View Full Version : Cricket to Sky
You probably already know this, but the 5th ashes test at the Oval is the last home English match you will ever watch if you dont have sky.
As from 2006-2009, sky have rights to all cricket hosted on english soil.
Channnel 5 have bought rights for a highlites package. The team of Tony Greig, Michael Atherton, Slater, Beneud etc.... will close.
Now over with the facts. Here's my opinion:
That is complete bull. Cricket is just becoming really popular with the brits, and wat do they do? move it to sky. I will never have sky, because its just too damn expensive, especially the sky sports package.
Why would they do that?? Its partly the fault of the ppl who run and manage tv in general, but i must also lay a fat finger on channel 4.
Wat do u guys think? I love my cricket, but it will be no more for me after this test match.
How long will it be til all sports go to sky? world cup, wimbledon etc...
..............Money Rules.............
An unfortunate fact but true........
Sky has a bottomless well and can buy whatever it thinks will attract more customers....
homealone
24-08-2005, 09:40
not good news - I also refuse to pay extra to watch sport on TV, so this will just mean I don't watch cricket.
To be honest, if the rising popularity of Cricket means it starts to go the same way as football, with money becoming more important than skill, sportsmanship & entertainment, it will be no great loss.
We may pay players £150,00 0 a week to play football, now, but as seen in the Denmark game, it doesn't mean they are any good at it - I can see Cricket going the same way. :(
I would rather watch football on Sky than any other channel, they do it so much better. Watch the Utd game tonight on C5 with John "Autocue" Barnes and you'll see what I mean.
I don't know how Sky compares to channel 4 for cricket coverage.
Cricket is just becoming really popular with the brits,
Well more popular with the English maybe :D
The writing was on the wall when Sky started throwing money at football, now thats pretty much sewn up its switching to Rugby, darts, cricket etc.
I know I pay for the sports channels as I think the coverage is worth it. Especially on the champions league nights with the 8 screen coverage.
All you can do is hope the government keep, expand the list of 'crown jewel' events that have to be freely available or at least freely available to anyone who buys a TV license.
marcopolio
24-08-2005, 11:45
I don't know how Sky compares to channel 4 for cricket coverage.
Hundreds of times better - no cutting away to racing, no going straight to next program, proper analysis. more resources and no annoying Mark Nicholas.
As good as it gets
yes but i refuse to pay £30 a month + for sky, just to watch cricket when there is a 12 month contract.
If i could pay a one off cost of say £50 just to watch cricket on dtt all summer i would
If you go for the Telewest DTV package, you could add SkySports to your package for the summer months. Obviously, you can't get SkySports on Freeview ;)
I may be tempted to upgrade on NTL next summer - see how flush I am at the time!
You probably already know this, but the 5th ashes test at the Oval is the last home English match you will ever watch if you dont have sky.
As from 2006-2009, sky have rights to all cricket hosted on english soil.
Channnel 5 have bought rights for a highlites package. The team of Tony Greig, Michael Atherton, Slater, Beneud etc.... will close.
Now over with the facts. Here's my opinion:
That is complete bull. Cricket is just becoming really popular with the brits, and wat do they do? move it to sky. I will never have sky, because its just too damn expensive, especially the sky sports package.
Why would they do that?? Its partly the fault of the ppl who run and manage tv in general, but i must also lay a fat finger on channel 4.
Wat do u guys think? I love my cricket, but it will be no more for me after this test match.
How long will it be til all sports go to sky? world cup, wimbledon etc...
Why is it the last home match ever? Why couldn't one of the terrestrial channels get it back in 5 years?
Also, it's not got a lot to do with Channel 4 either - they made an offer, but were outbid by Sky, who can afford to offer more. Simple economics really.
Oh, and Sky aren't allowed to have to World Cup - I can't remember what they are called, but there are certain events (such as the World Cup and the Olympics) that have to be shown on terrestrial telly.
Anyway, why can't you just go down the pub and watch stuff ;)
We may pay players £150,00 0 a week to play football, now, but as seen in the Denmark game, it doesn't mean they are any good at it - I can see Cricket going the same way. :(
Very few, if any, get paid that much. I think the last time Deloitte did a survey, which if I remember correctly was in 2003, the average wage in the Premiership was £11k per week.
__________________
Was slightly off in the year it was 01/02
In 2001-02 the average wage for a Premiership player was £600,00 0.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9753,1009392,00.html
Very few, if any, get paid that much. I think the last time Deloitte did a survey, which if I remember correctly was in 2003, the average wage in the Premiership was £11k per week.
__________________
Was slightly off in the year it was 01/02
Still a lot of money for hoofing a pigs bladder around a field twice a week
homealone
24-08-2005, 13:38
We may pay players £150,00 0 a week to play football, now, but as seen in the Denmark game, it doesn't mean they are any good at it - I can see Cricket going the same way. :(
Very few, if any, get paid that much. I think the last time Deloitte did a survey, which if I remember correctly was in 2003, the average wage in the Premiership was £11k per week.
you can't beat hyperbole for making a point, though ;)
- the point being, that, in my opinion, the injection of TV money has ruined the game. Too many premiership clubs have squads packed with foreign players, for example, which I believe is adversely affecting our national team.
I don't watch football, anymore - and if cricket goes to Sky, I won't be watching that, either. :shrug:
I don't watch football, anymore - and if cricket goes to Sky, I won't be watching that, either. :shrug:
You'll just have to pretend that you still like Formula One then ;) :D
homealone
24-08-2005, 14:02
I don't watch football, anymore - and if cricket goes to Sky, I won't be watching that, either. :shrug:
You'll just have to pretend that you still like Formula One then ;) :D
:LOL: - I watch much less sport on TV now, than I used to. Either because it is inaccessible, by being on Sky, or is simply mediocre. The recent dire performance by our athletes in the World Championships, being a case in point (they get paid a lot more, now, as well, don't they...)
you can't beat hyperbole for making a point, though ;)
- the point being, that, in my opinion, the injection of TV money has ruined the game. Too many premiership clubs have squads packed with foreign players, for example, which I believe is adversely affecting our national team.
I don't watch football, anymore - and if cricket goes to Sky, I won't be watching that, either. :shrug:
Money could and probably is part of the problem but I think a lot of it stems from the fact that coaches put more emphases on fitness than actually playing the sport. When I was at school football training was a lot of running and then maybe, if we were lucky, the balls would come out towards the end. As a result the UK produces a lot of players who can run 10 miles but have poor ball control.
Plus with the youth player rules in UK football where under 12's have to live within an hour of the club and under 16's having to live within 90 minutes of the club means that if a manager can't find a young player who lives within these ranges then hes more likely to look abroad where these restrictions don't apply.
Anyway this is for another thread.
homealone
24-08-2005, 15:04
Money could and probably is part of the problem but I think a lot of it stems from the fact that coaches put more emphases on fitness than actually playing the sport. When I was at school football training was a lot of running and then maybe, if we were lucky, the balls would come out towards the end. As a result the UK produces a lot of players who can run 10 miles but have poor ball control.
Plus with the youth player rules in UK football where under 12's have to live within an hour of the club and under 16's having to live within 90 minutes of the club means that if a manager can't find a young player who lives within these ranges then hes more likely to look abroad where these restrictions don't apply.
Anyway this is for another thread.
good points :tu:
I think the money aspect is relevant to the thread, but agree we shouldn't go any further on using football as the example. :)
Oh, and Sky aren't allowed to have to World Cup - I can't remember what they are called, but there are certain events (such as the World Cup and the Olympics) that have to be shown on terrestrial telly.
They are known as the Crown Jewels. The ECB asked for test matches to be removed from the list several years ago.
As I mentioned the last time this was debated, Sky are the only channel that have ever done ball by ball coverage. The BBC many years ago used to nip off to Wimbledon etc, C4 to the racing, last year C4 even managed to miss the last half hour of play because it didn't fit into the schedule.
Sky are the only people ever, to broadcast live test matches from overseas, and have been as innovative as C4 with new technology.
What is a real pain is that BBC only broadcast TMS on 198 long wave and 5Live Extra on digital.
But that is only because I have just bought my 7th new Volvo and for the first time ever the radio will not get long wave.:(
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.