Why I ditched Sky

[RS50]

On another thread I was asked why I am no longer prepared to pay for Sky. Rather than taking that thread off topic, I have started another.

When I watch a game, I want to see the match continuously, and in full, but this is not possible when watching Sky. I doubt if Sky ever shows a full minute of live action.

Examples of what I mean. Every time possession of the ball goes to the other team, every time a penalty is awarded, live action stops being broadcast, and we get shown, what happened a few seconds ago.

A big tackle is made, we have to see a repeat (to satisfy certain commentators lust for brutality).

Showing crowd scenes or team coaches when live action is ongoing.

All this just spoils the experience of a live game for me. 

Would like to hear what others think on this subject.

Thanks.

[Dunbar]

As I asked the question of you in the other thread, I will reply.

I understand your frustration with some of the Sky coverage, including the replays as the game continues. 

But ultimately, looking at the big picture, I would never of dreamed growing up that I would ever get a chance to see so much live Rugby League and I am happy to live with a few gripes about the coverage to watch so much of my favourite sport.

[Damien]

Surely seeing a match is better than seeing no match at all?

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, RS50 said:

On another thread I was asked why I am no longer prepared to pay for Sky. Rather than taking that thread off topic, I have started another.

When I watch a game, I want to see the match continuously, and in full, but this is not possible when watching Sky. I doubt if Sky ever shows a full minute of live action.

Examples of what I mean. Every time possession of the ball goes to the other team, every time a penalty is awarded, live action stops being broadcast, and we get shown, what happened a few seconds ago.

A big tackle is made, we have to see a repeat (to satisfy certain commentators lust for brutality).

Showing crowd scenes or team coaches when live action is ongoing.

All this just spoils the experience of a live game for me. 

Would like to hear what others think on this subject.

Thanks.

Isn't that just how sport is on TV? All sports have replays, crowd shots, close ups of managers etc. 

I'm also interested in why you have only just decided this isn't for you, this has been standard for decades. 

[sam4731]

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely seeing a match is better than seeing no match at all?

If a tree falls in the forest...

[Coggo]

The production isn’t perfect but Sky has never been better value for money for rugby league fans. 

My main gripe is there’s still too many games being broadcast simultaneously. 

[dboy]

I ditched Sky because I resent getting relatively f all RL for my monthly fee, whilst the money I do pay is used to prop up the moral and financial basket case that is soccer.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

I ditched Sky because I resent getting relatively f all RL for my monthly fee, whilst the money I do pay is used to prop up the moral and financial basket case that is soccer.

And now?

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Coggo said:

The production isn’t perfect but Sky has never been better value for money for rugby league fans. 

My main gripe is there’s still too many games being broadcast simultaneously. 

It's in the games interest to keep them all simulcast - if Sky want to make more by scheduling them "sensibly", they need to come up with the MONEY!

[johnh1]

These replays while the game is in motion and the lengthy close ups of the coaches picking their noses annoys the hell out of me too. But I won't stop watching because of it. At least they have stopped the tedious interviews with the assistant coaches while the game is in motion.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

And now?

When the financial rules of soccer say you can lose £105M per year without penalty, whilst TV revenue is in the stratosphere...yes, my position is the same.

Soccer is a Ponzi scheme. A tax right scheme. A money laundering scheme.

It's a sham sport. The biggest con in sport (outside of the US, who run their own flavour of madness).

 

[JohnM]

55 minutes ago, RS50 said:

On another thread I was asked why I am no longer prepared to pay for Sky. Rather than taking that thread off topic, I have started another.

When I watch a game, I want to see the match continuously, and in full, but this is not possible when watching Sky. I doubt if Sky ever shows a full minute of live action.

Examples of what I mean. Every time possession of the ball goes to the other team, every time a penalty is awarded, live action stops being broadcast, and we get shown, what happened a few seconds ago.

A big tackle is made, we have to see a repeat (to satisfy certain commentators lust for brutality).

Showing crowd scenes or team coaches when live action is ongoing.

All this just spoils the experience of a live game for me. 

Would like to hear what others think on this subject.

Thanks.

My views?

1. It's your opinion and you are free to exercise your choice. 

2. I really don't think that Sky will change anything just to retain your subscription.

3. You wouldn't be trying to recruit others to your cause, would you?

[DEANO]

Li got rid of sky when they bought the game

[dboy]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

My views?

1. It's your opinion and you are free to exercise your choice. 

2. I really don't think that Sky will change anything just to retain your subscription.

3. You wouldn't be trying to recruit others to your cause, would you?

It's a forum.

He started a thread on a premise.

If you don't think the thread has merit and don't want to contribute, don't post.

On topic, I don't worry too much about the production (though Baz and Tez wound me up big time (well, Tez), I care about the value for money, which I don't believe is there.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's a forum.

He started a thread on a premise.

If you don't think the thread has merit and don't want to contribute, don't post.

On topic, I don't worry too much about the production (though Baz and Tez wound me up big time (well, Tez), I care about the value for money, which I don't believe is there.

I think Sky Sports is around £30 month isn't it on Nowtv, less if you start packaging things up and bundling as part of Sky or Virgin. 

For that to get every SL game each week plus three NRL games a week I think it's outstanding value personally. 

As a general sports fan I get more value with things like Football, Cricket, F1 etc. 

[Leyther_Matt]

I suppose there’s a reasonable argument to have the replays in a split screen similar to the NRL, but I tend to find that even more distracting and doesn’t really satisfy getting a good look at the replay, nor watch the ongoing play.

Let’s be honest, you can count on one hand how many instances in the entire existence of Sky Sports that anything has been missed because of showing a replay.

All you need to do is cast your mind back to OurLeague during Covid and it’s praise be to Rupert Murdoch.  

[dboy]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think Sky Sports is around £30 month isn't it on Nowtv, less if you start packaging things up and bundling as part of Sky or Virgin. 

For that to get every SL game each week plus three NRL games a week I think it's outstanding value personally. 

As a general sports fan I get more value with things like Football, Cricket, F1 etc. 

I'm sure you are correct - not bad in those terms, I guess.

Was quite liberating sending the box back in the post though - "that'll show 'em", I said.

I'm sure I was just overly irked that they wanted to give me 20p loyalty discount (not joking), for my many years of loyalty.

But that's tangential from the Sky-RL discussion, which, as you point out, is not ridiculous.

When they pay more for RL (a fair price for the product), I'll rejoin.

 

[Dunbar]

58 minutes ago, dboy said:

It's in the games interest to keep them all simulcast - if Sky want to make more by scheduling them "sensibly", they need to come up with the MONEY!

Why is that?

[dboy]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Why is that?

The current Sky contract doesn't allow them to state when games (beyond their "picks"), have to be played.

They would like them stretched out, scheduled, so as not to clash = more usable air time for them on their channels.

But they haven't offered extra £ for that, so it's in the sport's interest to keep stacking the game, until Sky do come back with an offer to spread them.

[dboy]

Essentially they are getting more product for the same money, but can't capitalise on it.

If they want to capitalise on it, the game must capitalise on it also.

The game holds the cards on this one.

Edited April 25 by dboy

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, dboy said:

The current Sky contract doesn't allow them to state when games (beyond their "picks"), have to be played.

They would like them stretched out, scheduled, so as not to clash = more usable air time for them on their channels.

But they haven't offered extra £ for that, so it's in the sport's interest to keep stacking the game, until Sky do come back with an offer to spread them.

 

3 minutes ago, dboy said:

Essentially they are getting more product for the same money, but can't capitalise on it.

If they want to capitalise on it, the game must capitalise on it also.

The game holds the cards on this one.

OK, fair enough.  I thought you were speaking more generally about games running simultaneously, not just the commercial relationship with Sky.

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, RS50 said:

On another thread I was asked why I am no longer prepared to pay for Sky. Rather than taking that thread off topic, I have started another.

When I watch a game, I want to see the match continuously, and in full, but this is not possible when watching Sky. I doubt if Sky ever shows a full minute of live action.

Examples of what I mean. Every time possession of the ball goes to the other team, every time a penalty is awarded, live action stops being broadcast, and we get shown, what happened a few seconds ago.

A big tackle is made, we have to see a repeat (to satisfy certain commentators lust for brutality).

Showing crowd scenes or team coaches when live action is ongoing.

All this just spoils the experience of a live game for me. 

Would like to hear what others think on this subject.

Thanks.

These things don't happen "every time". They happen occasionally, by the direction of an experienced TV editor.

If you genuinely believe that what you posted is reality, please walk away from the game for the sake of your mental health.

[unapologetic pedant]

I can't stand the way they cut to low-angle cameras at crucial moments. Those are fine for replays. In real time, they ruin the coverage.

[JohnM]

10 hours ago, dboy said:

It's a forum.

He started a thread on a premise.

If you don't think the thread has merit and don't want to contribute, don't post.

On topic, I don't worry too much about the production (though Baz and Tez wound me up big time (well, Tez), I care about the value for money, which I don't believe is there.

You'vr missed your calling as  a moderator.

"Would like to hear what others think on this subject. Thanks."

It's a forum. He asked for views. I have posted them. So, keeping on topic: It's a forum. He asked for views. I have posted them.

if you don't like it, remember it's a forum.

Good-bye.

[Forever Trinity]

Got rid of sky a few years back never missed it just watch Trin every week