The Open 2016 - Official Thread - Read OP before you go on!

razorblunt

mickmackey1 wrote: »

That's big of you, doubt if Zach reads your posts though.

Doesn't matter he'd have to forgive me anyway.

Jawgap

Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports

The peak television audience for the final round of the Open Championship suffered a drop of around 75% on last year in the first broadcasting by Sky Sports of the oldest major.

The top viewing figure for the epic Royal Troon shootout between Henrik Stenson and Phil Mickelson, combined between Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 4, was 1.1m.

I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?

BigChap1759

Jawgap wrote: »

Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports



I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?

The BBC forced the R&A's hand in giving the coverage to Sky - the BBC had no interest in keeping The Open(in line with their gradual reduction in covering a lot of other sports) so they made a derisory offer to the R&A.

The R&A want golf to prosper but what are they supposed to do when the noises from the national broadcaster are that they are no longer interested in spending the required sums to invest in decent, modern coverage.

Personally I'd rather the much larger audience was given access to this treasure but it was the BBC's call

Jawgap

BigChap1759 wrote: »

The BBC forced the R&A's hand in giving the coverage to Sky - the BBC had no interest in keeping The Open(in line with their gradual reduction in covering a lot of other sports) so they made a derisory offer to the R&A.

The R&A want golf to prosper but what are they supposed to do when the noises from the national broadcaster are that they are no longer interested in spending the required sums to invest in decent, modern coverage.

Personally I'd rather the much larger audience was given access to this treasure but it was the BBC's call

Well I think the interest was there, but the money wasn't - with their (the BBC's) funding model the pot is fairly finite and when it gets cut the bigger ticket items like rights driven sports coverage probably bear a disproportionate burden.

Interestingly, the Open is a List B event ("may be shown on a subscription channel if highlights are made available to a free-to-air channel") so when bidding for it the terrestrial channels are in a much 'weaker' position as the awarding body isn't compelled to award live primary coverage on a shared or exclusive basis to them.

Joe_ Public

Personally, I felt a bit of a twinge that the most thrilling Open finish for years, a modern day re-run of the famous duel in the sun, could have been the most fitting epitaph for Peter Alliss' live Open coverage, but it didn't happen because the Beeb was so eager to get rid of it, it waivered the last year of its contract. And kinda poetic too in a way that the most thrilling Open for many years should have had its smallest audience. Whatever the finances involved, that can't be a good scenario for anyone who loves and cares about the sport.

The R&A should be looking at the proliferation of stories about the alarming decline in the numbers taking up and playing cricket in recent years and wondering if its strategy is the right one. Of course, there could be other factors at play rather than than the moving of test matches to pay channels, but its negative effect simply cannot be denied. Maybe they think the Olympics will take up the slack as far as spreading golf's appeal to the masses goes, good luck with that one anyway!

BigChap1759

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I think the interest was there, but the money wasn't - with their (the BBC's) funding model the pot is fairly finite and when it gets cut the bigger ticket items like rights driven sports coverage probably bear a disproportionate burden.

Interestingly, the Open is a List B event ("may be shown on a subscription channel if highlights are made available to a free-to-air channel") so when bidding for it the terrestrial channels are in a much 'weaker' position as the awarding body isn't compelled to award live primary coverage on a shared or exclusive basis to them.

If the interest really was there why did they classify it a List B event?

Jawgap

BigChap1759 wrote: »

If the interest really was there why did they classify it a List B event?

I suppose who knows? The public may be interested but the cynic in me would suggest that it was classified as List B because the R&A wanted it List B as a means to leveraging in more money than might otherwise have been the case if it was List A with primary coverage being sought only by the terrestrial channels.

Just looking at some of the historic documents on the compiling of the Lists and the last (?) revision in 2009 recommended it be moved to List A, from List B, but that recommendation seems not to have been taken up at the time or since.

alxmorgan

Jawgap wrote: »

Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports



I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?

Was always going to happen. I thought Skys coverage was superb but I think the lack of it on free to air is always going to affect audiences and that is a pity. Especially the younger generation, like Westwood or Poulter, who could get into golf in this way

BigChap1759

Jawgap wrote: »

I suppose who knows? The public may be interested but the cynic in me would suggest that it was classified as List B because the R&A wanted it List B as a means to leveraging in more money than might otherwise have been the case if it was List A with primary coverage being sought only by the terrestrial channels.

Just looking at some of the historic documents on the compiling of the Lists and the last (?) revision in 2009 recommended it be moved to List A, from List B, but that recommendation seems not to have been taken up at the time or since.

Surely it would have been the government or the BBC who classified it - so they can get out of covering it as it's not a mandated(ie Class A) event?

This would let them bid low but still try and save face by claiming to be out bid when in fact they didn't want to be covering it from a budgetary point of view

Joe_ Public

Satellite channels were traditionally banned from bidding for live tv rights on listed events, but the sports bodies themselves lobbied to have that ban removed, not necessarily because they wanted to do business with the pay channels, but because it would enhance their bargaining power with the terrestrials. Same with the GAA here. They probably didn't envisage the scenario where the terrestrials would just cut their losses and step away, but that's what's happened anyway.

Jawgap

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Surely it would have been the government or the BBC who classified it - so they can get out of covering it as it's not a mandated(ie Class A) event?

This would let them bid low but still try and save face by claiming to be out bid when in fact they didn't want to be covering it from a budgetary point of view

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and it was done following a period of consultation. Given it's a political decision I'd imagine they'd do what's popular rather than what's expedient.

I don't think the BBC wanted to 'get out' of covering it - only that they have so much to spend on securing the rights and funding the broadcast. And it doesn't look like that is helped by the fact that about 20% of their sports budget went on securing the rights to the Premiership to facilitate MotD.

Plus, even if it was List A it still doesn't have to be covered by the Beeb - ITV, C4 or even 5 could bid for and show it. It wasn't that long ago cricket and horse racing were seen very much the preserve of the BBC (especially cricket) and C4 came along and showed it was possible to take these sports and cover them in an interesting and engaging way without bursting the bank.

blue note

Seve OB wrote: »

Really can't understand why the pro's are not allowed to wear shorts. really stupid in this day and age.... actually in any day and age!

I don't think this gets said enough. I don't know how they play in some of those places in long pants. I'd jump into the lakes if i was them.

CMOTDibbler

Jawgap wrote: »

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and it was done following a period of consultation. Given it's a political decision I'd imagine they'd do what's popular rather than what's expedient.

Or what Rupert Murdoch tells them to do :rolleyes:

I [Anthony Hilton] once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'

Dirty Dingus McGee

People are going to have to acccept that live sport on Free To Air channels is a thing of the past and in 10 - 15 years time there will be almost none.

RTE have no interest in live sport and neither do the BBC it seems.

Joe_ Public

blue note wrote: »

I don't think this gets said enough. I don't know how they play in some of those places in long pants. I'd jump into the lakes if i was them.

Beef crossing the Swilcan bridge in a string vest and a pair of Hawaiians. This needs to happen.

Jawgap

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Beef crossing the Swilcan bridge in a string vest and a pair of Hawaiians. This needs to happen.

They should allow shorter troos in memory of Payne Stewart.......

death1234567

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

RTE have no interest in live sport and neither do the BBC it seems.

They do they just can't afford it. The arrival of BT Sport means a price war between BT and SKY for all UK and Ireland sport coverage. Terrestrial channels can't compete.

PARlance

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

People are going to have to acccept that live sport on Free To Air channels is a thing of the past and in 10 - 15 years time there will be almost none.

RTE have no interest in live sport and neither do the BBC it seems.

And I think the role of terrestial TV on golf is generally overstated. I've changed my opinion of it over the past year anyway. It's important / nice to have, but it has been around for some time and it wasn't as if the game was growing during that time. Personally I think 8 hours of highlights, over the 4 days on the BBC, still ticks the box of getting golf "out there" to the general public. In fact, the highlights would probably entice a non golfer more than 8 hours of live coverage a day imo.

I'm getting a little tired of the "growing the game" talk of late. You grow the game from grass-roots, that takes a lot of effort, an effort that the CGI here seem to be really putting in. Golf at the Olympics or free to air TV, only offer minor assistance imo.

While the viewership figures were way down, the stats are becoming redundant imo. How many millions are watching it in there own dodgy "free to air" way. It's probably a 50/50 split in my extended circle.

It is a shame to see the live broadcast off the Beeb, but not something that's really going to really matter in the grand scheme of things. And as stated above, it's just the way things are going with sport in general.

Joe_ Public

PARlance wrote: »

And I think the role of terrestial TV on golf is generally overstated. I've changed my opinion of it over the past year anyway. It's important / nice to have, but it has been around for some time and it wasn't as if the game was growing during that time. Personally I think 8 hours of highlights, over the 4 days on the BBC, still ticks the box of getting golf "out there" to the general public. In fact, the highlights would probably entice a non golfer more than 8 hours of live coverage a day imo.

I'm getting a little tired of the "growing the game" talk of late. You grow the game from grass-roots, that takes a lot of effort, an effort that the CGI here seem to be really putting in. Golf at the Olympics or free to air TV, only offer minor assistance imo.

While the viewership figures were way down, the stats are becoming redundant imo. How many millions are watching it in there own dodgy "free to air" way. It's probably a 50/50 split in my extended circle.

It is a shame to see the live broadcast off the Beeb, but not something that's really going to really matter in the grand scheme of things. And as stated above, it's just the way things are going with sport in general.

I doubt it's "millions" tuning in to illegal live feeds, but I could be wrong. It's probably impossible to get an accurate figure. I think what's been lost, though, when free to air goes is the tradition of a family gathering around the box to share in the experience. That recalls my own childhood experience watching soccer and rugby internationals and even the late nights trying to stay awake to watch Ali. Kids aren't really going to go to pubs to watch these and neither is a family really going to gather around a mac or laptop. Yeah sure, that's the way of the world, but doesn't mean something valuable isn't being lost along the way.