Cider Queen Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said: They do, but this is pretty much reserved for those on premium contracts. It's an add-on. I'm more alluding to the satellite system being put to bed. Without the need for all that infrastructure then competition can more easily flourish. And it is. Not necessarily, Nowtv is an excellent alternative.. No contracts so can pay for day (£7), week(£10) or month passes (£32) when I want. We've just cancelled sky sports from Virgin so I now pick and choose when I want to turn it on. I can go 2 or 3 weeks without watching sport It's also great for entertainment package with Sky Atlantic (can't get on Vm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: BBC could cover loads more sport if they decided to ditch MOTD - one sport, one division - hardly representative or fair. The most followed division in the most followed sport, as representative as it's going to get on that front. What would you suggest the covered instead? The Football League, whilst being of the most interest to the users of this forum, is really a niche market and once you get below the Premier League any interest drops off considerably, unless you happen to support one of the teams involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, richwwtk said: The most followed division in the most followed sport, as representative as it's going to get on that front. What would you suggest the covered instead? The Football League, whilst being of the most interest to the users of this forum, is really a niche market and once you get below the Premier League any interest drops off considerably, unless you happen to support one of the teams involved. I would suggest the budget is spread in a fairer fashion. I have no issue with covering the top footballing division, but not at any cost and to the detriment of everything else. MOTD is the crown jewels and it seems we'll forsake all other sport before they drop this. Sounds a bit like Sky to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SODS_LAW Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I won't cancel sky because I throughly enjoy the top class analysis and coverage not only with football but with darts,cricket,golf and F1. I also enjoy there sky movies on demand and all the box sets they have available. I couldn't be without it I look forward to watching super Sunday and Monday night football. I see it as cutting your nose off to spite your face when i see people cancelling it, sky is a billion pound cooperation I'm sure they're not going to miss the original otib's £70 a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, richwwtk said: The Football League, whilst being of the most interest to the users of this forum, is really a niche market and once you get below the Premier League any interest drops off considerably, unless you happen to support one of the teams involved. I do support one of the teams involved and I don't care enough to watch the highlights show on a regular basis. If City have won I'll fast-forward to the 90 seconds of highlights and if they've lost I usually don't bother at all. Match Of The Day, by contrast, I watch every week. I like MOTD and I'd miss it if it went but the BBC is a service for everybody and it shouldn't be providing sport (which not everybody is into, remember) to the detriment of other programmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: I would suggest the budget is spread in a fairer fashion. I have no issue with covering the top footballing division, but not at any cost and to the detriment of everything else. MOTD is the crown jewels and it seems we'll forsake all other sport before they drop this. Sounds a bit like Sky to me. I see your point about them spending too much on the one thing, but isn't it right that they keep at least the highlights of the country's most popular sporting events free-to-air? Trouble is, so many people begrudge the £12 a month licence fee whilst being quite happy to pay Sky £50+, meaning the BBC are under more and more pressure to cut back, leaving them unable to compete for any sport at all some of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, SODS_LAW said: I won't cancel sky because I throughly enjoy the top class analysis and coverage not only with football but with darts,cricket,golf and F1. I also enjoy there sky movies on demand and all the box sets they have available. I couldn't be without it I look forward to watching super Sunday and Monday night football. I see it as cutting your nose off to spite your face when i see people cancelling it, sky is a billion pound cooperation I'm sure they're not going to miss the original otib's £70 a month. Fair enough. Sky themselves won't be so matter of fact and neither will shareholders and investors. I'm sure there will be many uneasy board meetings discussing where the market is heading and the security of their revenue stream. Once the satellite platform is redundant and all TV is delivered online, I can see plenty of people utilising high quality streams from abroad as this will be as normal to them as watching any other channel - only this time with a very good HD picture - not like the stuttering mess most of them still are from a laptop. How Sky can stop this I have no idea. Maybe this will make a high bid price less attractive due to the risk. The bid is lowered and £10 a month Sky Sports is a deal worth having rather than using streams from abroad. Players get paid less and there is an adjustment across the market. I see this as being very similar to the music streaming scenario. Digital music costs HAD to be lowered to provide a reason to pay for the service at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think ones fans group had worked out that with the new TV deal next season. EVER fan in the premier league could be let in for FREE and the clubs would still make more money than this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I have never had SKY because I don't agree with the costs involved, it has always seemed a case of paying a monthly fee for the pleasure of paying an even bigger fee for something worth seeing. It would be unfair on my wife who has no interest in sport and would be upset if I sat watching games night after night. I do stay away a lot in hotels have been streaming live matches via TVMC (aka Kodi) on Sportsdevil and other addons for nearly a year now. I don't know how long it will last, but there doesn't seem to be much impetus to stop it, when one stream goes another appears in its place pretty quickly. There is no problem with it from the advertisers point of view because I still see their ads, if that were to change I am sure they would be jumping up and down. The quality varies, but as hotel room TV's are not that great anyway (I use Chromecast to play the content on the TV) it doesn't really bother me. Strangely enough the best streams come from English games being shown in the States on BEIN Sports etc. I use Freesat at home for normal TV, but these days I watch more and more content, box sets etc through TVMC, purely because I don't see why I should wait to see something 6 months after the Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider-manc Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 To be honest, despite my loathing of all things modern football, I have sky and pay for the sports package. The reason behind this is simple. The Mrs wanted sky, The Mrs normally gets her own way. I then paid for the sports package because the only way that I can get a break from the continual reality TV bullshit that is on for what seems like 24 hours a day is by being able to say "theres a game on tonight that I'm watching". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said: I don't see how it will threaten traditional subscriptions really. If someone wants to watch a few matches a year then they'll buy one-off passes via Now TV. £7 is very good value but I'd pay more if necessary and I'm sure others would too. For anyone wanting to watch more than a couple of matches a month, though, it's more economical to buy a subscription. As for the quality, I've been pretty impressed with it. No it's not as good as HD via satellite or cable but it's perfectly watchable over a standard internet connection (I don't have fibre-optic broadband) and it's better than BT's Internet stream. 1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said: Interesting to hear that. My BT stream is definitely better than my NOWTV one. Both are very watchable and stable. I have watched 4K on a very decent TV and that blows your mind by comparison. Worth noting that Now TV is in HD but only when viewed via certain devices. Watching via Android, iPad or PC is only SD. I watch via Apple TV connected to my telly - it's in HD and the picture quality is generally excellent, although motion is not as smooth as broadcast television. http://help.nowtv.com/article/Streaming-Quality As others have said, an excellent way of watching City's irregular Sky appearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Between heaven and hell Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I couldn't do without Sky as I would miss the Cricket and the brilliant commentary to much! Bumble, Hussain and Sir Ian never fail to get me chuckling, as for the football with Carragher etc It could go tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 45 minutes ago, Super said: I always liked the 5 a side football, any chance of that making a comeback you reckon??! Wouldn't be the same without the likes of Coleman, Carpenter and Lynam presenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Buckeyed said: It may be my age showing here, but which sports specifically can you not watch compared to pre-sky? F1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: Worth noting that Now TV is in HD but only when viewed via certain devices. Watching via Android, iPad or PC is only SD. I watch via Apple TV connected to my telly - it's in HD and the picture quality is generally excellent, although motion is not as smooth as broadcast television. http://help.nowtv.com/article/Streaming-Quality As others have said, an excellent way of watching City's irregular Sky appearances. NowTV is 720p, although the new box does a bit of upscaling to 1080p (or at least it is capable of delivering 1080 when/if sky allow it) Add to that compression and (i'm guessing) a lower frame rate then to call it HD is very generous. It is some way off conventional HD, especially on a high-end TV. Picture quality is so much more than pixels. My cheap phone has 21MP. My £3000 camera has 12MP. http://help.nowtv.com/article/Streaming-Quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Mao Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I had sky briefly, didn't watch football but did enjoy the golf, tennis and cricket, those 3 are the reason i would get it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Fans want to affect this? Concerted action has to be take place at televised matches. Television (Sky no longer have a monopoly) will then put pressure on the clubs to drop prices for fans. The cancelling of sky/BT contracts will be about as effective as arguing over a rock and a hard place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Love the cricket, tennis and football. Wish they would show more lower league games rather than Leeds/Hull/Forest every week though. Beats coverage on BT. The Champions League is a bit annoying though. Yes plenty of armchair fans subscribing but also I expect plenty of other people like me who go to about games home & away have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Lew-T said: Thanks lads. Quite surprised with that! I'll miss the Sky lads though, always a good watch. Good news- I have never had Sky (ugly dishes, pretty cottage) but have now got BT by accident after changing to them as my ISP. there is enough football on terrestrial TV but I have missed Test cricket & tennis coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlands Robin Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Listening to the debate around this subject on the radio the other evening, it was pointed out that just from the TV money paid by Norwegian TV to the Premier league alone, every Premier league club could give away 3500 of their most expensive season tickets. Now that's just from the money paid by one national broadcaster. Sky's contribution is huge but it's not the only holder of broadcasting rights across the globe for English football. I think it was posted some posts back but we are at the stage where the view / need of the English football fan (both attending games and watching via paid services) is at best, of little consequence. Yes the walkout at Anfield was embarrassing for the Liverpool board but I think we're at the stage where there is so much money coming in from other sources, the best financed clubs in the Prem could play behind closed doors every week without a significant dent in their finances. On the wider subject of sports broadcasting, there is growing evidence that as sports fall behind the pay per view curtain there is a corresponding reduction of people actually taking part in those sports at grass routes levels. Since for example, all of the England rugby internationals (with the exception of the six nations) and live top flight rugby went to Sky / BT the number of those people playing at local clubs has fallen substantially. Both England Rugby after winning the world cup in 03 and England Cricket after that Ashes series in 05 immediately used their new found success not to grow the game but to leaver huge deals with PPV companies and disappear behind pay walls. The net effect of this has been felt across both sports. With how much all sports cost now, to either watch on TV or go to games, more and more people are drifting away and finding other things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Net Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 On 10/02/2016 at 11:35, shelts said: Sky's coverage of sport is second to none. I for one love the championship, league one and two and find myself watching less Prem Games. They have been good for the game in many ways. All of our major sporting events should be on terrestrial tv for the masses, they unfortunately won't pay the dollar. I could live without it. I couldn't live without Sky Atlantic!!!!! Sky Atlantic is included in the Now TV Entertainment package - £6.99 a month. I was also offered 3 months @ £3.45 when I logged on to cancel my account. After 15 years of Sky, I'm another convert to the Now weekly or monthly sports passes. I spent approx £120 in the last year, as opposed to £900 on Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citysimmo Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Had it in the early years but wouldn't have it now out of principle. No problem with the money coming into the game if only it was used for the good of the game as a whole (i.e. shared out more among the leagues/clubs, reduce ticket prices, more to grass routes etc) rather than all going into the pockets of the top teams/players and giving them more money than they will ever need. Also still seems to be the same old 4/6 teams on every weekend so can't say I miss it other than for the cricket occasionally. I like to think that all the money I spend on football goes to City, with the exception of away games of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCulturalBomb Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 The only thing I do like about Sky it allows the top flight English clubs to get better players in and on the whole make the Premier League the biggest in the world. We have been the top spending country for the past 10 years or so, and we have seen some incredible players pass through and stay in the league. Though European trophies for the best English clubs over the past 6 years has been mixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 I can see a European league for the tourist and TV fans. National leagues for those who want to watch / support their local team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Never had sky. Murdoch won't get a penny from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 On 10 February 2016 at 10:39, Monkeh said: Sky although shares some of the blame its not completely their fault, Clubs need to bare the brunt of it, they get these countless millions and instead of passing savings onto fans they continue to put prices up Fans also need to share some of the blame as well demanding clubs spend money Agents for taking money out of the games to line their own pockets (yes spudski not all agents are bad I know that) In other words its a collective problem not just sky, Sky have driven up ref standards by constantly putting them into the spot light and I'm sure there are more benefits, Sadly the problem is what clubs pay players, Liverpool are still paying for that idiot Ballotelli who AC Milan now don't want and he will be returning to Liverpool in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBW Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Never wanted Sky, not interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.