Any news on whether the Ashes is going to be picked up on Free-to-air TV like the SBS did last time?? Thoughts would be towards One HD considering that's up and running now. 9 won't take it.
Pretty sure I saw SBS advertising that they had the Ashes coming up. Interesting, because you'd imagine that they'd have to pay a fair bit to get access to the Sky feed. Especially considering that you'd imagine that Fox has the rights to the Sky feed as well.
I heard SBS had the rights again (probably on here).
The one, the only CW Black
Code:47.3 W Coppinger to Heads Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!
A good change
I saw it in a promo
I would like to watch bowlers dominate batsmen like a dog would a tail-wagging contest against a rabbit. Which means I spend most of my days fuming and cursing the game. The Newlands Test between South Africa and Australia has vindicated my belief that batsmen are a bunch of weak-minded, inept fools only good for waving about sponsor logos.
It'll seriously take the piss if Australia can get said Ashes on free-to-air via the same host broadcasters that are only available via subscription in the UK.
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Well it happens quite a lot
I used to buzz off watching Wrestlemania for free (well sort of, we had to pay for Sky Sports) whilst my American friends paid $50 for it.
Then Sky got onto it and now charge us £15
Happens with English footy worldwide as well
Its fairly predictable that at the start of the season every year there'll will be the usual bull**** article(s) bemoaning the lack of test cricket on terrestial television. This year is the first year the home Ashes won't be on terrestial, so sure enough i saw one the other day.
Fact is unless a terrestial broadcaster is prepared to offer more than the derisory sums they want to pay the ECB is correct not to give them the rights and if they were forced to do so ( I believe there is a review of the A list events underway) it would be to the detriment of English cricket. IIRC cricket invests a significantly higher amount of its broadcast income in grassroots than other sports. I think the governments target is 5% and the ECB invest 21% (CA invest 8% in grass roots iirc), this would certainly drop if sky weren't bankrolling them.
The question is whether we are going to increase the standard of cricket by giving people the chance to watch cricket on BBC2 in between the racing or by giving people the chance to play cricket. I'd go for the second option. Some journalists seem to live in cloud cuckoo land.
Dave Mohammed >>>> You
Obviously the counter-argument is that kids won't get into cricket because they haven't got Sky, I'm with you, though.
Let's not forget that Channel 4 used to switch over to the racing and things like that. terrestial TV can not and will not dedicate the time to cricket that Sky do, all financial concerns aside.
If you wanted to get kids into cricket through tv you'd make Twenty20's be put on terrestial tv, because if you are talking about trying to attract new people to cricket, for 99% of those people that's the only format likely to drag them in initially(imo).
IMO, some of the people that raise this issue (not on here i mean) are using the 'kids' issue as cover when really they probably think having sky is not the done thing for people of their class and they shouldn't have to pay for cricket on tv. The same people are probably pissed off at the digital switchover as well.
Last edited by superkingdave; 14-04-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Yeah, you're probably right. At the end of the day I don't see why anyone has a God-given right to anything. I love cricket, so I pay for sky sports (I could live without the footy as I tend to attend the footy matches that I care about), I don't earn all that much, but that's what I want to spend my money on.
I don't want to sound obnoxious about this or anything, but I would wager that a hell of a lot of the people who gripe about how unfair it is have a lot more money to play with than me. And that's fine, and noone is forcing anyone to buy Sky Sports, but if you want to watch cricket then that's what you ened to do, deal with it IMO
I was dead against the move to Sky at the time because I do believe that cricket should be protected, as we have England rugby and most of England football on terestrial I think cricket is deserving of the same. Plus I am not a huge fan of Sky coverage of anything although it is not terrible by any means. On a personal level it has anoyed me due the the fact that my Dad despite loving cricket still refused to get it (when he could easily afford it). Since then I have had to do without live test cricket on TV because I have been at university, but think I am going to have to try and afford it this summer when I move into a new house. Shame that no one I am going be living with shares my love of any sport let alone cricket.
Last edited by Pothas; 14-04-2009 at 06:32 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)