Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PGA Championship gone from Sky

Options
1…1718192022

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    Has there been any indications of what the viewership figures were.

    I really find it hard to see how the likes of 11 are going to be able to make any serious dent in the market as it's just too stretched out now and not that many people are not going to be willing to pay to watch the stuff that 11 have purchased.

    The whole competition over sport rights that has developed in recent years has been terrible for consumers.

    The sooner there is some sort of all in one sports pack where you can pay to have every single sports channel that is out there on your TV the better.


  • Options
    #633
    HighLine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭HighLine


    I doubt we will hear what Eleven's viewership figures were.

    Over across the pond where they actually showed a major golf competition on the television (crazy idea right?), the Tiger effect was strong and ratings were up 69% on last year.

    https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGang/status/1029003712725958656


  • Options
    #634
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Niles Crane wrote: »
    The whole competition over sport rights that has developed in recent years has been terrible for consumers.

    The sooner there is some sort of all in one sports pack where you can pay to have every single sports channel that is out there on your TV the better.

    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.

    b) there will never be a single all in one sports pack because of the competition.

    Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies aren't. Economics and common sense 1010.


  • Options
    #635
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.

    b) there will never be a single all in one sports pack because of the competition.

    Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies aren't. Economics and common sense 1010.

    But this isn't proper competition.

    11 had a monopoly over the PGA championship this weekend.
    Every event Sky broadcast they have a monopoly over it
    Every event BT sports broadcast they have a monopoly over it.

    True competition would be each event is available with multiple providers and you pick the provider who offers you the best deal.That is the way most other industries work.All toothpastes are essentially the same with very minor difference but we can choose whichever toothpaste suits our needs.


  • Options
    #636
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,088 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.

    b) there will never be a single all in one sports pack because of the competition.

    Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies aren't. Economics and common sense 1010.

    +1(0)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    Tigerandahalf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,811 ✭✭✭Tigerandahalf


    I think what is needed is a single platform for all sports to be streamed on. One app that you can cast and play on, sign up or cancel at a touch of a button. No funny games. Google already have the Chromecast platform, so maybe they will offer something and force Eleven and others to follow set rules.

    Streaming has many benefits like being able to watch it away from your home. 3 weeks holidays abroad and you still can access your streaming package and cast it, like you can with the eir sports app at the moment.

    Sky will be moving towards a streaming package soon. They already have Now TV which has been doing very well for them. I had it this summer for 3 months at 20eur p/m. I have it cancelled from September as they want to charge 50eur p/m. No value in that when you don't want the Premier League.


  • Options
    #638
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    GreeBo wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.

    b) there will never be a single all in one sports pack because of the competition.

    Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies aren't. Economics and common sense 1010.

    +1(0)
    Ha, didn't even notice that.


  • Options
    #639
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Niles Crane wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.

    b) there will never be a single all in one sports pack because of the competition.

    Competition is good for consumers. Monopolies aren't. Economics and common sense 1010.

    But this isn't proper competition.

    11 had a monopoly over the PGA championship this weekend.
    Every event Sky broadcast they have a monopoly over it
    Every event BT sports broadcast they have a monopoly over it.

    True competition would be each event is available with multiple providers and you pick the provider who offers you the best deal.That is the way most other industries work.All toothpastes are essentially the same with very minor difference but we can choose whichever toothpaste suits our needs.


    The competition is that different sports organisations have different rights packages that they auction off. Those who want them, bid for them. We, as consumers, have no explicit right to view them, on any platform except where catered for by legislation.

    Comparing toothpaste (a household commodity) to sports rights is both flawed logically and childish. At best. Also, my supermarket doesn't sell the toothpaste I like. I'm so outraged by it.


  • Options
    #640
    Sultan of Bling
    Registered Users Posts: 1,875 ✭✭✭Sultan of Bling


    EagererBeaver wrote:
    a) Competition is good. Not having everything their own way through their virtual monopoly is what forced Sky to reform their sports package, whereas previously if you only wanted to watch tennis or cricket you had to pay through your nose to subsidise their premier league rights.


    Not in Ireland though. Over here you have to buy the full sky sports package or no sky sports at all.


  • Options
    #641
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    The competition is that different sports organisations have different rights packages that they auction off. Those who want them, bid for them. We, as consumers, have no explicit right to view them, on any platform except where catered for by legislation.

    Comparing toothpaste (a household commodity) to sports rights is both flawed logically and childish. At best. Also, my supermarket doesn't seem the toothpaste I like. I'm so outraged by it.

    The consumer has no choice, with every other product in the world the consumer has choice.There is more than one company to buy a car from, more than one company to buy a computer from etc etc

    There is no competition for the consumer and stopping monopoly's is supposed to be good for consumers but in sports rights it is terrible for consumers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    Andrew Beef
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Andrew Beef


    Competition isn’t good actually.

    When there was no competition, I paid for Sky Sports, and got to watch everything.

    Now there’s competition, I pay for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Eleven Sports, and pretty soon Virgin Sports 1.

    It’s laughable.


  • Options
    #643
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Competition isn’t good actually.

    When there was no competition, I paid for Sky Sports, and got to watch everything.

    Now there’s competition, I pay for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Eleven Sports, and pretty soon Virgin Sports 1.

    It’s laughable.

    But it's your choice to do that. The fact you choose to pay for it all is entirely up to you.

    What's laughable is people who think one media organisation having the rights to everything is in any way good.


  • Options
    #644
    Tdex86
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭Tdex86


    Tigerandahalf wrote: »
    I think what is needed is a single platform for all sports to be streamed on. One app that you can cast and play on, sign up or cancel at a touch of a button. No funny games. Google already have the Chromecast platform, so maybe they will offer something and force Eleven and others to follow set rules.

    Streaming has many benefits like being able to watch it away from your home. 3 weeks holidays abroad and you still can access your streaming package and cast it, like you can with the eir sports app at the moment.

    Sky will be moving towards a streaming package soon. They already have Now TV which has been doing very well for them. I had it this summer for 3 months at 20eur p/m. I have it cancelled from September as they want to charge 50eur p/m. No value in that when you don't want the Premier League.

    Tell me more about this single legal platform for sports that people don't pay for appropriately, and can cancel on a whim when they feel like not paying and sign up again at the touch of a button when something good is on.

    Just be careful not to give away the full extent of your billion dollar idea here mate


  • Options
    #645
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    But it's your choice to do that. The fact you choose to pay for it all is entirely up to you.

    What's laughable is people who think one media organisation having the rights to everything is in any way good.

    Honestly you once again seem to be deliberately missing the point for the sake of it.

    When it was Sky and only Sky you could get premier league,la liga, champions league,golf,nfl,nba,european rugby,cricket and tennis on the one pack.Any sport sky didn't have was almost always available on free to air tv

    Now in order to have all those sports you have to subscribe to 4 or 5 different sports packages.

    Therefore you have to pay more money for virtually the same amount of sport.Which means it's not as good a situation for the consumer.

    Sky having a virtual monopoly may have seemed like a bad thing but in reality it was more consumer friendly than the current model.The didn't have their prices too high because they knew people wouldn't pay if they lifted their prices above a certain level, Sky Sports is no cheaper now than it was in the past.


  • Options
    #646
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Niles Crane wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    But it's your choice to do that. The fact you choose to pay for it all is entirely up to you.

    What's laughable is people who think one media organisation having the rights to everything is in any way good.

    Honestly you once again seem to be deliberately missing the point for the sake of it.

    When it was Sky and only Sky you could get premier league,la liga, champions league,golf,nfl,nba,european rugby,cricket and tennis on the one pack.Any sport sky didn't have was almost always available on free to air tv

    Now in order to have all those sports you have to subscribe to 4 or 5 different sports packages.

    Therefore you have to pay more money for virtually the same amount of sport.Which means it's not as good a situation for the consumer.

    Sky having a virtual monopoly may have seemed like a bad thing but in reality it was more consumer friendly than the current model.The didn't have their prices too high because they knew people wouldn't pay if they lifted their prices above a certain level, Sky Sports is no cheaper now than it was in the past.

    But I don't want access to everything. I watch almost no cricket. I watch no rugby league. I certainly watch absolutely no kabbadi.

    Why should I have to pay Sky for them simply because I want to watch La Liga and some rugby union.


  • Options
    #647
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    But I don't want access to everything. I watch almost no cricket. I watch no rugby league. I certainly watch absolutely no kabbadi.

    Why should I have to pay Sky for them simply because I want to watch La Liga and some rugby union.

    You don't get the option at the moment to pick and choose the specific sport you watch either.

    You can't just purchase the option to watch only La Liga on Eleven or only rugby on BT.


  • Options
    #648
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Niles Crane wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    But I don't want access to everything. I watch almost no cricket. I watch no rugby league. I certainly watch absolutely no kabbadi.

    Why should I have to pay Sky for them simply because I want to watch La Liga and some rugby union.

    You don't get the option at the moment to pick and choose the specific sport you watch either.

    You can't just purchase the option to watch only La Liga on Eleven or only rugby on BT.
    Of course I can't, but the increased competition benefits me (or at least it would do if I didn't have everything through IPTV). That's the whole point.


  • Options
    #649
    FastFullBack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭FastFullBack


    Tdex86 wrote: »
    Tell me more about this single legal platform for sports that people don't pay for appropriately, and can cancel on a whim when they feel like not paying and sign up again at the touch of a button when something good is on.

    Just be careful not to give away the full extent of your billion dollar idea here mate

    Interesting concept. A single streaming platform that brings streams from all legal providers; Sky, BT, Eleven, Amazon etc. For the premier league you can sign up for everything from all providers, sign up for just your team across all providers or just sign up for single games. It could co exist as an alternative to standard satellite subscriptions that offer a more traditional way of viewing. Basically just a content aggregator.


  • Options
    #650
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    I can't see the current sports packages offered by Sky, BT, Eir etc lasting very long. The public are getting fed up having to fork out to an increasing number of providers for stuff that they are not interested in just to get the stuff that they are interested in.
    The only way to have genuine competition in the sports market is to separate the production of the content from the distribution and sale on a per-event basis.
    In the case of golf, the American events would be produced by someone like the Golf Channel or CBS who would sell it to the likes of Google, Facebook or Amazon for distribution to the public. Each of those would then offer it to the public on a fee per event basis and compete with each other on price. That way you only pay for what you want to see.


  • Options
    #651
    mickmackmcgoo
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 950 ✭✭✭mickmackmcgoo


    Roger_007 wrote:
    I can't see the current sports packages offered by Sky, BT, Eir etc lasting very long. The public are getting fed up having to fork out to an increasing number of providers for stuff that they are not interested in just to get the stuff that they are interested in. The only way to have genuine competition in the sports market is to separate the production of the content from the distribution and sale on a per-event basis. In the case of golf, the American events would be produced by someone like the Golf Channel or CBS who would sell it to the likes of Google, Facebook or Amazon for distribution to the public. Each of those would then offer it to the public on a fee per event basis and compete with each other on price. That way you only pay for what you want to see.


    Fee per event is all well and good but what kind of money would you be willing to pay per event as against what they will want to charge.
    For example-golf , a regular PGA tour event runs over 4 days . What's a fair fee to watch it ? 5 euro ? 10 euro ?
    A Gaa provincial semi final not on Rte. How much is that worth ?
    One off boxing or UFC are around 25 euro , I can't see people paying 25 euro for a gaa match or a golf tournament


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    That will never happen. The rights owners want cold, hard, guaranteed cash, not a PPV model. And they have every legal right to package it as such.

    Why would the Golf Channel (owned by NBC) out CBS produce it? If Google or Facebook or Amazon bid higher, why shouldn't they be sold the rights?


  • Options
    #653
    Andrew Beef
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Andrew Beef


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Competition isn’t good actually.

    When there was no competition, I paid for Sky Sports, and got to watch everything.

    Now there’s competition, I pay for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Eleven Sports, and pretty soon Virgin Sports 1.

    It’s laughable.

    But it's your choice to do that. The fact you choose to pay for it all is entirely up to you.

    What's laughable is people who think one media organisation having the rights to everything is in any way good.

    What part of this do you not get?

    It cost the punter the price of a Sky Sports subscription to see everything 10 years ago.

    Now thanks to the wonders of “competition”, it costs the punter a multiple of that to have Sky/BT/Virgin/Eleven.

    The punter is worse off now!


  • Options
    #654
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Competition isn’t good actually.

    When there was no competition, I paid for Sky Sports, and got to watch everything.

    Now there’s competition, I pay for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Eleven Sports, and pretty soon Virgin Sports 1.

    It’s laughable.

    But it's your choice to do that. The fact you choose to pay for it all is entirely up to you.

    What's laughable is people who think one media organisation having the rights to everything is in any way good.

    What part of this do you not get?

    It cost the punter the price of a Sky Sports subscription to see everything 10 years ago.

    Now thanks to the wonders of “competition”, it costs the punter a multiple of that to have Sky/BT/Virgin/Eleven.

    The punter is worse off now!

    What part of this don't you get? I don't want to see everything and I certainly don't want to pay for the ability to see everything.


  • Options
    #655
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Business models are evolving as the technologies evolve. It will continue to happen.

    It used all be free but the only football was on Match of the Day. Did anyone prefer that?


  • Options
    #656
    londonred
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭londonred


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    What part of this do you not get?

    It cost the punter the price of a Sky Sports subscription to see everything 10 years ago.

    Now thanks to the wonders of “competition”, it costs the punter a multiple of that to have Sky/BT/Virgin/Eleven.

    The punter is worse off now!

    Agree its called Sky because the prices only go up they never go down when they lose rights and you have to pay extra to BT , 11 , Premier Sports etc.


  • Options
    #657
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    What part of this don't you get? I don't want to see everything and I certainly don't want to pay for the ability to see everything.

    You don't ahve the option to pick and choose what you watch with either BT,Sky,Eleven,Amazon Prime or any other sports broadcasting provider.

    You have to sign up for more than just what you specifically want with each provider.

    What you've been tlaking about doesn't exist and has never existed outside of Pay Per View fight events which is extremely poor value for money.


  • Options
    #658
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Niles Crane wrote: »
    You don't ahve the option to pick and choose what you watch with either BT,Sky,Eleven,Amazon Prime or any other sports broadcasting provider.

    You have to sign up for more than just what you specifically want with each provider.

    What you've been tlaking about doesn't exist and has never existed outside of Pay Per View fight events which is extremely poor value for money.

    The problem with the current packages offered by Sky, BT etc is that you now have no guarantee that you will get what you thought you were paying for. I have Sky Sports and my main interest is golf. When I signed up for Sky, I was led to believe that I would have access to all the leading golf tournaments on the European and US tours. (At the time the majors were free-to-air).
    As the current agreements with Sky come up for renewal, there will be competition from other providers for the rights to screen the events in different regions. This is the significance of the PGA Championship screening rights being sold to another provider. It's just the first step.
    What is to stop the PGA tour selling bits and pieces of their schedule to different providers. What is to stop the Ryder Cup rights being sold to Twitter.
    I think it is very significant that Facebook have bought the screening rights for La Liga soccer matches on the Indian sub-continent. The same thing could happen to golf events, (or any other sports events).
    If we have learned anything in recent years, it is that the rights owners of sports events will sell to the highest bidder. They have zero interest in promoting their respective sports. Even the 'morally superior' GAA are going down this road.
    The current model for screening sports events is broken. It's going to be chaotic over the next few years.


  • Options
    #659
    kiers47
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,564 ✭✭✭kiers47


    Competition is good. But we are now getting to a point where the market is going to become flooded with providers and you will need to hold subscriptions with 4/5 different providers if you want to watch everything.

    The only thing i watch on TV really is sport. Dare i say it is almost easier to sign up to an illegal provider that provides all the sports channels than sign up to sky/BT/ESPN/Eleven/EuroSport/EirSport/beIN at least you know you will be able to find whatever you want pretty easily.

    Its no wonder there are so many people going the way of illegal streams.

    The worst of all is for the pubs. Your talking €700 a month for Sky + BT etc.. For your average pub in Rural Ireland or Small towns its basically not possible to get sky. Then you are missing some GAA games that are only on Sky. Its extortionate tbh and these are also being pushed into the illegal side of things. There is going to be a serious wake up call in a few years for Sky and others imo.


  • Options
    #660
    keps
    Registered Users Posts: 9,324 ✭✭✭keps


    A new era


    http://www.sportspromedia.com/opinion/eleven-sports-pga-championship-replatforming-audience-ott-content


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Niles Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Niles Crane


    keps wrote: »
    A new era


    http://www.sportspromedia.com/opinion/eleven-sports-pga-championship-replatforming-audience-ott-content

    The tweet from Daniel Storey in that piece sums it the issue with the sort of service Eleven Sports are providing.

    Most of (if not all of) the UK rights they have bought are not stuff people are dying to see but it is stuff you will watch if it happens to be on.The casual sports fans which I would say is the majority of sports fans is being lost because it's just too much hassle to access it.

    Nothing beats watching TV on television.


Advertisement