Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Had Sky covered the World Cup


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 4,142 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 05:44 PM

I think the interaction with Sky Sports news would have been prolific. Maybe a lot of cross-sport stuff as well with many other sports personalities. I think we would also have seen a lot more people watching the games and interacting on SM. Also, I don't think we can underestimate the trailers around other big sporting fixtures on sky's channels.

 

I think the quality of the camera work would have made a significant difference to the viewing spectacle. I would have loved to have seen that late Tonga no-try against Scotland from a few more angles.

 

As for the games, well I don't think PS has lost anything with the commentary. Haven't missed Eddie and Stevo. With PS, I get frustrated at the inconsistent jump to adverts and sudden finishes to the games but it has been okay. Would have liked it on Sky for the reasons above but Premier Sports have tried their hardest to put on a great show. I think it has been a big thing for them to get it. hopefully this will keep encouraging them to cover our sport.


Edited by Scubby, 11 November 2013 - 05:45 PM.


#2 Mumby Magic

Mumby Magic
  • Coach
  • 3,189 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

i think the crowds would have been possibly smaller. A possible catch 22?


Lilly, Jacob and Isaac, what my life is about. Although our route through life is not how it should be, I am a blessed man.


#3 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,307 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:19 PM

You wouldn't have had 2.2 million people following England's progress every Saturday afternoon either.


Posted Image

#4 sweaty craiq

sweaty craiq
  • Coach
  • 1,744 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:25 PM

You wouldn't have had 2.2 million people following England's progress every Saturday afternoon either.


Nail, head, contact

#5 Scubby

Scubby
  • Coach
  • 4,142 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:39 PM

You wouldn't have had 2.2 million people following England's progress every Saturday afternoon either.

 

No Gav, I meant had Sky taken on the equivalent of the Premier Sports RLWC package with other games on the beeb as per.



#6 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,845 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:41 PM

We've had plenty of Sky-covered Rugby League events and the coverage/promotion has been patchy. They certainly didn't whip up much excitement in 2000 (not saying they were to blame for that one). If Sky had covered the Rugby World Cup, we'd still have been looking for the RLWC snippets on Sky Sports News between hours of football and build-up to the union friendlies.

 

Premier are far from perfect but have mixed it up a bit. Sky no longer rule the TV roost, so if they want RL they'll have to make an effort. They haven't made much of an effort with their RL coverage in years, bar the odd new camera.


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#7 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,951 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 06:51 PM

If the main selling point of having it on Sky is to feature on Sky Sports News I think its worth bearing in mind the average Sky Sports News viewer watches a total of 9 minutes a week, so there exposure to the World Cup would have been minimal at best.  Source



#8 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,733 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:11 PM

I think people are slightly harsh on Sky to be honest.

 

They cover Super league brilliantly imho and I'd like to have seen them cover the RLWC, although I have been very pleased with Premier Sports.

 

One thing that SKy brings is additional viewers simply by being on in many pubs.

 

SSN does also bring plenty of coverage in pubs, we have had so many highlights of this tournament it would have been great to have had these on a loop on SSN.



#9 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,595 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:20 PM

Sky would improve their coverage immeasurably by removing the two tools that front their coverage.

They also do little or no promotion of RL on their own network. Yet they push union down our throats on billboards and trailers of what's coming up this month on their channels.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#10 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,733 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:23 PM

Sky would improve their coverage immeasurably by removing the two tools that front their coverage.

They also do little or no promotion of RL on their own network. Yet they push union down our throats on billboards and trailers of what's coming up this month on their channels.

That isn't actually true though.

 

We get loads of ads for Super League and Internationals that they are covering on both the Sports channels, plus other channels with high ratings. They also took out newspaper ads for Monday Night coverage last year.



#11 saintspete83

saintspete83
  • Players
  • 50 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:25 PM

having 3 bbc channels surely they could have put more on tv 



#12 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,595 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:56 PM

That isn't actually true though.

 

We get loads of ads for Super League and Internationals that they are covering on both the Sports channels, plus other channels with high ratings. They also took out newspaper ads for Monday Night coverage last year.

 

I didn't see any of that.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#13 Chanter

Chanter
  • Players
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 08:02 PM

having 3 bbc channels surely they could have put more on tv 

 

I agree, they could and should have shown more. My assumption is that they don't really give a fig about RL.


  • abd likes this

#14 dibbley

dibbley
  • Coach
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 10:34 PM

Yeah they never have and they never will.  The old prejudices are still well and truly set in stone over at BBC towers.  Which is why they don't get any money for their rip off TV license off me.  They don't satisfy my needs as a viewer, and so I don't satisfy their need to laugh all the way to the bank :-)



#15 abd

abd
  • Players
  • 31 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 10:54 PM

Personally i'm delighted that i pay £12 per month to watch League for a couple of months, rather than having to miss out due to not being able to afford Sky. The England BBC games should pull in some new viewers especially if we go all the way. It's a huge let down that the BBC have failed to keep a regular highlights show going though. Think how many Scots would have shown added interest watching their fantastic matches.



#16 South Wakefield Sharks

South Wakefield Sharks
  • Coach
  • 2,224 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:12 PM

Don't think Sky would have done the World Cup any favours. They would have wanted stupid kick-off times to fit around their soccer coverage and we would have spent even more time talking about ref decisions than we have.

Good to have a break from Sky and see how great the sport can be without Eddie & Stevo cocking it up.

#17 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,733 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:19 PM

Don't think Sky would have done the World Cup any favours. They would have wanted stupid kick-off times to fit around their soccer coverage and we would have spent even more time talking about ref decisions than we have.

Good to have a break from Sky and see how great the sport can be without Eddie & Stevo cocking it up.

kick off times were fine in 2000.

#18 South Wakefield Sharks

South Wakefield Sharks
  • Coach
  • 2,224 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:23 PM

kick off times were fine in 2000.


England 6:30pm on a Saturday night at Twickenham!

#19 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,733 posts

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:32 PM

next Saturdays quarter is at 8pm on a Saturday - not q great slot for sport.

The final last time was 3pm.

The reality is rlwc can make the demands, Sky probably wouldnt have too many issues with the times we have had this WC.

#20 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,368 posts

Posted 12 November 2013 - 08:46 AM

I would have been happy to see sky bid some decent money for the WC. Fact is, they couldn't be arsed so it's irrelevant.

I know we are losing out in one respect but I aren't missing the sky coverage one bit. I don't think they do much to cover RL apart from the programmes they show (if that makes sense). I mean they rarely include it on general promotional stuff.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users