keepcricketfree.com
- Thread starter Stephen Bailey
- Start date
blazer-glory
Club Cricketer
Kev said:
Thats the one thing that I have gripe with. They have loads of adverts AND they charge you for watching. I think it should be one or the other.
James219
International Cricketer
dazza76 said:
I know this post is from ages ago, but no. Why? James Packer is now the owner of Channel nine, and it'd be an insult to his father's memory if he allowed Fox to take the rights. Kerry Packer revived the game, and he loved it to death; that's why, at least in the foreseeable future anyway, we'll keep getting it FTA!
There are obviously other contributory reasons with regards to the fact that Fox Sports couldn't careless, the relatively small population, etc.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Looks like the campaign could have a high profile supporter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5202194.stm
I didn't see this topic before so I apologise if what I say has been covered.
I don't see how any Terrestrial Station can demand that the Test Matches be on Free to air TV. Channel 4 only cared about Cricket when it suited them. They wanted the home Tests as they knew people would watch, but which Broadcaster travelled around the World to Provide us Coverage? Sky.
Who cares about the Domestic game in England and gives us coverage of that, at least a couple of times a week during the summer? Sky. In comparison, I remember sitting up till about 12:30am last year to watch highlights of the C & G final on C4, only to see about 30 minutes of programming with about 20 minutes of actual cricket.
In short, Sky care, it's what, ?25 a month to watch sky? That's hardly break the bank stuff is it?
I don't see how any Terrestrial Station can demand that the Test Matches be on Free to air TV. Channel 4 only cared about Cricket when it suited them. They wanted the home Tests as they knew people would watch, but which Broadcaster travelled around the World to Provide us Coverage? Sky.
Who cares about the Domestic game in England and gives us coverage of that, at least a couple of times a week during the summer? Sky. In comparison, I remember sitting up till about 12:30am last year to watch highlights of the C & G final on C4, only to see about 30 minutes of programming with about 20 minutes of actual cricket.
In short, Sky care, it's what, ?25 a month to watch sky? That's hardly break the bank stuff is it?
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
ive signed, do you mind if i post the link on another forum or 2?
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
MUFC1987 said:
No terrestrial channel has demanded it be on FTA (free-to-air), they just believe the ECB's decision was a massive mistake.
Only Sky show the overseas and domestic competitions because only they have the capabilities of showing it and have the money to go with it, and the ECB is more than willing to take the money. You really think Channel 4 didn't care about cricket? Every year Channel 4 made a loss on it and they were still willing to put in a bid to show the second test series each summer with Sky showing the first. But no, the ECB "had" to take the money Sky was waving in front of them.
Sky's viewing figures have been appaling (200,000 is a number that has been heard a lot). For the first test against Sri Lanka, they struggled to break the 100,000 viewer mark. To put that in perspective, Channel 4 had more viewers for the Bangladesh series same time last year and Bangladesh aren't as good as Sri Lanka. I may have posted figures for the Bangladesh series somewhere in the thread previously.
MUFC1987 said:
Wrong. After the current online offer of Sky Sports/Sky Movies being free for six months if you order before the 31st July, it will cost you ?34 a month. That is disgraceful is you just want the sports or movies channels. However, the price you have to pay is irrelevant, cricket should be free-to-air and available to the young people who are going to make up the future of the sport in this country in say 10 years time. It is probably the second biggest sport in England at the moment since the rugby union team has gone downhill.
ste_mc_efc said:
Feel free! (sorry!!)
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
This has probably been expressed already but;
In my opinion, Sky do a good job of covering cricket; they have some great commentators, the active service is a nice addition and the domestic coverage is exceptional, but I think that this new deal couldn't have come at a more innapropiate time. The Ashes gripped a lot of people, and thousands upon thousands of new cricket fans were born, and Sky taking away free Test match viewing is a bit of a stupid move by the ECB, becasue a lot of these new fans won't have the chance to watch England live, and all they have to compensate is a 50 minute highlight package on Channel 5.
Again, i'm sorry if this has been said already.
In my opinion, Sky do a good job of covering cricket; they have some great commentators, the active service is a nice addition and the domestic coverage is exceptional, but I think that this new deal couldn't have come at a more innapropiate time. The Ashes gripped a lot of people, and thousands upon thousands of new cricket fans were born, and Sky taking away free Test match viewing is a bit of a stupid move by the ECB, becasue a lot of these new fans won't have the chance to watch England live, and all they have to compensate is a 50 minute highlight package on Channel 5.
Again, i'm sorry if this has been said already.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
MUFC1987 said:
I don't think that is his point. He is saying that you shouldn't have to pay for digital TV to watch it in the first place.
But my point is that I'm more than happy to pay that much for much better coverage. Take for example someone working a 9-5. You'd get home say 5.30 watch the last half hour on 4 and have to wait until 1am to watch a small highlights show. Whereas with Sky, you can come home and watch hours of highlights. For me, quality is worth the cost. This is not forgetting the ODI's and Domestic cricket. Or even the International's that other countries are in.evertonfan said:
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
MUFC1987 said:
You've missed my point, which I wouldn't be surprised is my fault!
I first got into cricket through watching it on TV when I came home from school, millions of kids in the country won't get this chance unless they are lucky enough to have Sky in their home. There's nothing more exciting than live action with a Flintoff or Pietersen with the crowd roaring and cheering and them smashing the ball to all parts. When kids come home from school a lot will put the tele on and start flicking through channels, but with the way it is now, only a few will have a chance to come across it.
45 minute highlights just isn't going to capture the imagination of a young kid. Also, when the highlights are on (7:45) are when the soaps are on, and the parents are most likely home so that really buggers it up.
This isn't a personal issue, although obviously I'd love it if it was on the tele, it's a matter of the sport having a long-term future.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
MUFC1987 said:
I respect your opinion, and I agree with it, but most people want cricket to be available on terrestrial TV because of the simple fact that it is free. For example, the 5th Ashes test last year was on during school, and because it was on Channel 4, I was able to watch it in school during break and lunch hour, but I will be unable to do that in the future unless the school pays for Sky which it won't, because school has better things to spend it's money on than Sky.
I like effort that Sky puts into cricket, and my family can comfortably afford it so I can watch it easily, but I would much prefer it to be broadcast on a terrestrial channel instead.
