Seriously? Are the BBC really that rubbish now?

First topic message reminder :

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!

Sky and the bcc also have to please a very different demographic. Sky is catering for a subset of mondeo man who is an avid golf fan whereas the bbc must please a more educated set of people who may only watch the open and no other golf. Given this, it is no surprise that each provider ends up with a different show. Maybe there is no best broadcaster for golf just the one that better fits your taste?

Don't over analyse mac. It's sport, not the arty farty hour. If you want to watch the Open, and sky was the only choice, I don't think even the cultural elite like yourself would opt out.

McLaren wrote:Sky and the bcc also have to please a very different demographic.  Sky is catering for a subset of mondeo man who is an avid golf fan whereas the bbc must please a more educated set of people who may only watch the open and no other golf.  Given this, it is no surprise that each provider ends up with a different show.  Maybe there is no best broadcaster for golf just the one that better fits your taste?

Alternatively...

Sky and the bcc also have to please a very different demographic.  Sky is catering for to a subset of mondeo man who is an avid golf fans whereas the bbc must please a more educated set of people who may CAN only watch the open and no other golf (because they're too miserable to get Sky).  Given this, it is no surprise that each provider ends up with a different show.  Maybe there is no best broadcaster for golf just the one that better fits your taste?

Who caters to the upper deck bus passengers?

McLaren wrote:Sky and the bcc also have to please a very different demographic.  Sky is catering for a subset of mondeo man who is an avid golf fan whereas the bbc must please a more educated set of people who may only watch the open and no other golf.  Given this, it is no surprise that each provider ends up with a different show.  Maybe there is no best broadcaster for golf just the one that better fits your taste?

such a wind up merchant

BBC generally aims for the lowest common denominator. What would I have seen if I had switched to BBC2 on Sunday morning when I was watching the conculsion of the golf in Dubai? Probably repeats of bargain hunt, homes under the hammer and other such cheap to make tv.

Some comments above that the BBC can't compete, it's not in their interest etc. Well doesn't the BBC have a non commercial role to provide programmes "for the greater good"? I would suggest that golf and the Open is a small but valuable slice of British culture.

I wonder what state UK golf will be in come 2022. Apparently a lot of pros like Nick Faldo and Lee Westwood started playing because they saw golf on tv. That's much less likely to happen now.

Personally, I hope the R&A comes back to the BBC in 2022, but perhaps I shouldn't get my hopes up. It's a great shame really.

15m per year. So over double what the beeb was paying. Sky have basically blown them out the water. They have clearly paid over the odds, and you can see why the R&A have taken the cash. The claim is that the R&A will invest in grass roots. I would like to know what this entails, will they build and run cheap courses in areas it's very expensive. Or will they all be tucking into caviar at the next meeting. I do think the furore regarding male only clubs coming up makes it a hard sport to sell at times.

£15m per year is peanuts in sporting media terms.

I'm actually beginning to believe that all these people worrying about "the future of golf" are not just actually complaining because they can't (or won't) pay Sky

Who ever said watching golf on TV was a "right" anyway?

I have Sky, but i still think it is not a good deal for golf. It is undeniable that golf is decreasing in popularity in the UK. It is still seen as a middle aged middle class sport, and is very expensive to play ( in the london / south east area anyway). This will not change any ones views.

How does showing the Open on BBC change the fact that golf IS a very expensive sport to play?

I don't think anyone thinks watching golf is a "right".

I don't have Sky, I don't watch much tv, and apart from the four majors and the Women's Open, I have almost no interest in pro golf at all. I'm not about to buy a Sky Sport subscription, whether it be from Sky or Virgin or BT, just to watch the Open. It's my choice not to subscribe. I think a lot of people will feel the same. Maybe if you watch loads of stuff it would be good value, but for people who don't watch much anyway, it just isn't value for money at all.

I suppose if the R&A throws this extra £8 million at grass roots golf, then that'll achieve something. If it's just used to boost the Open prize money then it won't achieve anything really. I doubt there's a single player who will tee it up at the Old Course who wouldn't do so if the prize money were halved.

Of course some consider it a "right" George (not pointing the finger at you, but some of the whiners here)

I don't see any reason why anyone SHOULD get to see it for free-to-air if the market dictates that enough people will pay for it. Maybe not enough people for the whiners, but the media money men aren't stupid.

Would these people march on the local cinema multiplex or west end theatre and demand they get to see a movie or play for free, with the excuse that it will help more young people be theatre "lovies"? I don't think so

I think it's a great shame that the BBC won't be able to bring the Open to the general viewing public any more. The statistic in that BBC blog is amazing - 16m people watched golf on the BBC last year, just 2m fewer people than watched football on Sky. Sky show at least 2 or 3 football games a week every week from the PL alone, never mind all the FL72 and Spanish games etc.

I tend to agree with those who place the blame with the R&A - they didn't have to take the highest bid, and indeed had an obligation to act in the best interests of the game. £7m or £8m extra a year won't go very far at all in trying to make up for all those kids who won't be exposed to the game.

All eyes on the R&A's accounts over the next few years to se what they do with the extra cash then. If the extra cash is intended for grass roots and growing the game (rather than caviar lunches) then fine.

Whilst serving on my own Club's committee I've taken an interest in junior golf and served on the junior subcommittee as I see the development of the junior section as the best way to arrest & reverse the decline in membership. We're already starting to see the results of having a thriving junior section run by an enthusiastic Pro. A few parents have now joined as well as a result. Would our success not have happened if the Open hadn't been screened live on the Beeb?? I doubt it would have made the slightest difference.

Now whilst we've had a mini success story without an R&A handout I can just imagine how much more progress we could make with an additional cash injection. I know all of the extra cash won't filter down to all clubs, if it did... say an extra £8m / 4000ish? Clubs, that would be roughly £2000 per Club. Obviously it wouldn't be as simplistic as that, I imagine any extra cash would go to the EGU, SGU etc then filter down to the County Unions (where I would hope there wouldn't be any additional caviar lunches either!!).

There is a case for the Clubs and the County Unions writing to the R&A and expressing their concern at the change and asking pointed questions about exactly how they intend the extra cash to benefit grass roots.

All things equal, the more kids are exposed to a certain sport the more likely there are to take it up.

I'm sure thousands of kids took up golf by watching Tiger or Rory on TV.

Davie wrote:Of course some consider it a "right" George (not pointing the finger at you, but some of the whiners here)

I don't see any reason why anyone SHOULD get to see it for free-to-air if the market dictates that enough people will pay for it. Maybe not enough people for the whiners, but the media money men aren't stupid.

Would these people march on the local cinema multiplex or west end theatre and demand they get to see a movie or play for free, with the excuse that it will help more young people be theatre "lovies"? I don't think so

Yes, good point. On the other hand we pay a license fee to fund the BBC. It's always been understood that the license fee is to cover all aspects of the BBC's work, from local radio to the tv news, from CBeebies to Match of the Day. Somewhere in there was the Open golf, and it was regarded as one of the "Crown Jewels". Now the Crown Jewels are disappearing, then the £145 license fee doesn't seem such good value for sports fans any more. There's now little live golf, no live league football, no horse racing, no cricket, etc etc. Of course we still have to pay it but the pressure on the budget for other things must be easing a bit when the BBC aren't paying to show so much live sport. Of course I expect the BBC will say they are underfunded, but once again I suspect that too much money is being wasted on massive executive salaries and stars' fees.

As for the R&A, then as Peter Alliss so eloquently pointed out yesterday, they are funding golf growth initiatives all over the world, but possibly losing sight of what is happening on the doorstep. It's good that people in China are being taught to play golf, but it doesn't affect me, and I'll be one of the people indirectly funding it if I buy a SkySport subscription.

It would also be interesting to know the %age of people who have/dont have access to Satellite TV (or cable). Mind you it goes a bit deeper than that, the %age of people who have/dont have a specific Skysports subscription.

To be honest I played a bit when I was a kid and I always used to love watching Pro-celebrity golf (filmed at Gleneagles) on BBC. Just a half hour show in the evenings. It didn't make me start in the first place but I used to love watching it because I played.

Has anyone noticed the increase in Foot Golf, i have seen a few courses near me, are turning practice areas into foot golf courses. I have never played it myself, is this something that will attract kids to actually playing golf?

Haven't noticed it over here beninho. Doubt it will attract kids to play golf as its a more soccer-oriented game.

I believe an important part getting kids into golf is providing gateway activities such as mini-golf and pitch-and-putt. Shane Lowry started playing pitch and putt as a youth before turning to golf.

Number of homes in UK - 26 million
Number of homes with Sky or Virgin - 9.8 million
Number of homes subscribing to Skysports - 2.1 million
Number of pubs and clubs with Skysports - 34,000

BARB

George1507 wrote:Number of homes in UK - 26 million
Number of homes with Sky or Virgin - 9.8 million
Number of homes subscribing to Skysports - 2.1 million
Number of pubs and clubs with Skysports - 34,000

BARB

Wow, I had no idea how significant the difference in numbers were. Assuming most UK homes have a telly that's roughly only 1 in 10 have Skysports.

Did anyone else get the email from Peter Dawson yesterday? It addresses some of the key complaints about Sky raised on here:

1. Advert breaks to be restricted to 60 seconds, with no more than 4 breaks an hour.
2. No need for a Sky subcription to watch the Open. NowTV will offer daily / weekly packages with no need for a contract.
3. Prime time comprehensive highlights package on the BBC.

In football, it seems that every extra penny that Sky pay to the premier league goes straight towards boosting player salaries. Really hope this doesn't happen in golf.

Time will tell whether this filters down to grass roots.

I think giving funding to help private clubs who want to cast off the stuffy / elitest image would be a great way forward, especially as they often have the better facilities eg practice grounds. £10k grant to a private club would go a long way to funding an assistant pro to provide low cost / free lessons to local school kids, and subsidise some junior memberships (I'm assuming the club has to make some sort of long term commitment to earn the funding).

the 2014 prize fund was 5.4 mil, with the winner taking home 975k. Bet that increases massively for the 2017 championship.

I assume they will want to keep Open prize fund in line with other majors.

They probably do, but since the Open is the oldest and most prestigious of the Majors, they shouldn't be so concerned about the others. In fact it would probably benefit golf generally to reduce the prize money for these majors and distribute more money in grass roots golf around the world.

5.5million viewed the final round of last years Open. Thats a big loss in viewers to take into account.

George1507 wrote:They probably do, but since the Open is the oldest and most prestigious of the Majors, they shouldn't be so concerned about the others. In fact it would probably benefit golf generally to reduce the prize money for these majors and distribute more money in grass roots golf around the world.

Oldest - yes. Most prestigious - in your view.

Because we're from the UK the Open is huge. But globally, I'm sure more golfers dream of having a putt to win the Masters. I'm sure plenty of US golfers would rank it at the bottom of the 4 majors.

raycastleunited wrote:

George1507 wrote:They probably do, but since the Open is the oldest and most prestigious of the Majors, they shouldn't be so concerned about the others. In fact it would probably benefit golf generally to reduce the prize money for these majors and distribute more money in grass roots golf around the world.

Oldest - yes. Most prestigious - in your view.

Because we're from the UK the Open is huge. But globally, I'm sure more golfers dream of having a putt to win the Masters. I'm sure plenty of US golfers would rank it at the bottom of the 4 majors.

I dunno. Might well be some geographical bias, but I'd also opine it is the most prestigious and globally too. Although given the stark differences in the game often needed to win it and these being so un-natural to many US "target" style golfers it may well rank 4th in terms of enjoyment or expectation and I could understand the US Open being more important to them being their home championship.

That said, I wanted to win the Masters most when I was a kid just because it looked so stunning on TV and the green speed/breaks seemed out of this world.

Davie wrote:£15m per year is peanuts in sporting media terms.

I'm actually beginning to believe that all these people worrying about "the future of golf" are not just actually complaining because they can't (or won't) pay Sky

Who ever said watching golf on TV was a "right" anyway?

The two are the same. Whatever the reason I (or any of the millions of others) won't pay for Sky is pretty much irrelevant. The fact is that less people (inc. impressionable youngsters) will see golf on TV etc etc.

No you miss my point completely. I'm talking about people who are only thinking of themselves (for whatever reason) rather than the future of the game. The facepalm was totally unnecessary IMO

Davie


If anyone quotes one of your posts the software should automatically insert a facepalm. It is needed way more often than not.

Mr Kettle calls Mr Pot "grimey ass"

It is well documented on here that I like a bit of grimey ass action.  :shock:

Davie wrote:No you miss my point completely. I'm talking about people who are only thinking of themselves (for whatever reason) rather than the future of the game. The facepalm was totally unnecessary IMO

Sorry. You're right. I got your meaning arse-about-face .

Peter Dawson, outgoing R&A chief. Idiot.

We have looked at this issue very carefully and believe it is not possible to make an informed case that participation is simply and directly linked to free-to-air television viewing. There is no question that free-to-air sports broadcasts generate good exposure for sport, we see this time and again through the Olympic Games, the World Cup and Wimbledon. But, firm conclusions about their positive impact on participation cannot be drawn.

Navy

There was an "expert" of some sort on bbc radio scotland yesterday who claimed there was no evidence to suggest just viewing a sport will make someone take it up. Instead it is cheap and easy access that will drive up the numbers. I don't buy it, but I would be interested to see the evidence if anyone on here knows where it is.


Another point made by a caller was that participation is falling while the bbc is the broadcaster so they obviously don't boost the numbers. Which I see as a massive leap of faith to believe as we don't know what participation would be if the bbc hadn't been the broadcaster (although we are soon to find out). For all we know the open and and few other events on the beeb might be all that stands between poor participation and oblivion.

You'd think it would be pretty obvious that a sport which nobody watches will be less popular than a sport which lots of people watch. And people are more likely to play a popular sport.

But I'm sure there is some research out there to contradict it.

A lot of people go fishing (apprarently) but it doesn't get much tv coverage. Pool is very popular to play, but I've never seen it on tv.

F1 is all over the tv, but participation levels are pretty low (I know this is a stupid example, but you get the point).

Well, there'll be some evidence there soon i.e. after 2017. I'm sure someone will be watching what happens to participation in golf just after and collating all the data.