BT sport rumoured to be buying up Championship coverage

[ratsapprentice]

According to TRP.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Interesting.
I think they'd put more into the league than Sky (BT notorious for splashing the cash) but when would they show the games? I mean, aren't they generally on at the same time as the premiership?

Unless they do what sky did with Super League, and have their televised game on a Thursday night?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Dunno... might be part of the PRL's attempt to wrest the championship from the RFU/Expand/Ringfence.

 

[j'nuh]

Yeah, I reckon it has more to do with having more control over the format of the Premiership, than wanting to broadcast the Championship.

 

[Tony Manx]

That would be tragic and they would treat it no better than Sky does it now or both channels have or did treat Top 14 rights! As a filler or red button item behind nothing stuff!!!

Ps probably should register my bias as will not pay the robbing barsteward BT!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Nah... their coverage isn't as good IMO either.

Their "coverage" of the JRWC so far consists of some guy in a box going through the teams before handing over to WR's feed... as opposed to Sky's old coverage which had a full studio team.

 

[goodNumber10]

i really dislike how BT are buying everything up.... only a matter of time before they get the england games

 

[Tony Manx]

Nah... their coverage isn't as good IMO either.

Their "coverage" of the JRWC so far consists of some guy in a box going through the teams before handing over to WR's feed... as opposed to Sky's old coverage which had a full studio team.

That being said most of the sky coverage consists of commentators sitting in broom cupboard in Isleworth, rather than traveling, and taking a feed!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

What do they do that for?

 

[Tony Manx]

Saves them money and they do not really care enough!!

 

[welshglory]

Competition is good

 

[goodNumber10]

it's not competition when one company has all the product that's called a monopoly.

 

[welshglory]

Sky can compete by putting in a better bid.

Would you rather BT hadn't come back into the broadcasting game?
Do you think there should be restrictions imposed?

 

[thechosenfamily]

it's not competition when one company has all the product that's called a monopoly.

Like Sky had previously you mean??

 

[goodNumber10]

Like Sky had previously you mean??

it's a bit different when Sky were the only player in the game - and i felt the same when they got Englands internationals

- - - Updated - - -

Would you rather BT hadn't come back into the broadcasting game?

Have i said that?

Do you think there should be restrictions imposed?

yes... some things should be protected, like England games for example... neither sky nor BT should have them... No company should have everything, unless it's open to all ala terrestrial..

It's terrible for the sport.

 

[welshglory]

So i see that you don't like the fact that they're buying up a lot of the content. However i'm at a loss as to what you're angle is.
My point is that BT coming in has added competition and will lead to Sky having to raise their game and vice versa. If Sky want let BT buy everything up by not putting in a bid that's good enough then that's their prerogative.

Well there you go then, i completely disagree about England games. It's up to the National union's to decide.

Edit: If there is malpractice in the bidding process, then i'm sure the regulators will intervene

 

[goodNumber10]

So i see that you don't like the fact that they're buying up a lot of the content. However i'm at a loss as to what you're angle is.
My point is that BT coming in has added competition and will lead to Sky having to raise their game and vice versa. If Sky want let BT buy everything up by not putting in a bid that's good enough then that's their prerogative.

Well there you go then, i completely disagree about England games. It's up to the National union's to decide.

Edit: If there is malpractice in the bidding process, then i'm sure the regulators will intervene

YEs, and the point is it doesn't add competition if one person holds all the cards.

If both parties had equal coverage then the better product wins... that's not the case, this just comes down to who has the deepest pockets and the subscribers have to follow. It's a monopoly, monopolies are bad for the punter.

 

[thechosenfamily]

Unfortunately the government don't seem to care anyway.

They are once again looking to un-ringfence the six nations so that could mean that as well could go to the pay for view channels as well.


On coverage merits I would much rather BT have rugby than Sky much better viewer experience IMHO.

BT have created competition for Sky which is a good thing as, for a long while, they had almost the sporting monopoly.

 

[goodNumber10]

Unfortunately the government don't seem to care anyway.

They are once again looking to un-ringfence the six nations so that could mean that as well could go to the pay for view channels as well.


On coverage merits I would much rather BT have rugby than Sky much better viewer experience IMHO.

BT have created competition for Sky which is a good thing as, for a long while, they had almost the sporting monopoly.

and that monopoly was bad, because you the punter had no choice, if BT by everything up the punter loses out again.

alos i agree about BT's coverage being better, i ejoy it more if i have a choice i watch BT.

 

[thechosenfamily]

and that monopoly was bad, because you the punter had no choice, if BT by everything up the punter loses out again.

I don't have this information to hand but I wonder what the government position is regarding the term monopoly in sports.

I know in 2007 premiership football was split up due the Sky monopoly on live games hence Setanta\BT.

If Sky are still showing live games next year then IMHO of what a monopoly is, then BT are ok.