TMS or Sky commentary for the Ashes?

[Santino]

good thing or not the BBC and others had the opportunity to invest in cricket or football in the same way - they didn't.

The licence fee isn't intended to subsidise sports (or players' salaries) though, which is what it would have in effect been doing.

 

[mattie]

good thing or not the BBC and others had the opportunity to invest in cricket or football in the same way - they didn't.

I would have said the beeb's charter would have hamstrung it a bit - aside from the copious advertising, sky is over 400 quid a year, and a lot, lot more for public spaces, the beeb is restricted in budget.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's having non-irritating, knowledgable commentators / analysts who bounce off each other.

This with fucking balls on. Being an ex-England captain ≠ good commentator.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The licence fee isn't intended to subsidise sports (or players' salaries) though, which is what it would have in effect been doing.

It's not true that they are 'investing' in the game anyway - at least not for the investment's sake. They are simply paying for the exclusive rights to show it. That not one single ball of international cricket is now shown free-to-air is nothing short of a betrayal of cricket lovers.

 

[mattie]

It's not true that they are 'investing' in the game anyway - at least not for the investment's sake. They are simply paying for the exclusive rights to show it. That not one single ball of international cricket is now shown free-to-air is nothing short of a betrayal of cricket lovers.

Well, it is true if you take football as an example. The business model of most clubs relies upon huge televsion money, which is a form of investment (the clubs can afford better players which are more of a draw for viewers, thus subscribers and advertisers), and at sums at which the beeb just cannot match -they can't reflect higher rights costs in subscription or advertising rates.

Scandalous that there's no terrestrial cricket coverage, I agree with that entirely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, it is true if you take football as an example. The business model of most clubs relies upon huge televsion money, which is a form of investment (the clubs can afford better players which are more of a draw for viewers, thus subscribers and advertisers).

I would argue that it doesn't really help develop the game though. With not a penny of TV income, clubs would still be able to run youth teams. The vast majority of the money is spent on inflated fees/ wages, not on developing youth talent.

 

[mattie]

I would argue that it doesn't really help develop the game though. With not a penny of TV income, clubs would still be able to run youth teams. The vast majority of the money is spent on inflated fees/ wages, not on developing youth talent.

Ah, gotcha. Agree with that, the money is an investment for sky, but not an investment in the game.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This with fucking balls on. Being an ex-England captain ≠ good commentator.

I want to come back to this as it sums up much that is wrong with Sky. It is cowardly celebrity culture - what matters more, ability to do a good job, or a recognisable face?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ah, gotcha. Agree with that, the money is an investment for sky, but not an investment in the game.

Yes. Exactly this.

Re cricket, what better way to invest in the future of the game than to ensure that all kids, not just those whose parents have paid for a subscription, are able to watch live on TV?

And simply pumping money in at the top is not investment anyway. The counties have more money now. What do they do with it? Employ ever more Kolpak players. :rolleyes

 

[mattie]

Yes. Exactly this.

Re cricket, what better way to invest in the future of the game than to ensure that all kids, not just those whose parents have paid for a subscription, are able to watch live on TV?

I appreciate it wasn't you making the point, but this situation is not the fault of the beeb (or, indeed, any of the terrestrial broadcasters)

It has to go back on the protected list, or the ECB have to accept that taking the greatest cash isn't always the most important thing (see Stanford).

eta: we seem to have converged. We have failed urban.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I appreciate it wasn't you making the point, but this situation is not the fault beeb (or, indeed, any of the terrestrial broadcasters)

It has to go back on the protected list, or the ECB have to accept that taking the greatest cash isn't always the most important thing (see Stanford).

Chris Smith claims there was a 'gentleman's agreement' with the ECB that test matches would remain free-to-air if they were taken off the list. How bloody naive is that if true. If they weren't going to sell them off to Sky, why would the ECB have wanted them removed from the list?

It's down to a basic question of ownership to me. Is the game of cricket (or any other sport) owned by its governing body, or does it belong to all of us with the governing body simply its guardians?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Silly me. There's no such thing as a national sport now. It is simply an entertainment product with strong branding.

 

[Jazzz]

I would have said the beeb's charter would have hamstrung it a bit - aside from the copious advertising, sky is over 400 quid a year, and a lot, lot more for public spaces, the beeb is restricted in budget.

You don't have to take the sports channels for a year to watch the ashes, just a month or two.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't have to take the sports channels for a year to watch the ashes, just a month or two.

First you have to 'take' Sky.

I don't want to be forced to give money to that bunch of utter cunts. News International are a fucking evil, anti-democratic force for bad in the world.

 

[mhwfc]

I'm not a fan of Sky but the money theyre investing in cricket coverage and the game in general is huge. Every series around the world is on Sky which is great. I don't remember C4 doing that.

Sky started covering almost every overseas series in the early 90s, when it first became technically and financially possible to reliably broadcast eight hours a day of live cricket from the other side of the world, which happily coincided with Sky launching and having specialist sports channels to fill.

This co-existed with the BBC and then Channel 4 maintaining live coverage of Tests played in England for more than a decade before Sky got greedy and demanded the lot, Channel 4 were happy to carry on paying the same price per match as they were previously, but Sky were only prepared to pay a decent price for the one day and domestic coverage if they got the tests as well.

For all the talk of what Sky money has done for cricket, per game and allowing for inflation Sky are barely paying more per Test match than Channel 4 did or were willing to pay.

That said, whilst the BBC at least had a highlights package of pretty much all England tours once they started being televised properly, usually editing down Sky's coverage, Channel 4 never made any proper attempt to cover England's tours, ISTR they used Nine's highlights package for the Ashes and one WI tour being covered, but most England tours never had any coverage on FTA from 1999 onwards, and shamefully no terrestrial broadcaster showed any interest in showing highlights of the 2003 World Cup.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sky were only prepared to pay a decent price for the one day and domestic coverage if they got the tests as well.

This fact gives the lie to the idea that Sky wants to 'invest' in cricket. An ECB with balls would have told them to get stuffed. But they tried bullying tactics and won – in the end Sky are bigger than the game, it seems. Except they aren't. Sky sports needs cricket but cricket does not need Sky sports. They could and should have called Sky's bluff and left the country's 'premier sports channels' without a single minute of the country's national summer sport.

 

[gunneradt]

This fact gives the lie to the idea that Sky wants to 'invest' in cricket. An ECB with balls would have told them to get stuffed. But they tried bullying tactics and won – in the end Sky are bigger than the game, it seems. Except they aren't. Sky sports needs cricket but cricket does not need Sky sports. They could and should have called Sky's bluff and left the country's 'premier sports channels' without a single minute of the country's national summer sport.

Channel 4 did not cover cricket properly. I seem to remember coverage being fragmented when horse racing was on with coverage switching to film 4. If the BBC or Channel 4 had covered cricket properly including overseas tours then maybe there would be a point in keeping it on terrestrial TV but that would never have happened. Like it or not, the coverage now is second to none.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like it or not, the coverage now is second to none.

If you don't have Sky, coverage now is none.

 

[Dirty Martini]

Sky is cunts. That said, I'll try and watch rather than listen. I like Hussain, Holding, Lloyd. Botham's a div and Gower never has anything incisive or interesting to say

But any arrangement that keeps Mark Nicholas off live coverage is alright by me. Nails on a blackboard.

 

[The Octagon]

Channel 4 did not cover cricket properly. I seem to remember coverage being fragmented when horse racing was on with coverage switching to film 4. If the BBC or Channel 4 had covered cricket properly including overseas tours then maybe there would be a point in keeping it on terrestrial TV but that would never have happened. Like it or not, the coverage now is second to none.

If we've moved onto a broader discussion about Cricket in general, then fair enough, but their Ashes coverage in 2005 was superb (and the Ashes is the one event that was 'protected')