seen so far. Still, others seem happy and it looks like I'm stuck with it.
Yes, I think you are. I believe BT have followed on where ESPN left of and put more life into sports coverage? Sky were just plodding along with their coverage. they have now had to IP their game too.
I am dreading BT starting Champions League coverage on what I have seen so far. Still, others seem happy and it looks like I'm stuck with it.
I don't see why.
In James Richardson, they have a top class European football presenter, who - in my eyes - should be involved with some sort of preview and highlights show before and after the live game. Humphrey seems like marmite, people either love him or hate him, but personally, he adds a charm to the football coverage and he's certainly superior to the dull Adrian Chiles who fronts ITV's Champions League coverage.
In commentary, it's thought Andy Gray will be on the team by then and he alongside Ian Darke could be a killer combination. Darren Flecter alongside Jim Beglin perhaps, Peter Drury fronts some foreign football and is another well rounded commentator.
Will BT Sport miss it though? It was more a filler than something they will be sobbing in the corner over...
Exactly. Ratings according to the BARB top 10 were never brilliant when BT did show it. Sky will probably get it more viewers by way of having more subscribers, but I doubt BT will be too concerned. More money for them to put into better rights when they get the chance.
Exactly. Ratings according to the BARB top 10 were never brilliant when BT did show it. Sky will probably get it more viewers by way of having more subscribers, but I doubt BT will be too concerned. More money for them to put into better rights when they get the chance.
La Liga I think, although I don't know if bids are already in for that or not. I heard BT had bid which caused the auction to be held rather than Sky being able to renew.
I think BT would love to have LaLiga on board, but another part of me thinks that they'll want to reserve their finances for the Prem league. That's where the big bucks, big revenue, big subscriptions, big press, big upsales are at!
Neither BT (nor Sky) are going to be thinking in terms of saving money on smaller contracts so they have more money to bid for PL.
The cost of stuff like French Top 14 rugby is absolute peanuts in comparison - BT aren't going to be thinking they need to save the odd £1m or £2m - it's totally irrelevant to their overall position.
Rather, each will simply bid what they think each set of rights is worth to them.
Sky have most likely won the French Top 14 simply because the rest of their rugby union portfolio has been weakened and they have therefore felt it worth putting a bit more money in to secure French Top 14.
Whereas it's less of a priority for BT given that their rugby union portfolio is the strongest they have in any major sport.
Neither BT (nor Sky) are going to be thinking in terms of saving money on smaller contracts so they have more money to bid for PL.
The cost of stuff like French Top 14 rugby is absolute peanuts in comparison - BT aren't going to be thinking they need to save the odd £1m or £2m - it's totally irrelevant to their overall position.
Rather, each will simply bid what they think each set of rights is worth to them.
Sky have most likely won the French Top 14 simply because the rest of their rugby union portfolio has been weakened and they have therefore felt it worth putting a bit more money in to secure French Top 14.
Whereas it's less of a priority for BT given that their rugby union portfolio is the strongest they have in any major sport.
Wouldn't be surprised to see BT trying to get some cricket moving forward. Caribbean T20 is in a good time slot, and played at a time of the year when their schedule is currently sparse.
Wouldn't be surprised to see BT trying to get some cricket moving forward. Caribbean T20 is in a good time slot, and played at a time of the year when their schedule is currently sparse.
If they took on any cricket rights wouldn't that involved them having to create an entire 'team' from scratch? I get the impression that if/when BT do decide to move into cricket they will do it properly with some major rights acquisitions and corresponding commentators/pundits.
I think we can over think things sometimes. Any contract under £5m a year is generally not very key (examples: Top 14 Rugby, NRL rugby, basketball, ice hockey, badminton, netball etc)
These kind of bids I dont think the CExec of BT/Sky would get involved in
Wouldn't be surprised to see BT trying to get some cricket moving forward. Caribbean T20 is in a good time slot, and played at a time of the year when their schedule is currently sparse.
If they took on any cricket rights wouldn't that involved them having to create an entire 'team' from scratch? I get the impression that if/when BT do decide to move into cricket they will do it properly with some major rights acquisitions and corresponding commentators/pundits.
Last year I believe BT aired every CPL T20 game live aside Game 1 (which was played the day before BT channel launch and was shown in full on delay next day, Aug 1st?). They took the host broadcast feed - I'm unsure but was there absolutely zero BT-based presentation? I suspect so.
If the schedule is similar and fits the same as last year the CPL T20 was played during August. Is BT's schedule especially sparse in August? Anyhow it would be a reasonably useful regular fit for them as some live lesser rights if they get it for the next three years which it has been made available at least.
La Liga and SANZAR rugby along with World 7s are some rights with unknown futures after 2015 (when the current deals with Sky are due to end). Super Rugby is a News Corp affiliated tv station affair across NZ, Aus, SA, and UK, isn't it? Is that pretty certain to remain the case long-term going forward?
I think we can over think things sometimes. Any contract under £5m a year is generally not very key (examples: Top 14 Rugby, NRL rugby, basketball, ice hockey, badminton, netball etc)
These kind of bids I dont think the CExec of BT/Sky would get involved in
Yes, agree entirely - and most of the above are probably under £2m, some would be under £1m.
To the extent that it's possible to identify a pattern I would say that it appears as if Sky are pretty keen to retain as broad a base of rights as possible, including rights of low importance.
Off the top of my head I can count 14 rights announcements they've made since the end of January - vast majority being retentions but includes 3 additions - IPL, GAA and Top 14.
In contrast they've only actually lost 3 contracts since BT came on the scene but they are all big ones - CL (2nd biggest sports contract of all after PL), Aviva and European rugby (partial).
I think we can over think things sometimes. Any contract under £5m a year is generally not very key (examples: Top 14 Rugby, NRL rugby, basketball, ice hockey, badminton, netball etc)
These kind of bids I dont think the CExec of BT/Sky would get involved in
NRL all games live or on delay with SOO and Aus v NZ games would garner more subs than you'd think. The main reasons for Sky not being interested: People would see gulf in quality to SL, they already have Super Rugby for mornings and for some reason they are obsessed with studio coverage for everything.
How much are the La Liga rights though? Being probably the best league in the world would come with quite a price tag surely? Will BT want to pay it when they can reserve the funds to put towards the EPL.
NRL all games live or on delay with SOO and Aus v NZ games would garner more subs than you'd think. The main reasons for Sky not being interested: People would see gulf in quality to SL, they already have Super Rugby for mornings and for some reason they are obsessed with studio coverage for everything.
Surely it has more to do with the fact that most of the people who would subscribe to watch the NRL already subscribe to Sky in order to watch Super League?
How much are the La Liga rights though? Being probably the best league in the world would come with quite a price tag surely? Will BT want to pay it when they can reserve the funds to put towards the EPL.
Well, it arguably has football of the highest technique. Just about, overall.
But outside of the top 2 or 3 teams, La Liga has very little global popularity compared to the PL. I'm pretty sure BT wouldn't be that bothered by not having the rights.
Last year I believe BT aired every CPL T20 game live aside Game 1 (which was played the day before BT channel launch and was shown in full on delay next day, Aug 1st?). They took the host broadcast feed - I'm unsure but was there absolutely zero BT-based presentation? I suspect so.
Correct. It was just the international feed they broadcast.
How much are the La Liga rights though? Being probably the best league in the world would come with quite a price tag surely? Will BT want to pay it when they can reserve the funds to put towards the EPL.
No formal announcement but from memory reports suggested Sky paid in the region of £10m to £12m per year last time.
So it's not peanuts but it's still pretty small beer in the overall scheme of things. It's a bit under 1% of Sky's total sports rights spending.
Last year I believe BT aired every CPL T20 game live aside Game 1 (which was played the day before BT channel launch and was shown in full on delay next day, Aug 1st?). They took the host broadcast feed - I'm unsure but was there absolutely zero BT-based presentation? I suspect so.
If the schedule is similar and fits the same as last year the CPL T20 was played during August. Is BT's schedule especially sparse in August? Anyhow it would be a reasonably useful regular fit for them as some live lesser rights if they get it for the next three years which it has been made available at least.
CPL is earlier this year - I think it starts second week of July.
Surely it has more to do with the fact that most of the people who would subscribe to watch the NRL already subscribe to Sky in order to watch Super League?
An average of two games per SL round with 3rd and 4th pick Cup QFs, international origin and France V England; the RL coverage is far from comprehensive.
No formal announcement but from memory reports suggested Sky paid in the region of £10m to £12m per year last time.
So it's not peanuts but it's still pretty small beer in the overall scheme of things. It's a bit under 1% of Sky's total sports rights spending.
Or to look at it another way, 2 PL games a year.
I bet Sky are probably kicking themselves for not getting FA Cup in light of BT's CL bid. 3 games a round, plus a replay (Sky could probably have got first pick replay too) would mean around 25 extra games a year
I bet Sky are probably kicking themselves for not getting FA Cup in light of BT's CL bid. 3 games a round, plus a replay (Sky could probably have got first pick replay too) would mean around 25 extra games a year
Yes, absolutely.
With Sky's existing portfolio (ie including CL) they had no need for FA Cup so they obviously didn't think it was worth spending £25m+ per year on it.
But (and as I posted at the time) it would have acted as a useful hedge in case they lost any PL/CL rights.
Of course we know FA Cup can be very hit and miss without 1st picks but even so, for a bit over £25m, it would have proved very worth their while to have got it.
With Sky's existing portfolio (ie including CL) they had no need for FA Cup so they obviously didn't think it was worth spending £25m+ per year on it.
But (and as I posted at the time) it would have acted as a useful hedge in case they lost any PL/CL rights.
Of course we know FA Cup can be very hit and miss without 1st picks but even so, for a bit over £25m, it would have proved very worth their while to have got it.
Thats the wonderful thing with hindsight though isn't it.
BT thought ahead and wanted in on the party while Sky were thinking they would be fine and nothing to worry about until UEFA drop the bomb on them that their bid was wiped out by BT's for the UCL & UEL.. So BT have FA Cup & the UEFA lot.
You can be sure Sky won't make that same mistake ever again though..
An average of two games per SL round with 3rd and 4th pick Cup QFs, international origin and France V England; the RL coverage is far from comprehensive.
What does that have to do with it? As I said, most people who are interested in watching NRL probably already subscribe to Sky Sports.
Comments
Yes, I think you are. I believe BT have followed on where ESPN left of and put more life into sports coverage? Sky were just plodding along with their coverage. they have now had to IP their game too.
I don't see why.
In James Richardson, they have a top class European football presenter, who - in my eyes - should be involved with some sort of preview and highlights show before and after the live game. Humphrey seems like marmite, people either love him or hate him, but personally, he adds a charm to the football coverage and he's certainly superior to the dull Adrian Chiles who fronts ITV's Champions League coverage.
In commentary, it's thought Andy Gray will be on the team by then and he alongside Ian Darke could be a killer combination. Darren Flecter alongside Jim Beglin perhaps, Peter Drury fronts some foreign football and is another well rounded commentator.
Having been a customer of TalkTalk, yes, they are appalling.
As a current customer of EE, yes, they are appalling
Will BT Sport miss it though? It was more a filler than something they will be sobbing in the corner over...
Like the prem rights coming up:D
Cant really think of much else.
The cost of stuff like French Top 14 rugby is absolute peanuts in comparison - BT aren't going to be thinking they need to save the odd £1m or £2m - it's totally irrelevant to their overall position.
Rather, each will simply bid what they think each set of rights is worth to them.
Sky have most likely won the French Top 14 simply because the rest of their rugby union portfolio has been weakened and they have therefore felt it worth putting a bit more money in to secure French Top 14.
Whereas it's less of a priority for BT given that their rugby union portfolio is the strongest they have in any major sport.
Wouldn't be surprised to see BT trying to get some cricket moving forward. Caribbean T20 is in a good time slot, and played at a time of the year when their schedule is currently sparse.
If they took on any cricket rights wouldn't that involved them having to create an entire 'team' from scratch? I get the impression that if/when BT do decide to move into cricket they will do it properly with some major rights acquisitions and corresponding commentators/pundits.
These kind of bids I dont think the CExec of BT/Sky would get involved in
Last year I believe BT aired every CPL T20 game live aside Game 1 (which was played the day before BT channel launch and was shown in full on delay next day, Aug 1st?). They took the host broadcast feed - I'm unsure but was there absolutely zero BT-based presentation? I suspect so.
If the schedule is similar and fits the same as last year the CPL T20 was played during August. Is BT's schedule especially sparse in August? Anyhow it would be a reasonably useful regular fit for them as some live lesser rights if they get it for the next three years which it has been made available at least.
For the CPL T20 bids were invited for submission Dec 19th 2013.
http://www.sportbusiness.com/tv-sports-markets/exclusive-caribbean-premier-league-puts-global-media-rights-out-tender
No annoucement yet.
La Liga and SANZAR rugby along with World 7s are some rights with unknown futures after 2015 (when the current deals with Sky are due to end). Super Rugby is a News Corp affiliated tv station affair across NZ, Aus, SA, and UK, isn't it? Is that pretty certain to remain the case long-term going forward?
Yes, agree entirely - and most of the above are probably under £2m, some would be under £1m.
To the extent that it's possible to identify a pattern I would say that it appears as if Sky are pretty keen to retain as broad a base of rights as possible, including rights of low importance.
Off the top of my head I can count 14 rights announcements they've made since the end of January - vast majority being retentions but includes 3 additions - IPL, GAA and Top 14.
In contrast they've only actually lost 3 contracts since BT came on the scene but they are all big ones - CL (2nd biggest sports contract of all after PL), Aviva and European rugby (partial).
NRL all games live or on delay with SOO and Aus v NZ games would garner more subs than you'd think. The main reasons for Sky not being interested: People would see gulf in quality to SL, they already have Super Rugby for mornings and for some reason they are obsessed with studio coverage for everything.
Surely it has more to do with the fact that most of the people who would subscribe to watch the NRL already subscribe to Sky in order to watch Super League?
But outside of the top 2 or 3 teams, La Liga has very little global popularity compared to the PL. I'm pretty sure BT wouldn't be that bothered by not having the rights.
Correct. It was just the international feed they broadcast.
No formal announcement but from memory reports suggested Sky paid in the region of £10m to £12m per year last time.
So it's not peanuts but it's still pretty small beer in the overall scheme of things. It's a bit under 1% of Sky's total sports rights spending.
CPL is earlier this year - I think it starts second week of July.
An average of two games per SL round with 3rd and 4th pick Cup QFs, international origin and France V England; the RL coverage is far from comprehensive.
Or to look at it another way, 2 PL games a year.
I bet Sky are probably kicking themselves for not getting FA Cup in light of BT's CL bid. 3 games a round, plus a replay (Sky could probably have got first pick replay too) would mean around 25 extra games a year
Yes, absolutely.
With Sky's existing portfolio (ie including CL) they had no need for FA Cup so they obviously didn't think it was worth spending £25m+ per year on it.
But (and as I posted at the time) it would have acted as a useful hedge in case they lost any PL/CL rights.
Of course we know FA Cup can be very hit and miss without 1st picks but even so, for a bit over £25m, it would have proved very worth their while to have got it.
Thats the wonderful thing with hindsight though isn't it.
BT thought ahead and wanted in on the party while Sky were thinking they would be fine and nothing to worry about until UEFA drop the bomb on them that their bid was wiped out by BT's for the UCL & UEL.. So BT have FA Cup & the UEFA lot.
You can be sure Sky won't make that same mistake ever again though..
What does that have to do with it? As I said, most people who are interested in watching NRL probably already subscribe to Sky Sports.