BR
£34 actually.
It's a steep price if your just interested in the cricket - but the problem is more that people are locked into a one-year contract, which adds up to £400 a year.
Paying just £100 or so for the three months the tests run for probably wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Re: the parade - the BBC obviously hijacked the event like they did with the Rugby World Cup, but C4 seemed to be doing the main presentation with Mark Nicholas during the News at Noon.
Also interestingly is the BBC were able to show clips, unlike the RWC when they had to use mainly still images.
derek500 posted:
Luke posted:
Because perhaps some people don't wish to commit themselves to paying 50 quid a month for a few extra channels. Not really that hard to understand, is it?
£34 actually.
It's a steep price if your just interested in the cricket - but the problem is more that people are locked into a one-year contract, which adds up to £400 a year.
Paying just £100 or so for the three months the tests run for probably wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Re: the parade - the BBC obviously hijacked the event like they did with the Rugby World Cup, but C4 seemed to be doing the main presentation with Mark Nicholas during the News at Noon.
Also interestingly is the BBC were able to show clips, unlike the RWC when they had to use mainly still images.
LU
£34 actually.
Interesting line of thought you have though. Your work colleagues can afford to buy coffee at Starbucks, ergo, they can therefore afford to shell out the hundreds of pounds required for satellite television. Why didn't I think of that?!
Btw, Brekkie Boy, it wasn't just Mark Nicholas doing the presentation; i believe David Bower was also presenting.
derek500 posted:
Luke posted:
Because perhaps some people don't wish to commit themselves to paying 50 quid a month for a few extra channels. Not really that hard to understand, is it?
£34 actually.
Interesting line of thought you have though. Your work colleagues can afford to buy coffee at Starbucks, ergo, they can therefore afford to shell out the hundreds of pounds required for satellite television. Why didn't I think of that?!
Btw, Brekkie Boy, it wasn't just Mark Nicholas doing the presentation; i believe David Bower was also presenting.
AP
Why can't these 'many people' get Sky? Before TV was invented you had to 'pay' to watch cricket. I'm sure Sky Sports for the year costs less than buying a ticket for five days of just one test match!
Plus you get all the overseas tests as well.
Before Sky came we never got live coverage of overseas tests.
It really pees me off when people at work say they 'can't afford' Sky and then go to Starbucks two or three times a day for a two quid coffee, rather than making an instant in the staff room!!
Some people can't afford Sky, although I'm personally not buying it on principle. Test cricket should the a listed event like the Football World Cup, accessable to all.
derek500 posted:
Aphrodite007 posted:
I'm gutted that Sky have it though, taking the game away from so many people.
Why can't these 'many people' get Sky? Before TV was invented you had to 'pay' to watch cricket. I'm sure Sky Sports for the year costs less than buying a ticket for five days of just one test match!
Plus you get all the overseas tests as well.
Before Sky came we never got live coverage of overseas tests.
It really pees me off when people at work say they 'can't afford' Sky and then go to Starbucks two or three times a day for a two quid coffee, rather than making an instant in the staff room!!
Some people can't afford Sky, although I'm personally not buying it on principle. Test cricket should the a listed event like the Football World Cup, accessable to all.
NH
£42.50 surely.
But still less than the gate price to The Oval for last Thursday and Monday.
And that's before you count travel costs to get to town.
Nick Harvey
Founding member
derek500 posted:
£34 actually.
£42.50 surely.
But still less than the gate price to The Oval for last Thursday and Monday.
And that's before you count travel costs to get to town.
SP
I think I pay £42-ish and that includes Sky Movies - without those it would be cheaper surely?
HA
Well it was on Fox Sports with them taking Sky's pictures and Allan Border in their studio, ooh to see the look on his face
harshy
Founding member
ABC Australia posted:
Believe me most Australians wouldn't have been able to see this years Ashes Test, had it not been from the most unlikely source in Australian TV: SBS.
Foxtel (which is the main Pay TV subscription service in Australia) was probably going to bid for the broadcast right and if that bid has been successful, then Aussie cricket fans would be stuck listening to it on radio or watching a delayed telecast.
Foxtel (which is the main Pay TV subscription service in Australia) was probably going to bid for the broadcast right and if that bid has been successful, then Aussie cricket fans would be stuck listening to it on radio or watching a delayed telecast.
Well it was on Fox Sports with them taking Sky's pictures and Allan Border in their studio, ooh to see the look on his face
LL
BBC's coverage of the parade around London was appalling, though.
What a truly dire selection of guests - Rory Bremner, Stephen Fry, Dickie Bird... zzzzzzzzzzz...none of them would shut up, even when host John Inverdale (who was equally hopeless) was commentating on the procession. They also chose to talk over the players being interviewed by Gower and Nicholas in Trafalgar Square
Technical glitches were rife, with camera shots freezing left, right, and centre, and even a complete death of coverage for about three minutes. It felt amateurish, rushed, badly planned, ill-thought out, and common sense only prevailed during the last 10 minutes when the host and guests finally shut up and allowed the actual Trafalgar Square showpiece to say it all.
Poor show.
Nick Harvey posted:
As I understand it, all S4C's news coverage comes from the BBC, which means they WILL be able to show the full coverage of the Ashes celebrations, starting at 11:00 today (Tuesday).
Channel Four's rights terminated at 23:59 on Monday and all they're showing on Tuesday is a quick insert into their news at noon.
I gather the Beeb snapped up the full celebration rights within minutes of realising that Channel Four hadn't got a leg to stand on after midnight.
Channel Four's rights terminated at 23:59 on Monday and all they're showing on Tuesday is a quick insert into their news at noon.
I gather the Beeb snapped up the full celebration rights within minutes of realising that Channel Four hadn't got a leg to stand on after midnight.
BBC's coverage of the parade around London was appalling, though.
What a truly dire selection of guests - Rory Bremner, Stephen Fry, Dickie Bird... zzzzzzzzzzz...none of them would shut up, even when host John Inverdale (who was equally hopeless) was commentating on the procession. They also chose to talk over the players being interviewed by Gower and Nicholas in Trafalgar Square
Technical glitches were rife, with camera shots freezing left, right, and centre, and even a complete death of coverage for about three minutes. It felt amateurish, rushed, badly planned, ill-thought out, and common sense only prevailed during the last 10 minutes when the host and guests finally shut up and allowed the actual Trafalgar Square showpiece to say it all.
Poor show.
BR
Exactly why I think only The Ashes is a candidate to be on the listed events, rather than every single Test Match.
If five stick to the plan of screening highlights at 7.15pm each evening I can't see them breaking the million mark against the big soaps.
TedJrr posted:
Surley its only the prospect of beating Australia that has had everyone manic about cricket. Next time England are losing to Sri Lanka, there won't be so much interest.
Exactly why I think only The Ashes is a candidate to be on the listed events, rather than every single Test Match.
If five stick to the plan of screening highlights at 7.15pm each evening I can't see them breaking the million mark against the big soaps.
LL
Well maybe they didn't think England would win. They haven't won since the 1980s and the BBC might not have given too much money to a parade.
Then the BBC should have left well alone.
Let's face it - the BBC's only ties with cricket these days is in the audio sense.
Antz posted:
Skytower posted:
...rushed, badly planned...
Well maybe they didn't think England would win. They haven't won since the 1980s and the BBC might not have given too much money to a parade.
Then the BBC should have left well alone.
Let's face it - the BBC's only ties with cricket these days is in the audio sense.