*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[SteveNZ]

This is a ****ing awful development for the game in our country.

Straight off the bat, tens of thousands of rural viewers are denied the opportunity to watch home matches (apart from the first T20 of a series, whoopie doo). Then you rule out those who are on capped internet plans, because there's no way you can justify the bandwidth to stream multiple Tests, ODIs etc in the same billing month. And we've seen that even people with seemingly reliable fibre speeds have been struggling big time with the Spark coverage.

The dunce that is our NZC CEO says this is as much about 'future proofing' the game for tomorrow as it is today. Bull****. Spark were the highest bidder and you swallowed it whole. Tell the people who either have to miss out or park themselves in the pub - family game, is it David? - to watch matches that we're future-proofing the game.

When the technology is strong enough that every single person can stream the game effectively, then yeah. That's potentially in the future. It's not now, and the now matters. Spark ****ed out with the F1, they've had issues with the RWC, yet David White wants to tell us how great this all is. **** off.

The better product is Sky Sport and Sky Sport Now. You may have heard of Now, David, it's an online sports ********* service.

 

[SteveNZ]

I’m pretty happy with the news. All I watch on Sky is cricket and the occasional Phoenix game. So I will be very happy to cancel my subscription in favour of Spark.

But why, when you could have just kept an online subscription to Sky Sport Now and had access to those sports plus a lot more? It makes so much more sense for SKY to have our cricket and present it through their traditional set-up and online.

I pay $30 a month for Sky Sport Now (because I'm a Spark broadband customer, ironically). It's awesome. I have no issue with speeds, I have I think 12 channels, I can watch on my laptop as I'm doing now, I can stream through Chromecast or Apple TV. I have outstanding access to highlights, featured programmes etc.

Yes, the old SKY was a fossil but that's because the old CEO was as well. Instead, we're running with a service that clearly has no idea what it's doing.

 

[Meridio]

Yeah, except all of the Black Caps' overseas games will still be on Sky.

Yeah, this is a big problem for me. Signs of it going the way of sports coverage in the UK, e.g the Premier League where you have some games on Sky and some on BT, and paying for both is not an option for most people. All I really care about as far as TV is concerned is cricket, and paying for a package and not getting all of that just means I'd be finding other online means of watching...

Another issue with this is internet coverage, and not just in rural areas either. I've only just got back to NZ after 7 years away, but my distinct memory of broadband plans is that the data caps are pretty woeful, and prices for unlimited packages are excessive. According to the article on Stuff, a full test match would take 80GB, and even if you only manage to watch half of it, try justifying that to your flatmates.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Yeah it was hilarious to read those David White quotes about "future-proofing" the game through stre@ming (lol, that word is censored!?), being able to access highlights and view on different devices ... umm, I can do all that right now with Sky!? It just seems like Spark sold him a bunch of snazzy tech-talk and he fell for it. I sure hope the money is really big.

Six years is such a long term, as well, for what is a company with a pretty lousy reputation and track record. I worry how things could be by the end of the six years in terms of exposure and profile for the game.

On the upside, the overseas tours will hopefully mainly be staying with Sky, and they are where the more interesting cricket happens most of the time. Endless Bangladesh and Sri Lanka tours of NZ I'm not going to miss.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah it was hilarious to read those David White quotes about "future-proofing" the game through stre@ming (lol, that word is censored!?), being able to access highlights and view on different devices ... umm, I can do all that right now with Sky!? It just seems like Spark sold him a bunch of snazzy tech-talk and he fell for it. I sure hope the money is really big.

Six years is such a long term, as well, for what is a company with a pretty lousy reputation and track record. I worry how things could be by the end of the six years in terms of exposure and profile for the game.

On the upside, the overseas tours will hopefully mainly be staying with Sky, and they are where the more interesting cricket happens most of the time. Endless Bangladesh and Sri Lanka tours of NZ I'm not going to miss.

The 2020/21 home summer has some drawcards, right?

That's another ****ed thing. We're huge fans, we want to consume all the games we can. So now, we have to purchase two platforms to watch our team. David and his team aren't doing me any favours, they're costing me money. Because yeah ill stump up for both, I'd stand on my head and stream a satellite through an iron pole in my backside to watch cricket. But I'm not a rich man.

You cannot trumpet some cricket being free and online, then make the fans pay double. Unless you think we dont care about away fixtures, which mean you're seriously underestimated us as cricket people.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

And Sky announces it has the 2023 World Cup and T20 World Cups until then ...

 

[Mike5181]

SKY's ****ed anyway if they don't retain the broadcasting rights to SAANZAR.

 

[Bahnz]

This is a ****ing awful development for the game in our country.

Straight off the bat, tens of thousands of rural viewers are denied the opportunity to watch home matches (apart from the first T20 of a series, whoopie doo). Then you rule out those who are on capped internet plans, because there's no way you can justify the bandwidth to stream multiple Tests, ODIs etc in the same billing month. And we've seen that even people with seemingly reliable fibre speeds have been struggling big time with the Spark coverage.

Tbf, a lot more New Zealand homes have unlimited broadband plans than have sky sports subscriptions.

 

[kaetor]

Satellite TV is an outdated service anyway. Sky is a rubbish company that wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't been too stubborn to offer their own stre@ming services 5-10 years ago. I think it'll cause issues now, but SKy having a monopoly wasn't a good thing.

It is frustrating that competition means some cricket could be on either platform. Similar to any TV, can't watch your shows on HBO and Netflix and Amazon without subscribing to them all etc.. Needs to be a subscription type service for just the cricket (or whatever else you may want), at a better price. I'd happily pay $100 for a summer of cricket, rather than whatever ridiculous prices they offer for a full subscription. Hard to access content just leads to more piracy (and insect enthusiasts).

The best news about this is the free to air games! Best way to get people in to the game is to expose them to it.

 

[TheBrand]

I was initially frustrated at this. But agree that SKY is gonna be ****ed if they dont get the SANZAAR rights, so hoping long term maybe Spark look at getting on board with ICC etc.

Annoying we have to pay for 2 platforms now, but I'm just hoping that all the cricket is included in Spark Sports base price and not having to pay extra.

Feel like David White missed a trick here and SKY stre@ming is pretty damn good tbh and more easily accessible into peoples TV's especially rural areas.

What's the deal with Willow? Is that a platform in the USA that has all cricket on it? For a subscription fee?

 

[Bahnz]

I was initially frustrated at this. But agree that SKY is gonna be ****ed if they dont get the SANZAAR rights, so hoping long term maybe Spark look at getting on board with ICC etc.

Annoying we have to pay for 2 platforms now, but I'm just hoping that all the cricket is included in Spark Sports base price and not having to pay extra.

Yeah this is key. If it's just $20 a month for 3 or 4 months of the year, I reckon there'd be a reasonable market for that (and doubly so if it's packaged with Sanzaar rights). But if otherwise there might be very limited take-up.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Articles saying Sky has held onto the Rugby rights until 2025. Would tend to indicate a lot of subscribers will be staying with Sky. Will be interesting to know whether the views of cricket go up or down with Spark.

I get the feeling Sky would’ve been happy to let cricket go as long as it meant they held onto rugby.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, the fact that the NZC moved on this before they knew the fate of the rugby rights is astonishly naïve.

 

[SteveNZ]

Satellite TV is an outdated service anyway. Sky is a rubbish company that wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't been too stubborn to offer their own stre@ming services 5-10 years ago. I think it'll cause issues now, but SKy having a monopoly wasn't a good thing.

It is frustrating that competition means some cricket could be on either platform. Similar to any TV, can't watch your shows on HBO and Netflix and Amazon without subscribing to them all etc.. Needs to be a subscription type service for just the cricket (or whatever else you may want), at a better price. I'd happily pay $100 for a summer of cricket, rather than whatever ridiculous prices they offer for a full subscription. Hard to access content just leads to more piracy (and insect enthusiasts).

The best news about this is the free to air games! Best way to get people in to the game is to expose them to it.

Satellite TV might be, but SKY also have an online platform. SKY have been a rubbish company, yes, because they've been run by a dinosaur - John Fellett - and his similarly cronied mates. He's gone, hopefully the business is running in the right direction.

I don't agree with the free to air games exposing people to cricket. Rugby isn't on free to air TV and it remains as popular. Cricket won't all of a sudden get a boost because a sprinkling of T20 internationals and some Super Smash is on TVNZ. And even if it did, it'd be evened out by those who can't watch the rest of the summer on their internet connection.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah, except all of the Black Caps' overseas games will still be on Sky.

Half the time they don’t seem to buy the rights on overseas tours until the last minute anyway. Sky will only buy the foreign tours if it’s going to be profitable after all.

 

[Athlai]

This is a ****ing awful development for the game in our country.

Straight off the bat, tens of thousands of rural viewers are denied the opportunity to watch home matches (apart from the first T20 of a series, whoopie doo). Then you rule out those who are on capped internet plans, because there's no way you can justify the bandwidth to stream multiple Tests, ODIs etc in the same billing month. And we've seen that even people with seemingly reliable fibre speeds have been struggling big time with the Spark coverage.

The dunce that is our NZC CEO says this is as much about 'future proofing' the game for tomorrow as it is today. Bull****. Spark were the highest bidder and you swallowed it whole. Tell the people who either have to miss out or park themselves in the pub - family game, is it David? - to watch matches that we're future-proofing the game.

When the technology is strong enough that every single person can stream the game effectively, then yeah. That's potentially in the future. It's not now, and the now matters. Spark ****ed out with the F1, they've had issues with the RWC, yet David White wants to tell us how great this all is. **** off.

The better product is Sky Sport and Sky Sport Now. You may have heard of Now, David, it's an online sports ********* service.

This is a ridiculous sentiment. Hardly like everyone has an easy means to watching Sky.

 

[Athlai]

But why, when you could have just kept an online subscription to Sky Sport Now and had access to those sports plus a lot more? It makes so much more sense for SKY to have our cricket and present it through their traditional set-up and online.

I pay $30 a month for Sky Sport Now (because I'm a Spark broadband customer, ironically). It's awesome. I have no issue with speeds, I have I think 12 channels, I can watch on my laptop as I'm doing now, I can stream through Chromecast or Apple TV. I have outstanding access to highlights, featured programmes etc.

Yes, the old SKY was a fossil but that's because the old CEO was as well. Instead, we're running with a service that clearly has no idea what it's doing.

The only reason Sky has a halfway decent ********* service is due to competition. Does no one else remember the original iteration of fanpass when there was no competition? They priced it in line with international markets and when they realised that the low price was having their own customers cut the cord in droves, they raised the price for four sports channels to the same as the full Sky Package price.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is a ridiculous sentiment. Hardly like everyone has an easy means to watching Sky.

What's more prevalent - the availability of fibre or SKY coverage? I imagine it's the latter.

No one's arguing SKY was a **** service under the previous leader. The RWC was lost under John Fellett's tenure, as was that pricing you referred to. They're moving forward under Martin Stewart, look how they're getting it right with Sport Now.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not something I'd really thought about before but it is probably true that more people (if they're prepared to pay a fair bit for either) have theoretical access to Sky (via satellite) than they do to a high speed, high data internet connection. Existing subscribers to either for non-cricket reasons aren't really relevant to the percentage of people willing to pay $80pm or whatever for cricket who can actually get it if Sky v Spark gets the deal. It probably is closer to 100% with Sky than with Spark.

 

[Moss]

Wonder what this would mean for viewers from overseas like me, of late the coverage of NZ-hosted games in India has been pretty abysmal. Can't comment on what this means for the reach of the game long term in NZ (looking to this thread for opinions and hints), but my initial reaction to anything David White says is scepticism (like a lot of others' I imagine).