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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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
I think you missed my point mate. Never mind.:)
Who was regretting it mate?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.:)
Or just use the world feed, like Sky do for some tournaments.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Robbing sods