Sky's coverage of The Open wins Sports BAFTA

The irony...the R&A will be pleased... oh well, I hope the relatively minuscule audience numbers appreciate what they're getting. Don't even bother with the Beeb highlights anymore... #TheOpenIsDeadToMe
 
Glad they won. Sky sports is awesome.

Yes the coverage is generally excellent but the fees are really starting to extract the urine now. I'm not prepared to pay the money anymore to finance the wages of some Premiership footballer wanting £300k a week!
 
Yes the coverage is generally excellent but the fees are really starting to extract the urine now. I'm not prepared to pay the money anymore to finance the wages of some Premiership footballer wanting £300k a week!

Yes the coverage was very good, and my cards on table, I was very anti them getting The Open and still hated the adverts. But I agree they did a bang-up job within the framework of their business model.

However I really agree that the subscription is getting ridiculous and I'm also thinking of jacking it in and getting a Now TV pass just for the big golf events.

The stupid amount of money Sky bid for football should not be used as a stick to beat those of us who are sports fans, but who aren't particularly interested in the beautiful game.
 
The tech stuff and the coverage was very good - shame it wasn't watched by very many people. I'm sure the award will make up for the reduced viewing figures and seen as some positive.
 
Yes the coverage was very good, and my cards on table, I was very anti them getting The Open and still hated the adverts. But I agree they did a bang-up job within the framework of their business model.

However I really agree that the subscription is getting ridiculous and I'm also thinking of jacking it in and getting a Now TV pass just for the big golf events.

The stupid amount of money Sky bid for football should not be used as a stick to beat those of us who are sports fans, but who aren't particularly interested in the beautiful game.

Much the same myself. I did try and cancel Sky Sports last year as I only really watch the golf on it, but they threw it in free for several months. But that has run out now.

I am kind of torn as I do fancy one of those Sky Q boxes to make the most of my 4K TV, but I expect if you do that you are looking north of 100 quid a month. Which is just silly money really. I looked on my Sky planner and most of the stuff I record is from the terrestrial channels or Sky Atlantic nowadays.

As for the golf winning then to be honest I only really remember the great golf between Stenson and Philly Mick, the coverage kind of passed me by I think. But I am sure I detected a quiet wave of laughter around the hall when the chap said their mission is to make golf exciting and accessible.
 
I am sure I detected a quiet wave of laughter around the hall when the chap said their mission is to make golf exciting and accessible.

Yes, you did. I did too.

Sadly it would seem that our beloved game still has the wider perception among the masses that it's played by geriatric, colourblind silly old fogeys - despite poster boys like Rory, Ricky & Jason etc. :mmm:
 
Last edited:
Yes, you did. I did too.

Sadly it would seem hat our beloved game still has the wider perception among the masses that it's played by geriatric, colourblind silly old fogeys - despite poster boys like Rory, Ricky & Jason etc. :mmm:

I think with that audience it was kind of expected. The game still has a lot to change that perception but I feel that with Pelly and the new chap at the PGA they will make some really positive steps to change things. But by 'hiding' it away on Sky you wonder how many people will see that. As all it needs is for another 'Muirfield members' story that gets national coverage to kind of undo a lot of that work.
 
Just a thought following on from comments above.

So many of my mates at our club are moaning about Sky's subs and many of them are ex-footballers who love the game, but even they say there is far too much televised football available.

Given Sky made a ludicrously high bid for Premiership rights etc. and then jacked up its complete subs model to claw back the money off those completely uninterested in football (i.e. people taking Entertainment, Movies and non-football sports packages) has the time now not come for them to split their Sports package in two - All sports including Football and other sports? :whistle:
 
Last edited:
Do you think Peter Allis and dear old Ken would change that attitude? I know we can get into another Sky v BBC battle here but at least Sky use modern graphics, pro-tracer, slow mo etc that brings the game into the present and interests the YouTube generation. BBC would not be doing that, they have never innovated, remember watching test cricket as a kid from one end only!! I enjoy golf on the BBC but they did not move with the times, the money was not put in. Sky support golf in an amazing way and should be applauded for that. I don't enjoy paying money to them, we have the regular 6 monthly phone call to reduce the price, but that is what is required to buy all of the rights across the spectrum.
 
Just a thought following on from comments above.

So many of my mates at our club are moaning about Sky's subs and many of them are ex-footballers who love the game, but even they say there is far too much televised football available.

Given Sky made a ludicrously high bid for Premiership rights etc. and then jacked up its complete subs model to claw back the money off those completely uninterested in football (i.e. people taking Entertainment, Movies and non-football sports packages) has the time now not come for them to split their Sports package in two - All sports including Football and other sports?

The model would not work. If you could cherry pick people would drop most channels. They need to bundle together, even though it annoys me as I don't watch 90% of what is on Sky.
 
I think I can hear the fingers warming up for an assault on the keyboards :D

Whatever the rights and wrongs, Sky do a very good job of covering sport and that is what the award is for. The rest is another issue that we both agree has been done to death :thup:
 
Just a thought following on from comments above.

So many of my mates at our club are moaning about Sky's subs and many of them are ex-footballers who love the game, but even they say there is far too much televised football available.

Given Sky made a ludicrously high bid for Premiership rights etc. and then jacked up its complete subs model to claw back the money off those completely uninterested in football (i.e. people taking Entertainment, Movies and non-football sports packages) has the time now not come for them to split their Sports package in two - All sports including Football and other sports?

I'd jump at that as I haven't deliberately sat down to watch a football match in years now. Interestingly in the US I think the PGA are looking at controlling more of the rights themselves, and distributing it via their channels or through new partners. Pretty sure I read that FaceBook are after the live streaming rights for big sports events. Also I think you can get the 1st mornings play from PGA events free on twitter nowadays. So the whole model of TV companies securing sports rights to drive subscribers may not be along for ever.
 
Yep, they were live streaming their own feed on Twitter for free for the first 90 minutes at Sawgrass this weekend then going to a subscription of (I think it was $5.99 a month but that could be the wrong price).

Now that's something that might shake up the market over here.

Just had a Google and I was right.

https://www.pgatourlive.com/subscription

OK seems it's only for Thursday & Friday every week and before the main national 'host broadcaster' kicks in but at those prices if they did a deal with someone I'm sure they could bring in all 4 days at an attractive rate for golf fans.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Peter Allis and dear old Ken would change that attitude? I know we can get into another Sky v BBC battle here but at least Sky use modern graphics, pro-tracer, slow mo etc that brings the game into the present and interests the YouTube generation. BBC would not be doing that, they have never innovated, remember watching test cricket as a kid from one end only!! I enjoy golf on the BBC but they did not move with the times, the money was not put in. Sky support golf in an amazing way and should be applauded for that. I don't enjoy paying money to them, we have the regular 6 monthly phone call to reduce the price, but that is what is required to buy all of the rights across the spectrum.

The main problem whilst all those graphics are lovely - it's still only being watched by people but who subscribe to Sky so the it doesn't matter what fancy ball tracking etc etc they have -when it's only being watched by golf fans it's not exactly helping grow the game - you tube generation etc won't be able to watch it unless they have Sky - and they won't pay for Sky unless they like the sport - catch 22.

The viewing figures dropped by 75% from 2015 - from 5 mil to 1 mil , the BBC highlights show had more than Sky live figures

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/18/open-sky-sports-bbc-troon

So for the extra £5mil what golf got was - less people watching but more gimmicks in the coverage

For me I don't care about the graphics and stuff because when they are showing all that and the Sky cart etc etc they are missing showing the actual golf going on out there - with the sport it's wall to wall shots - just show the golf and use all those gimmicks in a highlights show.

Only have to look at the difference in people who watched on Sky or BBC when the Masters were on - whilst the Sky were going through the Sky cart or showing some graphic the BBC were just showing the golf as it should be - pure and simple.
 
https://www.pgatourlive.com/subscription

OK seems it's only for Thursday & Friday every week and before the main national 'host broadcaster' kicks in but at those prices if they did a deal with someone I'm sure they could bring in all 4 days at an attractive rate for golf fans.

Interesting, hope they keep looking at different packages

That's a shame it is for Thursday/Friday morning live only, would have bought that for that price, provided I could watch it later in the day as something to watch later at night.
 
The main problem whilst all those graphics are lovely - it's still only being watched by people but who subscribe to Sky so the it doesn't matter what fancy ball tracking etc etc they have -when it's only being watched by golf fans it's not exactly helping grow the game - you tube generation etc won't be able to watch it unless they have Sky - and they won't pay for Sky unless they like the sport - catch 22.

The viewing figures dropped by 75% from 2015 - from 5 mil to 1 mil , the BBC highlights show had more than Sky live figures

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/18/open-sky-sports-bbc-troon

So for the extra £5mil what golf got was - less people watching but more gimmicks in the coverage

For me I don't care about the graphics and stuff because when they are showing all that and the Sky cart etc etc they are missing showing the actual golf going on out there - with the sport it's wall to wall shots - just show the golf and use all those gimmicks in a highlights show.

Only have to look at the difference in people who watched on Sky or BBC when the Masters were on - whilst the Sky were going through the Sky cart or showing some graphic the BBC were just showing the golf as it should be - pure and simple.
The last paragraph is rubbish, Ken Brown rolling balls on greens, I take it that's not a gimmick?
Many events, including The Masters, overseas broadcasters have to take host nation feed, so at no time did the BBC just show Golf.
You are completely against Sky and instead of congratulating them on winning a major award, which the BBC coverage never did, you look for negatives, winning the BAFTA can mean increased awareness, sponsorship etc which could be good for the game.
 
Top