Quote Nothus="Nothus"You pay less than £100 for twelve months of phone/broadband/tv including sky sports and premier?
Sorry FA but I'm calling bullsh*t on that. '"
No, the qestion is, how much do you pay for the rugby league. Or put another way, how much cheaper would your subs be if you didn't have the ability to watch the Rl on Sky Sports, or Premier. (Ignoring the freebie version of Premier which muddied the waters a bit mid season, doubt they will continue to allow free what is a paid for service but we shall see)
With Sky you can now pick and choose individual elements of Sports channels- you don't have to have them all. Whether anyone who does this will fall foul though of the old channel game switching of the past, also remains to be seen.
I'm with Virgin at the moment, but with them, you aren't able to split the Sky Sports in teh way you could with Sky itself - it's all or nothing. But of course you then do get it all, including NFL and F1, which I also watch, so the question is, how much of your additional subs are you actually paying to watch RL. Not that easy to work out.
But I do negotiate a good deal. Last season, for example, I got the Premier Sports added for 37p extra a month but that's just cos every company obviously wants me as a customer and I'm such a great bloke. But my numbers may not be the bull you think
Quote Nothus="Nothus"This suggestion is that they stream every single SL game in a season. For that I would say £100 is actually modest.'"
Harrumph. "Streaming" smacks of poor quality, dodgy feeds, and low-to-zero production values. You're right, it's not a high sum if that is what it was, but personally I'm spoiled wit HD RL on Sky, in a proper program, with HD cameras all over the place, top class replays, etc etc. Do you imagine you'll get a similar standard of service via streaming? Who will be providing the footage, for a start?
Then there is the question of watching the broadcasts. With Sky/Virgin you just set your series link and watch what you want when you want. Not so easy with streamed content.
Personally, I think that the trade-off between a stream worth watching and a cheap cost to viewer can't work, as the production costs of broadcasting every single game live to any level of reasonable quality will just be stupid, and I just don't see anywhere near enough subscribers to make such an idea remotely viable.
But my main objection to it is it continues the marginalisation of the sport, which is in danger of becoming an irrelevance to broadcasters and sponsors. What would a national company pay to buy advertising on a streamed feed, to a few tens of thousands of cheapskates, if anything at all?
