Seriously? Are the BBC really that rubbish now?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/31/sky-sports-open-rights-bbc

Way to go you utter cretins! That'll really increase the sport's participation rates won't it?
What a bunch of complete bankers. Willing to pay >£200m for Match of F-ing Day but can't find £10m for the Open? **** off!

Open for business and definitely for sale . . . . . seems to be the mantra of Britain these days. Shame.

I can completely understand the decision. Sky deserve it unfortunately. They've put there money where there mouth is. If it wasnt for them there would be no coverage of most European tour or Pga tour events. Its the BBCs own fault.

Oh, I agree it's the BBC's fault. It's Poopie though that the R&A (like the MCC) seem to think the best thing is to take the short-term/sighted buck. According to Wiki (not the best maybe, but I can't be bothered to search harder), Sky Sports 1 and 2, combined, account for less than 2% of the total viewing share in Britain and it's been on the decline.
Way to go BBC! Just like the cricket, this'll cause even more of a decrease in people watching (and presumably expressing an interest in) golf.

The beeb cannot get involved in a bidding war they will get smashed no matter what. I think this is a bad decision by the R&A. The sport is struggling with participation down massively. I saw something that stated it had dropped 800,000 in 6 years or so. Putting the biggest British event behind a £50 pm paywall is not going to help.

Good decision IMO. I know not everyone can get Sky Sports but their coverage is far superior. I used to have some sympathy with the BBC in the pre-digital age when they only had two channels, but now with digital channels they could have saturation coverage of the best event in the calendar year - and they don't.

Typically in the Open the first tee time is around 7am but BBC don't come on air until around 9am. They cover it from 9am to around 8pm which to non-golf fans is excessive, but then at 8pm they go off air and the "highlights" are then shown sometime around midnight.

For the Thursday and Friday in particular, those of us that work Mon-Fri get very little coverage unless we want to burn the midnight oil

Sky will be able to go on air at around 6:30am with the build-up and then cover till the last shot is played - then show full highlights in the evening. The BBC *could* do that now with the extra digital channels, but for some reason they choose not to

I'm all for it - and hopefully it will see the dreadful Peter Allis into retirement. OK not all of the Sky pundits are great but Allis is about 15 years past his sell-by date

Roll in all the adverts on sky and they will probably show less then the beeb. I would also be surprised if they show from start to finish anyway. But surely the issue isn't coverage it's just bad for golf in general.

Let's not get carried away - the source seems to be the dm, so it's probably utter Love sacks.

The Beeb need to do a deal with sky for highlights of ALL majors. They arranged something that worked for the Ryder cup. Sky coverage is superior to bbc, and they have all the staff and equipment they use week in week out. Not sensible for bbc to compete with that, should just agree a fee for the highlights.

R&A and ET etc should insist that for Sky to have exclusive live coverage there must be a free to air highlights package which bbc, channel 4 etc can bid for.

I don't blame Sky, but golf governing bodies and to some extent bbc need to take responsibility for promoting golf widely.

I don't understand the reluctance to subscribe to Sky if you are a fan of golf. I have been a subscriber since 1996 (I think) and consider it well worth the money - especially as I also watch cricket, F1 and rugby, not to mention other motorsports on Motors TV. I agree with Davie about the BBC coverage, especially for those of us who work - the highlights are dreadful and ehy can't they start coverage earlier? I'm all in favour of the move. Bring it on!

Whether you prefer sky or bbc is the true marker of whether you are a person of taste and decency. The bbc fan having the upper hand of course.


Putting my sensible hat on, it is probably going to be bad for the popularity of golf to have none of its major events on free to air UK tv. Is it not the case that crickets popularity has suffered badly since withdrawing from free to air TV?

LadyPutt wrote:I don't understand the reluctance to subscribe to Sky if you are a fan of golf. I have been a subscriber since 1996 (I think) and consider it well worth the money - especially as I also watch cricket, F1 and rugby, not to mention other motorsports on Motors TV. I agree with Davie about the BBC coverage, especially for those of us who work - the highlights are dreadful and ehy can't they start coverage earlier? I'm all in favour of the move. Bring it on!

Ah yes. ~£70 p.m. for the package inc. the Sports channels isn't it? Well worth it - not. Sorry. Sky Sports have a p!ss poor market %. I don't blame Sky at all. It's the BBC (the fee wasn't that high, apparently) and definitely the R&A I want to kill and I'm not even a big golf watching fan.

McLaren wrote:...Putting my sensible hat on, it is probably going to be bad for the popularity of golf to have none of its major events on free to air UK tv.  Is it not the case that crickets popularity has suffered badly since withdrawing from free to air TV?

I don't have the evidence to hand but I think you're right re. the popularity of cricket since it moved to Sky. The MCC had a golden opportunity after the 2005 Ashes but they p!ssed it away. Same as the R&A have now done with the Open.

I'll be sorry if the Open does go to Sky.

I know I'll be in the minority, but I think Sky's coverage of anything except football is dreadful - simply because of the adverts. Football matches have two lots of 45 minutes without any ads. Try to watch golf though and an ad break every 10 minutes - showing the same old ads over and and over - is hard work. For a four day championship, it will be way beyond my patience.

Oh, and add in a bunch of dull and tedious commentators sitting in lounge suits getting all hyperbolic about average golf, and it's time to hit the off button.

I really don't understand the R&A in this case. The prize money for the Open is enough already. I'll accept the stratospheric admission prices in return for being able to watch the final day on the BBC. I guess there won't be any reduction in admission prices when Sky shove a few more millions into the R&A's hands.

All this at a time when golf really needs to promote itself better - sticking the Open on Sky is administering the last rites I fear.

George1507 wrote:...I know I'll be in the minority, but I think Sky's coverage of anything except football is dreadful - simply because of the adverts....

I'm in the minority as well it would seem then. I loath many of the Sky Sports anchors as well. Awful. A retirement home for ex-players, many of whom offer no insight and talk twaddle much of the time.

Does anybody watch the adverts though?...surely we all just fast-forward through them!

As I said above the sky vs bbc debate is basically an intellectual/political divide.

Not really Mac. You've got to be pretty reactionary to prefer BBC, or just tight.

As blue said, adverts are no longer a problem.

If you are watching live, how can you fast forward through the ads?

And if you aren't, then the comments about the BBC not starting their coverage of the Open until 9.00am don't hold water. If the coverage started at 7.00am and finished at 9.00pm on sky, you wouldn't be able to start watching it until midday or you'll catch up with real time.

How can anyone with a brain prefer watching an event on Sky if it's on BBC as well? Sky's audience is virtually zero if the BBC covers the event as well.

George1507 wrote:
I'll accept the stratospheric admission prices in return for being able to watch the final day on the BBC. I guess there won't be any reduction in admission prices when Sky shove a few more millions into the R&A's hands.

George, do you genuinely consider the admission prices to be so high? £60 when I went to RSG a few years ago, £70 at St Andrews this year. I think that's good value to see a major competition with the best golfers on the planet from sunrise to sunset.

It compares favourably with Wimbledon, a test match at Lord's, etc. And great value compared to a premier league match which is done in 90 minutes.

raycastleunited wrote:Not really Mac. You've got to be pretty reactionary to prefer BBC, or just tight.

As blue said, adverts are no longer a problem.

How can you fast-forward through ads if watching live???? As for "reactionary" or "tightwad" .

Yes, I do think it's too much. Crowds at Muirfield, Lytham, and Turnberry were all down.

For a lot of people, visiting an Open means travelling and staying overnight somewhere too. It's not just the £70 admission.

Whatever happened to the notion that there were certain "Crown Jewels" of the British sporting calendar that would be carried on the BBC?
There are staunch supporters of the R&A on this Board but, from 3,000 miles away, it's difficult to see what they're doing to invest in, and grow, golf in Britain.
If anyone thinks mega-million pound deals with commercial TV will do anything other than line the pockets of the buffers that run the R&A, they're sadly deluded. Slumbers sleeping in Dawson's footsteps, all the way to his bank.

There's a lot of talk here of Sky versus the BBC and which is best for golf, but I'm not sure that's really the issue. If the assertion is that the future of golf is young people, then we should be more concerned about the medium rather than which TV channel covers it best (and as for a comparison of which commentators are best, both sets are very likely to the majority of younger people off). More and more young people don't bother that much with TV and instead get their content on-line. I think that's where the hearts and minds of future sports people will be won and lost.

However, even given that, I'm not convinced any coverage is effective without putting in place effective, convenient and open opportunities for participation. It's not really practical to play golf in the back garden or the local park, so it would seem the best investment for the "future" of the sport should be to get local facilities back - most of which are being lost at the public/local council level due to funding cuts. An R&A subsidy for public pitch&putt, par 3 courses and 6 hole layouts?

George - I'll give you the point on travel, as many of the venues on the rota are very remote. Even St Andrews is incredibly inaccessible for a major sporting venue.

However, £70 is the going rate these days for this kind of thing. You'd pay more to see the FA Cup final, Wimbledon etc, and it compares favourably with other entertainment like glastonbury, top level concerts, opera, ballet and theatre.

navyblueshorts wrote:
Ah yes. ~£70 p.m. for the package inc. the Sports channels isn't it? Well worth it - not.

I pay around £70 p.m for the basic TV package, plus sports, plus very high speed cable internet and home phone .. not too bad all things considered for all the live football, golf and other sports I watch

Yes, adverts are annoying, but you soon learn to tune them out and as others have said if watching recording or "delayed live" they are easy to skip

I've mentioned before that the Sky "B" team of commentators is far superior to the "A" team .. but either is still preferable to Alliss, Brown and Torrance.

navyblueshorts wrote:A retirement home for ex-players, many of whom offer no insight and talk twaddle much of the time

A perfect description of BBC in my opinion

Bob I very much agree with your point on the medium being more important than the commentators. The BBC have been pretty good at this in recent years, providing lots of Open highights, clips of key shots, funny moments, etc on the BBC website. Making "bitesize" content freely available (and easy to share) is a great way to retain and promote interest in golf more widely, especially to the casual or emerging fan. Sky doesn't really have much incentive to do this.

I don't find the adverts annoying any more, even when I'm not able to fast forward them, I'm able to ignore them and focus on something else for a few minutes. In fact I have no idea what the adverts are these days.


Oh by the way, Darren sent me.

Bit late to it so comments probably don't fit with where it's gone but...

To the uninitiated, golf is dull to watch.

The Open, with it's small white ball on oft light brown surfaces of sun-burned fairway or "green" (or flying through a light sky with white clouds) is not a televisual treat for the masses. In these cases, it can be difficult to watch.

It is incongruent with the BBC's sporting output and probably makes no sense for them to continue with it anyway. For Sky, it complements the golfing output, in fact it just about completes it.

Inevitability 1 - Minority of golf enthusiasts with no Sky 0

Sky will bring out monty if they have the open. And he is god awful and worse then anyone on the beeb. The beeb have ken on the course. Which I like. Neither teams have exceptional commentators. But it's easier to bash the beeb, when the coverage they have is usually very good, and I doubt sky will do it better. We all sit at work with the coverage online surely?

Andrew cotter may be the finest sports commentator in the UK.

That's very true. In fact I'm thinking that the beeb have a better team then sky. Though alliss splits opinion. I do miss wayne gradys death stare.

Davie wrote:...

navyblueshorts wrote:A retirement home for ex-players, many of whom offer no insight and talk twaddle much of the time

A perfect description of BBC in my opinion

True and I certainly have no time for Torrance or, increasingly, Alliss. Brown's a bit quirky but I think he's relatively informative. I wasn't just referring to Sky's golf team - it's across the board and most are utter horse.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Davie wrote:...

navyblueshorts wrote:A retirement home for ex-players, many of whom offer no insight and talk twaddle much of the time

A perfect description of BBC in my opinion

True and I certainly have no time for Torrance or, increasingly, Alliss. Brown's a bit quirky but I think he's relatively informative. I wasn't just referring to Sky's golf team - it's across the board and most are utter horse.

You can say the same across the board for BBC's "sports" team, what little of it is left. MOTD... when has Shearer ever opened his mouth and added any value? SKY on the other hand have Neville and Carragher who are full of insight.

As for golf, most people agree Roe is annoying, but I think Radar brings tremendous insight. Dougherty has been a good addition so far, Harmon as well (although he needs to stop staring awkwardly at the camera).

BBC I like Ken on the course, but Alliss should have retired 10 years ago. Bit of an institution, but in recent years he has become nothing more than a bumbling old fool, he's not really relevant any more. The people who love his stories of tea in the club house with the major are the kind of people who think there should be more repeats of Dad's Army on tv.

McGinley was pretty annoying when Sky had him on last year. Hopefully he's history.

BBC pundits in a nutshell:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2VYndflyx2Y

Rob Lee, Simon Holmes, Denis Pugh, Radar, Boxy, Sarah Stirk, Coulthard - all good value, but essentially the Sky B team .. keep Butch, ditch Livingstone, Murray and Critchley and it's a pretty good lineup. I don't find anyone on BBC coverage compelling. Ken is possibly the most informed but he irritates me and reminds me too much of Peter Snow/Magnus Pike with the eccentric arm waving

In answer to the original question...yep sorry to say they are.
Auntie Beeb has had zero ambition and zero vision on how to move with the times in it's golf coverage.

It's a shame because the Open...infact all the Majors, should be free to air for the sake of encouraging participation in the game but seriously, in what way has BBC coverage moved forward in it's coverage of the Open in the last 50 years (apart from the advent of colour television!!). There is also a void of decent, knowledgeable and insightful golf journalism within the BBC as well (just look at the golf section of the BBC Sport website). On the TV coverage Brown tries, bless him but that's about it.

Sky on the other hand (much as I detest how they've skewed footballs finances) have put their golf coverage in a different league. Between informed guests and the simulator in the studio, they are light years ahead. The one thing I'd like to see them do next is get their own PGATour coverage rather than relying on NBC or CBS or whoever's feeds. The Yank commentators are cringeworthy and hopelessly fixated on American players (not entirely unexpected but irritating all the same). One other thing for Sky...bring back Dido :-)

JAS wrote:..... One other thing for Sky...bring back Dido :-)

If you mean by "Dido" the very capable (and more) Di Dougherty than I ditto that

JAS wrote:In answer to the original question...yep sorry to say they are.
Auntie Beeb has had zero ambition and zero vision on how to move with the times in it's golf coverage.

No, the BBC just doesn't have the money to compete with Sky, that's all.

Personally, I don't want simulators and blokes in lounge suits banging on and on. I'm happy just to watch the golf. I REALLY don't want any adverts either.

Some of the Sky commentators are just plain annoying - Mark Roe is annoying and creepy, the bloke with the simulator thing offering swing tips is annoying and dull, and Butch Harmon reminds me of Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle - where exactly is he looking? Bruce Critchley? "oh he'll be annoyed missing from 4 feet. Pros just hate missing from short range like that". Oh really? Bruce Critchley - specialist subject - stating the bleedin' obvious.

If the Open goes to Sky, then so be it, I'll be disappointed, but that's life I suppose. I think there will be a longer term effect of reducing interest in golf at a time when golf needs all the support it can get. Maybe there's a new Arnold Palmer just about to burst on the scene to captivate us all. I hope so.

Jas

Are you easily impressed?

"Between informed guests and the simulator in the studio, they are light years ahead"

They put a sim in the studio - which has 90's computer graphics by the way - and you anoint sky light years ahead?

McLaren wrote:Jas

Are you easily impressed?

"Between informed guests and the simulator in the studio, they are light years ahead"

They put a sim in the studio - which has 90's computer graphics by the way -  and you anoint sky light years ahead?

How do you know this? I thought you were too intellectual to ever watch Sky?

Ray, at any point did I say what side of the divide I fall?

 fair play.

Although I'm sure you've stated previously that you don't have Sky...

George1507 wrote:

JAS wrote:In answer to the original question...yep sorry to say they are.
Auntie Beeb has had zero ambition and zero vision on how to move with the times in it's golf coverage.

No, the BBC just doesn't have the money to compete with Sky, that's all.

Personally, I don't want simulators and blokes in lounge suits banging on and on. I'm happy just to watch the golf. I REALLY don't want any adverts either.

Some of the Sky commentators are just plain annoying - Mark Roe is annoying and creepy, the bloke with the simulator thing offering swing tips is annoying and dull, and Butch Harmon reminds me of Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle - where exactly is he looking? Bruce Critchley? "oh he'll be annoyed missing from 4 feet. Pros just hate missing from short range like that". Oh really? Bruce Critchley - specialist subject - stating the bleedin' obvious.

If the Open goes to Sky, then so be it, I'll be disappointed, but that's life I suppose. I think there will be a longer term effect of reducing interest in golf at a time when golf needs all the support it can get. Maybe there's a new Arnold Palmer just about to burst on the scene to captivate us all. I hope so.

Well said. Golf commentary really shows up the useless cr@p that's around as there's so much space to fill with words - dull, banal words for the most part. For me, Sky do it in a way that's, for the most part, cringe-worthy, needlessly graphics-filled and a bit like The Sun does newspapers. Add in the advertisements and it's not something I think's worth the price.
Pity about the Open, Masters etc etc but that's the short-sighted nature of those in charge of the game it would seem. Fortunately, I'd rather go out and play than watch.

navyblueshorts wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/31/sky-sports-open-rights-bbc

Way to go you utter cretins! That'll really increase the sport's participation rates won't it?
What a bunch of complete bankers. Willing to pay >£200m for Match of F-ing Day but can't find £10m for the Open? **** off!

The BBC are not to blame. The R&A are the people who should get the blame. In a time when golf participation is drastically falling, they have virtually sold their soul.

I have seen their argument too many times before from the likes of football and basketball that the increased revenue will be put into grassroots etc and to build participation. That simply doesn't work if people are not interested in the sport. The easiest and most effective way to get people playing any sport is get them watching the sport. Just look at the increase in cricket after the 2005 Ashes, rugby after the 2003 World Cup or sport in general after the 2012 Olympics. A survey shown that people are 28% more likely to take up a sport after seeing it on tv and 63% more likely if that actually attend the sport.

I have a few pitch and putts around were I live and after The Masters or The Open these courses are packed out. That doesn't happen when the Ryder Cup is on. It's the same with local tennis courts after Wimbledon and you even see more people playing darts in early January in pubs.

navyblueshorts wrote:What a bunch of complete bankers. Willing to pay >£200m for Match of F-ing Day but can't find £10m for the Open? **** off!

I agree that paying £200m for MOTD is a joke when they were the only bidder but it's all 'closed bids'. Perhaps the BBC feel golf isn't of massive appeal and that would be backed up by falling participation rates.

Davie wrote:Good decision IMO. I know not everyone can get Sky Sports but their coverage is far superior. I used to have some sympathy with the BBC in the pre-digital age when they only had two channels, but now with digital channels they could have saturation coverage of the best event in the calendar year - and they don't.

There is no doubt Sky provide excellent coverage. I can never understand why the likes of the R&A and MCC can't make deals with Sky or BT Sport but insist that they show certain events The Open, Ashes etc free-to-view?

Why should free-to-air mean terrestrial? Why can't Sky and BT Sport show free-to-air events? They have channels on all platforms and have had free weekends in the past. Sky do it somewhat with the formula 1.

raycastleunited wrote:The Beeb need to do a deal with sky for highlights of ALL majors.

I don't blame Sky, but golf governing bodies and to some extent bbc need to take responsibility for promoting golf widely.

An highlights package would be slightly better though don't know how much appeal it would have in an age of instant media coverage. If people can't watch on BBC I don't see mass flooding to Sky Sports. If anyone is that interested in watching there will/ are numerous online sites streaming sports.

Don't see why Sky or the BBC should get any blame. It's an auction after all. The R&A has to decide what is best and they think money over 'advertising'.

kwinigolfer wrote:Whatever happened to the notion that there were certain "Crown Jewels" of the British sporting calendar that would be carried on the BBC?

Have been saying for ages that the Government should expand the 'Crown Jewels' events and make them free-to-air and not necessarily terrestrial. What is stopping Sky or BT Sport showing free-to-air sports events?[/quote]

sportform

I agree, the R and A should take most of the blame for this. They didn't have to chase the money and could have decided to stick with free to air TV regardless of what sky offered in order to keep the game in the publics mind.

Here is the argument of the BBC:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/87d418f3-f728-4688-8dd2-2009ee78a512

Was the open ever Cat A on this list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events

McLaren wrote:Jas

Are you easily impressed?

"Between informed guests and the simulator in the studio, they are light years ahead"

They put a sim in the studio - which has 90's computer graphics by the way -  and you anoint sky light years ahead?

No I'm not particularly easily impressed. I did say there are things about the Sky coverage that irritate...and that's before even mentioning adverts. I just think they put a bit more thought into golf coverage and besides they cover 2 tour's week in week out and so they should be better than the poor old Beeb with their twice a year effort (3 times in a Ryder Cup year). The Beeb really don't give a Poopie about golf, I know they clearly have a much smaller budget than Sky but if they cared passionately about it they'd make more of an effort, they don't and so they are losing one of their "crown Jewels"

Setting aside the whole Sky is pay-for TV and we're all already paying a fee to the BBC...

I find the Sky coverage of the European Tour to be very good (and to my mind good value). They cover more or less every event even in the far flung places, and the ratio of ads and cr@p talking to actual golf is pretty good until near the end of each day when there are not that many matches left out on the course.

Commentators and pundits - well one man's meat and all that, but I don't see a vast difference. Last year I toggled between the BBC and Sky coverage of the Open and really didn't see anything to choose between them in terms of quality of the broadcast. Where Sky have ads, the Beeb seemed to take nearly the same amount of time out for studio debate, colour pieces and replay/updates.

The clear difference is that Sky Sports is a dedicated channel and on the Beeb, sport has to compete with all the other demands on funds. Personally I also think the Beeb is in a worse position that it could have been due to poor management and interference, but I don't think it could ever have taken on Sky effectively for sport like the Open.