George Hook promoting Sky!

Digifriendly

Saw an advert the other evening - think it was on RTE with George Hook waxing lyrical about the benefits of having Sky+. Was this the same George Hook who bemoaned the loss of live FTA Heineken Cup Rugby when RTE lost live rights and Sky took sole possession of live matches a couple of seasons ago?

ManofMunster

no, that was a different george hook. that old g hook wasn't getting a big fat pay cheque from sky for waxing lyrical about their services.

i know sky plus is good, but a good dvd recorder with a hard drive does pretty much the same thing. you'd swear from george's rant SKY had just found a cure for cancer. just a bit ott.

Digifriendly

ManofMunster wrote: »

no, that was a different george hook. that old g hook wasn't getting a big fat pay cheque from sky for waxing lyrical about their services.

i know sky plus is good, but a good dvd recorder with a hard drive does pretty much the same thing. you'd swear from george's rant SKY had just found a cure for cancer. just a bit ott.

I have dvd with hard drive but problem is I can't watch one satellite channel and record another.

conf101

Jeez it's a terrible add isn't it! But to be honest if Sky paid me mega bucks to say those things about sky+ then I'd do it in a shot!

Digifriendly

Digifriendly wrote: »

Saw an advert the other evening - think it was on RTE with George Hook waxing lyrical about the benefits of having Sky+. Was this the same George Hook who bemoaned the loss of live FTA Heineken Cup Rugby when RTE lost live rights and Sky took sole possession of live matches a couple of seasons ago?

The rights to the Heineken cup going subscription is down to the ERC not Sky,so I dont really see it as a contradiction.

up them Schteps

I actually thinks its a funny commercial. We should all consider writing to the guy who invented sky + and thank him!

stephen_n

Digifriendly wrote: »

Saw an advert the other evening - think it was on RTE with George Hook waxing lyrical about the benefits of having Sky+. Was this the same George Hook who bemoaned the loss of live FTA Heineken Cup Rugby when RTE lost live rights and Sky took sole possession of live matches a couple of seasons ago?

Well it's not like Hooky doesn't do complete 180's of opinion and that's without the large amount of money Sky probably paid him to fall in love with a piece of technology! He obviously doesn't regard the TV camera as a piece of tech as he obviously fell in love with that along time ago!

mr_edge_to_you

as a previous poster said his issue was with the ERC selling the rights. not with sky buying them.

siochain

it was a short discussion with someone on newstalk and not an ad.

Digifriendly

siochain wrote: »

it was a short discussion with someone on newstalk and not an ad.

How come it was on TV as newstalk is a radio station is it not?

thomond2006

It is the stuff of H.G. Wells. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

phog

To be fair to Sky, they cover almost all the H/Cup pool games, ever this year when Munster's was delayed by 24hrs due to storms and the revised timing clashed with other pool games (incl Leinsters) they managed to show 3 (I think) games with the same start time, there's no FTA company would provide the same coverage of games as Sky does.

ManofMunster

i don't think you'll find many here complain about sky's h cup coverage. it really is top notch.

what we are taking issue with is hook occasionally ranting about the loss of h cup coverage to satellite tv and subsequently selling his soul to the devil by telling us all how sky+ may one day prevent global warming.

and i don't buy the 'but it was the erc and not sky's fault rte don't have the heineken'. prior to the most recent deal, sky had live rights to every match but rte had rights to show live home irish games as well as any final featuring an irish team. when the contract was renewed in 07 (i think it was), SKY insisted that this facility be withdrawn from rte. the ERC couldn't give a sh*te how many games rte showed but obviously didn't want to upset their biggest tv sponsor.

Digifriendly

ManofMunster wrote: »

i don't think you'll find many here complain about sky's h cup coverage. it really is top notch.

what we are taking issue with is hook occasionally ranting about the loss of h cup coverage to satellite tv and subsequently selling his soul to the devil by telling us all how sky+ may one day prevent global warming.

and i don't buy the 'but it was the erc and not sky's fault rte don't have the heineken'. prior to the most recent deal, sky had live rights to every match but rte had rights to show live home irish games as well as any final featuring an irish team. when the contract was renewed in 07 (i think it was), SKY insisted that this facility be withdrawn from rte. the ERC couldn't give a sh*te how many games rte showed but obviously didn't want to upset their biggest tv sponsor.

Well said. Totally agree.

Tim Robbins

conf101 wrote: »

Jeez it's a terrible add isn't it! But to be honest if Sky paid me mega bucks to say those things about sky+ then I'd do it in a shot!

He loses credibility he thinks he has.

carlop

He even went as far as wearing a black armband on the last live HC match on RTE if I recall correctly. He has definitely lost a bit of credibility in my view.

Serenity Now!

carlop wrote: »

He has definitely lost a bit of credibility in my view.

Never had any. The panel on RTE's coverage of any rugby has obviously always been about him.

Cuchulain

1) Who here wouldnt pass up the opportunity of easy money and lots of it.
2) Who in their right mind doesnt think that Sky+ is the best piece of technology to satellite viewers?
3) Who in their right mind thinks that somebody could give the HC better coverage than Sky?

With regards to Hook. He bemoaned the loss of FTA HC coverage but does that automatically mean he is anti-sky?:rolleyes:

Does it automatically mean that he thinks that all Sky products are crap?

Essentially, bemoaning the loss of FTA HC coverage and promoting a Sky product are mutually exclusive.

bamboozle

Digifriendly wrote: »

Saw an advert the other evening - think it was on RTE with George Hook waxing lyrical about the benefits of having Sky+. Was this the same George Hook who bemoaned the loss of live FTA Heineken Cup Rugby when RTE lost live rights and Sky took sole possession of live matches a couple of seasons ago?

if i recall correctly his issue was with The ERC but also with the Irish Government who around that time pulled some clause to ensure the Ryder Cup was available on normal tv as it was of national interest but they did nothing to keep the HC on terresterial tv.

Digifriendly

Cuchulain wrote: »

1) Who here wouldnt pass up the opportunity of easy money and lots of it.
2) Who in their right mind doesnt think that Sky+ is the best piece of technology to satellite viewers?
3) Who in their right mind thinks that somebody could give the HC better coverage than Sky?

With regards to Hook. He bemoaned the loss of FTA HC coverage but does that automatically mean he is anti-sky?:rolleyes:

Does it automatically mean that he thinks that all Sky products are crap?

Essentially, bemoaning the loss of FTA HC coverage and promoting a Sky product are mutually exclusive.

It is one thing to think Sky products are great, another to appear on a TV advert promoting a Sky product when you have publicly criticised the loss of live HC rugby on RTE to that broadcaster especially when you are being employed to sit on a panel by RTE. So I don't agree that the 2 things are mutually exclusive.

Cuchulain

Digifriendly wrote: »

It is one thing to think Sky products are great, another to appear on a TV advert promoting a Sky product when you have publicly criticised the loss of live HC rugby on RTE to that broadcaster especially when you are being employed to sit on a panel by RTE. So I don't agree that the 2 things are mutually exclusive.

Im pretty sure that he was bemoaning the fact that FTA HC coverage was lost ,not that it was was sold to Sky. If he and anybody else had a choice as to who would show non-FTA HC matches then we would all be in agreement that Sky would be 1st on the list.

Discoaintdead

I genuinely think he sounds retarded in this ad.

ManofMunster

Cuchulain wrote: »

Im pretty sure that he was bemoaning the fact that FTA HC coverage was lost ,not that it was was sold to Sky. If he and anybody else had a choice as to who would show non-FTA HC matches then we would all be in agreement that Sky would be 1st on the list.

without wishing to repeat myself, when sky renegotiated their most recent heineken cup contract with the ERC, they insisted on a clause being inserted which would put an end to the status quo of rte showing home irish games live. this is the same rte on which george hook is ranting about the travesty of live heineken cup rights being lost by rte. and now i see his mug on terrestrial tv most nights selling sky's flagship product. how are these events mutually exclusive? do i have to draw a venn diagram?

Cuchulain

ManofMunster wrote: »

without wishing to repeat myself, when sky renegotiated their most recent heineken cup contract with the ERC, they insisted on a clause being inserted which would put an end to the status quo of rte showing home irish games live. this is the same rte on which george hook is ranting about the travesty of live heineken cup rights being lost by rte. and now i see his mug on terrestrial tv most nights selling sky's flagship product. how are these events mutually exclusive? do i have to draw a venn diagram?

Please, i'd love to see your attempt. :rolleyes:
-Firstly how long is it since RTE lost the rights to broadcast live HC rugby?
-Isnt he entitled to change his mind with regard to the Sky conglomerate?
-Hasnt he come to the conclusion that Sky do a much better job (technically) than RTE when broadcasting rugby?
-In Hooks lamenting, did he specificially mention "Sky" when mourning the "travesty of live heineken cup rights being lost by rte"?
-Hook was p1ssed off that FTA HC coverage was lost. How does this have a direct correlation with his view on the technical abilities of the Sky+ box.

Digifriendly

Cuchulain wrote: »

Please, i'd love to see your attempt. :rolleyes:
-Firstly how long is it since RTE lost the rights to broadcast live HC rugby?
-Isnt he entitled to change his mind with regard to the Sky conglomerate?
-Hasnt he come to the conclusion that Sky do a much better job (technically) than RTE when broadcasting rugby?
-In Hooks lamenting, did he specificially mention "Sky" when mourning the "travesty of live heineken cup rights being lost by rte"?
-Hook was p1ssed off that FTA HC coverage was lost. How does this have a direct correlation with his view on the technical abilities of the Sky+ box.

Regarding 1st point- AFAIK RTE lost the live rights 3 seasons ago- I maybe wrong here but I think their last live HC broadcast was Munster's 2006 triumph. Unsure why this has major bearing on argument.
Regarding 2nd Point - Of course George Hook is entitled to change his mind but he still being employed by RTE as a panellist.
Regarding your 3rd point - where does George Hook say Sky do a much better job technically than RTE when broadcasting rugby? He refers to the benefits of Sky + which can record RTE as well as Sky Sports!
Regarding 4th Point - George Hook was annoyed that RTE lost their live HC coverage and as pointed out above they did so because of Sky.
Final point - Correlation is fact that Sky will have paid him for doing this ad.

Cuchulain

Digifriendly wrote: »

Regarding 1st point- AFAIK RTE lost the live rights 3 seasons ago- I maybe wrong here but I think their last live HC broadcast was Munster's 2006 triumph. Unsure why this has major bearing on argument.

Im merely trying to established how long ago it was when RTE lost their HC rights.

Digifriendly wrote: »

Regarding 2nd Point - Of course George Hook is entitled to change his mind but he still being employed by RTE as a panellist.

Currently he is employed by RTE as a panelist, does that mean that he cant have any linkages with TV3, TnaG, Sky or whoever? Graeme Souness does work for RTE, does that automatically disqualify him from working with Sky?... I think not. If RTE has such a problem with it then they should have invoked it into their contract with Hook.

Digifriendly wrote: »

Regarding your 3rd point - where does George Hook say Sky do a much better job technically than RTE when broadcasting rugby? He refers to the benefits of Sky + which can record RTE as well as Sky Sports!

He doesnt and thank you for proving my point that he is merely pointing out the good benefits of Sky+. It you and other people on this post that are incorrectly correlating Hooks views on RTE HC coverage and the benefits of Sky+.

Digifriendly wrote: »

Regarding 4th Point - George Hook was annoyed that RTE lost their live HC coverage and as pointed out above they did so because of Sky.

Merely because Sky were the people who bought the rights. The issue was the selling of rights not with Sky themselves.

Digifriendly wrote: »

Final point - Correlation is fact that Sky will have paid him for doing this ad.

What? Are you even reading what I posted? How does that prove correlation between FTA HC coverage being lost and his view on the technical abilities of the Sky+ box. Worth a read - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

Digifriendly

Cuchulain wrote: »

Currently he is employed by RTE as a panelist, does that mean that he cant have any linkages with TV3, TnaG, Sky or whoever? Graeme Souness does work for RTE, does that automatically disqualify him from working with Sky?... I think not. If RTE has such a problem with it then they should have invoked it into their contract with Hook.
Has Graeme Souness publicly bemoaned loss of football coverage from e.g. RTE to Sky and then gone on to promote a Sky product? If he has I see a problem with that. Have no problem with a person appearing on more than 1 TV company at all.

He doesnt and thank you for proving my point that he is merely pointing out the good benefits of Sky+. It you and other people on this post that are incorrectly correlating Hooks views on RTE HC coverage and the benefits of Sky+.
I still see a problem with promoting a Sky product after making a big issue of loss of HC rights to Sky even if you don't.

Merely because Sky were the people who bought the rights. The issue was the selling of rights not with Sky themselves.


What? Are you even reading what I posted? How does that prove correlation between FTA HC coverage being lost and his view on the technical abilities of the Sky+ box. Worth a read - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

Maybe you're not reading what I'm saying - so just to repeat my point a final time - I believe that promoting a Sky product in in which he is being paid by Sky does conflict with his view bemoaning the fact that RTE should not have lost live HC rugby to Sky.