Open Coverage Lost To SKY

[Slab]

Spot on. Sky have no control, not only in the majors from the US but the week to week tour events. They can only show what the network supplies and US TV is famous for the amount of commercial breaks and so Sky usually fill every other break. However, and it's a big point, they are being limited to five minutes per hour in their Sky Coverage so hardly going to be overly obtrusive.

For yourself & MarkE

Not sure what you mean by no control, ok not commercially sound but sky don't have to show any ads, they choose to, the host broadcaster doesn't go off air during their ad breaks its all still being filmed and broadcastable, that's a fair amount of control

Also the supplied broadcast feed is not coming from one bloke with a handycam. Sky can show different footage from just the primary feed if they want to (& they probably do) this lets them show players that the host broadcaster isn't covering to the same extend ie UK players, in the same way that golf from the US shown in South Africa will focus a bit more on their home players and doubtless the same happens in Asia etc

Overall though Sky provide far more golf in a month than we ever got in a year or more pre-sky so its hard to say they're bad for the sport etc but I wouldn't absolve them of any responsibility of what they choose to put on screen

 

[Sheffieldhacker]

I have Sky Sports purely for the golf. Probably going to cancel soon as I can't stomach the money given to English football (well their players actually). Paying someone £300k per week sickens me when the country won't properly fund the NHS or education.

i have asked in the past about just getting the channel that the golf is on but they won't do it.

i agree that it was wrong for the R&A to give coverage over to Sky. The number of people watching the Open will plummet and that can't be good for the game.

Think of the tax they pay on the stupidly high wages that go towards the nhs

 

[Smiffy]

She who must be obeyed refuses to entertain having the Sky Sports package so I'll just have to make do with the BBC's two hour highlights programme instead. Never mind ... life's a bitch and then you die.

Get yourself a NowTV box. Just buy the box for £9.99.......

http://www.nowtv.com/box?referrer=nowtvboxes&DCMP=KNC-Brand-nowtvboxes-Box-NOWTV-NC-Bing

and you can buy a pass for SkySports whenever you want.........

http://www.nowtv.com/sports

£6.99 a day or £10.99 for a week, which would cover you for both the Masters or the Open.
Doddle to set up (just plugs in via an HDMI lead to your telly) and away you go. They even give you the HDMI lead!!
I will never subscribe to Sky on a monthly basis but this covers me for what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.
One of the best things that's happened to your telly in recent years!

 

[Hacker Khan]

I agree that it's not Sky's fault as such, as like F1, the R&A could have worked out a deal where there is a split between Sky and a terrestrial broadcaster. Or like they do in the Masters where the BBC get to show some of the final rounds live. But I imagine that would means they would get less from Sky or BT Sports, so they did not do this.

Also the BBC were interested in continuing to broadcast the live events, but after the 1st round of talks it was clear that they could not match the money the commercial broadcasters had on offer, so they pulled out of the second round of talks that was between Sky and AN Other.

Once the USGA sold their TV rights the other year for an eye watering sum to Fox Sports and left the free to air broadcaster the golf used to be on in the US, it was pretty clear that the R&A would follow suit (and ironically the R&A sold the rights to The Open to a free to air broadcaster in the US, so you can watch it for free in the US but not in the UK). So they could play Sky off against BT Sports, and as Sky had lost the Chumps league then the R&A knew they would be desperate to get The Open, so it was virtually a done deal. And the BBC never really had any chance.

As others have pointed out it is a pretty niche sport in the grand scheme of things, no where near the popularity of football. So that is why the BBC are happy to pay for Premier league rights for £204 million for the highlights to that. But I'm guessing they figured that paying £15 million for one tournaments, plus all the additional expense of filming/producing the event and clearing your schedules for 4 days in return for not great viewing figures did not make sense. And I am pretty sure the current image of the game does not help to sell it to terrestrial broadcasters, which ironically you could argue the BBC have contributed to a bit with commentators like Alliss and Mark James not exactly portraying a vibrant exciting sport. Tiger who was box office is gone, Rory does his best but with the best will in the world Speith will not get many pulses racing or casual viewers watching, no matter how much mental strength he has. Plus every year at The Open there seems to be a story about sexism which sometimes overshadows the golf, which will reoccur at Troon next year if they do not allow women to join. Add into that the fact that unlike the vast majority of other popular sports, golf does not have a Team England/Britain/Scotland/Wales etc etc to pull the casual viewer in. So when the climax of the event is an Aussie against a South African against a Yank, with Brits no where to be seen, then it may well leave the British casual viewer a bit uninterested.

Yet the maths works more on Sky Sports, as by showing The Open it allows them to tell all the betting companies they have a relatively small but hard core cohort of sports fans watching their adverts every 15 minutes, so they can sell advertising slots at a higher price. All Sky are doing is pursuing their strategy of securing as many exclusive sports rights as possible so they can attract people to to buy their sports subscriptions and sell the advertising slots to companies that want to target sports fans (currently betting companies). The governing bodies of the sports can decide if they want to take the Sky (or BT Sport) shilling or not.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

What about the BBC Get Inspired programme, they push and promote a lot of activities in all areas aimed at local communities and grassroots?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/thingstodo/category/Golf?cache=disable

Robin, my point is, Sky is privately funded, the BBC are using our money, a lot of people who on here are all for Tory policies are the ones complaining about Sky, maybe we should go back to the days of World of Sport and Granstand.
Sky show more sports and expose people to different sports than the BBC ever did.
Just don't get the blaming of Sky? Hasn't the R&A promised some of the money will be invested in grass roots?
Surely that's a win/win if they weren't doing it with BBC money.

 

[Lambchops]

Get yourself a NowTV box. Just buy the box for £9.99.......

http://www.nowtv.com/box?referrer=nowtvboxes&DCMP=KNC-Brand-nowtvboxes-Box-NOWTV-NC-Bing

and you can buy a pass for SkySports whenever you want.........

http://www.nowtv.com/sports

£6.99 a day or £10.99 for a week, which would cover you for both the Masters or the Open.
Doddle to set up (just plugs in via an HDMI lead to your telly) and away you go. They even give you the HDMI lead!!
I will never subscribe to Sky on a monthly basis but this covers me for what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.
One of the best things that's happened to your telly in recent years!

Not a Nowtv box but I bought one of those Android boxes and put Kodi on it - I get the American coverage of the Golf Channel, NBC and Fox Sports all in HD. 40quid one off against a Sky subscription - no brainer

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Sky will make sure they cover every single angle - they will dedicate a while channel , there will be countless programs and highlights - the coverage will be good no doubt

But - the highest audience they have had is about 1.1 mil where as this year for example the BBC had 4.3 mil and last 5.6 mil etc

Golf will lose about 2-3 mil casual viewers which isn't a good thing - in fact I think that's damaging for the sport

The people that will benefit will be guys who already have sky and like golf and the R&A has an extra 5 mil in the coffers

I personally don't like the sky coverage because of the commentators and presenters and endless shot centre guff and adverts and will feel sad when the BBC end next year

The comparison to MOTD isn't really applicable IMO

 

[Ethan]

I was quite disgusted to hear that the R&A have sold out all day live coverage to SKY heralding an end to the BBC's live coverage from either next year or the year after, felt betrayed to hear Peter Alliss tell us at the end of this years open something like 'but we will get 2 glorious hours of highlights each night', and pleased to hear Gary Lineker stand up and criticise the R&A as pompous and arrogant. personally I hate Sky for their policy of overcharging for everything while still constantly hitting viewers with adverts. I can easily afford the subscription should I choose to, but cancelled it about 7 years ago so I could at least stand up and be counted for my beliefs rather than just complain and put up with it. Anyone else feel like this or is too obvious a question?

Sorry, but I disagree with almost all of that. The BBC is interested in showing populist talent shows, dancing shows, cooking shows, auction and antique shows or anything with Michael MacIntyre. They do the occasional costume drama to. Not interested in sport apart from football, and not even very interested in that.

The BBC gets a license fee from everyone who watched TV in the UK, so they don't need to advertise. The license fee is higher than the price of a full fat Sky package.

I am not naturally inclined to like Murdoch or what he stands for, but I must concede that the Sky platform is a quality offering and their golf coverage is comprehensive and excellent.

It is time Peter Alliss disappeared anyway, and I like Gary Lineker but it is rather hypocritical for him to scoop up a couple of mill a year and then carp about money dictating everything.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Sorry, but I disagree with almost all of that. The BBC is interested in showing populist talent shows, dancing shows, cooking shows, auction and antique shows or anything with Michael MacIntyre. They do the occasional costume drama to. Not interested in sport apart from football, and not even very interested in that.

The BBC gets a license fee from everyone who watched TV in the UK, so they don't need to advertise. The license fee is higher than the price of a full fat Sky package.

I am not naturally inclined to like Murdoch or what he stands for, but I must concede that the Sky platform is a quality offering and their golf coverage is comprehensive and excellent.

It is time Peter Alliss disappeared anyway, and I like Gary Lineker but it is rather hypocritical for him to scoop up a couple of mill a year and then carp about money dictating everything.

The BBC show programs of a wide range to ensure they cover everyone - as for sport they show

Football
Tennis
Rugby
Golf
Winter Sports
Rowing
Cycling
F1
Athletics

Plus Olympics and major football tournaments

The fee is roughly 120 a year

The minimum sky sports package I believe is about £50 a month - the full fat package including HD is around 70 quid a month so not sure where you get this idea that the license fee is more expensive

 

[Jimaroid]

The idea that by not being on the BBC golf will lose casual viewers is largely irrelevant for the future. Broadcast television is in severe decline, especially amongst the young.

The BBC know this. They're not stupid, spending more to deliver something to a diminishing audience is daft. I love the BBC, I'd be happy to pay more for it and I think it's a world-beating service but I'm also a realist and appreciate how they need to adapt to deliver what future audiences want and how they behave.

The future of television is not in blanket broadcasting like it has been in the past. The future is one of individual choice through specialist subscription channels.

I think the R&A have made a wise decision, cashing out now whilst the value is still reasonably high in order to invest in a longer term future and, hopefully, in developing the sport through other means than just television.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The idea that by not being on the BBC golf will lose casual viewers is largely irrelevant for the future. Broadcast television is in severe decline, especially amongst the young.

The BBC know this. They're not stupid, spending more to deliver something to a diminishing audience is daft. I love the BBC, I'd be happy to pay more for it and I think it's a world-beating service but I'm also a realist and appreciate how they need to adapt to deliver what future audiences want and how they behave.

The future of television is not in blanket broadcasting like it has been in the past. The future is one of individual choice through specialist subscription channels.

I think the R&A have made a wise decision, cashing out now whilst the value is still reasonably high in order to invest in a longer term future and, hopefully, in developing the sport through other means than just television.

This answer is spot on, actual facts and nothing aimed at Sky.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This answer is spot on, actual facts and nothing aimed at Sky.

So it doesn't change the fact that from 2017 a great deal less people will watch the Open

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So it doesn't change the fact that from 2017 a great deal less people will watch the Open

A great deal less are already lost and participation has declined over the last few years whilst it's been on the BBC, a few clubs have picked up 1-2 new members.
We'll only know if it's the right decision if the Sky money is used to grow the game as promised by the R&A.

 

[Ethan]

The BBC show programs of a wide range to ensure they cover everyone - as for sport they show

Football
Tennis
Rugby
Golf
Winter Sports
Rowing
Cycling
F1
Athletics

Plus Olympics and major football tournaments

The fee is roughly 120 a year

The minimum sky sports package I believe is about £50 a month - the full fat package including HD is around 70 quid a month so not sure where you get this idea that the license fee is more expensive

Well, the fee is £145.50 but you are still correct.

I still think the Sky packages offer pretty good value for money, and unlike the BBC, payment is not compulsory and enforced by law.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Well, the fee is £145.50 but you are still correct.

I still think the Sky packages offer pretty good value for money, and unlike the BBC, payment is not compulsory and enforced by law.

Plus all the complaints about the gambling adverts on Sky and no one mentions the private company Camelot having the biggest gambling show on the BBC or does that not count?

 

[6inchcup]

I was quite disgusted to hear that the R&A have sold out all day live coverage to SKY heralding an end to the BBC's live coverage from either next year or the year after, felt betrayed to hear Peter Alliss tell us at the end of this years open something like 'but we will get 2 glorious hours of highlights each night', and pleased to hear Gary Lineker stand up and criticise the R&A as pompous and arrogant. personally I hate Sky for their policy of overcharging for everything while still constantly hitting viewers with adverts. I can easily afford the subscription should I choose to, but cancelled it about 7 years ago so I could at least stand up and be counted for my beliefs rather than just complain and put up with it. Anyone else feel like this or is too obvious a question?

same opinion as last time this thread was on,could not care less who shows it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

A great deal less are already lost and participation has declined over the last few years whilst it's been on the BBC, a few clubs have picked up 1-2 new members.
We'll only know if it's the right decision if the Sky money is used to grow the game as promised by the R&A.

What exactly can you think can be done with £5mil to grow the game ?

Participation declining have nothing IMO to do with the BBC and its coverage

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well, the fee is £145.50 but you are still correct.

I still think the Sky packages offer pretty good value for money, and unlike the BBC, payment is not compulsory and enforced by law.

You don't have to pay the license fee if you don't want to watch the telly

£145 a year to watch what they broadcast IMO is more than worth it when you look at the subscription costs for sky

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Plus all the complaints about the gambling adverts on Sky and no one mentions the private company Camelot having the biggest gambling show on the BBC or does that not count?

Getting a bit picky now isn't it - the lottery is a bit different than all those bet Fred Victor chandler adverts etc all over every sporting event on sky

 

[6inchcup]

What exactly can you think can be done with £5mil to grow the game ?

Participation declining have nothing IMO to do with the BBC and its coverage

again your facts are wrong,the latest study from APRIL this year shows that the participation in golf has been steady now for the past few years and a downward trend is not anticipated,and to be honest who cares how many play the game,good clubs stay open quick buck clubs shut down .