[R410]

Originally Posted by stej86

No one does it quite like Sky Sports. Whether its the quality analysis from Gary Neville, the relaxed approach of Ed, Martin Brundle at his finest. It really is the home of sport in the United Kingdom and should be a proud british institution.

The adverts "Sky believe in Britain" shown before Euro 2012 and the Olympics made me have a tear to my eye and made me proud to say im British.

"Sky believe in Britain"... sporting excellence at its finest with the best coverage of any worldwide broadcaster in history.

People should really praise Rupert Murdoch.. he is the main owner of Sky.. he is Mr Sky and Mr Sky Sports.

Maybe for Football because they are the only ones who have the capability to show it all.
But in terms of other sports, take F1, others can and do show better coverage.
The BBC F1 coverage is miles better than Sky Sport's, meaning that the Sky Sports fans have to use the picture quality argument in an attempt to make Sky Sports look better.

Originally Posted by big_hard_lad

Fast? 20 years+ is hardly fast is it?

They have been making 'a fast buck' for every year for those 20+ years.
Low costs + subscription fee + advertising income = monthly fast buck

[R410]

Originally Posted by stej86

No its not. I am guessing that you are more than happy to hand your money over to Mr Murdoch for the services he provides. Quality and value all in one

Sky really is the pride of great britain. Sky believe in Britain and believe in Value

In my opinion Sky is as cheap as chips. Really should cost more than it does but the friendly people keep the costs down to help customers. Another thing Sky does, because they believe in better

They believe in Value? That is why they charge for HD?
Sky is only after one thing, to make bigger profits off of smaller spends.
If Murdoch had his way everyone in the UK would be forced to have Sky and pay towards his phone hacking fund.

Sky, cheaps as chips? I get both pay TV and broadband (which is faster than Sky's) for the same amount it would cost me just to get the same amount of channels from Sky.
Hardly cheap as chips.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by big_hard_lad

Fast? 20 years+ is hardly fast is it?

Originally Posted by R410

Maybe for Football because they are the only ones who have the capability to show it all.
But in terms of other sports, take F1, others can and do show better coverage.
The BBC F1 coverage is miles better than Sky Sport's, meaning that the Sky Sports fans have to use the picture quality argument in an attempt to make Sky Sports look better.


They have been making 'a fast buck' for every year for those 20+ years.
Low costs + subscription fee + advertising income = monthly fast buck

Sky may only have sports to keep it going, and they will not be able to keep paying more and more for sports, but they know as soon as they stop paying top wack, another provider will take the sports away, and then they will just be left with minority sports, which they may do allright

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by R410

Maybe for Football because they are the only ones who have the capability to show it all.
But in terms of other sports, take F1, others can and do show better coverage.
The BBC F1 coverage is miles better than Sky Sport's, meaning that the Sky Sports fans have to use the picture quality argument in an attempt to make Sky Sports look better.

They have been making 'a fast buck' for every year for those 20+ years.
Low costs + subscription fee + advertising income = monthly fast buck

The BBC coverage is better?! In your opinion, maybe. I'm not into F1 personally, but I do know a lot of people who are and I haven't heard one bad word said against F1 on Sky. In fact, a good friend of mine is an F1 journalist and he is quite possibly the tightest man I know and was outraged that he would have to pay to watch F1. Want to know his opinion now?.... http://reverendfrog.co.uk/frogblog/a...on-channel-408

Also, they haven't been making a "fast buck" at all. You clearly don't understand what that term means. An example of a fast buck would be if I purchased a car off a friend for less than it was worth, because he didn't know much about cars but I did, so I took advantage. The next day, I sold it for more than I paid. That's a fast buck, not investing heavily in infrastructure, rights, technology, etc. etc. and making profits over time. God forbid a business making profits, they must be evil, eh?

Originally Posted by peter05

Sky may only have sports to keep it going, and they will not be able to keep paying more and more for sports, but they know as soon as they stop paying top wack, another provider will take the sports away, and then they will just be left with minority sports, which they may do allright

I have literally no idea what you're on about. But given all of your posts I have ever read or responded to are anti-Sky then I imagine you're having a go, AGAIN. Unfortunately, you struggle to actually articulate it so who know what you're trying to say.

All I can say is that, without Sky, sport in this country would be a very different thing. I'm not saying it's excellent value for money, for many people, it maybe isn't. I'm not saying that it isn't a luxury product, it clearly is, and if times got hard in our household it would be one of the things that would have to go. But nobody can deny that their sports coverage is second to none.

[stej86]

Originally Posted by R410

Maybe for Football because they are the only ones who have the capability to show it all.
But in terms of other sports, take F1, others can and do show better coverage.
The BBC F1 coverage is miles better than Sky Sport's, meaning that the Sky Sports fans have to use the picture quality argument in an attempt to make Sky Sports look better.

Right lets take F1 then and compare Sky Sports 3 main presenters to the BBC's 3 main presenters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky's Sports F1 Presenters

Martin Brundle - described as " the greatest motorsport commentator of all time" by Murray Walker of all people. Martin has been the face of Formula 1 in the United Kingdom for over a decade. He is the most intelligent of people and combines this with his loyalty and love to the sport. He is regarded as one of the greatest sports pundits of all time by the people of Britain.

Damon Hill - Damon is one of the most successful British Formula 1 drivers of all time. He has kept the British grand prix alive and without him it would be no more. He is well known for his wise views and excellent friendship with the other presenters.

Simon Lazenby - Regarded as the best presenter of his generation and recently named as one of the top 10 presenters of all time, Simon brings ease to live broadcasting and is highly respected across the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Sport F1 Presenters

Jake Humphrey - Jake cannot shake off his childrens television past. Often seen as appearing like an amateur he laughs and jokes on screen. Often seen as a bit of a dope.

Eddie Jordan - Widely regarded as being a nuisance on the F1 circuit and all he has to bring is stupid shirts and moan moan moan.

David Coulthard - David attempts to copy his best mate Martin Brundle's skills but is just not up to the same level as Martin who is the best presenter ever in F1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you go point proven Sky Sports wins hand down. Sky believe in better!

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by stej86

Rupert Murdoch is the controlling shareholder of News Corp.

Local Authority Pension Fund Forum plans to oust Rupert Murdoch as News Corp chairman

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by stej86

People should really praise Rupert Murdoch.. he is the main owner of Sky.. he is Mr Sky

Sky really is the pride of great britain. Sky believe in Britain ....

and yet Rupert Murdoch snubs Britain and says he will invest his billions in the US

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by R410

They have been making 'a fast buck' for every year for those 20+ years.

I'm afraid this is not strictly true.

On the opening of Sky Television as a 'direct to home' service Murdoch made it clear that he didn't expect the operation to be profitable for many years,
there was a clear belief that he would subsidise it from the profits of his News International tabloid titles until such time as it was profitable.

The 'knocking out' of competition, first BSB and then ITV Digital, were amongst the techniques used to ensure that profitability.

Ultimately, his hope to gain full control (through his domination of News Corp) of BSkyB was in part fuelled by his need to find cash to subsidise
his declining print empire in an increasingly 'digital' environment.

Oh! and of course greed and a fair smattering of megalomania.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by stej86

Simon Lazenby - Regarded as the best presenter of his generation and recently named as one of the top 10 presenters of all time, Simon brings ease to live broadcasting and is highly respected across the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Sport F1 Presenters

Jake Humphrey - Jake cannot shake off his childrens television past. Often seen as appearing like an amateur he laughs and jokes on screen. Often seen as a bit of a dope.

And yet, on the F1 thread here on DS Jake seems to preferred as a presenter over Simon....

Guess it's all subjective.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by big_hard_lad

The BBC coverage is better?! In your opinion, maybe. http://reverendfrog.co.uk/frogblog/a...on-channel-408



IAll I can say is that, without Sky, sport in this country would be a very different thing. I'm not saying it's excellent value for money, for many people, it maybe isn't. I'm not saying that it isn't a luxury product, it clearly is, and if times got hard in our household it would be one of the things that would have to go. But nobody can deny that their sports coverage is second to none.

I think a lot of people think the BBC do sports better than sky
the BBC did a great job of the olympics
But in the near future there will be more competion for sports on TV the same as there will be for Films, Thats GOOD for the UK

[R410]

Originally Posted by stej86

Right lets take F1 then and compare Sky Sports 3 main presenters to the BBC's 3 main presenters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky's Sports F1 Presenters

Martin Brundle - described as " the greatest motorsport commentator of all time" by Murray Walker of all people. Martin has been the face of Formula 1 in the United Kingdom for over a decade. He is the most intelligent of people and combines this with his loyalty and love to the sport. He is regarded as one of the greatest sports pundits of all time by the people of Britain.

I agree with this, Martin has been the voice of F1 since Murray Walker yes, I admit that. But then he sold out to the extra money that Sky provided and tried to make people believe reason that just were not true. One of the reasons he said was that he wanted to commentate live on every race live, something that he would still do with the BBC, even if all of the races were not being broadcast live in the UK, the BBC commentary is still used in countries around the world.
Now if he had just come out and admitted that he went for the money I would respect him for it, but by lying I have lost some of the respect I had for him.

Originally Posted by stej86

Damon Hill - Damon is one of the most successful British Formula 1 drivers of all time. He has kept the British grand prix alive and without him it would be no more. He is well known for his wise views and excellent friendship with the other presenters.

Have you actually ever watched the coverage, every time I have he is just stood there awkwardly rarely speaking.
He is just one of the ex-drivers that Sky have bought to try and entice F1 fans to pay for the Sky Sports service.

Originally Posted by stej86

Simon Lazenby - Regarded as the best presenter of his generation and recently named as one of the top 10 presenters of all time, Simon brings ease to live broadcasting and is highly respected across the world.

I think you need to read the F1 Coverage thread on here, because it is widely thought that Jake is a lot better than Simon.
He is wooden and has a distinct lack of knowledge and interest in F1 which is apparent. He is Mr Sky Sports through and through.
He is said to be the best by those who like Sky Sports, but he is not very good at presenting live on location having to deal with things as they come, he is used to sitting behind a desk and reading from an auto-cue.
It was obvious that the channel was going to be presented by their token Sky Sports drone in a suit though.

Originally Posted by stej86

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Sport F1 Presenters

Jake Humphrey - Jake cannot shake off his childrens television past. Often seen as appearing like an amateur he laughs and jokes on screen. Often seen as a bit of a dope.

He has shaken his childrens TV past for the most part, it is only when people are using it in an attempt to make him look bad that it appears again.
Many of the BBCs presenters have come from childrens TV, including John Craven and Matt Baker just to name two.
As you say Jake laughs and jokes on screen, but that just shows he is human is able to adjust to the situation.
But then given the fact that you love Sky you would not like his type of presenting, since you prefer the boring type of the Sky Sports drones.

Originally Posted by stej86

Eddie Jordan - Widely regarded as being a nuisance on the F1 circuit and all he has to bring is stupid shirts and moan moan moan.

He is opinionated and not afraid to show, at least he has the balls to differ from the popular opinion and confront people with awkward questions.

Originally Posted by stej86

David Coulthard - David attempts to copy his best mate Martin Brundle's skills but is just not up to the same level as Martin who is the best presenter ever in F1.

Obviously, Martin is the best F1 presenter, on par with the great Murray.

Originally Posted by stej86

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you go point proven Sky Sports wins hand down. Sky believe in better!

No the only thing you have there is a post by a Sky Sports fan who has a blatant love of them.
Compared to me who has been able to compare the two without favouritism.

[stej86]

Originally Posted by R410

I agree with this, Martin has been the voice of F1 since Murray Walker yes, I admit that. But then he sold out to the extra money that Sky provided and tried to make people believe reason that just were not true. One of the reasons he said was that he wanted to commentate live on every race live, something that he would still do with the BBC, even if all of the races were not being broadcast live in the UK, the BBC commentary is still used in countries around the world.
Now if he had just come out and admitted that he went for the money I would respect him for it, but by lying I have lost some of the respect I had for him.


Have you actually ever watched the coverage, every time I have he is just stood there awkwardly rarely speaking.
He is just one of the ex-drivers that Sky have bought to try and entice F1 fans to pay for the Sky Sports service.


I think you need to read the F1 Coverage thread on here, because it is widely thought that Jake is a lot better than Simon.
He is wooden and has a distinct lack of knowledge and interest in F1 which is apparent. He is Mr Sky Sports through and through.
He is said to be the best by those who like Sky Sports, but he is not very good at presenting live on location having to deal with things as they come, he is used to sitting behind a desk and reading from an auto-cue.
It was obvious that the channel was going to be presented by their token Sky Sports drone in a suit though.


He has shaken his childrens TV past for the most part, it is only when people are using it in an attempt to make him look bad that it appears again.
Many of the BBCs presenters have come from childrens TV, including John Craven and Matt Baker just to name two.
As you say Jake laughs and jokes on screen, but that just shows he is human is able to adjust to the situation.
But then given the fact that you love Sky you would not like his type of presenting, since you prefer the boring type of the Sky Sports drones.


He is opinionated and not afraid to show, at least he has the balls to differ from the popular opinion and confront people with awkward questions.


Obviously, Martin is the best F1 presenter, on par with the great Murray.


No the only thing you have there is a post by a Sky Sports fan who has a blatant love of them.
Compared to me who has been able to compare the two without favouritism.

I am not a Sky Sports fan as such. I just give credit where credit is due. It is certain in my opinion that credit is due to Sky Sports and Rupert Murdoch.

[big_hard_lad]

Originally Posted by peter05

I think a lot of people think the BBC do sports better than sky
the BBC did a great job of the olympics
But in the near future there will be more competion for sports on TV the same as there will be for Films, Thats GOOD for the UK

Good in what respect or for whom? Because as far as I can see (and history bares it out), more competition means products spread across more channels means that customers end up paying more. Case in point being the whole Premier League/Sky/ESPN thing. But then, why let your anti-Sky bias get in the way of a good story, eh?

[solarflare]

People do take fanboyism to entirely new levels here.

[stej86]

Originally Posted by big_hard_lad

Good in what respect or for whom? Because as far as I can see (and history bares it out), more competition means products spread across more channels means that customers end up paying more. Case in point being the whole Premier League/Sky/ESPN thing. But then, why let your anti-Sky bias get in the way of a good story, eh?

I agree with the above. It would be better for everyone if Sky Sports were given all the rights for every sport in the united kingdom. Then they could be where they belong on the home of sport.. sky sports a true british success story and the pride of our nation.

Also Gary Neville should be knighted for services to football and broadcasting in my opinion.

Sky believe in better

[stej86]

Originally Posted by solarflare

People do take fanboyism to entirely new levels here.

I would suggest maybe you are jealous of Sky and Sky Sports.

Sky Sports really is the gem in this crumbling nation. You should be proud of it and get it immediately.

Sky believe in better.. believe in Britain

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by stej86

I would suggest maybe you are jealous of Sky and Sky Sports.

How on earth can a person be jealous of a company and its 'product'?

It may be argued that a person deprived of a organisation and its 'products' through no fault of their own could be jealous of another person not so constrained;

but

jealous of Sky
jealous of Tesco
jealous of the NHS
jealous of your local public library

bizarre notions.

Still, keep up the good work, you may get Derek's position if and when he surrenders it.

[DuncanEmery]

Originally Posted by stej86

I am not a Sky Sports fan as such. I just give credit where credit is due. It is certain in my opinion that credit is due to Sky Sports and Rupert Murdoch.

I have just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading loads of drivel (in my opinion) from this poster who if not a Sky sports fan must in their pay.
I will just ignore this poster in future with comments not based in any reality I have experienced.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by stej86

I am not a Sky Sports fan as such. I just give credit where credit is due. It is certain in my opinion that credit is due to Sky Sports and Rupert Murdoch.

Is the coverage really any better than it was last year? Given that it costs hundreds of pounds a year to watch as well?

[solarflare]

Originally Posted by stej86

I would suggest maybe you are jealous of Sky and Sky Sports.

Sky Sports really is the gem in this crumbling nation. You should be proud of it and get it immediately.

Sky believe in better.. believe in Britain

I already have Sky and enjoy its coverage of sport, particularly the F1.

However I don't feel the need to spout their catchphrases at best like a one-man marketing campaign and at worst like I have been brainwashed into a cult.

However, I suspect this is part of the game with this thread. Have fun.

[sigmundv]

Sky's football coverage is good, but it would be even better if they provided red button streams in HD.

[R410]

Originally Posted by stej86

I am not a Sky Sports fan as such. I just give credit where credit is due. It is certain in my opinion that credit is due to Sky Sports and Rupert Murdoch.

Oh, I should have just said Sky then. You obviously love them, you keep on spouting their tag lines.

Originally Posted by stej86

I would suggest maybe you are jealous of Sky and Sky Sports.

Sky Sports really is the gem in this crumbling nation. You should be proud of it and get it immediately.

Sky believe in better.. believe in Britain

Jealous of what? Every time a fan says someone is jealous of something makes me laugh. Some are just not able to accept that some don't like something and continue to kiss it ass.

[bluesdiamond]

Over the last few years as Englands Cricket have risen to World no1 in Test rankings, we are told this is the work of Sky.
Now we have slipped to number 2, will Sky and its fans still take the credit???

[JimothyD]

Sky Sports needs a refresh. It feels stale and full of its own self importance to me (football and Sky Sports News inparticular). Jamie Redknapp is an annoyance, the cliched adverts and promos of footballers standing there with their arms folded is becoming cringeworthy.

If Sky Sports had an overhaul of presenters and tone then I'd be much more drawn to it. The overly dramatic tabloid style they exude is off putting. They could do with a slicker, more professional approach like they had back in the 90s.

[sigmundv]

Originally Posted by JimothyD

Sky Sports needs a refresh. It feels stale and full of its own self importance to me (football and Sky Sports News inparticular). Jamie Redknapp is an annoyance, the cliched adverts and promos of footballers standing there with their arms folded is becoming cringeworthy.

If Sky Sports had an overhaul of presenters and tone then I'd be much more drawn to it. The overly dramatic tabloid style they exude is off putting. They could do with a slicker, more professional approach like they had back in the 90s.

In the 90s they were new and revolutionising, but 20 years is a long time in television and the others have caught up, so yes, it's probably time for them to revamp.