Sign in to follow this  
mickhornet

Ashes exclusive to BT sport.

Recommended Posts

Sky have the rights to England home internationals, BT nabbed the Aussie home ones which include the ashes. This did lead on to people thinking BT might nick everything cricket related from Sky, but given the latest extended deal it seems not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mickhornet said:

Thanks, probably highlights on 5 maybe.

Doesn't look like 5 have highlights.

BT say they'll be streaming free daily highlights shows from their website.

http://sport.bt.com/cricket/free-ashes-highlights-how-to-watch-australia-v-england-best-bits-with-bt-sport-S11364222752132

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we always led to believe competition is better for consumers? Another pay tv channel just means I either have to pay more to watch what I used to be able to watch, or watch less.

Either way, it is the customer who loses out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why are we always led to believe competition is better for consumers? Another pay tv channel just means I either have to pay more to watch what I used to be able to watch, or watch less.

Either way, it is the customer who loses out.

I understand there are those who don't pay to watch sport on tv.... in fact I'm fairly certain more people I know don't pay than those who do.....

In which case it's the sport and broadcaster who loses out

Edited by Robin Evans
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last month my Sky tv contract expired, so I played a game with Sky and Virgin to see who wanted my custom more.

I ended up with Virgin TV including all Sky Sports and BT Sports channels for £44 a month.  I wasn't even a Virgin broadband customer.  All I had to pay was £20 for installation.

Not trying to be smug by the way, just pointing out that customers do have a lot of bargaining power, especially through the sales staff you see in shopping centres rather than via call centres or online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robin Evans said:

I understand there are those who don't pay to watch sport on tv.... in fact I'm fairly certain more people I know don't pay than those who do.....

In which case it's the sport and broadcaster who loses out

Don't worry about them, they are never losing out mate.

In the case of sports rights in the UK, I don't believe the competition created by BT Sports has been a good thing for customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Leeds Wire said:

Last month my Sky tv contract expired, so I played a game with Sky and Virgin to see who wanted my custom more.

I ended up with Virgin TV including all Sky Sports and BT Sports channels for £44 a month.  I wasn't even a Virgin broadband customer.  All I had to pay was £20 for installation.

Not trying to be smug by the way, just pointing out that customers do have a lot of bargaining power, especially through the sales staff you see in shopping centres rather than via call centres or online.

Indeed, and that reminds me that I am due to call Sky for a similar thing, but that has always been the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

I understand there are those who don't pay to watch sport on tv.... in fact I'm fairly certain more people I know don't pay than those who do.....

In which case it's the sport and broadcaster who loses out

I certainly think cricket has missed out since the Sky deal, and so do a lot of people involved in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England team for the first test.

Ali
Anderson
Bairstow (wk)
Ball
Broad
Cook
Malan
Root (c)
Stoneman
Vince
Woakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 4:02 PM, Trojan said:

I certainly think cricket has missed out since the Sky deal, and so do a lot of people involved in the game.

They have enjoyed the nice fat cheques, and are always free to make the commercial decision to go with a terrestrial broadcaster.

As a customer now, if I want to watch what I could watch 10 years ago, I now need to subscribe to Sky, Premier and BT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They have enjoyed the nice fat cheques, and are always free to make the commercial decision to go with a terrestrial broadcaster.

As a customer now, if I want to watch what I could watch 10 years ago, I now need to subscribe to Sky, Premier and BT. 

"This does not make the England and Wales Cricket Board guiltless. It is responsible for the catastrophic decision (cricket’s live now, suffer later version of PFI) to take the game away from the public and hand it to Sky – which took effect at the very moment of triumph in 2005 when the nation had just reignited its love affair with Test match cricket."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/oct/20/cricket-is-rotting-destroyed-icc-ecb-t20-test-matches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Futtocks said:

England team for the first test.

Ali
Anderson
Bairstow (wk)
Ball
Broad
Cook
Malan
Root (c)
Stoneman
Vince
Woakes

Awful batting order...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cricket predicton - Australia win Ashes 4-1 sorry folks, but Australia have the better bowling attack and England will struggle to put the runs on the board for the bowlers to dig them out of a hole. I do expect England to win one game probably where Mason Crane comes in and his shock value helps England win a low scoring encounter.

On a positive note, England to win the bilateral ODI series v Australia, the T20 Tri-series with Australia and New Zealand, the ODI series v New Zealand and the Tests with New Zealand a rain-sodden drawn series.

Wot you mean you do not have BT Sport :scare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2017 at 1:11 PM, Dave T said:

Why are we always led to believe competition is better for consumers? Another pay tv channel just means I either have to pay more to watch what I used to be able to watch, or watch less.

Either way, it is the customer who loses out.

We're led to believe that as it hides the less palatable reality - that by and large, market competition laws are there to benefit corporations (and especially larger ones).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2017 at 1:11 PM, Dave T said:

Why are we always led to believe competition is better for consumers? Another pay tv channel just means I either have to pay more to watch what I used to be able to watch, or watch less.

Either way, it is the customer who loses out.

Or the sports that good at negotiating have extra leverage to get more money?

RFL signed an extension with sky without even asking BT if they wanted to bid for SL.

As I pointed out at the time BT sport was (and still is) free to over 1 million Virgin customers and 5 million BT broadband customers.

That's is 6 million households who could have watched SL for free, but RFL and Sky forced a 7 year deal. At the time most on here dismissed BT sport as an outfit that would be closed within months.

Actually what has happened is BT sport has double the reach of Sky sports in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kiyan said:

Or the sports that good at negotiating have extra leverage to get more money?

1 - RFL signed an extension with sky without even asking BT if they wanted to bid for SL.

2 - As I pointed out at the time BT sport was (and still is) free to over 1 million Virgin customers and 5 million BT broadband customers.

That's is 6 million households who could have watched SL for free, but RFL and Sky forced a 7 year deal. At the time most on here dismissed BT sport as an outfit that would be closed within months.

Actually what has happened is BT sport has double the reach of Sky sports in the UK.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my post, it seems to be a chance to have a dig at the RFL, but to address a couple of points:

1 - They didn't go out to tender, but then neither did the RFU when they extended early with BT.

2 - Yeah, that isn't reality though is it? A quick look at the latest comparable BARB numbers shows:

Average Weekly Reach - BTSports 1 - 2.57% vs Sky Sports Main - 6.7%

The top show on BT Sports, West Ham vs Liverpool got c800k vs Sky's two games that weekend getting c1m and c1.6m.

It will be interesting to see how the Ashes stack up on BT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stevo said:

We're led to believe that as it hides the less palatable reality - that by and large, market competition laws are there to benefit corporations (and especially larger ones).

The reality is that once the corporations have you over a barrel it sometimes doesn't matter if it's a monopoly or not.

If Sky had everything how much do you think a monthly sub to them would be now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The reality is that once the corporations have you over a barrel it sometimes doesn't matter if it's a monopoly or not.

If Sky had everything how much do you think a monthly sub to them would be now?

That is one problem, however they will also be aware that the price can only go up so much before customers switch off. So there was already some form of 'competition' there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Dec 2017

Cas Tigers - The Breakthrough Year! On Sale Here

Rugby League Books On Sale Here