Are people in other countries....

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:11

...paying fifty quid a month if they want to see their own national teams in important matches or live coverage from the top divisions of their national sports?

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:13

filiprag wrote: »

...paying fifty quid a month if they want to see their own national teams in important matches or live coverage from the top divisions of their national sports?

Do we have to here?

No

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:16

...we want to watch international cricket, or county cricket, or top clubs play each other at footy in England or the SPL.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:31

No not £50 a month, yes you do have to pay.

In Canada even the Olympics are on pay TV.

hotguy25 · 03/08/10 - 16:36

thought they were on radio canada and cbc, and that aborigian channel

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:36

Those crazy Canucks!

Darren Lethem · 03/08/10 - 16:42

Catch 22. Before Sky Sports we never saw much of the above anyway, so you didnt miss seeing it. Now you can, but you have to pay for it, people are still not happy.

I love Sky Sports, great coverage of lots of my favourite events

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:44

As a cricket man I'd have to take issue with that. We've gone from every single ball of every single test match live to no cricket whatsoever. Somebody should do something.

Ginger Daddy · 03/08/10 - 16:47

Where the hell are you plucking the £50 figure from ?!?!

Darren Lethem · 03/08/10 - 16:48

filiprag wrote: »

As a cricket man I'd have to take issue with that. We've gone from every single ball of every single test match live to no cricket whatsoever. Somebody should do something.

I take issue with that too

BBC shared coverage with racing and tennis and whatever

C4 often shared with C4 Racing too

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 16:55

I asked my mate what Sky costs him and he said "fifty quid a month".
I think they should make it free to pensioners (I'm not one). There are still alot of old soldiers from WW2 about who love cricket (everyone did in their generation) but who now can't watch it. At the very least, something should be done so the old boys who aren't so mobile get their TV sport back.

wgmorg · 03/08/10 - 17:18

Sky Sports £35.

ESPN £9

HD £10

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 17:46

filiprag wrote: »

I asked my mate what Sky costs him and he said "fifty quid a month".
I think they should make it free to pensioners (I'm not one). There are still alot of old soldiers from WW2 about who love cricket (everyone did in their generation) but who now can't watch it. At the very least, something should be done so the old boys who aren't so mobile get their TV sport back.

Sounds like a populist approach which in reality is too expensive and not a good use of funds.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 17:47

filiprag wrote: »

As a cricket man I'd have to take issue with that. We've gone from every single ball of every single test match live to no cricket whatsoever. Somebody should do something.

Do what?

Who's "somebody?

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 17:59

Come the revolution my friend, come the revolution...

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 18:00

Maybe Ed Miliband is that SOMEBODY.:)

Oakwood · 03/08/10 - 18:00

In Spain, the whole of the World Cup was only on satellite(though Spain's matches were shown on terrestrial channels), and that also applies to a large chunk of the top tear of La Liga and the Champions League.
Top tennis and golf is also only on satellite.

Darren Lethem · 03/08/10 - 18:10

I am sure in Australia the cricket on Channel 9 is satellite

Pizzatheaction · 03/08/10 - 18:43

Darren Lethem wrote: »

I take issue with that too

BBC shared coverage with racing and tennis and whatever

C4 often shared with C4 Racing too

All very well, but shared coverage is better than no coverage at all.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 18:48

filiprag wrote: »

Maybe Ed Miliband is that SOMEBODY.:)

I wouldn't bet on him coming to power.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 18:49

Darren Lethem wrote: »

I am sure in Australia the cricket on Channel 9 is satellite

Channel 9 is a FTA channel.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 19:03

filiprag wrote: »

As a cricket man I'd have to take issue with that. We've gone from every single ball of every single test match live to no cricket whatsoever. Somebody should do something.

You mean somebody else should pay for it... :rolleyes:

nicktrow · 03/08/10 - 19:13

Jack1 wrote: »

Channel 9 is a FTA channel.

Thats right. Although coverage is blacked out in the city of the test match.
SBS (the equivalent of Channel 4) has had live coverage of some of Australias away tests.

Darren Lethem · 03/08/10 - 20:11

nicktrow wrote: »

Thats right. Although coverage is blacked out in the city of the test match.
SBS (the equivalent of Channel 4) has had live coverage of some of Australias away tests.

Ah the blacked out bit, i knew there was something not quite right, thanks.

Dan's Dad · 03/08/10 - 20:32

filiprag wrote: »

As a cricket man I'd have to take issue with that. ..... Somebody should do something.

A great many people spent a great deal of time, and money, fighting the loss of FTA cricket;

David Davies recently 'did something' - the Tories (sorry ConDem coalition) overturned his recommendation;

Murdoch always wins in this country, governments always appease.

Jack1 wrote: »

Channel 9 is a FTA channel.

one of the arguments used in the campaign was that the UK would be the only Test playing nation that did not have (some at least) FTA coverage.

Google 'anti syphoning laws' to understand the Australian position.

[Deleted User] · 03/08/10 - 21:46

The reason I don't think test Cricket should be listed is because the way the schedules are only one or two Broadcasters would bid thus keeping the price low, twenty20 on the other hand would have a larger appeal to broadcasters.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Are people in other countries....

Comments