McIlroy and Westwood slam Sky as they buy rights to US Open from 2016

124

Comments

  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    CRTHD wrote: »
    Well if you applied the less sport on free tv means less kids get involved analogy to football, it sort of falls flat on it's face doesn't it?

    No it doesn't. Football is widely played in schools throughout the country. Football can be played down the park. I take my lads out to the park in the summer to have a kick about.
  • Darren LethemDarren Lethem Posts: 61,490
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Remember back when England won the Rugby world cup which was shown on I think the BBC? I can't remember. There many, many reports of kids taking a renewed interest in Rugby. Same with the Olympics every four years, athletics sees a huge boost to membership. FTA does wonders for sport.

    The only real sport that doesn't need exposure in this country is football. There's been a downward trend on almost every main stream sport.

    It was on ITV

    Can you get any facts correct ? Starting to wonder if you're on a wind up now

    So many errors in your posts.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    Extensive live coverage of minority sport is as about as public service as you can get. The very essence of the BBC concept.

    To use the justification that "not many people watch it" as a reason to get rid of it... that's very mixed up!


    We know people can pay to watch it, that's not the point. They have already paid!, that's the point. The TV Licence is to fund the BBC, the BBC is for things like The Open.

    The very least that the British public should expect to be live on the BBC is a sporting institution like The Open.

    I agree and instead we're going to have the BBC making more crap dramas or buying rubbish like 'The Voice' and catering more towards a woman demographic than men. The BBC should have a fair mix.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree and instead we're going to have the BBC making more crap dramas or buying rubbish like 'The Voice' and catering more towards a woman demographic than men. The BBC should have a fair mix.

    Shock, horror! The BBC try to cater for all parts of the populations and not just a bunch or morons wearing football scarves.

    The BBC produce a wide range of excellent drama. I don't watch The Voice but it seems to manage to be reasonable popular without sinking to the level of Cowell's programmes.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    It was on ITV

    Can you get any facts correct ? Starting to wonder if you're on a wind up now

    So many errors in your posts.

    Oh, just shut you troll. It was years ago! It wasn't exactly last year and if you look at my post I didn't state it as fact. Welcome to ignore.
  • Darren LethemDarren Lethem Posts: 61,490
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh, just shut you troll. It was years ago! It wasn't exactly last year and if you look at my post I didn't state it as fact. Welcome to ignore.

    Bloody hell he'll probably get that wrong too.

    Intrigued to know how to troll under your real name
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    Shock, horror! The BBC try to cater for all parts of the populations and not just a bunch or morons wearing football scarves.

    The BBC produce a wide range of excellent drama. I don't watch The Voice but it seems to manage to be reasonable popular without sinking to the level of Cowell's programmes.

    I think you missed my point mate. Never mind.:)
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There was a piece in The Times today regretting the fact the Open had gone to Sky and praising the BBC.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    ftv wrote: »
    There was a piece in The Times today regretting the fact the Open had gone to Sky and praising the BBC.

    Who was regretting it mate?
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    I don't particularity blame the BBC or Sky for what's happened here, both have behaved exactly as you'd expect. NOW TV is very good value if it looks like being a close Open going into the weekend nobody is exactly being priced out.

    I think the golfing authorities are insane though. Participation levels are dropping and there is now no European golf on FTA tv, doesn't seem like a sensible way of going about things. Not like there's a shortage of tournaments, doesn't have to be The Open, they need to work on creating formats that would appeal to FTA tv.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The premier event of golf, the "Wimbledon" of golf, should absolutely be on the BBC fully and live.

    What is the BBC for if not that?

    But this is an issue for government. They should make it possible through law and funding.

    Not going to happen with a Conservative government though is it?
  • RadiomikeRadiomike Posts: 7,926
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    The premier event of golf, the "Wimbledon" of golf, should absolutely be on the BBC fully and live.

    What is the BBC for if not that?

    But this is an issue for government. They should make it possible through law and funding.

    Not going to happen with a Conservative government though is it?

    Unlikely to happen under any Government and certainly not the funding aspect.
  • wolvesdavidwolvesdavid Posts: 10,856
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The last labour government did start a consulation about the listed events list. They got voted out, and the new government scrapped it.

    I suppose if Labour get voted back in they might restart a fresh new consulation process.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The last labour government did start a consulation about the listed events list. They got voted out, and the new government scrapped it.

    I suppose if Labour get voted back in they might restart a fresh new consulation process.

    That's what they have claimed:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-expand-crown-jewels-to-include-world-cup-and-euro-football-qualifiers-10001716.html

    I can't see it happening, the potentially affected sporting bodies will fight it tooth and nail. The crown jewels list is effectively restraint of trade, and if events like the Ashes, the Open etc don't have to be on FTA TV, it's hard to make a case that the list should be expanded, and easier to make the case that it should be reduced or done away with entirely.
  • ATNottsATNotts Posts: 1,238
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    From the headline in the first post; if Messrs Westwood and McIlroy did "slam" Sky, which I doubt, then it is a bit rich, coming from two gents, both of whom flew the European tour to make megabucks on the PGA tour for (in the case of Westwood) the most part, fairly indifferent performances. I know that both are still members of the European tour and play the minimum number of European sanctioned events to maintain their membership, but really, both are full time USPGA tour players.

    The blame, if blame there is, for selling the Open rights to Sky lies with the PGA for selling them, not Sky for buying them and for me, personally, replacing the likes of Alliss and Cotter with Murray, Critchley and "Radar" Riley is no bad thing.

    BBC will retain an extensive highlight programme anyway. Just a shame they can't simply buy in the Sky coverage (edited) rather than wasting my licence money on putting an entire production, presentation and commentary team in place.
  • davelovesleedsdavelovesleeds Posts: 22,359
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Remember back when England won the Rugby world cup which was shown on I think the BBC? I can't remember. There many, many reports of kids taking a renewed interest in Rugby. Same with the Olympics every four years, athletics sees a huge boost to membership. FTA does wonders for sport.
    .

    While I agree with that to a point, every year while Wimbledon is on you can't get a tennis court in the local parks as they are all completely full with young and not so young people all knocking ball around. Two weeks later and they are deserted again.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    While I agree with that to a point, every year while Wimbledon is on you can't get a tennis court in the local parks as they are all completely full with young and not so young people all knocking ball around. Two weeks later and they are deserted again.

    Yes, I agree, I will concede on that point.:)
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    Does anyone know how long it takes for the mods to delete a thread? I requested this to be deleted yesterday lunchtime and it's still here.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ATNotts wrote: »

    BBC will retain an extensive highlight programme anyway. Just a shame they can't simply buy in the Sky coverage (edited) rather than wasting my licence money on putting an entire production, presentation and commentary team in place.

    Or just use the world feed, like Sky do for some tournaments.
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The BBC will always prefer to use their own presenters and commentators.

    It is part of the BBC's attraction that they use presenters and commentators that the audience already "knows" - it is an important aspect of attracting more casual viewers who will feel more inclined to watch with people they "know".

    And remember most of the BBC audience will be more casual viewers - not hardcore golf fans.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    ATNotts wrote: »
    BBC will retain an extensive highlight programme anyway. Just a shame they can't simply buy in the Sky coverage (edited) rather than wasting my licence money on putting an entire production, presentation and commentary team in place.

    You make it sound like you are personally funding the BBC's entire coverage. :)

    Even if the Open was the only thing you watched on the BBC that only comes to £36.37 a day you'd have paid out of the £7m the BBC had paid for the rights.

    More likely, spread over a year you will pay 40p a day (less in leap years) for two hours of entertainment, compare that with £5,15 for 12 condoms and 30 mins of pleasure.

    On the BBC it cost you less than £2 for four days of fore play, stand by for a shock and I hope your money belt can stand the strain, to watch live via Sky's Now TV is currently £10.99 a whopping 6.86 times more.

    Assuming the highlights are millions less than the live rights I think it can safely be said your £1.60 will be just about enough for the presenters to share a coffee or a condom!
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    derek500 wrote: »
    Or just use the world feed, like Sky do for some tournaments.

    What I've seen of Sky's fast turn round highlights it seems to be a replay of the last 1-2 hours of play un-edited. I believe the European Tour provide edited highlights of their tournaments to Sky, they use different commentators to the livefeed.

    In edited highlights they tend to cut a player about 10 seconds before the hit, if the commentators are chattering away it means rolling back even further and they maybe talking something that is not in the highlights. More likely they are saying nothing and there's no introduction to the shot or its context.

    So rather than faff about trying edit round the commentators it can be quicker to edit the picture and add a well informed coherent new commentary that goes with the pictures.
  • Darren LethemDarren Lethem Posts: 61,490
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    You make it sound like you are personally funding the BBC's entire coverage. :)

    Even if the Open was the only thing you watched on the BBC that only comes to £36.37 a day you'd have paid out of the £7m the BBC had paid for the rights.

    More likely, spread over a year you will pay 40p a day (less in leap years) for two hours of entertainment, compare that with £5,15 for 12 condoms and 30 mins of pleasure.

    On the BBC it cost you less than £2 for four days of fore play, stand by for a shock and I hope your money belt can stand the strain, to watch live via Sky's Now TV is currently £10.99 a whopping 6.86 times more.

    Assuming the highlights are millions less than the live rights I think it can safely be said your £1.60 will be just about enough for the presenters to share a coffee or a condom!

    Now TV is £10.99 for one event ? or just 4 days ? bloody hell. Better off getting an annual subscription to Sky Sports
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,809
    Forum Member
    Now TV is £10.99 for one event ? or just 4 days ? bloody hell. Better off getting an annual subscription to Sky Sports

    Now TV currently has two packages £6.99 for a day pass or £10.99 for a 7 day pass, I suppose Sky could cover the practise rounds as well.
  • Darren LethemDarren Lethem Posts: 61,490
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    Now TV currently has two packages £6.99 for a day pass or £10.99 for a 7 day pass, I suppose Sky could cover the practise rounds as well.

    Robbing sods
Sign In or Register to comment.