Golf on TV (paying for it)
- Thread starter balaclava
- Start date
GB72
Money List Winner
Sadly I do not think that it could have panned out any other way. Lets look at the various categories that are on paid TV now:
The big US shows and Dramas. They do not come cheap and it is questionable whether the pockets of the free to air TV stations would be deep enough, especially for some of the big HBO series. Plus, BBC and ITV have always prided themsevels on producing their own drama and that would have to step aside to make room for imported shows.
Films. Plently of opportunity still to buy those in but the market is for them to be shown soon after cinema release and that costs. The free to air stations still stick with the model of buying in films a year or more after release even at Xmas.
Football. Was never going to happen. The whole model of Sky was based around attracting viewers with football and investing what it needed to get those rights. No matter how much money the free to air channels put up, it would never be enough. Plus, they had literally decades to show more live football and only showed the FA cup and Euorpean matches in the main. Sky did what nobody else would.
The rest of sport. There is plenty out there going relatively cheap but free to air TV does not want it. Golf, club rugby and no end of others could be snatched up bu there is no interest. Plus the BBC especially has always been too picky in that it wants the Crown Jewels only. International Rugby with no club games, Wimbledon without weekly coverage of Tennis, the golf majors (once upon a time) with little coverage of other tournaments. At least hte Sky and BT packages provide funding to various levels of sport and promote the wider game.
Free to air TV has not really changed in my lifetime, the choice now is the choice that you have always had. The problem is that other companies picked up what these channels did not want and made a big success charging for it to the extent that their content far exceeds what can be obtained for free and now people are shouting about why they cannot get that free as well. Simple, the free to air TV models do not produce enough revenue to pay for it and so even if it was shown by BBC or ITV it would probably bebehind a pay wall.
The big US shows and Dramas. They do not come cheap and it is questionable whether the pockets of the free to air TV stations would be deep enough, especially for some of the big HBO series. Plus, BBC and ITV have always prided themsevels on producing their own drama and that would have to step aside to make room for imported shows.
Films. Plently of opportunity still to buy those in but the market is for them to be shown soon after cinema release and that costs. The free to air stations still stick with the model of buying in films a year or more after release even at Xmas.
Football. Was never going to happen. The whole model of Sky was based around attracting viewers with football and investing what it needed to get those rights. No matter how much money the free to air channels put up, it would never be enough. Plus, they had literally decades to show more live football and only showed the FA cup and Euorpean matches in the main. Sky did what nobody else would.
The rest of sport. There is plenty out there going relatively cheap but free to air TV does not want it. Golf, club rugby and no end of others could be snatched up bu there is no interest. Plus the BBC especially has always been too picky in that it wants the Crown Jewels only. International Rugby with no club games, Wimbledon without weekly coverage of Tennis, the golf majors (once upon a time) with little coverage of other tournaments. At least hte Sky and BT packages provide funding to various levels of sport and promote the wider game.
Free to air TV has not really changed in my lifetime, the choice now is the choice that you have always had. The problem is that other companies picked up what these channels did not want and made a big success charging for it to the extent that their content far exceeds what can be obtained for free and now people are shouting about why they cannot get that free as well. Simple, the free to air TV models do not produce enough revenue to pay for it and so even if it was shown by BBC or ITV it would probably bebehind a pay wall.
Mel Smooth
Hacker
My lad was thrown into a Spanish school at the age of nine, his teacher didn’t speak a word of English, and his Spanish was about as good as any other 9 year old British kids…. ie, pretty much non existent.
He could now have a pretty decent conversation with Sergio in his native tongue, who would be equally impressed with his golf swing - which will be better than most of the posters on here. Damn that short attention span.
sunshine
Well-known member
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Look at the question I was asked.
Now I know you’re on a wind up
Is, "Something worse and more expensive" a better answer?
Sometimes questions get the answer they deserve.
It was a wind-up question. I saw that straight away.
Last edited:
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Apologies to everyone.
It is so much easier to run with the crowd and agree with a majority, that I've decided to change my mind.
Telly in the UK is brilliant - so much choice and all at a reasonable price. No possible way it could ever have worked out to be better than it is right now.
Now that is how you write a wind-up.
It is so much easier to run with the crowd and agree with a majority, that I've decided to change my mind.
Telly in the UK is brilliant - so much choice and all at a reasonable price. No possible way it could ever have worked out to be better than it is right now.
Now that is how you write a wind-up.
Mel Smooth
Hacker
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
when you make a statement that there has been no improvement of the service to the consumer you are going to be challenged on that statement especially when it’s pretty clear to everyone that going from being able to watch a handful of golf events on Telly to being able to watch near enough every single one is a clear improvement
Whether you think it’s value for money or not is a different question and everyone will answer differently
We went from watching Telly on 4 channels with limited choice and 90% of sports not being broadcast to having 20 plus dedicated sports channels broadcasting 100s of events every week - that is a clear statistically improvement of the media service we have right now .
And you have a choice on if you want to watch it or not and you only have that choice because of Sky
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Surely, if the beeb can find the time and money to put on a weekly show about skiing, they could at the very least do the same for golf - a game which has much more popularity?
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
There has undoubtedly been an improvement of amount broadcast and choice. That could have occurred over the same years in such away that was not so expensive to the consumer.
Because I cannot and never will be able to give a year-by-year account of all the changes that occurred and fine and exact details of alternatives at the time that would have given a better service for the consumer does not mean to me that I should remain absolutely silent and offer no opinion of UK telly and what we have arrived at today.
I do not think our public transport, domestic energy supply, water supply, broadband supply, government tax and spending arrangements have been perfect over the last 25 years or that we have them perfect today. I feel no need to apologise that I cannot offer an account of exactly how to put them all right and rectify all or any mistakes of the past.
I feel the same way about our telly.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Ok I’ll give you the simple reasons why Terrestrial Telly wouldn’t have give us the same level of service from a technology stand point
Analogue
Digital
Satellite
Analogue - very restrictive to the amount of programs across the spectrum available
Digital- many houses struggled to get strong signals to pick up many channels
Satellite - able to broadcast hundreds of channels using one box and a dish but more expensive
Sky and BSB when down the satellite route and was able to bring in multiple dedicated channels
There is no way the same service could have been provided across terrestrial Telly
As for the costs - in the US it’s around £200 a month for basic cable Telly
You have a choice in the uk anyway from £6 a month to £130 a month depending on what packages and streaming service you want
The amount and choice is through the roof
And you can pick whatever service you believe gives you value for money.
The choices right now are prob more than you will get in any other country
IJames
Active member
I'd settle for something as good, but cheaper - which it would, or at least could, be! Both models have the benefits and deficiencies, so it's up to individuals to deide for themselves, and their priorities, which, if any, commercial services to use. I am a NOW subscriber, which is fine for Golf, but disappointing for Football. I play the game when it comes to re-subscribing.
sunshine
Well-known member
It’s £7 a pint in London now. I’d like something better but cheaper, but there aren’t many alternatives.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
There you go with your terrestrial tv comparison again.
That always was going to be limited in the same way as radio and newspapers can't compare with satellite and internet broadcasting.
Who has ever said that terrestrial tv was all that we ever needed today?
The new technology came in, but far too much was paid by the consumer to watch stuff that used to take no more than the cost of tv licence to see.
No possible way can that be seen as a good deal for the consumer.
I could pay to see The Open, The Masters and the Ryder Cup, but in doing so I'm also paying for stuff that is available to me, but I have no interest in.
Some might say the same is the case with the tv licence fee today. But that used to be all you had to pay to see all that was available.
Things changed as time moved on, but when I ask myself whether the consumer is really getting a value for money deal now, I say no.
Plenty of choice - but costly and wasteful.
But, as I said before, we missed the trick, and have ended up with what we have now and we can't go back and change the past.
Pardon me for my imagination.
Last edited:
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Same as the telly then.
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Surely a by product of the cost of watching 'better' live sport via Sky has been a massive increase in what the sportspeople earn? How has that improved the product delivered to the viewer?
evemccc
Well-known member
Nailed it
KenL
Tour Rookie
£100 000 000 for the Open.
I would be amazed if that was correct. Could you please show the source for this figure.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
The initial deal for the Open from Sky was 5 years at £15mil a year ( £75 mil ) - from 2017 , that was extended until 2024 ( add another £30mil )
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/03/sky-sports-buys-open-championship-golf-bbc
Because we are seeing a higher level of sports action on a regular basis
More money to be earned more pressure on the players of any sport to play at a higher level . The overall product you watch is a better quality than 30 years ago
KenL
Tour Rookie
OK, 15 million a year, I thought the suggestion was 100 million a year. Thanks.
