+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: English Football Leagues (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Forum: Sky Bet Championship (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+----- Forum: West Bromwich Albion (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+----- Thread: Sky Sports,Good or bad? (/showthread.php?tid=1286)
Pages:
1
2
Sky Sports,Good or bad? - pieandabovril - 04-02-2015
I have just been reading the fact that Sky will now take over coverage of the Golf Open Championship in 2017. Not a day to day golf fan myself,but as one of the great Sporting events of the year,I enjoyed being able to watch it on the BBC.Now I wont,dont have Sky due to the cost.
But what about the footie coverage? Do you enjoy the priviledge now and again of watching the Baggies play away on a Monday night live on tele? Do you tune into Merson and co on a Saturday afternoon? Are you sat glued to the tele at home for about 6 hours watching Super Sunday or whatever its called these days?
How about the thrill of being able to watch Barcelona v Real Madrid live? And how about the coverage they bring to the nation about other Sports? Cycling,Darts,Speedway etc.
I know the money given to various organisations for coverage rights is suppose to be used to enhance the Sport from grass route levels.But does it? If you take football and now the new one day cricket bash in India and Australia,it seems to me that the vast amounts of money generally ends up in the pockets of the professional players!
For what its worth,despite all the good points,I think the intervention of Sky money,especially Football,has just about ruined the game.Its all about money now,and I for one,dont think that's a particular good thing.
What do other posters think?
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Ska'dForLife-WBA - 04-02-2015
Even if Rupert Murdoch and all his minions had disappeared into a black hole in 1991, one way or another, televised coverage of football - and, with the advent of the internet, online broadcasting of it - was always going to evolve and increase. Even the money which has come along with that needn't necessarily have been a bad thing (consider the way Albion as a club benefitted from our yo-yo years, slowly developing from a near-bankrupt club to one with top-class facilities). However, the top-heavy distribution of that money has been catastrophic for the sport as a whole, and completely removed the ability of teams to compete on merit, which was part and parcel of football for well over a century.
Popping into the pub on a Monday night to watch a match? Not an unpleasant experience at all, and not one that football should necessarily abandon. Giving the top four clubs in the Premier League so much money that their dominance is permanently guaranteed and no one else can touch them with a barge pole? An unmitigated disaster, and one which should be challenged in any way possible.
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - talkSAFT - 04-02-2015
(04-02-2015, 14:39)pieandabovril Wrote: I know the money given to various organisations for coverage rights is suppose to be used to enhance the Sport from grass route levels.But does it? If you take football and now the new one day cricket bash in India and Australia,it seems to me that the vast amounts of money generally ends up in the pockets of the professional players!
For what its worth,despite all the good points,I think the intervention of Sky money,especially Football,has just about ruined the game.Its all about money now,and I for one,dont think that's a particular good thing.
What do other posters think?
Spot on, Pie.
Sky has ruined Football, Test Cricket, now Golf.
I can remember there was a nationwide attempt by forward-thinking fans 20 (?) years ago, for genuine fans to boycott Sky. It didn't work, and people have succumbed one-by-one to get the hideous Dishes attached to their houses. (I think it's a status symbol).
The Tories have seen how stupid the public are, and we'll be having the same discussion on Private Health in 20 years time.
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Bournemouth Baggie - 04-02-2015
Another premium event and one of the so-called untouchables that has been lost to Sky. A disgrace.
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - silverbaggie - 04-02-2015
Another sport I shan't be watching then as I positively REFUSE to use the services of Sky and put even more money into the pocket of Mr Murdoch.
I notice that the opening six Nations championship game between Wales and England is on BBC on Friday.
I thought that Sky had the monopoly of England rugby games.
Has this changed or is it just their home matches??
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Amelia Chaffinch - 04-02-2015
We finally gave in and got Sky a couple of years ago after refusing to be Murdoch's bitch. The football and tennis coverage are decent. I despise the sensationalistic nature of SSN. The Sky adverts drive me to distraction. Just when i thought they could annoy me no more, that sickening Thierry Henry one appeared. You are right that it has ruined the game. We are all at the mercy of it.
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Lord Snooty - 04-02-2015
Sky give coverage of sport like the BBC never did. But they are the masters of over hype. How they can make out that Premier league football is the beautiful game is beyond comprehension. Did anybody watch that West Brom on Sky the other week?
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Amelia Chaffinch - 04-02-2015
I am very much looking forward to staying up every night for the next few weeks to watch the cricket world cup.
Did you believe that?
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Lord Snooty - 04-02-2015
Should help with your insomnia.
RE: Sky Sports,Good or bad? - Amelia Chaffinch - 04-02-2015
True