Shrimpsvoices

...not live on terrestial
...not even a MotD on't BBC
...Disgraceful.

Agreed, but you have three alternatives....

1. Listen on th'wireless (Five Live),
2. Ching out £10-£13 a month for Setanta, which will also give you extensive FA Cup coverage as well as the odd Barrow game,
3. Nip down to t'York and watch Setanta there, lining Mick's pockets in the process!!!

Another option is to totally ignore our national winter sporting team altogether.
Just the same as we've been practically forced into with our national summer sport.
Disgraceful

Peter wrote:Another option is to totally ignore our national winter sporting team altogether.
Just the same as we've been practically forced into with our national summer sport.
Disgraceful

I kind of agree with you but maybe we shouldn't blame sky or setanta for buying the rights to televise but should point the finger at the FA and the ECB for selling the rights to them in the first place

Try ECB

It dunt matter who we pin it on, the absence of our national summer and winter national sports on terrestrial TV is a disgrace.
And to not even show our great Engalaaand victory on MotD is completely out of order.

the blame then lie's with the BBC and ITV for not getting a high lights package sorted with sultarna, if they pay £x million pounds for the rights the will need to try and recoop some selling the high lights.

Surely we should blame the Government in Office.
Not showing extended highlights, no matter how awful, on BBC is inexcussable.

At my local RBL we have just installed a sattelite system that isn't sky or setanta but we showed the England game tonight with English comentary at a lot less than Sky ! and I didn't watch it

Peter, the rights issue is very complex these days. As I understand it, the BBC have the rights to home games alone. If Setanta can afford to outbid Sky for away games, then the BBC wouldn't have stood a chance. I personally hate the fact I don't get to see any cricket these days, but Test Cricket isn't protected by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport. Therefore, the ECB are well within their rights to sell the rights to the highest bidder. As far as I'm aware, the BBC didn't even bid for it as they felt it wasn't value for money (and would have caused scheduling issues). Sky outbid C4 and that's all there is to it.

I know from conversations on TMS at the time that when sky outbid C4 for the rights to International Cricket the bid from channel 4 had them projecting a loss even with all the advertising. It is a ridiculous situation. Yesterday my friend (who is with sky) set up Shitanta yesterday and had to pay a £14.99 'connection fee' then its £14.50 a month or there abouts. Personally I think that no individual company shouyld be allowed to carry more than 20% of any one sports competions. So for example with football - 5 leagues, 4 Cup and Internationals in football so if it was spread out across 5 providers (BBC, ITV, C4/five, BskyB, and Shitanta) then each company would get a league and either a cup OR the international games in cricket - Twenty20, Pro 40, County Championship, Internationals and domestic cup. Mind you I also think that you should not get paid anything (except possibly expenses) for representing your country in sport (with the cricketers being centerally contracted an exception), but thats another discusion entirely.

Peter wrote:Surely we should blame the Government in Office.
Not showing extended highlights, no matter how awful, on BBC is inexcussable.

Your right Peter. This Government took test cricket off the protected sports that should have been kept on terrestial TV in order to give their friend Mr Murdoch something back for its support.

The sooner Sky get coverage of every major sporting event the better. They are the only company who know how to present it properly.

I'm fed up having to watch sub-standard production on BBC and in particular ITV when Sky would make a far better job of it.

The Red Knight wrote:The sooner Sky get coverage of every major sporting event the better. They are the only company who know how to present it properly.

I'm fed up having to watch sub-standard production on BBC and in particular ITV when Sky would make a far better job of it.

I pay £46 a month for Sky as its the only way I can watch televised cricket but I hope hell freezes over before they get coverage of The Open Golf or Wimbledon.

yes, I agree!!!!!!!!!

And they shouldn't charge to get in to watch England games at OUR stadium either!!!!!!!!!
And the BRITISH Broadcasting Company should show the Trooping of the Colour LIVE!!!!!!!!
AND they should bring back playing the NATIONAL ANTHEM every night!!!!!!!!!

It's a business. If it means that much to you, get Sky or Sultana or who-ever and watch it.
Or go to the pub (as I suspect you may have)
Or do with out, as I did.

Peter wrote:And to not even show our great Engalaaand victory...

Oh bollocks!!!!! I didn't realise we were playing Germany, I'd have gone to the pub for that one. Damn. Oh hang on, we were playing a team who've only ever scored twice in one international match (which they still lost). If that's what classes as a "great" victory now, thank goodness it's not on terrestrial TV

Now we are all going to have to have digital tv by 2010ish, it should be a good thing for sports coverage. " the red button" BBC and ITV only used to have 2 channels so that's how sky managed to get the better coverage, as the could show full events live rather than just 1/2 hr high lights, as they didn't have to worry about the schedules, the way good old BBC showed the Olympics showed they can do it and do it well.

Keith

If that's what classes as a "great" victory now, thank goodness it's not on terrestrial TV

Just what I thought. I've never got the 'England football thing' and thankfully I never will now. I wouldn't want to watch Engerland FOOTBALL if they were playing at the end of my road and thats the truth. If its unpatriotic so be it - it just bores the arse off me - it really does. Over-rated , Over-paid "superstars" and their obscenely overpaid manager - national sport my eye ! Its one big rip off. Get behind a football club [league or non-league] of your choice.
So if some mugs want to pay SKY / SETANTA thats their choice - I don't think licence payers money should be spent on such drivel -its probably best if its shown in pubs - money for pubs etc. Club football is where the real game is and it would seem the lower down the leagues you go the more honest it gets. I would propose we adopt a NEW national sport -something were pretty good at and hasn't been ruined by commercialism -I'm not a cricket fan neither !

slackAlice wrote: I would propose we adopt a NEW national sport -something were pretty good at and hasn't been ruined by commercialism

That'll be swimming & cycling then, both of which bore me to watch...

slackAlice wrote:I'm not a cricket fan neither !

...although swimming & cycling are both more entertaining than cricket!

Actually enjoyed the water polo during the Olympics. Had no idea about the rules or tactics (drowning your opponent appeared to be within the rules as 'okay'). It is so fast I got tired just watching it! Isn't it an advantage being at the shallow end?

Heysham_Shrimp wrote:

The Red Knight wrote:The sooner Sky get coverage of every major sporting event the better. They are the only company who know how to present it properly.

I'm fed up having to watch sub-standard production on BBC and in particular ITV when Sky would make a far better job of it.

I pay £46 a month for Sky as its the only way I can watch televised cricket but I hope hell freezes over before they get coverage of The Open Golf or Wimbledon.

Why?

If Sky do a better job of presenting it then whats the problem?

I don't see the point of this "protected sports" thing. The World Cup, Olympics and everything else for that matter should be given to the broadcaster who is willing to pay most for it (which for anything worthwhile watching will be Sky).

For people who then moan about not being able to see it then tough, you don't have a right to demand things be free. I would quite like to watch the golf on Setanta Sports but I don't pay for their package so I do without, I don't start moaning about the fact it's not free to watch.

If you want to watch Cricket then get Sky, if you want to watch England then get Setanta, if you can't / refuse to pay for it then you will have to do without I'm afraid.

they should have at least put highlights on MOTD

heysham_mfc wrote:they should have at least put highlights on MOTD

Who's "they"? As has been said, if the BBC had bought highlight rights, they could have.

campdave wrote:Who's "they"? As has been said, if the BBC had bought highlight rights, they could have.

Yeah, the BBC need all the licence payers money so they send half their staff to China for the Olympics, and pay the ridiculous amounts they fork out on cotracts to over-rated chat show hosts .

Sky don't do a better job of presenting a live tennis event. The BBC's golf coverage is 10 times better too.

slackAlice wrote: So if some mugs want to pay SKY / SETANTA thats their choice

That's a little harsh, I subscribe to Sky sports because watching sport is my hobby, when you look at the cost of some other hobbies I don't feel my £46 is bad value. (Look at saturday night terrestrial television - my god it's drivel, I'll usually end up watching a La Liga match) and say what you want about sky, their coverage is excellent, and setanta are'nt far behind them either.
Sure a big chunk of mine and everybody else's subscription goes straight into the wages of over paid and over-rated Premiershp stars, and I would be much happier if more of the sky money filtered through the game right own to grass roots and kids football, but I suppose I always have the right to cancel my 'funding' any time I want.

Peter wrote:

campdave wrote:Who's "they"? As has been said, if the BBC had bought highlight rights, they could have.

Yeah, the BBC need all the licence payers money so they send half their staff to China for the Olympics, and pay the ridiculous amounts they fork out on cotracts to over-rated chat show hosts .

The BBC sent more people to cover the Olympics than "Team GB" had their in all their teams.