No free-to-air TV live cricket until 2014.

[The Large One]

Test match tickets this season were £50 A DAY for the NZ test and £85 A DAY for South Africa.

Thats up to £340 to see the first four days..............

As opposed to £40 a month to watch it on Sky

So which offers better value for money?

BBC / Ch4

 

[sten_super]

Test match tickets this season were £50 A DAY for the NZ test and £85 A DAY for South Africa.

Thats up to £340 to see the first four days..............

As opposed to £40 a month to watch it on Sky

So which offers better value for money?

Good plucking of figures out the air. I got tickets for NZ at Lords for £40 each, and SA at the Oval next weekend for £50.

However, I understand your point. I don't think anyone can argue there's more value for money going to watch it live. However, having to pay for either option presents a barrier to those on limited budgets wanting to watch cricket; whereas when it was on C4 a few years ago everyone could watch it. I'm sure, as others have already said, that if the 2005 Ashes happened now, the country would not get as excited by it, because the majority (even those interested in cricket) would not be able to watch it. The 2005 Ashes was so inclusive because people heard about it and could simply turn on the TV and see it unfolding before them. There's nowhere near the same level of accessibility if it's on Sky Sports.

 

[Storer68]

.

If it was free to watch on terrestrial TV, more kids may like it and want to start playing, and that can only be a good thing for the sport.

The more people you deny watching it, the less people you get trying their hand at the sport.
IQUOTE]


Satellite is now in 9.3 million UK homes
Hardly being denied to people

 

[sten_super]

Satellite is now in 9.3 million UK homes
Hardly being denied to people

There are 25.8 million homes in the UK, meaning that almost 2/3rds are without satellite. And that's saying nothing about how many people that have satellite have Sky Sports (I would wager 50% at an absolute maximum, probably significantly less).

 

[Storer68]

Good plucking of figures out the air. I got tickets for NZ at Lords for £40 each, and SA at the Oval next weekend for £50.

QUOTE]
#
Hardley out of thin air. the tickets are right in front of me and here is the price for a one day match v South Africa at lords

Grand Stand Upper Tier (Adult Ticket) - 31 August
For a detailed description of the seating available in this stand, please see the relevant page in the PDF version of the Ticket Application Brochure on the main website.

PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE NO JUVENILE TICKETS IN THIS AREA


Price: £70.00

 

[Storer68]

There are 25.8 million homes in the UK, meaning that almost 2/3rds are without satellite. And that's saying nothing about how many people that have satellite have Sky Sports (I would wager 50% at an absolute maximum, probably significantly less).

but still not being denied to anyone.

If they want it they can get it

It might expensive for some but then so is an Albion match

 

[CHAPPERS]

I'm going to the Oval on Friday for 40 quid. Though drink will probably double that price.


You point still stands though.

 

[sten_super]

Good plucking of figures out the air. I got tickets for NZ at Lords for £40 each, and SA at the Oval next weekend for £50.

QUOTE]
#
Hardley out of thin air. the tickets are right in front of me and here is the price for a one day match v South Africa at lords

Grand Stand Upper Tier (Adult Ticket) - 31 August
For a detailed description of the seating available in this stand, please see the relevant page in the PDF version of the Ticket Application Brochure on the main website.

PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE NO JUVENILE TICKETS IN THIS AREA


Price: £70.00

But that's still £15 less than you stated originally; you used inflated prices to emphasise the point. It's no good taking the cheapest version of costs for the TV subscription and comparing them against anything other than the cheapest cost of going to the live game. If you want to talk about £40 TV subscription, well that's the same cost (or in the case of SA, £10 cheaper than) going to see a day of test match cricket; not almost half the price, which was your starting point.

but still not being denied to anyone.

If they want it they can get it

It might expensive for some but then so is an Albion match

I'm not sure where you've picked up this idea of comparing live sport to the televised version; everyone has agreed with you there. The starting point of this thread was comparing sport on Sky to sport on terrestrial. And comparing costs of £40 a month for Sky to costs of £0 if it was on terrestrial.

 

[Storer68]

1st npower test Match England v South Africa
Sat Jul 12This event has finished
Lord's, St John's Wood Rd, NW8 8HN

Details
Lord's, St John's Wood Rd, NW8 8HN
020 7432 1000
Top Stories - News - Lord's
Category: Cricket
Times: Thur-Mon, 11am
Price: Thur-Sun: £75-£80 ); (£24 concessions)admission prices on Mon are dependent on the state of play
Tube: St Johns Wood
Add your comment to this

 

[sten_super]

*sigh* no really I can't be bothered.

Can we move on and talk about something relevant to the discussion?

 

[Billy the Fish]

I looked into getting a ticket for the SA lords test and I'm pretty sure there were some available for £65. My tickets for the oval are £54 a day.

 

[Tooting Gull]

This row is about to get nasty. Probably considering attack is the best form of defence, the ECB have laid into the BBC for not bidding, saying they must "answer to the viewers" citing the £150m put into getting F1 back - a sport that no one actually takes part in - while there has been an angry response from a furious Beeb.

Slightly spurious F1 argument, because it IS a big TV sport. But there is a serious debate to be had about public sector investment in TV sports rights.

 

[Brovion]

This row is about to get nasty. Probably considering attack is the best form of defence, the ECB have laid into the BBC for not bidding, saying they must "answer to the viewers" citing the £150m put into getting F1 back - a sport that no one actually takes part in - while there has been an angry response from a furious Beeb.

Slightly spurious F1 argument, because it IS a big TV sport. But there is a serious debate to be had about public sector investment in TV sports rights.

I have no interest in Formula One - but isn't it already on free-to-air? (ITV?) In which case I 'sort of' support the ECB. Slightly mischeviously I ask: surely the BBC should concentrate on getting back the subscription sports as opposed to bidding against their fellow terrestrial broadcaster?

 

[Billy the Fish]

The BBC is run by women and gays, they have no real interest in sport anymore.

 

[Icy Gull]

I have no interest in Formula One - but isn't it already on free-to-air? (ITV?) In which case I 'sort of' support the ECB. Slightly mischeviously I ask: surely the BBC should concentrate on getting back the subscription sports as opposed to bidding against their fellow terrestrial broadcaster?

As someone who has an interest in F1 I'd much rather lose cricket to Sky than the BBC get the cricket and lose F1 to Sky.

It sounds like you are assuming pay to view channels didn't want F1 and so the BBC didn't need to bid ot just leave it with ITV?

 

[Clapham Old Mug]

Three thoughts:
1. Giles Clarke was accused of accepting the Sky bid last time around without going back to the BBC who had a bit more to offer. Don't know if it's true, but people said he swooned when he say the Sky offer and lost control of his faculties...
2. The BBC now has BBC3 and 4 to show the cricket on without interrupting their normal schedules.
3. Cricket in Holland and Denmark has been damaged now the locals can't watch the BBC coverage any more. So what, you may say - but it was turning into quite a popular game but has now lost impetus.

 

[Brovion]

As someone who has an interest in F1 I'd much rather lose cricket to Sky than the BBC get the cricket and lose F1 to Sky.

It sounds like you are assuming pay to view channels didn't want F1 and so the BBC didn't need to bid ot just leave it with ITV?

No, I wasn't making an assumption either way; I was just imagining the sort of question Jeremy Paxman might ask the Head of BBC Sport - why try and deprive ITV of a sport? Why not bid against Sky for one of theirs? The actual sports involved are irrelevant. Not being an F1 fan I just wasn't sure which channel had it.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I don't think that the ECB give a monkeys about the game being widely played. I think they gave up on that a long time ago. As long as it is played in the private schools they will have players coming through. They encourage the Clubs to do a bit - but not that much. Take the Sky money - keep their current players happy and themselves in clover.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Personaly Iliked the old BBC coverage (Laker, West, Lewis etc) but by the time the BBC lost the contract they had got lazy, sloppy and frankly tedious (one camera angle and one end). C4/Sky onwards have revolutionised the actual camera and technical work, although most of the commentators have become exceedingly tedious - just because you played it doesn't make you interesting to listen to (Bob Willis was atrocious, and Atherton/Hussain from the little I have seen of them don't try very hard to stop me reaching for the volume control either). The radio is better for the commentary although Blofeld seems to be getting increasingly senile.

However I resent having to pay for the satellite coverage, so don't bother.

I don't think the premier league analogy holds up unless Sky started showing regular County cricket as well (and not just imitation baseball 2020 stuff), and the rest of Murdoch's empire put as much into promoting cricket as a whole as it does to the Premiershit.

 

[Questions]

How to turn the national summer sport into a minority sport for the sake of a quick buck - truly pathetic, and confirming my long-held suspicion that cricket is a brilliant sport adminstered by utter cretins. This has NOTHING to do with the quality of the coverage: I'd settle for a latter day Tony Lewis or Peter West on a pavilion roof somewhere for the sake of being able to watch it without contributing more money to Rupert Murdoch. Botham's Ashes, the 2005 Ashes, even the 1984 "blackwash" - these will never be repeated as national, epochal events while it's being watched by a minority. Truly shameful.

What utter bollox that is. If you are a fan you will subscribe to Sky and enjoy the new levels they have taken cricket coverage to, as they have with football, golf and many other sports.
Channel 4 was crap - keep nipping off every 5 minutes to see if John Mcruick has any gurning ****s behind him at Wetherby. Sky is the best thing to happen to sport on tv in this country and if you cannot afford the 20 quid a month then God bless you, me old little pauper.