This messageboard is for Adults 18 years and over.
If you are under this age please leave the board.

Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any other content posted on it.

Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.

What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks. If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.

Any potentially libellous comments that might jeopardise the future of this messageboard will therefore be deleted, and the person posting them will receive a ban.Enjoy.

    Cricket World Cup Final

    Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 15:01:11

    If England make the final, itíll be shown live on channel 4 / More 4

    Bravo Sky.

      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

      Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 20:35:02, in reply to "Cricket World Cup Final"

      But I thought we shouldn't expect entertainment for free?
      This is decent though as you say below not without reason. A tacit admission that taking cricket on to paid-for channels was not a great move for the game?

        Re: Cricket World Cup Final

        Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 20:48:30, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

        We shouldnít expect it for free. We should therefore give credit where it is due for being able to get something we have no right to expect for free, for free.

        No admission whatsoever. Iíve yet to see any compelling evidence that the game has suffered because of pay TV (and not, say, the selling off of playing fields, the changing way in which kids engage with and consume content, or the governing bodyís relentless quest to shorten the format in order to address the former issue)

          Re: Cricket World Cup Final

          Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 20:58:42, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

          Sorry but you're thinking purely of the money.

          Major sporting events involving national teams would be far better all round having the maximum possible accessibility. More people get to see it and that is far better for community cohesion. Something that we seriously need more of not less.


          If Sky don't want to do that and work with say advertising revenue then someone else should be given that opportunity. But of course . . . it's all about the money.

            Re: Cricket World Cup Final

            Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 21:12:54, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

            Yes, itís largely about the money. But not in the way that you think.

            Itís not just a cost of rights issue and certainly not entirely because the big bad company wants to make a profit. The BBC, for example, walked away from the Open a year early because they couldnít afford to produce the broadcast.

            The European Tour, for example, package their flagship event (The Ryder Cup) alongside their individual tour events as they want to guarantee these are televised and thus gain sponsors. No terrestrial free to air broadcaster can commit to 30+ weeks of live gold a year.

            When it comes to the CWC, the ICC partnered with Star Sports who sold the rights to the whole tournament. Name one terrestrial or free to air broadcaster that could have found time in their schedules for 49 x 10 hour matches.

            As laudable a goal of ďcommunity cohesionĒ around major sporting events is, itís unfortunately equally naive and ignorant of the realities of the economics of sports broadcasting, the way rights holders now seek to exploit there rights and where these events could even sit in free to air schedules.

              Re: Cricket World Cup Final

              Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 21:23:24, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

              Yes, the ICC are on the hook because they want the money, that's what it comes down to. Sky massively inflated the cost of sporting rights with the huge amounts it could afford to pay ruling out most other solutions.

              There is absolutely no reason other than profit that the England games could not have gone on a free to air channel.


              And you say "NaÔve" but until we can stop letting profit and flawed measures such as GDP etc rules our lives we are heading for some really bad shit and it's incredibly naÔve not to realise that.





                Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 21:39:54, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                There is absolutely no reason other than profit that the England games could not have gone on a free to air channel.

                Profit for who though? Certainly not Sky who you seem heíll bent on demonising in all of this (last night you even blamed VAR on pay TV???).

                As per the European Tour example, the rights for individual games are not available because the rights holders (Star via ICC) want the whole tournament televised in order to get sponsors, and no broadcaster in their right mind would chose to invest in the rights and production costs and not get the England games. You can surely see this?

                Sure, Sky could afford to pay the increased rights cost and protect their own investment subsequently, but when has any other non pay TV broadcaster ever seriously wanted to compete? There was no appetite even back in 1992 to show 100-odd live games on terrestrial TV. The rights became ďinflatedĒ when other pay TV broadcasters began competing.

                I think itís pretty disingenuous to suggest Sky exists in a profit making vacuum and to wilfully ignore a company such as Skyís contribution to wider society.

                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                  Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 22:09:55, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                  Demonising? Cut the amateur dramatics, they aren't helpful. It's Sky's money combined with the governing bodies' desire for it I'm talking about.

                  Nothing wrong with making a profit per se, it is, after all, essential for a company.

                  And you keep coming back to this tournament. I'm suggesting that we should be able to see the England teams in general. And the access is far more important than the quality, I think from what little I've seen that Sky do top notch coverage but that's not as important as allowing the largest number of people to watch it.

                  The ICC wanted to maximise revenue, similar to what happened with the test matches but the audience is smaller, more exclusive. Surely you can see that's something that is not ideal.

                  I don't think Sky are any better or any worse than most other big corporations, they just impact something I like directly so they will keep coming up in conversations, especially on a football message board.

                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                    Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 22:28:08, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                    I chose ďdemonisingĒ not through a sense of the ďamateur dramaticĒ but rather as a direct response to your absurd claim last night that VAR was the fault of pay TV (and by implication Sky)

                    And of course I keep coming back to this tournament. Itís what the thread this discussion has evolved from was about after all.

                    The ICC couldnít care less about who shows the tournament in the UK as there whole model is based on the vast audience in the Sub continent (just look at the tournamentís sponsorship partners for evidence of this) This isnít Skyís fault. In fact, the ICC (via Star) basically came cap in hand to Sky as there was no other broadcaster interested.

                    Sadly the problem is arguably cricket itself. Test matches and 8 hour one day internationals do not lend themselves to either terrestrial TV schedules or more importantly the way entertainment and content is consumed by young people. This is of course being overlooked because thereís a ready made enemy out there for people to blame without having an understand of the realities . (Sounds brexitly familiar)

                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                      Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 22:44:29, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                      Test matches were shown on the BBC / Channel 4 for years until Sky offered the money and took them. You've obviously got very comfortable with your reasoning but the fact that it had been like that for years and the terrestrial channels wanted to continue kind of wrecks the "it doesn't fit" suggestion especially as they now have much wider schedules with more channels to fill.



                        Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                        Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 23:10:10, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                        Weíre going round in circles.

                        Like the European Tour and the Ryder Cup, Test matches were packaged with the county games in order to guarantee exposure for the latter and therefore increase potential sponsorship deals.

                        Yes, itís a model that used to work for terrestrial before the rights holders chose to leverage their rights in this way.

                        To say the terrestrial broadcasters wanted to continue just isnít true. They chose not to compete for the newly packaged rights structure.

                        Once again your laudable idealism and rose tinted recollections donít really stand up when confronted with the harsh reality of rights deals, broadcasting costs, scheduling commitments and the changing nature of entertainment consumption.

                        Ultimately your ire should be with the governing bodies who have chose to do this rather than give their product away for free. It is there choice after all.

                          Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                          Posted by Mahatma Gander on 10/7/2019, 23:23:20, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                          Well done at the end there for realising what I said a couple of posts ago.

                          You don't seem to realise that I'm not just blaming Sky even though I said it above which is possibly part of the reason you keep stupidly trying to talk down to me. That hubris aside the clear point is that Test cricket and the one day internationals could well have continued with bigger audiences on terrestrial TV and the Beeb would happily have continued.


                          Sky's money and the governing body's desire for it meant that there was no way the BBC could compete. You also know that.


                          It is amusing that you can't see any way to criticise Sky, I'd hate to be that naÔve about my employer.

                            Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                            Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 23:53:01, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                            Oh here we go. Having hilariously blamed Sky for VAR, youíre now (and predictably) acting all surprised that Iíve chosen to question your arguments which both yesterday and today have clearly focused on pay TV ahead of governing bodies as the culprits in all of this (until this was actually pointed out to you)

                            Iíll repeat. The BBC gave up the Open early because they couldnít afford to produce it.

                            As for hubris and talking down to you. I apologise if my actually having some experience of the complexities of sports rights, broadcasting production costs and scheduling issues that weíre actually talking here about makes you feel that way.

                            (Though I suspect if you read the exchange back youíll realise youíve attempted a similar tone yourself throughout)

                            There are plenty of ways in which I criticise Sky (I have regularly been critical of SSN, Sky Football and F1) I just choose not to do it when I genuinely know that there is more to it than the ignorant and naive opinions often expressed on here.

                              Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                              Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 0:24:12, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                              Oh, and just on VAR by the way . . . would we have it without the level of technical production and number of cameras the likes of Sky can provide?

                              I don't really know but I reckon it would be a long way off without Sky's money in the game overall. What do you think?

                                Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 0:48:07, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                Youíre right in that the system would not be technically possible were it not for (in simple terms) the advancement of production values of broadcasters such as sky but definitely not just because of Skyís money in the game overall (I believe Australia were the first professional league to implement it but the system was developed in Holland)

                                VARís implementation and adoption is nothing to do with pay tv and therefore canít be seriously listed as a negative of pay TVís involvement in football. Unless of course youíre pursuing an agenda.

                                The review system in cricket (and both ruby codes) similarly was made possible by the massive technical innovations introduced by pay tv broadcasters but conversely those systems have been widely applauded as benefiting their respective games.

                                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                  Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 9:06:26, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                  Look, stop . . . I'm not just blaming Sky, okay? I've posted hundreds of times on here about the paucity of quality of the sporting governing bodies and I'm sure you know that. Even I can admit it's "gone on a bit" at times.

                                  Sky (or Pay TV) has been an enabler for a lot of things that have as I originally said been to the detriment of the sport's original fanbase which I have explained and I don't think we disagree on.

                                  It's also been an enabler for VAR, it wouldn't be here without it. Let's be clear, no-one told the clubs to take Sky's money, they chose to and have been dancing to that tune ever since.

                                  It's a long way from a black and white issue and I fully agree the cricket review system for example is very good, very impressive tech.

                                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                    Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 10:06:25, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                    Lol, you are clearly up for an argument!

                                    Read the overall post again, is it really suggesting VAR is Sky's fault?

                                    All I've said about VAR is that Sky/Pay TV have been an enabler and that I think we've agreed upon. That last statement was meant to confirm simply that I don't just blame Sky about anything, the sports, clubs, governing bodies made the decision to take the money. Just to be clear neither am I suggesting Sky is somehow blameless in things that, as I keep saying, have had a detrimental effect on the original footballing fan base because they certainly are not.

                                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                      Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 10:34:17, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                      You know what, Pay TV / sky being an enabler isnít all youíve said about VAR.

                                      But fine. Happy to leave it there.

                                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                      Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 9:20:46, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                      You tell me to stop then canít resist making yet another fallacious statement strangely implicating that VAR is the clubs dancing to the tune of skyís money.

                                      It simply isnít. It wasnít developed here and the FA / PL are a late adopter of it. No one at Sky applied any pressure on the governing bodies or the clubs to adopt it.

                                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                  Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 0:20:50, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                  I just read it back, I clearly haven't until towards the end.

                                  You may know "something" about these things but I doubt you'd claim to be any kind of authority and some of it is very clearly corporate-speak and doesn't fit the existing facts, eg are you seriously telling me the BBC could not find room for million-plus audiences along big periods of daytime TV? I don't think so.

                                  I've been involved in big business deals, bigger than the TV rights for Test matches that's for damn sure and I have plenty of experience of how the narrative that comes out is very different to what actually took place in the boardrooms.

                                  (Just to be clear, I'm not claiming to have lead such negotiations, I'd be much better off and probably on the 2020 board if I'd just done the blustering rather than the detail stuff

                                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                    Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 1:00:19, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                    Are you seriously telling me the BBC could not find room for million-plus audiences along big periods of daytime TV? I don't think so.



                                    Yes. Not only that, they literally havenít got the appetite to spend the money on the production costs (see The Open for an example which when it was last on the BBC garnered an audience of 4.5 million, and their diminishing presence and spend at Wimbledon)

                                    None of what Iíve said is ďcorporate speakĒ (thought its convenient for you to dismiss it as such) itís genuinely my own opinions based on 20 years experience and learning both outside of the pay tv environment and within it. Iíve argued at Sky myself for selected golf events to be offered free to air and am satisfied that I am able to make my own mind up about these issues.

                                    And yes, given what I know and the meetings Iíve sat in, I would claim to be some sort of authority on this - not least relative to most on here.

                                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                      Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 9:15:06, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                      Sorry, but we aren't going to agree here are we?

                                      I'm going to stand by my original statement that along with Pay TV comes a lot of stuff that was detrimental to the original sport's fanbase and I've explained clearly the kind of things that I have meant by that. On top of that less than half a million viewers saw some classic Ashes action which I am sure most would agree is a genuine shame.

                                      The fact that the BBC simply can't compete to produce the top level of coverage and now seem to be giving up trying to do so doesn't make it alright. This is what I mean by corporate speaking, you've framed it like a corporate exec speaking and trust me I've heard a lot of that.

                                      But at least Sky have done something good with the cricket World Cup Final, it has to be good for the game to do that.

                                        Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                        Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 9:31:29, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                        No weíre not but Itís nice to see you finally get it. Almost. All Iíve tried to do is highlight the complicated reality of the situation and suggest that peopleís views on the issue are tired, cliched and ultimately ignorant of this reality.

                                        Iím not sure Iíve anywhere said that the BBCís situation makes it ďalrightĒ, rather Iíve tried to explain why it is a massive factor in what has happened over the last 15 years.

                                        Not sure where you get your viewing figures for the ashes from, which series do they relate to? Home or Away? Sky? BT? If theyíre home ashes on Sky then theyíre certainly inaccurate.

                                          Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                          Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 10:11:32, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                          Okay, I'm not sure what you think it is that I have "finally" got but but hopefully when you read that post back you'll understand how incredibly arrogant you sound.

                                          It would definitely be a waste of both our time to continue.

                                          Maybe we should both just go about making better use of our time on something else?

                                            Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                            Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 10:31:09, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                            If trying to explain to you the reality of a complicated situation (whilst refuting with actual evidence your insistence that VAR is a valid example of Pay TV being responsible for negative things in football,) comes across to you as ďarroganceĒ then Iím truly sorry.

                                            Youíre the one whoís accused me of ďhubrisĒ and ďamateur dramaticsĒ amongst other things, so perhaps my tone has been influence by your insistence on dropping these insults into the discussion whilst trying to argue with me on a topic that you demonstrably donít have as much an understanding of as I do.

                                            So yes, letís both go do something else. Iím going to watch the cricket on Sky. For free.

                                              Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                              Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 14:21:38, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                              Read the thread back, you started with the bad tone, quite obviously.

                                              FFS you aren't even reading what I've said given your insistence that I am blaming VAR on Pay TV when what I actually said above is that the Pay TV tech is an ENABLER of it. Which it undoubtedly is.


                                                Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 15:11:09, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                Where did I start with the bad tone exactly?

                                                Yesterday you used VAR as an example of why pay tv has been bad for sports fans. VAR would have been introduced regardless and technically isnít as complicated as you seem to think and certainly not out of the technical capabilities of terrestrial production.

                                                Doubling down on your incorrect assertion by now claiming you said ďenablerĒ all along is just embarrassing.

                                                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                  Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 17:14:09, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                  It's like the intervening conversation never happened . . .

                                                  How many times do I have to explain it before you see the point I am actually making?

                                                  And you can't have it both ways, either the BBC are potless and can't afford proper coverage or they can afford to cover all the Premiership games to the standards VAR requires. Which is it?

                                                  Simple truth, without Pay TV, VAR doesn't happen for some time.

                                                  As for the tone probably about when you started calling me naÔve, ignorant and then disingenuous would cover it.


                                                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                    Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 17:53:08, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                    Oh good grief.

                                                    I really donít think you know what youíre talking about. How about you tell me what is technically required by VAR since you seem to be such an expert on it.

                                                    Saying that pay TV is an enabler of VAR (and that itís therefore a black mark against the Pay TV companies) is like suggesting Tim Berners Lee is an enabler of online jihadi videos.

                                                    And regarding the BBC, it really isnít the either / or that you suggest and to reduce it to that simple equation is naive (or just an attempt to argue for the sake of it.) I had you down as someone who could understand nuance and complexity but evidently not.

                                                    Where have I stated the BBC canít afford ďproper coverageĒ sufficient for VAR in premier league football?

                                                    I think whatís happened here is that weíre trying to talk cricket World Cup, Test matches and premier league football in one conversation as if the desire, cost value analysis and challenge of scheduling them on the BBC free to air is the same. Thatís my fault (I also tried to explain the situation by using Golf as an example which has no doubt clouded your understanding further)

                                                    I have, however, consistently argued itís a multi faceted situation involving rights costs, production costs and scheduling (the last of these is under appreciated in terms of its importance)

                                                    But nevertheless, Itís almost as if in your desperation to insist iím not reading or understanding what youíre saying, youíre forgetting to actually read my arguments.

                                                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                      Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 19:21:34, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                      Seriously????

                                                      One last time, yes I believe Pay TV is an ENABLER of VAR. It might not have been their idea but yes I don't believe the BBC could stage it across the entire Premier League and Internationals like Sky can.


                                                      Whether that's a "black mark" as you put it is open to debate but Sky brought the money, which brings the money men into football more than ever before. They want to protect their investment and that's a big driver for VAR like it or not. They don't want refereeing decision to cost them millions.


                                                      Just bear in mind that my original point until you homed in on the one thing in that list you could argue with (VAR) was that the involvement of Sky (whoever you want to blame) has been detrimental to the sport's existing fanbase in a number of ways.


                                                      You seem to have zeroed in on VAR because it's the one you can argue with where we have both agreed already more than once in these threads that it's not all Sky's fault but still you pick at it . . .


                                                      And now I'm done, your continuing attempts to suggest I don't understand the arguments you are putting forwards are puerile.


                                                      Anyway, be sure to let me know the difference between the UK viewing figures for the semi and the final won't you?

                                                        Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                        Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 19:47:46, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                        You brought VAR into this (as an example of the negative impact of Pay TV) and Iíve ďhoned in on itĒ as you say, by way of highlighting that youíre so apparently desperate to find negatives, that youíll even list things that really arenít anything to do with Pay Tv,l. And no matter how much you strive to gaslight me and revise what it was you meant, this just doesnít help your case.

                                                        I accept that you donít believe the BBC could stage it across the Premier League and Internationals, but seeing as you donít know how it works, perhaps you could be big enough to accept that other people do and therefore know (rather than believe) differently.

                                                        But thatís just not your style is it?

                                                        As for the original argument. I appreciate the feeling that sport on pay TV has had a detrimental affect on the (original?) fan base, and I certainly agree that one knock on effect has been the moving of games and the massive inconvenience this causes to fans who want to attend. Sky absolutely should do more about this (but what exactly is above my pay grade.)

                                                        As for puerile, iíll just refer you to your own trolling attempts above. Pot, kettle and all that.

                                                        Anyway, happy to let you know the difference in viewing figures. Theyíll be considerable of course, but then I expect youíll also take them at face value and wonít consider the many nuanced reasons for the difference.

                                                          Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                          Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 21:12:50, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                          FFS!

                                                          How many times????

                                                          Pay TV just enables it.

                                                          You took the first ####ing statement as a literal slight on Pay TV, I've clarified it God knows how many times and you still don't get it?

                                                          How can anyone argue against that "You said this, this what you meant" despite the fact I've told you exactly what is means time after time after time. I'm not desperate for anything and sorry old bean but I'm very familiar with how big corporations work, I do understand what you mean about the complications but you just seem to have swallowed the corporate line verbatim.


                                                          Seriously let's give it up, it's taken you this long to actually comment on the point I was making which you agree with to an extent.


                                                          I'm certainly not trolling but I have to wonder if you are so this time I mean it, seriously have a great evening.


                                                          And by the way, it's very obvious that you are proud of what you do and (I'm guessing) still very much enjoying it? That's a good place to be if true.

                                                            Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                            Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 22:14:07, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                            Iíll keep it simple.

                                                            Disagreeing with you because I am in possession of more facts and in a position to have greater understanding of sports broadcasting doesnít equate to swallowing the corporate line, or corporate speak or any other permutation you can find of those words as a way of suggesting the same thing. Ultimately itís just a convenient and ignorantly route one way for you to try to undermine the position of (relative) expertise I hold on this.

                                                            On VAR: TV enables it. Full stop. How do you not understand this???

                                                            You were trolling in your comment to 442. You know it.

                                                            Iím not sure what youíre trying to get at with the last paragraph, but unsurprisingly it comes across as a bit of a pathetic, passive aggressive attempt to be condescending, patronising and supercilious. So well done there.






                                                              Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                              Posted by Mahatma Gander on 11/7/2019, 22:38:12, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                              Good Lord!

                                                              That last paragraph just sums the whole thing up, you could not be more wrong if you tried, actually why don't you try? It would be interesting to see if you could get further away from the genuine sentiment it conveys. I certainly won't bother again.

                                                              But seriously, have you read back what you are writing? "That's your style"????? You seem to have come into this with so many pre-conceptions and with unshakeable belief that your opinion couldn't possibly be anything but perfect and yet at the end of the day we have a measure of agreement on the point that I was actually making.

                                                              And how you can complain about trolling after your last comment ref viewing figures it's hard to imagine. I think it's fair to say I'm one of the posters who most regularly questions the basis of statistics presented.

                                                              And really you're spot on that I don't understand the claim that the BBC can't manage to cover the Ryder Cup over a long weekend and yet they could cover thousands of hours of Premier League and International football every year.

                                                              Maybe you could explain it rather than just stating it?

                                                                Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                                Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 23:14:29, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                                Youíve been equally guilty of both not reading what youíve been writing, or bringing your own presumptions about me to this discourse.

                                                                I havenít claimed they could cover thousands of hours of football. I have suggested that if they did cover football (and indeed when they do) that they would do so to a level that would be sufficient to provide VAR capabilities. I think youíve misunderstood this point because it has become muddled with separate production costs and rights packaging within cricket and golf. The sports donít all cost or operate the same way.

                                                                So ok, Iíll explain the Ryder Cup / Golf thing.

                                                                The BBC lost the rights to the Ryder Cup in 1995 because of a couple of factors. Yes, one was the cost of rights, though this was actually a minor consideration comparatively. The main reason they couldnít keep their access to it was that ETP (the rights holders) packaged The Ryder Cup with their growing European Tour so that in order to show the Ryder Cup, a broadcaster had to commit to showing live coverage of the Tour. Obviously the BBC was unable to do this as 30-odd 4 day golf tournaments just didnít fit with their schedules.

                                                                But actually my example was about The Open. By 2015, the beeb has lost all but The Masters and The Open from their sports schedules. It had become clear that they were committed to Wimbledon and, with a finite and dwindling sports budget, that the increasing cost of providing not only domestic coverage of the Open, but also guaranteeing the world feed production (part of the agreement with the R&A) was not a priority. When the rights came up for 2016 they didnít bother bidding seriously. When they subsequently lost those rights they then even voluntarily gave up the remaining year they had left on the existing deal because they werenít prepared to pay for the broadcast.






                                                                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                                  Posted by Mahatma Gander on 12/7/2019, 20:37:20, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                                  No, I didn't misunderstand it. The only presumption I made about you was that you wouldn't consider yourself an authority on TV sporting rights etc. But I asked the question and it appears I was wrong about that.

                                                                  And my question was, how do you think the BBC could cover the EPL when it can't cover the golf, as you say they didn't even want to do their last year even without the extended rights.

                                                                  The purpose of the question was to suggest that without the resources of Pay TV you couldn't roll VAR out because they couldn't cover every match.

                                                                  And to be clear again, the suggestion is not that Pay TV is responsible for VAR just that the infrastructure it provides is a required enabler for it.

                                                                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                                    Posted by Journeyman on 12/7/2019, 21:01:42, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                                    Sky donít cover every match. Premier League Productions cover those that arenít Sky / BT games so I would imagine it would be the same for the Beeb.

                                                                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                                                      Posted by Mahatma Gander on 13/7/2019, 11:32:21, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                                                      Now, that, is a very good point .

                                            Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                                            Posted by Journeyman on 11/7/2019, 9:35:57, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                                            Oh, and itíll all be a moot point when England lose today as the final then wonít be FTA.

              Re: Cricket World Cup Final

              Posted by Exile on 10/7/2019, 15:44:23, in reply to "Cricket World Cup Final"

              Why are they doing this? I get the whole rationale from the wider sporting / ECB /ICC perspective, but thatís not Skyís problem. Solely a marketing/PR play or are you getting paid to share it?

                Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 16:40:06, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                I doubt that Sky are getting paid very much (if anything at all) to do it but I honestly donít know the specific details of the arrangement with C4.

                I do know that the possibility has been discussed for some time and that there are a number of combined reasons why the decision has been taken, amongst which are it being the right thing to do, the positive PR it might receive and the showcase it offers Sky Cricket to potential new customers ahead of the Ashes.










                  Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                  Posted by Farhat on 10/7/2019, 17:37:21, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                  The problem with this is that it's not Sky's presentation, it's ICC/Star, and it's pretty bad compared to Sky's very decent cricket coverage.

                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                    Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 17:54:32, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                    The presentation approach has varied across the tournament. For the big games Sky have had their own presentation and production team on site with additional guests (Warne for example) rather than doing the presentation remotely from Sky Studios.

                    True, itsís a blend of (predominantly) Starís and Skyís comms teams on the World Feed but that isnít what I meant by presentation.

                    The final will be one of these ďbig gamesĒ

                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                    Posted by hatters1988 on 10/7/2019, 16:49:41, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                    And benefits those of us going to work Sunday afternoon that don't have sky :-)

                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                    Posted by J Block on 10/7/2019, 15:45:45, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                    OK

                    Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                    Posted by West Durham Hatter on 10/7/2019, 15:25:35, in reply to "Cricket World Cup Final"

                    While I like the fact it'll be F.T.A ,if we beat the convicts,channel 4's coverage has so far been awful.

                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                      Posted by Journeyman on 10/7/2019, 15:29:45, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                      It wonít be channel 4ís coverage. It will be Skyís presentation of the world feed.

                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                      Posted by bigmeuprudeboy on 10/7/2019, 15:23:53, in reply to "Cricket World Cup Final"

                      That's BIG of them...

                      Re: Cricket World Cup Final

                      Posted by 4-4-2 on 10/7/2019, 15:02:31, in reply to "Cricket World Cup Final"

                      Good. Wouldn't want an audience of a few hundred thousand

                        Clashes with Channel 4's only live Formula 1 race this season at Silverstone

                        Posted by Howzatter on 10/7/2019, 17:28:19, in reply to "Re: Cricket World Cup Final"

                        Good job you said More 4 as an option.

                    [ Luton Outlaws - The Avenue of Evil ]

                    DISCLAIMER

                    The posts made on this board are the opinions of the people posting them and do not always reflect the opinion of the board administration.

                    Luton Outlaws is a totally independent forum, paid for and run by supporters of Luton Town and is not associated with Luton Town Football Club, lutontown.co.uk, lutonfc.com, Loyal Luton Supporters Club, Trust in Luton, Luton Town Supporters Club or anyone else for that matter and is declared a 100% Tombola Free Zone.

                      Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any other content posted on it. Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.

                      What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks. If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place. Enjoy. Admin contact - dilligaf.outlaws@gmail.com.

                    eXTReMe Tracker