Do you sub to Sky Sports?

[Howardh]

If so, how much more of an increase will you take to cover for the Premiership rights before you consider leaving?

For me, who doesn't watch football on TV (but loves hockey - sometimes shown on Sky - curling (free on the web and a bit on Eurosport) and cricket, I ain't paying for something I don't watch, so unless Sky can work out a non-football (or non-Premiership) sub I won't be bothering, either through satellite or via Now.

Your thoughts?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

If so, how much more of an increase will you take to cover for the Premiership rights before you consider leaving?

For me, who doesn't watch football on TV (but loves hockey - sometimes shown on Sky - curling (free on the web and a bit on Eurosport) and cricket, I ain't paying for something I don't watch, so unless Sky can work out a non-football (or non-Premiership) sub I won't be bothering, either through satellite or via Now.

Your thoughts?

Interesting one! I subscribed for the cricket, occasionally watch some football, but wouldn't miss that at all. (In fact, went to a pub last night for the second half of a BT game and we both agreed we preferred watching the occasional game with a pint!) So if Sky hived off the football at a premium, I wouldn't subscribe to that and wouldn't miss it! Suspect, though, we'll all end up paying more....and I would say about the Cricket, that it's not just coverage of the England games, Sky has a pretty comprehensive coverage of world cricket.

 

[SS4]

I don't subscribe to Sky Sports. I'm only really interested in football but Sky (like all the other mainstream media) focus on the usual suspects. As readers of the football thread know I am an Aston Villa fan and the chance of seeing them on TV is not worth the cost.

I really do think they'll jack up the price and whilst Sports will take the brunt of the increase the regular TV package will rise to absorb some of the cost.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Apart from the F1 I wouldn't watch enough Sky Sports to justify the cost, it's something like £25 on Virgin and you can't get the F1 channel separate from the rest of Sky Sports

 

[jon0844]

I called Sky to ditch sport before Christmas, and they offered me a discount that meant I decided to keep it - but when that ends, it's going.

I'm actually better off paying the £5 (?) daily rate for a pass on Now TV for the number of times I probably watch Sky Sports now. And it's quite clear it will go up next year, along with an increase that will be spread more evenly to everyone so Sports subscribers don't appear to be hit as hard, as well as making sure Sky still gets more money even from those who don't subscribe, or end their subscription, to Sports.

I am also intending to ditch Movies once my discount ends. I do try and watch a lot of films, but I'm usually too busy and it's my son that watches stuff - and Netflix has him covered.

I was paying almost £80 a month to Sky, which I realised was madness. I'm looking to buy a new car, which will probably be £300 a month or so on finance.. so why am I thinking that's a lot of money when I'm giving nearly a third to Sky?

My mobile phone bill is just £15 a month!

 

[Morden Via CHX]

I understand I will be in a significant minority in saying this, and I've got no choice but to have it because of my job, but I feel Sky Sports is actually good value.

Everything they do is done to the highest quality. There are no corners cut. The result of that is a slick, seamless production that is infinitely more enjoyable to watch than the rubbish produced by the BBC when it comes to sports, with golf possibly being the exception to this as I feel the adverts ruin it a bit.

Yes, it pains me to fork out the small fortune I pay every month for it, but despite BT Sport's best efforts they are not even in the same league as Sky yet.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, Sky does do a very good job when it comes to its coverage of sport. Can't fault it for that.

BT is pretty dire, but I don't subscribe to it and have no intention of doing so.

 

[Condor7]

I understand I will be in a significant minority in saying this, and I've got no choice but to have it because of my job, but I feel Sky Sports is actually good value.

Everything they do is done to the highest quality. There are no corners cut. The result of that is a slick, seamless production that is infinitely more enjoyable to watch than the rubbish produced by the BBC when it comes to sports, with golf possibly being the exception to this as I feel the adverts ruin it a bit.

Yes, it pains me to fork out the small fortune I pay every month for it, but despite BT Sport's best efforts they are not even in the same league as Sky yet.

I am with you on that one very much so. Yes I would love it if it was cheaper but their coverage of sport is amazing.

To start with you have a 24 sport news channel where you can catch up on most sports any time of day. I am also a big Speedway fan, and apart from the Grand Prix's on Eurosport there is no other way of watch this sport.

I hate is when ITV (in particular) cover football. If for instance your team has won you want to wallow in the glory for a while, listening to the interviews afterwards and seeing the goals replayed etc. Even when a match does not have much extra time, there is so little time left between the end of the match and the following program, (usually the news) and in that time they have to fit in an ad break, and it is usually then just back to the pundits for a brief comment before getting back to their normal program schedule. If the match runs over for any length of time, you can sometimes get virtually no after match chat.

Sky however does not have this problem, and can provide camera angles for almost any position, not to mention the Match Choice, that means you can with the use of the red button watch just about any match that is playing that night.

In the end I realise it is always down to finances, but for me I would rather have the high quality coverage they provide than a cheaper watered down version.

 

[richw]

I have already ditched sky and gone for now TV. Sky was setting me back £85 a month.
I've the entertainment pack at 6.99 this month, and paid the day pass for sport on two occasions when there has been a day of sport that appeals to me. Cost month to date Is around 1/4 of my sky subscription

 

[Kite159]

I ditched Sky TV 18-or so months ago to go to FreeSat, after sitting down to record what I watched over a month and found that 95%+ was on the 'free to air' channels it was a no brainier to save £25-odd a month.

Only show I miss is Mythbusters on Discovery

 

[Johnuk123]

I am with you on that one very much so. Yes I would love it if it was cheaper but their coverage of sport is amazing.

To start with you have a 24 sport news channel where you can catch up on most sports any time of day. I am also a big Speedway fan, and apart from the Grand Prix's on Eurosport there is no other way of watch this sport.

I hate is when ITV (in particular) cover football. If for instance your team has won you want to wallow in the glory for a while, listening to the interviews afterwards and seeing the goals replayed etc. Even when a match does not have much extra time, there is so little time left between the end of the match and the following program, (usually the news) and in that time they have to fit in an ad break, and it is usually then just back to the pundits for a brief comment before getting back to their normal program schedule. If the match runs over for any length of time, you can sometimes get virtually no after match chat.

Sky however does not have this problem, and can provide camera angles for almost any position, not to mention the Match Choice, that means you can with the use of the red button watch just about any match that is playing that night.

In the end I realise it is always down to finances, but for me I would rather have the high quality coverage they provide than a cheaper watered down version.

I agree with all that, Sky's coverage is so much better then any other broadcaster, you certainly pay for it but compared to the BBC it's light years ahead.

 

[jon0844]

The problem is that it's not Sky making the extra money it will have to charge to cover the cost of what it bid.

Indeed, if it wants to keep the sub cost down to avoid losing people, it may be forced to worsen its coverage (starting with little things you might not notice, then gradually seeing more cuts that you will).

Sky will be seeking to pass on all the costs, but may have to do it in a range of ways. We'll lose either way.

 

[Cletus]

I would be quite happy if Sky separated their football to another subscription. Much as I like football, I just don't like watching the game on TV anymore.

If it wasn't for Sky's cricket coverage I would have cancelled my sports subscription a few years ago.

 

[EM2]

I've never subscribed to Sky Sports or BT Sport (and its predecessors) and never will. If I want to watch a match or event, there are plenty of options available.

 

[Aldaniti]

Good grief, I didn't know Sky TV cost so much. I suppose someone has to keep these footballers and sports celebrities in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. I'm stick with Freeview thanks very much.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I would be quite happy if Sky separated their football to another subscription. Much as I like football, I just don't like watching the game on TV anymore.

If it wasn't for Sky's cricket coverage I would have cancelled my sports subscription a few years ago.

Yes, I'm with you on that one!

 

[ainsworth74]

Good grief, I didn't know Sky TV cost so much.

Plain Sky TV isn't too expensive (that isn't to say it's cheap however) and can be very good value if you bundle it with internet and telephone. The thing that makes Sky expensive is when you start throwing in Sport and Movies and similar 'extras'. I believe that a 'full fat' subscription (so including everything possible) is somewhere in the region of £120 per month these days or about £1,400 per year...

Also add me to the list of people who like Sky Sports but would like to be able to get a cheaper version which excluded football.

 

[richw]

I ditched Sky TV 18-or so months ago to go to FreeSat, after sitting down to record what I watched over a month and found that 95%+ was on the 'free to air' channels it was a no brainier to save £25-odd a month.

Only show I miss is Mythbusters on Discovery

Discovery Channel is in the Now Tv entertainment bundle for £6.99 a month. Still saving you £18 ish.

 

[Darandio]

Discovery Channel is in the Now Tv entertainment bundle for £6.99 a month. Still saving you £18 ish.

Now TV has certainly become the way forward for us. £6.99 for what is a pretty good channel line up, then over christmas we paid £9.99 to have the movie channels for a month, simply cancelled those afterwards.

I've also taken advantage of several of the free Sky Sports day passes found with Carling multipacks.

 

[richw]

Now TV has certainly become the way forward for us. £6.99 for what is a pretty good channel line up, then over christmas we paid £9.99 to have the movie channels for a month, simply cancelled those afterwards.

I've also taken advantage of several of the free Sky Sports day passes found with Carling multipacks.

I have the same, and they very kindly sent me a half price code for movies around the 2nd week of December, so my Christmas movies cost me £4.99.

At the moment we have no subscription as we aren't home a lot to watch TV.

 

[JamesRowden]

The problem is that it's not Sky making the extra money it will have to charge to cover the cost of what it bid.

The subscription price isn't determined by how much Sky payed for the rights (unless they use it to brain wash people). It's the other way around. If Sky put the prices up too far they would lose so many customers that they would be making less money than if they kept the prices the same.

The big bid by Sky indicates that either:

• It thinks that it is already making substantial amounts of money through having these rights.
• It thinks that the price that customers are willing to pay is going to increase.
• Both

 

[Aldaniti]

Plain Sky TV isn't too expensive (that isn't to say it's cheap however) and can be very good value if you bundle it with internet and telephone. The thing that makes Sky expensive is when you start throwing in Sport and Movies and similar 'extras'. I believe that a 'full fat' subscription (so including everything possible) is somewhere in the region of £120 per month these days or about £1,400 per year...

Also add me to the list of people who like Sky Sports but would like to be able to get a cheaper version which excluded football.

£120 a month?! That's a lot of money just for television. I can just about remember the days when there were just three channels to choose from and you could go to the footy on a Saturday afternoon, have pie and peas, and still have change from a fiver.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

They are online channels which show subscription sports for free.
But they have extreme amounts of annoying and risky adverts.

 

[GarethJohn]

SKY are not guaranteed to increase the price it just made sure that its only serious rival since the Premier league began BT did not take the main Premier league package.
With BT offering its sports channel for free with broadband it's become a genuine alternative and next season they will take ITV'S Champions league rights making it even more attractive.
Will SKY increase their subscription? They will be taking a risk if they increase it too much.

And what is the partnership between the BBC and BT Sport they share an awful lot of staff?

 

[Howardh]

They are online channels which show subscription sports for free.
But they have extreme amounts of annoying and risky adverts.

.....which can be removed by installing adblock (Chrome and Firefox have those in their add-ons) and having half-decent anti-virus software.
Some of these, er, alternative methods, have really good quality streams (many don't!) and when Eurosport Player (which I pay for) failed I had to use a pirate stream to back up what I was missing, and a very angry letter to Eurosport (ignored).
If you are into *continenental* sports (handball, volleyball etc) then Laola1 is an excellent and legal free channel; and wintersports fans (biathlon, x-country etc) can get their fix for free on Eurovision' web portal. World Curling Fed has a youtube page with lots of live games on, so does Curling Champion's Tour, and World (field) Hockey Fed shows international tournaments live on youtube - although when shown on Sky these need to be unblocked, Chrome has an app to do that too, which works!!

So there's plenty there far more entertaining than paying two arms and a leg for Stoke v Hull (offence to Stoke and Hull fans intended)

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Hull's a good team hence the FA cup final which was only lost because a Hull goal kick was given as an Arsenal corner.

 

[21C101]

I ditched Sky a couple of years back and went to BT Vision.

For a family BT is pitched right. The main pack costs £7.50 a month and gives you a Freeview 2x simultaneous channel recordable PVR plus 20 "premium"channels including discovery+UK Gold+Nat Geo along with various catch up TV options, plus BT sport free. £3 a month gets you numerous kids channels another £3 gets you the premium channels and sport in HD and £5 gets you the on demand film and box set library which is quite extensive has a lot of content from channels not in the 20 premium channels (and is what we watch most as were not tied down to programme start times)

All in my selection is £18.50 a month for more channels that I can shake a stick at plus HD live FA Cup and Premier League football. (and can subscribe to Sky Sports on a month by month basis if I want to)

Sure, if you are a sports fanatic, Sky can't be beaten but for a family where everyones at work or school 5 days a week and the TV is tuned in to CBeebies or Childrens BBC half the time, sky is just not value for money.

Skys problem is that their entry packages are just too expensive. The £21.50 Sky entry level "original bundle" is much what you get with BTs £7.50 package, but some of the 35+ "premium" channels are actually free on Freeview like "Dave", "Really" and UKTV Drama, and it dosen't include Nat Geo and Discovery, you have to pay £28 a month for those. And then theres still no free premier league football chucked in.....

Skys Broadband is abit cheaper than BTs but I'm with BT primarily for a good quality 40Mbit unlimited fibre broadband that is reliable, supports VPN to work and dosent throttle you when lots of users are on in the evening. Sky is only £3 a month cheaper at £20 than BT at £23 for this.

Sky are good, but alas in my experience too expensive unless you have the time and inclination to spend several hours a day watching TV, want to watch Skys own entertainment channels or have a fanatical/specialist interest in films or sport.

BT, for all their faults, are giving Sky some serious competition, and Mr Rupert a dose of his own medicine.....

 

[Bevan Price]

As mentioned in the TV licencing thread, I won't buy anything that would intentionally give some of my money to the Murdoch family fortune. (And I once even refused to accept a free "promotion" copy of one of their so-called "news" papers.).

Pity there is no cricket on "proper" TV, though, but BBC Test Match Special is a good alternative. .

 

[EM2]

Pity there is no cricket on "proper" TV, though, but BBC Test Match Special is a good alternative. .

World Cup highlights on ITV, and England home Test & ODI highlights on Channel 5.

 

[Johnuk123]

World Cup highlights on ITV, and England home Test & ODI highlights on Channel 5.

Watching it when it's finished or even listening to it on the radio doesn't quite cut it for me.

Saying that I wouldn't want to watch England at the moment if you paid me.