RFU strikes a new deal with Sky, the devil.

[Prestwick]

http://www.scrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/84689.html

International evil scumbag and sound-effect bloated broadcaster Sky has concluded a five year deal with the RFU covering all England matches played at Twickenham and and overseas - outside of the Six Nations - as well as covering the future EDF paper-cup cometition replacement.

On top of this, Sky have secured "online" rights, enabling it to simulcast coverage on its Sky Player online.

 

[Bullitt]

Yay!

Sky Sports > BBC Sport > Not watching at all > ITV > Setanta

 

[Prestwick]

Boo.

Not paying for sport > dull, over sensationalised coverage with way too many sound effects and crappy graphics > Barnes and Morris masturbating over the wrong players > Setanta > BBC

I'm sorry but I find having to pay for the priviledge of watching your national team play on an international stage fundementally wrong. Club Rugby, fine. I'd pay money for that. But not for watching England.

Why do we threaten armed revolt when England dive-ball/Cricket gets sold off to Sky/Setanta but humbly roll over when England Rugby gets shanghied up the river to the highest bidder?

 

[Bullitt]

You do realise BBC costs you £150 (or near enough) every year? Hardly free.

 

[Prestwick]

You do realise that that 150 would be paid to broadcasting anyway in the form of subsidy to either the BBC or any public service broadcaster which would replace it? You do realise that that 150 quid would probably be paid in a form of subsidy to ITV, Channel 4 and even Sky to smooth over the digital switchover and to promote forms of new media?

And you do realise that your point is completely silly as it is standard convention to view "free at the point of use" as "free". That is unless you want to campaign for the end of National Insurance and switch to BUPA as you resent having to pay for the NHS?

I resent having to pay extra for the priviledge of watching my national team whereas with the Six Nations I need nothing more than a TV and a cheap 20 pound box on top. A TV license is neither here nor there.

If you're that tight about the TV license, I'm surprised that you're willing to accept shelling out cash for over 200 channels of utter garbage...

 

[Bullitt]

Not being tight at all, merely pointing it out! As it happens, I need Sky or at least freesat because the signal strength where I live is so low that FTA digital is a waste of time. As I also get my phone and Broadband through sky, effectively it only costs me a tenner each month.

As for the NHS/BUPA quip, have you stayed in a NHS hospital lately? I have, they ain't nice places.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Nov 5 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Not being tight at all, merely pointing it out! As it happens, I need Sky or at least freesat because the signal strength where I live is so low that FTA digital is a waste of time. As I also get my phone and Broadband through sky, effectively it only costs me a tenner each month.

As for the NHS/BUPA quip, have you stayed in a NHS hospital lately? I have, they ain't nice places.[/b]

No one bothered to hook Northampton up with the real world?

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Nov 5 2008, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Not being tight at all, merely pointing it out! As it happens, I need Sky or at least freesat because the signal strength where I live is so low that FTA digital is a waste of time. As I also get my phone and Broadband through sky, effectively it only costs me a tenner each month.[/b]

The 150 pounds that you spend is being planned on partially spent on providing services such as freesat, mainly because your fantastic and benevolent Sky argue that they shouldn't have to shell out to support a service for the likes of you

Paying anything extra on top of free at the point of use to watch your nation play in the highest echelons of sport is wrong. Fact. End of story.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As for the NHS/BUPA quip, have you stayed in a NHS hospital lately? I have, they ain't nice places.[/b]

Actually I have and the NHS cancer ward at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow provided some of the best service for both my Mother and went out of their way to accomodate the rest of the family. I myself had my wisdom teeth out at Kidderminster last year and couldn't fault the service.

 

[stumpy17]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 5 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

You do realise that that 150 would be paid to broadcasting anyway in the form of subsidy to either the BBC or any public service broadcaster which would replace it? You do realise that that 150 quid would probably be paid in a form of subsidy to ITV, Channel 4 and even Sky to smooth over the digital switchover and to promote forms of new media?

And you do realise that your point is completely silly as it is standard convention to view "free at the point of use" as "free". That is unless you want to campaign for the end of National Insurance and switch to BUPA as you resent having to pay for the NHS?

I resent having to pay extra for the priviledge of watching my national team whereas with the Six Nations I need nothing more than a TV and a cheap 20 pound box on top. A TV license is neither here nor there.

If you're that tight about the TV license, I'm surprised that you're willing to accept shelling out cash for over 200 channels of utter garbage...[/b]

I have two pionts i'd like to add;
First is that this tv deal with Sky produces far more funding for your national game than a bbc deal produces.
Second professional rugby is a product, like it or not. For a product to be successful you have to be able to sell it.

The English domestic league has been on sky for years (now the national game). the Welsh domestic games are available on bbc wales, s4c and setanta, every week you can view 2-3 welsh games.
the only coverage of Scottish Domestic rugby is with setanta, 1 game a month if your lucky.

Case in piont which of the unions are doing better, the two with the massive tv coverage. basically your product is being well sold.
you may not like it but the money is good for english rugby

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 5 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Boo.

Not paying for sport > dull, over sensationalised coverage with way too many sound effects and crappy graphics > Barnes and Morris masturbating over the wrong players > Setanta > BBC

I'm sorry but I find having to pay for the priviledge of watching your national team play on an international stage fundementally wrong. Club Rugby, fine. I'd pay money for that. But not for watching England.

Why do we threaten armed revolt when England dive-ball/Cricket gets sold off to Sky/Setanta but humbly roll over when England Rugby gets shanghied up the river to the highest bidder?[/b]

you don't threaten armed revolt, you have a crib for a couple of weeks and then just as the deal is about to start you go oh **** I'd forgotten about that. Government has the power to make these events A-List but they don't have the balls to do it.

 

[Prestwick]

I'll have to disagree with you there An, there is a lot of bad feeling amongst English cricket at how the deal with Sky was handled and at how Channel 4 and the BBC or even Setanta just couldn't be bothered to present a decent deal which didn't have idiotic clauses such as "cutting coverage if the extra hour is taken" one. Giles Clarke was critical of the deal and stated upon taking the job of ECB Chairman last year that he wouldn't have gone ahead with the deal. There still alot of bad blood going on here.

In any case, I'm not really arguing about Sky coverage of Club Rugby. Thats perfectly fine and if the Clubs want to go to Sky for coverage, thats up to them. I'm not arguing about that.

What I am saying is that the games where your national team is represented should be free at the point of use and presented to the biggest possible audience. The RFU make a heck of a lot of money from advertising, sponsorship, corporate hospitality and ticket sales and I am interested to see just how much of the RFU's income comes from television rights. Especially in an era where clubs are free to negotiate their own rights.

EDIT: To be honest, I've never liked Sky's coverage. I remember watching Channel 4's cricket coverage after suffering under Sky's rubbish and thinking "bugger me, this is actually pretty good!" Less of the crappy sound FX and dodgy graphics and less dumbing down and more anaylsis, more stuff which is actually relevant to cricket and generally more cricket all round.

Sky's coverage will never compare because they'll never get Simon Hughes or Richie Beneaut.

 

[An Tarbh]

I'm not disagreeing with you Pre, and there may well be bad blood about the deals being done with Sky but there isn't a chance in hell of Clarke reneging on said deal. However we're not seeing too many people voicing this opposition and that's my point, you may get some dissenting voices once the Summer of cricket starts up in England but they won't be paid much attention.

Ireland is the perfect example in all this, Sky bought the rights to our home football matches meaning no coverage on RTÉ but the government enacted legislation ensuring that qualifiers were to be shown on terrestrial tv. They can do the same in the UK but the governement seems to lack the balls to act on anything, add to that the fact that the BBC and Channel 4 don't seem overly interested in showing cricket anymore.

Getting back to this deal, it doesn't seem to state whether there's going to be an increase of Premiership games on Sky, that would be what I'd be looking for out of this as the coverage of the Premiership is pawltry at best.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 9 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'll have to disagree with you there An, there is a lot of bad feeling amongst English cricket at how the deal with Sky was handled and at how Channel 4 and the BBC or even Setanta just couldn't be bothered to present a decent deal which didn't have idiotic clauses such as "cutting coverage if the extra hour is taken" one. Giles Clarke was critical of the deal and stated upon taking the job of ECB Chairman last year that he wouldn't have gone ahead with the deal. There still alot of bad blood going on here.

In any case, I'm not really arguing about Sky coverage of Club Rugby. Thats perfectly fine and if the Clubs want to go to Sky for coverage, thats up to them. I'm not arguing about that.

What I am saying is that the games where your national team is represented should be free at the point of use and presented to the biggest possible audience. The RFU make a heck of a lot of money from advertising, sponsorship, corporate hospitality and ticket sales and I am interested to see just how much of the RFU's income comes from television rights. Especially in an era where clubs are free to negotiate their own rights.

EDIT: To be honest, I've never liked Sky's coverage. I remember watching Channel 4's cricket coverage after suffering under Sky's rubbish and thinking "bugger me, this is actually pretty good!" Less of the crappy sound FX and dodgy graphics and less dumbing down and more anaylsis, more stuff which is actually relevant to cricket and generally more cricket all round.

Sky's coverage will never compare because they'll never get Simon Hughes or Richie Beneaut.[/b]

Sky have brought plenty to the table in terms of cricket coverage, Bumble is an absolute legend, you stick Atherton and Hussein on the nearest plain to Baghdad for all I care, but the rest of their commentators are fine bar the pathetic efforts offered by Pollock this Summer. They've added the slow mo cameras, hot spot, I'm sure there's other things and in Botham, Gower and Holding have other quality commentators that could probably only be improved on by bringing Nicholas back to Sky.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Nov 9 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Sky have brought plenty to the table in terms of cricket coverage, Bumble is an absolute legend, you stick Atherton and Hussein on the nearest plain to Baghdad for all I care, but the rest of their commentators are fine bar the pathetic efforts offered by Pollock this Summer. They've added the slow mo cameras, hot spot, I'm sure there's other things and in Botham, Gower and Holding have other quality commentators that could probably only be improved on by bringing Nicholas back to Sky.[/b]

Yes they've added plenty...plenty of bloat that is. Do we really need slo-mo? Or the hot spot? Channel 4 had it down to a tee, no need for wagon wheels or any of that crap, just good down and dirty coverage with good commentary from Nicholas, Boycott and Benaud with the occassional intelligent comment from Simon Hughes.

Why do you think Test Match Special has always been so successful? Because they do the basics right. They don't dumb down the coverage, they don't give a toss about wagon wheels or hot spots or any of that crap they just do the coverage. Occassionally they may listen to snicko or may look at Hawkeye but they'll interpret the results properly.

In fact, sod it, I'm going to go there and say TMS > C4 cricket > being skinned alive > being boiled alive > Sky Sports.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 9 2008, 10:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Nov 9 2008, 09:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sky have brought plenty to the table in terms of cricket coverage, Bumble is an absolute legend, you stick Atherton and Hussein on the nearest plain to Baghdad for all I care, but the rest of their commentators are fine bar the pathetic efforts offered by Pollock this Summer. They've added the slow mo cameras, hot spot, I'm sure there's other things and in Botham, Gower and Holding have other quality commentators that could probably only be improved on by bringing Nicholas back to Sky.[/b]

Yes they've added plenty...plenty of bloat that is. Do we really need slo-mo? Or the hot spot? Channel 4 had it down to a tee, no need for wagon wheels or any of that crap, just good down and dirty coverage with good commentary from Nicholas, Boycott and Benaud with the occassional intelligent comment from Simon Hughes.

Why do you think Test Match Special has always been so successful? Because they do the basics right. They don't dumb down the coverage, they don't give a toss about wagon wheels or hot spots or any of that crap they just do the coverage. Occassionally they may listen to snicko or may look at Hawkeye but they'll interpret the results properly.

In fact, sod it, I'm going to go there and say TMS > C4 cricket > being skinned alive > being boiled alive > Sky Sports.
[/b][/quote]

Sky also did the excellent four part lunchtime documentary on the history of South African cricket. Obviously in terms of cricket coverage they're still behind what Channel 9 offer in Australia and yes they're not as good as Channel 4 but they're streets ahead of anything the BBC did when they had Test Cricket.

Also more England international rugby on the BBC means more Guscott and he's just a pillock of the highest order.

 

[stumpy17]

I have two pionts i'd like to add;
First is that this tv deal with Sky produces far more funding for your national game than a bbc deal produces.
Second professional rugby is a product, like it or not. For a product to be successful you have to be able to sell it.

The English domestic league has been on sky for years (now the national game). the Welsh domestic games are available on bbc wales, s4c and setanta, every week you can view 2-3 welsh games.
the only coverage of Scottish Domestic rugby is with setanta, 1 game a month if your lucky.

Case in piont which of the unions are doing better, the two with the massive tv coverage. basically your product is being well sold.
you may not like it but the money is good for english rugby
[/quote]


In addition i would also add. each union has the right to sell there tv rights. sky is entitled, as are the bbc or itv to bid for the tv rights to these games.

If anyone is being "the devil" to England fans surely it is the rfu for selling the games to sky, not sky for buying them.

 

[Fa'atau82]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Also more England international rugby on the BBC means more Guscott and he's just a pillock of the highest order.[/b]

He has this unusual way of somehow patronising the entire audience and gives an impression that he is so much better than any of the players who had either bad game or an exceptional game. It's like.. 'so Cipriani scored 30 points today. I thought his performance could have been better.'

 

[An Tarbh]

if ever there's a case in point for direct comparison between the BBC and Sky this is the case in point, Guscott and Greenwood, the outstanding English centres of their generation, yet when it comes to analysis it's a case of the sublime to the ridiculous.

It's worth paying for Sky for Greenwood's comments alone. You should be refunded part of your licence fee for having to put up with Guscott.

 

[stalisman]

I hesitate to intrude upon such a saxon subject, but there is a fundemental point at issue here: the right of of rugby loving folk to see their team on the big stage without having to pay a fee to those who see it only as a merchandisable product.

To claim simply that rugby is a product is to be as immoral as the bankers who have recently been so exposed on a global scale.

Blind Proffit Devoid of Justice is a post 1980's phenomenum ('scuse spelling)

Rugby is first and formost a sport beloved of passionate folks of all shapes and sizes ... not just those who can pay!

I agree that the RFU have more money and that they sold their soul to the devil and are the ones to be chastised for dissowning their own in the hurry to make a quick buck soon to be wasted on excessive payments to non english recruits into the premiership.

More than ever the game need folks to come to the games each week. What bigger turn off from the game is it than to be turned away from even seeing your hero's on tv?

The RFU is getting more direct money from tv but at what cost? ..the destruction of the supporting base in the country at large.

That is a high price to pay for purely financial gain.

In the beginning and in the End, Rugby is a sport of the people, not the financial speculators who see only profit and nothing else.

If EDF is also swallowed up then you can kiss that competition goodbye for no sain Welshman would pay an avaricious Sky for what was free on local TV before.

Which brings me to the conspiritorial side of things.

All those Sky Executives of Celtic Descent who are buying English Rugby off of the air waves are making sure that The Celts get more air time on the BBC for free.

It's a heavy handed way of getting the BBC to cease to be so saxonocentric but I guess there has to be a silver lining somewhere

 

[Prestwick]

Wait, where did my post from last night go...

...something fishy is going on ¬_¬