BeautifulGame Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Really awesome :hatsoff: Sky and Star has some wonderful creative people
BeautifulGame Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Frankly this is the only neutral series u get exited about . And for some reason I find the Ashes in England better than in Australia. Sky coverage probably plays a part
G_B_ Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Really awesome :hatsoff: Sky and Star has some wonderful creative people they have the £££££ or money for it. Its all very well tipping your metaphorical hats to Sky (and to be fair its a cracking song/advert/promo) but Sky are pricing people out of the game of cricket. My package including skysports has shot up from £30 in 2010 per month to £60 per month. This is on top of the £12 fee i pay per month for the BBC. Long term cricket in this country I am afraid is going to vanish due to the total monopoly Sky have on cricket. Atleast with football and rugby there is a lot of free to air content per year. Most youth from poorer backgrounds just cannot afford the fee.
sscomp32 Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Frankly this is the only neutral series u get exited about . And for some reason I find the Ashes in England better than in Australia. Sky coverage probably plays a part +1 Also the timing is more convenient for us compared to AUS ashes. Also i dont know why but tests in ENG have a different charm. Maybe the weather and pitch conditions play a part.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 they have the £££££ or money for it. Its all very well tipping your metaphorical hats to Sky (and to be fair its a cracking song/advert/promo) but Sky are pricing people out of the game of cricket. My package including skysports has shot up from £30 in 2010 per month to £60 per month. This is on top of the £12 fee i pay per month for the BBC. Long term cricket in this country I am afraid is going to vanish due to the total monopoly Sky have on cricket. Atleast with football and rugby there is a lot of free to air content per year. Most youth from poorer backgrounds just cannot afford the fee. £72 per month - that really is expensive for TV. That's around 7100 per month. Here I pay less than 600 per month for the top package of Airtel Digital TV (and the next 3 connections on the primary connection are only 200 each per month). As for Sky - I've heard a lot of stories like this. Many people really hate their football coverage too.
G_B_ Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 £72 per month - that really is expensive for TV. That's around 7100 per month. Here I pay less than 600 per month for the top package of Airtel Digital TV (and the next 3 connections on the primary connection are only 200 each per month). As for Sky - I've heard a lot of stories like this. Many people really hate their football coverage too. coverage is top notch. The truth is i find Star cricket coverage to be dull when i visit relatives back home. I tried watching 10 sports and it was just terrible. The problem is if you are like me who likes watching cricket and maybe just top notch football matches, I am forced to pay for other In order to keep their rival BT sport out , Sky are bidding ridiculous sums and the consumer ends up paying for it. I guess India operates on volume. Profit per customer is low. I dont think a country of UK with 60 million odd people with interest is many sports can sustain a sports industry without people being forced to pay for stuff they dont want. Even prices at the stadiums are reaching ridiculous levels. £80 for a day at the stadium. Wimbledon is £60 for normal entry forget court-side. Sports in the UK is becoming too expensive in general to watch in person. Now its becoming too expensive to watch on television. A friend of mine flew all the way to Istanbul to watch the Turkish Grand Prix in Istanbul. It was cheaper than watching Formula 1 in the UK. He did travel+hotel+race for £120. While in the UK the ticket was starting at £150.
G_B_ Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 and i do hope India dont go down the Sky route. Its all very well you want to see awesome coverage. We all do. But not at the cost of depriving millions of people from the coverage. I would rather take a dip in quality for that. India must follow the Australian model. I do hope home series are on free to air DD. It can be **** quality by all means but it needs to be shown. Foreign i guess can goto Star.
sscomp32 Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 ^All ODIs and T20s involving India (home and away both) and major tournaments Semis and finals are on DD. But not test matches. Foreign is distributed between STAR, TEN and SONY.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 coverage is top notch. The truth is i find Star cricket coverage to be dull when i visit relatives back home. I tried watching 10 sports and it was just terrible. The problem is if you are like me who likes watching cricket and maybe just top notch football matches, I am forced to pay for other In order to keep their rival BT sport out , Sky are bidding ridiculous sums and the consumer ends up paying for it. I guess India operates on volume. Profit per customer is low. I dont think a country of UK with 60 million odd people with interest is many sports can sustain a sports industry without people being forced to pay for stuff they dont want. Even prices at the stadiums are reaching ridiculous levels. £80 for a day at the stadium. Wimbledon is £60 for normal entry forget court-side. Sports in the UK is becoming too expensive in general to watch in person. Now its becoming too expensive to watch on television. A friend of mine flew all the way to Istanbul to watch the Turkish Grand Prix in Istanbul. It was cheaper than watching Formula 1 in the UK. He did travel+hotel+race for £120. While in the UK the ticket was starting at £150. Star Sports is the best in India but yeah, as compared to UK/AUS etc it's coverage is still not as good. Ten Sports is just about watchable. Rest (Neo/Sony etc) are even worse. BTW haven't BT got rights for Champions League (I saw it on Gary Linekar's twitter - he's doing some ads for them). Obviously in India they have to go for volume. There are hardly a few million (or maybe even less) who would be willing to get even the top package for around 500 - most people still find 200-250 expensive. As for UK - I would think broadcasters would be threatened by internet streaming far more than in India so they also have to take that into consideration while pricing.
kubrickian Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 The original song was one of my favorite songs as a kid. I even learned the lyrics and used to sing along to it.
BeautifulGame Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Star Sports is the best in India but yeah, as compared to UK/AUS etc it's coverage is still not as good. Ten Sports is just about watchable. Rest (Neo/Sony etc) are even worse. BTW haven't BT got rights for Champions League (I saw it on Gary Linekar's twitter - he's doing some ads for them). Obviously in India they have to go for volume. There are hardly a few million (or maybe even less) who would be willing to get even the top package for around 500 - most people still find 200-250 expensive. As for UK - I would think broadcasters would be threatened by internet streaming far more than in India so they also have to take that into consideration while pricing. BT outbid sky for CL last year yeah .Blew them out of water by bidding ridiculous amounts.They have rights for 2016-2108
BeautifulGame Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 they have the £££££ or money for it. Its all very well tipping your metaphorical hats to Sky (and to be fair its a cracking song/advert/promo) but Sky are pricing people out of the game of cricket. My package including skysports has shot up from £30 in 2010 per month to £60 per month. This is on top of the £12 fee i pay per month for the BBC. Long term cricket in this country I am afraid is going to vanish due to the total monopoly Sky have on cricket. Atleast with football and rugby there is a lot of free to air content per year. Most youth from poorer backgrounds just cannot afford the fee. Yes but Sky has also improved the quality and the money clearly has helped ECB .English players r the best paid in international cricket and counties depend on hand outs from ECB to avoid going bankrupt . Also I remember reading in the past when Cricket was with BBC they would regularly cut the telecast for stuff like horse racing etc .Whereas Sky is giving dedicated channels for Ashes and telecasting even domestic matches regularly. .Maybe ECB needs to ensure at least some sort cricket is available free to air may be the NatWest blast and world cup like football has with FA cup and World cup .Its really amazing cricket is the National sport yet no live cricket is part of the 'Crown Jewels' .Perhaps England govt should be blamed instead of Sky or ECB? .I doubt England will have any free to air football otherwise. Also if am not mistaken cricket is mostly a upper middle class sport in England .And mostly played in private schools .Apart from Asian background people ,Football and then rugby are the major sport among poor and lower middle class .If that's correct i don't see Sky monopoly affecting popularity too much imo .
Bigg Brother Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Brilliant brilliant brilliant.... Really excited about this time.Hope England don't prepare flat tracks to escape whitewash.
jatinder Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 sky sports may be expensive but best. best in term of coverage ,views and commentors are world class . i love to pay to listen to sky commentory .
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now