LIV Golf

[Foxholer]

Mate, you can't be going round calling people delusional then get upset when somebody describes SkyTv as extortianate, when we are having a discussion about a proffessional golf tour that is currently free to watch.

Either engage in the debate, or stay well clear of it.

Having a free, lower quality, broadcast doesn't automatically make a high quality subscription based broadcast extortionate!
I'm certain LIV had no commercial broadcasters able/prepared to provide coverage, so had to go the YouTube route and you are now attempting to push that as a benefit! Basically, without free-to-watch broadcast, it would hardly/not have been watched!

 

[Swango1980]

Having a free, lower quality, broadcast doesn't automatically make a high quality subscription based broadcast extortionate!
I'm certain LIV had no commercial broadcasters able/prepared to provide coverage, so had to go the YouTube route and you are now attempting to push that as a benefit! Basically, without free-to-watch broadcast, it would hardly/not have been watched!

That is a good point. I've frequently heard the argument that free subscription is one of the benefits to LIV golf, and helping their aim to grow the game.

However, I'm pretty sure if Sky, BT or Amazon had been dead keen to show LIV golf events, then LIV would have been on those channels. And therefore fans would have needed to subscribe to those platforms as normal.

So, the fact it is free on youTube is surely an unintended consequence of the fact no major broadcaster wanted to touch it. Unless there is any evidence out there that LIV purposely did not approach any major sports broadcaster, and intend to have it free to air at all times?

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Having a free, lower quality, broadcast doesn't automatically make a high quality subscription based broadcast extortionate!
I'm certain LIV had no commercial broadcasters able/prepared to provide coverage, so had to go the YouTube route and you are now attempting to push that as a benefit! Basically, without free-to-watch broadcast, it would hardly/not have been watched!

Some people seem to have forgotten that LiV is only free to watch on YouTube because none of the mainstream broadcasters currently want it. The way some people are spinning it as a positive as though it has been done on purpose to allow the masses to watch it for free is laughable.

 

[Foxholer]

That is a good point. I've frequently heard the argument that free subscription is one of the benefits to LIV golf, and helping their aim to grow the game.

However, I'm pretty sure if Sky, BT or Amazon had been dead keen to show LIV golf events, then LIV would have been on those channels. And therefore fans would have needed to subscribe to those platforms as normal.

So, the fact it is free on youTube is surely an unintended consequence of the fact no major broadcaster wanted to touch it. Unless there is any evidence out there that LIV purposely did not approach any major sports broadcaster, and intend to have it free to air at all times?

Agreed.
Unintended, but with the 'benefit' of availability that MB is pushing - as I predicted many pages ago. The question as to whether anyone/many would have subscribed to watch it if it was on a subscription based broadcaster (doubtful imo) is simply avoided.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Guys, it's a start up business!! How on earth would they have sold that to a major televison network, and expected to receive a massive chunk of money for it, and expected some of those broadcasters to reschedule the golf they have already committed to broadcasting so they can show this product that nobody has any knowlegde of??

And to think there's a geezer on here calling me delusional, and people on one side of the debate are actually liking that comment.

 

[r0wly86]

Guys, it's a start up business!! How on earth would they have sold that to a major televison network, and expected to receive a massive chunk of money for it, and expected some of those broadcasters to reschedule the golf they have already committed to broadcasting so they can show this product that nobody has any knowlegde of??

And to think there's a geezer on here calling me delusional, and people on one side of the debate are actually liking that comment.

a start up business, that has billions of dollars in ready cash available to spend as they want with no oversight

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

Mate, you can't be going round calling people delusional then get upset when somebody describes SkyTv as extortianate, when we are having a discussion about a proffessional golf tour that is currently free to watch.

Either engage in the debate, or stay well clear of it.

I'm far from upset. For clarity i find my sky subscription value for money.

Sky/broadband/phone package with sky sports is just a tad under £100 per month.

I watch quite a lot of sport and feel i most definitely get Value For Money in that regard.

It's all relative i suppose.

You've tried to justify why LIV is "much more viewer friendly" other than it being free and advertless it's actually not.

 

[Foxholer]

It always amazes me how Red Bull make any money, sponsor loads of events globally for extreme sports, run a F1 team, and offer a free streaming service for loads of events.
...

That statement alone should disqualify you from making any comment wrt financial viability of sponsorship by large organisations!

 

[Slab]

Stating again I’m very much on the fence about liv, and I totally get why this forum would focus on broadcasting only from a uk perspective… but it has to be said it’s clearly intended as a global product and from that perspective liv do already have broadcast deals in place for much of mainland Europe, most of asia, south America and continental Africa

So regardless of whether I want to see it fail or succeed it has to be said from a broadcast perspective its not that bad a start after three events?

 

[Swango1980]

Guys, it's a start up business!! How on earth would they have sold that to a major televison network, and expected to receive a massive chunk of money for it, and expected some of those broadcasters to reschedule the golf they have already committed to broadcasting so they can show this product that nobody has any knowlegde of??

And to think there's a geezer on here calling me delusional, and people on one side of the debate are actually liking that comment.

The Premier League was a start up business in the early 90's, it sold pretty well to a major broadcaster. I don't know anything about darts, only that there are 2 separate tours so to speak. Where both of them televised (and darts is nowhere near as popular as golf)

The reason broadcasters do not want it has nothing to do with it being a start up business.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I'm far from upset. For clarity i find my sky subscription value for money.

Sky/broadband/phone package with sky sports is just a tad under £100 per month.

I watch quite a lot of sport and feel i most definitely get Value For Money in that regard.

It's all relative i suppose.

You've tried to justify why LIV is "much more viewer friendly" other than it being free and advertless it's actually not.

My phone / internet / TV package is £26 a month. So in my opinion, at 400% the cost of mine - give or take, I'd say yours is extortionate.

I find LIV more viewer friendly, because, for starters, ANYBODY can view it, it isn't bogged down with adverts and needless analysis, it's condensed into a shorter timeframe, there is more action while you are watching, the visuals are more viewer friendly, and the coverage connects directly with the LIV golf website. I can also watch it anywhere, on any device, without needing to log in to any accounts or download any specific apps.

 

[Swango1980]

Stating again I’m very much on the fence about liv, and I totally get why this forum would focus on broadcasting only from a uk perspective… but it has to be said it’s clearly intended as a global product and from that perspective liv do already have broadcast deals in place for much of mainland Europe, most of asia, south America and continental Africa

So regardless of whether I want to see it fail or succeed it has to be said from a broadcast perspective its not that bad a start after three events?

Are all these broadcast deals in other countries free to air?

 

[doublebogey7]

How much reading have you done on this topic Sunshine, long term, it exists to generate income for the Saudis, not to constantly drain it away.

Go on then tell us how they propose to do that without either income from TV via subscriptions or advertising.

 

[Mel Smooth]

The Premier League was a start up business in the early 90's, it sold pretty well to a major broadcaster. I don't know anything about darts, only that there are 2 separate tours so to speak. Where both of them televised (and darts is nowhere near as popular as golf)

The reason broadcasters do not want it has nothing to do with it being a start up business.

You must be a fan of an established PL club to come out with that kind of bullshardough

 

[Mel Smooth]

Go on then tell us how they propose to do that without either income from TV via subscriptions or advertising.

I haven't said they won't have I, I acknowledge that they may well go down a subscription package route with adverts in the future, but right now, that's not the case, much to the benefit of the viewer.

 

[Swango1980]

You must be a fan of an established PL club to come out with that kind of bullshardough

Just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that, because LIV is a start up business, it couldn't possibly get a broadcasting deal.

 

[evemccc]

Who actually watches PGA Tour golf tournaments?
If they do I would bet it’s almost solely the last round, and for a couple of hours at most…and then only very occasionally?

I would expect that the overwhelming bulk of golf viewing is the Majors and the Ryder Cup, and only then perhaps the Players at a distance behind

I’m pretty sure that two of the biggest supporters of the PGA Tour on this thread agreed that they rarely watched it

 

[Swango1980]

I haven't said they won't have I, I acknowledge that they may well go down a subscription package route with adverts in the future, but right now, that's not the case, much to the benefit of the viewer.

Here is a question then. Let us say LIV does go down the subscription route in the future, with ads (basically, let us say it goes to Sky). What will you do? Are you going to stop watching LIV, or are you finally going to get your hand out of your pocket and pay for Sky?

 

[Foxholer]

...
You've tried to justify why LIV is "much more viewer friendly" other than it being free and advertless it's actually not.

Totally agree! It's definitely a more difficult watch and there are distinct aspects that are horrendous!

 

[Slab]

Are all these broadcast deals in other countries free to air?

No idea, I wouldn't have thought so though. Certainly my sports pack (inc liv) isn't free to air (although doubtless i could get it from the same source as folk in the UK I suppose)
My point was that far from 'not being able to secure a broadcast deal', liv actually have much of the world already signed up