Open Coverage Lost To SKY

[6inchcup]

i read the statement prior to posting as it was in the CLUB GOLFER magazine,at what point do we base the decline,are more people members of clubs,are there more golf courses/driving ranges/tuition/manufacturers than when i started in the 1960's,so you could say we are in the boom time now,as i said before does it matter to your golfing life how many play the game,the answer should be NO,so long as were your playing stays viable,if my club started to suffer we would just pay more in green fees,as would many more clubs,those that couldnt afford it wouls either move on or pack in,its not your problem.

 

[Hacker Khan]

i read the statement prior to posting as it was in the CLUB GOLFER magazine,at what point do we base the decline,are more people members of clubs,are there more golf courses/driving ranges/tuition/manufacturers than when i started in the 1960's,so you could say we are in the boom time now,as i said before does it matter to your golfing life how many play the game,the answer should be NO,so long as were your playing stays viable,if my club started to suffer we would just pay more in green fees,as would many more clubs,those that couldnt afford it wouls either move on or pack in,its not your problem.

But one could argue that is a very self centric and selfish view. Yes no club should be propped up if it is not providing a good value service and bad companies fail everywhere, so why should golf be any different.

However the R&A should also be concerned about the future of the game and be looking at trying to get as many people interested in the sport as they can. They are the custodians of the game, and in the 21st century some of that responsibility involves ensuring the game has a healthy future, and presiding over a year on year decline in the number of participants is not a great business model.

The amateur players are the ones that buy all the gear the manufacturers crap out at increasingly regular intervals, the ones that buy the magazines, the ones that watch it on TV or in person (how many non-golfers will sit and watch a golf tournament for fun?) so the companies think it's worth paying big money to get involved. So golf needs people to keep playing it for it to remain relevant. Now how the R&A ensure this happens is purely up to them and they have obviously made the call that they do not see prime time live exposure on terrestrial TV as a way of doing this. But I'd argue you have to look at the big picture, rather than worrying about it only if the green fees at your specific club go up.

 

[6inchcup]

But one could argue that is a very self centric and selfish view. Yes no club should be propped up if it is not providing a good value service and bad companies fail everywhere, so why should golf be any different.

However the R&A should also be concerned about the future of the game and be looking at trying to get as many people interested in the sport as they can. They are the custodians of the game, and in the 21st century some of that responsibility involves ensuring the game has a healthy future, and presiding over a year on year decline in the number of participants is not a great business model.

The amateur players are the ones that buy all the gear the manufacturers crap out at increasingly regular intervals, the ones that buy the magazines, the ones that watch it on TV or in person (how many non-golfers will sit and watch a golf tournament for fun?) so the companies think it's worth paying big money to get involved. So golf needs people to keep playing it for it to remain relevant. Now how the R&A ensure this happens is purely up to them and they have obviously made the call that they do not see prime time live exposure on terrestrial TV as a way of doing this. But I'd argue you have to look at the big picture, rather than worrying about it only if the green fees at your specific club go up.

so who are the players of the future,as posted in another thread kids are only interested in money,plenty of courses and clubs run junior taster sessions and coaching,do we get the parents interested in forking out for all the gear needed,as opposed to a few pounds for football etc,most golfers me included have family ties to golf that's how i started,very few just start playing golf out of the blue,the vast majority now need instant gratification,golf does not deliver on that point,we even have the modernisation preachers saying play in jeans,trainers footy tops etc to get down with the kids!!,why,why should centuries of traditions the game is built on be cast aside so a few kids start playing,look at all our top players,past ,present and the future crop coming through never stopped them playing,and so will the next generations players,from a smaller pot yes but does that matter.

 

[Hacker Khan]

so who are the players of the future,as posted in another thread kids are only interested in money,plenty of courses and clubs run junior taster sessions and coaching,do we get the parents interested in forking out for all the gear needed,as opposed to a few pounds for football etc,most golfers me included have family ties to golf that's how i started,very few just start playing golf out of the blue,the vast majority now need instant gratification,golf does not deliver on that point,we even have the modernisation preachers saying play in jeans,trainers footy tops etc to get down with the kids!!,why,why should centuries of traditions the game is built on be cast aside so a few kids start playing,look at all our top players,past ,present and the future crop coming through never stopped them playing,and so will the next generations players,from a smaller pot yes but does that matter.

And are the modernisation preachers related to The Manic Street Preachers in any way?

 

[Fish]

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.

I'm a Sky fan and welcome the move/change, although I only have Now TV, I was just highlighting the Get Inspired programme as you stated you weren't aware of any other broadcaster doing anything.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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

so who are the players of the future,as posted in another thread kids are only interested in money,plenty of courses and clubs run junior taster sessions and coaching,do we get the parents interested in forking out for all the gear needed,as opposed to a few pounds for football etc,most golfers me included have family ties to golf that's how i started,very few just start playing golf out of the blue,the vast majority now need instant gratification,golf does not deliver on that point,we even have the modernisation preachers saying play in jeans,trainers footy tops etc to get down with the kids!!,why,why should centuries of traditions the game is built on be cast aside so a few kids start playing,look at all our top players,past ,present and the future crop coming through never stopped them playing,and so will the next generations players,from a smaller pot yes but does that matter.

Some interesting stuff on here. Surely the BBC on plays lip service to football these days. I know they do have a good record in showing tennis and F1 coverage, and they do have the six nations for rugby (but what else?) but the rest could be considered minority sports and I do include the winter olympics in that. In terms of cycling, I'd argue that Sky have done more for participation through their city cyclign scheme and their successful team.

Where do the players of the future come from. Golf has dwindled in terms of numbers before and survived. Yes clubs will be lost but we're a long way of the death knell for the sport. I hope that the R&A do as promised and invest a lot of this Sky cash into grass roots initiative and help the many clubs who already do a lot to get kids into the game.

As for the argument about Sky ruining football with their billions of quid, lets not forget they aren't alone in this. Look how much BT are now pumping in to secure things like the CL and PL matches. Even ITV have considered it acceptable to fork out to show live CL and England games. BBC had that opportunity.

At the end of the day Sky aren't going away and nor is their investment in major sports. It comes down to consumer choice. You either decide to watch or you don't. I really don't think the Sky and R&A deal is the sports governing body aligning with the devil but merely finding a vehicle to put the Open into a firm foot in the 21st century

 

[FairwayDodger]

Hopefully in the near future they'll change the pricing models to allow viewers more choice on what they see across the various networks.

At the moment I'd need both Sky Sports and BT Sport to see all the events I want but I also get vast amounts of rubbish I have no interest in. I've no intention of subscribing to both of those so I've missed out on MotoGP and, by the sound of it, I won't be seeing the Champions League either? That's not such a big deal as it's a bit dull without any Scottish interest.....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Hopefully in the near future they'll change the pricing models to allow viewers more choice on what they see across the various networks.

At the moment I'd need both Sky Sports and BT Sport to see all the events I want but I also get vast amounts of rubbish I have no interest in. I've no intention of subscribing to both of those so I've missed out on MotoGP and, by the sound of it, I won't be seeing the Champions League either? That's not such a big deal as it's a bit dull without any Scottish interest.....

BT Sports are paying £1 billion for the CL so they need to get a lot of subscribers so I expect their price to increase

You used to be able to get packages for just Skysports 1 and 2 but the golf is on 4 now

There was talk a while back of them having a pick and chose where you have a basic sky package which is the free view channels plus sky one , living , Atlantic etc and then add your own channels - so you could just add Skysports 4 if you wanted just the golf but to be financially workable for them the price would be close to what it is for a full sports package

With the amount of money both channels pay for contracts - mainly football and to gain a profit then can only see the subscriptions increasing more and can soon see it being well over £100 a month if you want full package plus HD and BT sports

 

[JohnnyDee]

Haven't read all 9 pages, but speaking as someone who has Sky Sports and watches hours and hours of their great golf coverage (governed of course by their necessity to screen advertising), nevertheless I am so disappointed that from 2017 they have the rights to The Open.

The Beeb capitulated in the bidding war as they knew they couldn't compete. Just look at Sky's preposterous overbid for The Premiership. It's not only obscene but laughably stupid too. Auntie knew they were on a complete hiding to nothing in the bidding process for The Open and that there was little or no point in even having a serious go.

I've watched The BBC's peerless ad-free coverage of The Open for longer than I care to contemplate and once Sky's ad-dependent coverage kicks in then it's going to be a sad day.

As I've said in other threads, it's not Sky's fault, it's simply how their business model works. And it would be sort of acceptable had we not had 50 or so years of the BBC's stupendous continuous and simply peerless coverage.

One of many instances of how 'The Market' suits very few but those who stand to gain by its existence.

 

[KenL]

£100 per month - ridiculous!
My wife and I can go on holiday for a week to Portugal for a year's subscription.
Freeview or freesat is becoming more and appealing.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

BBC is also guilty of spending silly money on football... £250m on highlights! Only a wee bit more than the £15m sky paid for the open so im sure the bbc could have afforded the open but Yes I do appreciate that if the bbc was serious in keeping the open it could have started a bidding war. Unlike the bbc, at least with sky you have a choice to pay the subscriptions. Also with their development of now tv, you wont have to pay monthly subscription you can just get a weekend pass for the golf.

MOTD still attracts between 4 and 5 million viewers each week - that shows its money spent well for them. It's not really a relevant comparison IMO

 

[Smiffy]

Having my NowTV box means I can just pick and choose what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.
The only sports I am interested in are golf and F1. And with golf, I won't watch golf for "golf's sake". It has to be a tournament that I am interested in.
If an F1 race is on BBC I will watch it on there, if not I will pay £6.99 for a days pass to watch it.
If I want to watch golf I will pay the £10.99 for a weeks pass to cover my viewing of the Masters, or in future the Open.
I have absolutely no interest in watching some tin pot golf tournament that I have never heard of, held on a course I have never heard of, won by a player I have never heard of so why should I pay for it?

 

[MarkE]

£100 per month - ridiculous!
My wife and I can go on holiday for a week to Portugal for a year's subscription.
Freeview or freesat is becoming more and appealing.

Depends on your priorities. Given the choice between just those 2 options, I certainly would'nt be going to portugal.

 

[GB72]

To a certain extent, I feel that the number of people watching the Open is a slight red herring and it is the demographic that is more important. If all of the people watching are already golfers then it does not matter if it is 2 million or 4 million then it makes no difference. Equally it makes no difference if the extra people watching are keen on watching sport on TV but will never pick up a golf club (I still watch rugby but have no chance of putting my boots on again). If those extra 2 million people are at least in part people with no current interest in the game who may be inspired to take it up then there is a benefit to the having the larger audience but if a larger percentage of the 2 million Sky viewers fall into that category then the benefit is with Sky.

This is all far too detailed for the information that is gleaned in relation to TV viewing but I do feel that the actual numbers watching is not conclusive to being beneficial to the sport.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

To a certain extent, I feel that the number of people watching the Open is a slight red herring and it is the demographic that is more important. If all of the people watching are already golfers then it does not matter if it is 2 million or 4 million then it makes no difference. Equally it makes no difference if the extra people watching are keen on watching sport on TV but will never pick up a golf club (I still watch rugby but have no chance of putting my boots on again). If those extra 2 million people are at least in part people with no current interest in the game who may be inspired to take it up then there is a benefit to the having the larger audience but if a larger percentage of the 2 million Sky viewers fall into that category then the benefit is with Sky.

This is all far too detailed for the information that is gleaned in relation to TV viewing but I do feel that the actual numbers watching is not conclusive to being beneficial to the sport.

I agree. How many watch Wimbledon but I bet many won't ever step foot on a court. It's a red herring. Of course we'd all like to see new blood in the game but I wonder if we can really say that this 2m discrepancy would really take up the game anyway?