Us pga black out

[guest100718]

At least we won't have to listen to Darren Clarke again. Did you know he had won The Open? That was painful yesterday.

yeah but he doesn't to talk about it.

 

[Dan2501]

Darren Clarke is terrible. Another example of jobs for the boys.

 

[Sweep]

Seemingly the BBC didn’t rate showing the US PGA last year as a great success or in any rate are not showing it again this year. Neither are Sky.
Dies this mean their tiff with Sky resulted in the USPGA shooting themselves in the foot? Or will this herald a new partner in golf broadcasting like BT? Maybe the age of streaming live golf as the norm has dawned?
Or... as practically every other golf event from the Open to the Trilby Tour is now broadcast, can the US PGA still be considered a major when it’s the only comp not on our screens?
https://www.golfmagic.com/golf-news/bbc-and-sky-will-not-be-airing-us-pga

 

[Garush34]

Seemingly the BBC didn’t rate showing the US PGA last year as a great success or in any rate are not showing it again this year. Neither are Sky.
Dies this mean their tiff with Sky resulted in the USPGA shooting themselves in the foot? Or will this herald a new partner in golf broadcasting like BT? Maybe the age of streaming live golf as the norm has dawned?
Or... as practically every other golf event from the Open to the Trilby Tour is now broadcast, can the US PGA still be considered a major when it’s the only comp not on our screens?
https://www.golfmagic.com/golf-news/bbc-and-sky-will-not-be-airing-us-pga

I see that Facebook has got in on the act, showing some early round coverage on weekends for some PGA tour events. Looks like this could be the way forward, but it will soon get to the point where coverage is spread across too many platforms that viewing numbers will decrease.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I’m sure some will see it as a good thing

Those determined to watch it will probably end up seeing it via dodgy sites and streams, especially if goes on to a ppv site.

 

[PJ87]

hmm they have all these departments to stop one company having a monopoly .. who would have thought the end user would end up worse off...

typical rip off

 

[r0wly86]

I'm not the biggest SKY fan, not because the coverage is bad, on the contrary but as LP has said it's behind a pay wall which I believe is a hindrance to the sport in general. Just a couple of anecdotes to add to this:

The thing that got be hooked onto golf was as a 9 year old watching the 1996 Masters. Watching Faldo win in an unbelievable last round sticks with me to this day, no doubt that was formative in my golf obsession. Had that been on SKY, my dad refuses to give Murdoch any money, then I wouldn't have seen it and who knows whether I would be playing golf now.

Secondly is cricket, I help run a small village cricket club, who are really struggling to recruit players. We contacted other local teams, they are really struggling too. So we contacted the county for help they said it's a national issue. Now in 2005 when we won the Ashes in that amazing series cricket was huge and participation was the highest in decades. It then went to SKY and despite in that time England having great success winning the T20 world cup, being the world number 1 test, ODI and T20 team, very few people could recognise the team. Because it's behind a paywall cricket is no longer in the national consciousness which has a massive impact on getting people to play the sport.

Obviously golf is a bit different but being behind a pay wall is never going to grow the game.

My firm belief that satellite TV will become less important as the internet and Smart devices take over. Yes satellite and SKY changed the game but technological evolution stops for no company and the rise of Netflix and Amazon Prime is a good example, this is the future of TV and viewing habits.

I am surprised nothing has been said about Amazon taking the rights, they are known to have ambitions of broadcasting sport, they have the money to put in competitive bids. Netflix have over 8 million subscribers already and only charge £6 p/m 1/3 the cost of getting Sky Sports Golf plus you get all of their other content

 

[pinberry]

I'm not the biggest SKY fan, not because the coverage is bad, on the contrary but as LP has said it's behind a pay wall which I believe is a hindrance to the sport in general. Just a couple of anecdotes to add to this:

The thing that got be hooked onto golf was as a 9 year old watching the 1996 Masters. Watching Faldo win in an unbelievable last round sticks with me to this day, no doubt that was formative in my golf obsession. Had that been on SKY, my dad refuses to give Murdoch any money, then I wouldn't have seen it and who knows whether I would be playing golf now.

Secondly is cricket, I help run a small village cricket club, who are really struggling to recruit players. We contacted other local teams, they are really struggling too. So we contacted the county for help they said it's a national issue. Now in 2005 when we won the Ashes in that amazing series cricket was huge and participation was the highest in decades. It then went to SKY and despite in that time England having great success winning the T20 world cup, being the world number 1 test, ODI and T20 team, very few people could recognise the team. Because it's behind a paywall cricket is no longer in the national consciousness which has a massive impact on getting people to play the sport.

Obviously golf is a bit different but being behind a pay wall is never going to grow the game.

My firm belief that satellite TV will become less important as the internet and Smart devices take over. Yes satellite and SKY changed the game but technological evolution stops for no company and the rise of Netflix and Amazon Prime is a good example, this is the future of TV and viewing habits.

I am surprised nothing has been said about Amazon taking the rights, they are known to have ambitions of broadcasting sport, they have the money to put in competitive bids. Netflix have over 8 million subscribers already and only charge £6 p/m 1/3 the cost of getting Sky Sports Golf plus you get all of their other content

Limited understanding of the problem. It's a chicken and egg situation. The reason why many sports are behind a paywall it's because they get more money by doing so. More money means higher purses. If you stop selling TV rights to the likes of Sky etc then there will be less money flowing around. It follows that it would be completely irrational for cricket/golf/whatever to stop selling their rights to Sky.

By the way, on Netflix, they charge £9p/m and it's a massively cash negative and money losing company. Their business model is to get you hooked up to their product and then rise the price at least 3x to start breaking-even (never mind making a profit). So Netflix is too good to be true. Trust me on this one, I run quite a big equity fund and Netflix will be a poster child of this current market cycle.

 

[road2ruin]

hmm they have all these departments to stop one company having a monopoly .. who would have thought the end user would end up worse off...

typical rip off

I completely agree with this.

Once upon a time I had a Sky subscription. It was fairly expensive but I'd be able to watch all the football I could ever want. Then one day someone said it was bad for the consumer if just one company could monopolise the market and to give people choice they'd ensure that other companies a slice of the action. So, BT Sport took some of the football, Sky's prices didn't drop and if I wanted to watch the same amount of football I'd have to get another subscription and my monthly costs would shoot up. Fast forward another few years and it now looks like Amazon will get in on the action which means if I want to watch the games that they get i'll have to paid for the privilege.

So, over the years, to ensure the consumer got more choice what they've actually done is price a lot of people out of the market. I got rid of Sky, mainly due to the fact that with a young family I just don't get to watch it as much as I used to. I now pay £75.00 per year and get access to every sport imaginable (in HD) yet still the big companies wonder why more and more people are being pushed down this route.

 

[r0wly86]

Limited understanding of the problem. It's a chicken and egg situation. The reason why many sports are behind a paywall it's because they get more money by doing so. More money means higher purses. If you stop selling TV rights to the likes of Sky etc then there will be less money flowing around. It follows that it would be completely irrational for cricket/golf/whatever to stop selling their rights to Sky.

By the way, on Netflix, they charge £9p/m and it's a massively cash negative and money losing company. Their business model is to get you hooked up to their product and then rise the price at least 3x to start breaking-even (never mind making a profit). So Netflix is too good to be true. Trust me on this one, I run quite a big equity fund and Netflix will be a poster child of this current market cycle.

Sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme, you can't get out of the cycle because of the money you've paid or are due. The logical conclusion is the money will keep going up until it is unaffordable and/or the broadcasting company goes belly up or cancels the contract at which point the sports company is up a certain creek without an implement of propulsion.

It also begs the question are the governing bodies responsible for getting money or growing the sport. What good is it if the ECB makes a lot of money from SKY if going with SKY kills off the grassroots game. I understand the argument that the extra money can be invested but what's the point of investing if no one is taking up the sport.

As I say with cricket, it used to be the nation's summer sport, now not many people could name the team. In 2005 everyone new who Flintoff and KP were. I know there's a fine balance of getting money into the game and growing the game but in my opinion the latter is the most important.

I will bow to your knowledge on the matter, but my understanding was that Netflix were borrowing huge sums of money to increase their original programming and to keep growing in a relatively new market. Not so much a loss leader in the traditional sense but a company that knows it's a market leader in a growth market so is mortgaging everything to stay there. But you are the expert so if you say differently I won't argue.

Also Netflix subscriptions:

Single account in SD: £5.99

2 screens with HD: £6.99

4 Screens with 4K: £9.99

But considering Sky Sports Golf by itself is £18pm not including the basic package on top it's great value

 

[Garush34]

I'm not the biggest SKY fan, not because the coverage is bad, on the contrary but as LP has said it's behind a pay wall which I believe is a hindrance to the sport in general. Just a couple of anecdotes to add to this:

The thing that got be hooked onto golf was as a 9 year old watching the 1996 Masters. Watching Faldo win in an unbelievable last round sticks with me to this day, no doubt that was formative in my golf obsession. Had that been on SKY, my dad refuses to give Murdoch any money, then I wouldn't have seen it and who knows whether I would be playing golf now.

Secondly is cricket, I help run a small village cricket club, who are really struggling to recruit players. We contacted other local teams, they are really struggling too. So we contacted the county for help they said it's a national issue. Now in 2005 when we won the Ashes in that amazing series cricket was huge and participation was the highest in decades. It then went to SKY and despite in that time England having great success winning the T20 world cup, being the world number 1 test, ODI and T20 team, very few people could recognise the team. Because it's behind a paywall cricket is no longer in the national consciousness which has a massive impact on getting people to play the sport.

Obviously golf is a bit different but being behind a pay wall is never going to grow the game.

My firm belief that satellite TV will become less important as the internet and Smart devices take over. Yes satellite and SKY changed the game but technological evolution stops for no company and the rise of Netflix and Amazon Prime is a good example, this is the future of TV and viewing habits.

I am surprised nothing has been said about Amazon taking the rights, they are known to have ambitions of broadcasting sport, they have the money to put in competitive bids. Netflix have over 8 million subscribers already and only charge £6 p/m 1/3 the cost of getting Sky Sports Golf plus you get all of their other content

It's all well and good saying that Netflix is 1/3 of the cost of sky sports, but if they were to get into the live sports business, there's no way its going to stay at the same price. Why would they pay millions and keep the pricing the same. Yeah they will get more subscribers but at £6 a month they would need to get a hell of a lot to recoup the money.

 

[pinberry]

I will bow to your knowledge on the matter, but my understanding was that Netflix were borrowing huge sums of money to increase their original programming and to keep growing in a relatively new market. Not so much a loss leader in the traditional sense but a company that knows it's a market leader in a growth market so is mortgaging everything to stay there. But you are the expert so if you say differently I won't argue.

Netflix this year will spend more money than any studio on movies and series production. The amount is around $13bn. Netflix will lose around $4bn in 2018 and never made any cash in the last six. Actually, the cash losses are getting bigger as they expand. Netflix is indeed borrowing money to make up for these losses.

How will Netflix ever get to positive cash? The idea is that it will gain more users (very probable), won't need to increase production costs massively (less likely) and it will need to increase prices. Note that you need all of the three to make Netflix work as a business. Where I have problems and where I think the Netflix business model will ultimately crumble is production costs and subscription costs. Netflix needs to spend a lot on content just to convince you that you're getting value for you money. Most content is crap, hits are hard to plan, you have (increasing) competition from studios which will only push content costs up. On subscriptions, people love Netflix now because it's soooo cheap - the value for money is incredibly high. But to make a profit, Netflix will probably need to hike prices to around £30/month. At which point, the value-for-money proposition looks a lot worse.

Indeed, Netflix today is too good to be true.

 

[clarke_111]

So, over the years, to ensure the consumer got more choice what they've actually done is price a lot of people out of the market. I got rid of Sky, mainly due to the fact that with a young family I just don't get to watch it as much as I used to. I now pay £75.00 per year and get access to every sport imaginable (in HD) yet still the big companies wonder why more and more people are being pushed down this route.

Can I ask where you manage to pay £75 pa and get access to all the sport-esp if that includes the golf. I had previously accessed all via Sky go but unfortunately this option will soon disappear so looking for alternative ways to view the golf

 

[*TQ*]

Can I ask where you manage to pay £75 pa and get access to all the sport-esp if that includes the golf. I had previously accessed all via Sky go but unfortunately this option will soon disappear so looking for alternative ways to view the golf

I'm interested as well.

I currently get Sky Sports through NowTV at £34 a month (no option for single sport and I only watch golf).

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It will be to one of the illegal stream sites which over the years will be get closed and some people prosecuted

 

[r0wly86]

It's all well and good saying that Netflix is 1/3 of the cost of sky sports, but if they were to get into the live sports business, there's no way its going to stay at the same price. Why would they pay millions and keep the pricing the same. Yeah they will get more subscribers but at £6 a month they would need to get a hell of a lot to recoup the money.

I wouldn't think that the subs would stay the same. The advantage of streaming over satellite is that infrastructure is cheaper and customising is easier. Netflix or Amazon could much more easily produce a separate subscription for sport at a lower price. Not having to fill the calendar with second rate events or reruns or analysis that hardly anyone watches outside of tournaments.

 

[*TQ*]

It will be to one of the illegal stream sites which over the years will be get closed and some people prosecuted

Ah Ok, definitely not interested in anything illegal.

 

[drdel]

There's some right pish wrote on here
How much coverage did golf used to get on terrestrial TV then??
Take away majors , or the old benson & hedges or whatever it was, then I'd say next to zilch

Sky has brought golf and golf coverage to a different level
It's been great for the game
( unlike what has happened to football )
To get European tour and us tour events every week is fantastic

If you want it
Pay for it
If you don't
Just shut up and don't whinge
It ain't coming back to the BBC anytime soon
They've no interest

I'm another who agrees with you.

Sky has invested way more than the Beeb would dream of committing. I can watch golf on Sky anytime I wish and record a wide range on their dedicated channel. They cover and support a wide range of golf competitions.

If you think the bit by bit coverage you'd get from a terrestrial channel/internet based system would be good for the sport i'm afraid you're in dream land.

 

[Slab]

I completely agree with this.

Once upon a time I had a Sky subscription. It was fairly expensive but I'd be able to watch all the football I could ever want. Then one day someone said it was bad for the consumer if just one company could monopolise the market and to give people choice they'd ensure that other companies a slice of the action. So, BT Sport took some of the football, Sky's prices didn't drop and if I wanted to watch the same amount of football I'd have to get another subscription and my monthly costs would shoot up. Fast forward another few years and it now looks like Amazon will get in on the action which means if I want to watch the games that they get i'll have to paid for the privilege.

So, over the years, to ensure the consumer got more choice what they've actually done is price a lot of people out of the market. I got rid of Sky, mainly due to the fact that with a young family I just don't get to watch it as much as I used to. I now pay £75.00 per year and get access to every sport imaginable (in HD) yet still the big companies wonder why more and more people are being pushed down this route.

A bit off topic I don't remember it working like that though

When there was only one (Sky) wasn't it something like 72 games a season live on sky each season

Then Sky launched a second service (separate to the sports pack with something like 24 games a season (a premier league season ticket they called it) so you had to pay twice but then got 96 games or you could choose just the season ticket and get a live game most weeks (they even sold them as individual games for like £8ea)

That lasted a year or so then the season ticket got pulled into the sky pack and more games were made available (something like 140 a season and was split between two broadcasters) So that 'all the football you could ever want' number was just 72 games but now you paid two subscriptions but for twice that many games

With a total pot of 380 games a season it was the Premier League themselves that kept increasing the amount of live games they sold under each new contract as more broadcasters got into it

Now we'll have 2 or even 3 broadcasters showing around 200 live EPL games a season and you'll need subscriptions to all of them to see it all (but that's more than three times 'all the football you could ever want' remember)

And every year the prices went up

So instead of spending 4 hours a week watching 'all' the live football, now it would need 10-12 hours (just for the EPL)
So either you change your life to watch more (just because its on) or you still watch about 4 hours but are paying for three times that (or somewhere in the middle)
Either way it could be argued there is too much live EPL football so you don't need to pay for it all, just the amount you want

Problem is that many fans now expect to see their team live on tv dam near every single week (and that will be spread over all broadcasters hence the three subscriptions) Whereas 'football' fans used to be satisfied with a live game from the league now its got to be their own team home or away. If the punter wants more the punter has to pay more

Getting back to your points:

• Setanta & BT sport didn’t take some of the football, the premier league just made more available to buy
• Because sky didn’t lose any of their football they didn’t drop their price either
• And as I say you might believe you only watch the same amount of football but you bought a lot more of it

To get back kinda on topic, if they split the PGA Tour & European Tour over two broadcasters then on paper it would be great, just pay for what you want and it'll be cheaper but in reality the punter will very soon want to see both...

So 'Once upon a time' is a nice fairytale but that's all it really is

 

[Slab]

Too late to edit previous post but I pay for well in excess of 1,000 live games a season… more than one thousand! All we wanted was a game or two each week wasn’t it?

Wanna know how many I sat & watched start to finish last season? nada, zip. Like most my time in front of the tv for sport viewing is limited & for me it’s mostly taken up by golf