Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

BT Sports premier league coverage

lordromford
lordromford Posts: 7,811
edited August 2013 in Other Football and Sports
What are people's thoughts on BTs coverage of Liverpool v Stoke today?
Personally I thought the pre-match talk was excessive and boring. As for the match, Michael Owen must be the worst co-commentator since Lawrenson.
Other than that, much of a muchness, but not bad IMO.
«1

Comments

  • Valley11
    Valley11 Posts: 12,004
    Think it's pretty good to be honest. I like McManaman.
  • lordromford
    lordromford Posts: 7,811
    Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but I'm hoping they'll iron out the wrinkles pretty quick.
    Owen is shit though.
  • SELR_addicks
    SELR_addicks Posts: 15,488
    It's always confusing how there's so many Liverpool pundits about. Dominate all the channels.
  • dickplumb
    dickplumb Posts: 4,835
    Overkill.
  • floydroadfaithfull
    floydroadfaithfull Posts: 4,778
    Not bad as its sort of free!!!
  • MountsfieldPark
    MountsfieldPark Posts: 2,074
    Trying to watch it on internet. Repeated requests to keep logging in AGAIN. Got chucked off for no reason after 70 minutes. Piss poor.
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,059
    I liked pre/half time, went to a bit of a deeper analysis than Sky often does when GNev isn't there. Owen was appalling though, it's not what he says which is the usual rubbish but how he says it, so so monotone.
  • cafctom
    cafctom Posts: 11,373
    Owen dreadful but the main commentator was actually really good.
  • Clem_Snide
    Clem_Snide Posts: 11,741
    I'd rather listen to a Dyson Vac for 90 minutes than Owen's inane bollocks.

    Other than that it was ok.
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    floydroadfaithfull said:

    Not bad as its sort of free!!!

    It's so far away from free it's ridiculous that they're even allowed to use that word!

    Mcmamanamanaman sucks too.

  • Sponsored links:



  • floydroadfaithfull
    floydroadfaithfull Posts: 4,778
    Well I was still going to keep bt broadband so to me it was still "sort of free"!
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,059
    JiMMy 85 said:

    floydroadfaithfull said:

    Not bad as its sort of free!!!

    It's so far away from free it's ridiculous that they're even allowed to use that word!

    Mcmamanamanaman sucks too.
    Thought he was comparatively good.
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    It is all relative. There's only a handful of pundits that don't talk in staccato cliches, starting new sentences before finishing the original, and sitting in a manner that displays their media training. Mcmamanamanaman is not one of those guys.

    Plus his hair is stupid.
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    floydroadfaithfull said:

    Well I was still going to keep bt broadband so to me it was still "sort of free"!

    It's no additional cost. But I massively respect them. They take from you and make you think it's free. That's good marketing.
  • chazza
    chazza Posts: 243
    Won't be watching the pre / post match guff again - thought it was really poor. Will just tune in for the game in future.
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    Who was the commentator? Have they picked up Drury and the relentless Jon Champion?
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,444
    Ian Darke I think.
    (and are you going to declare your interest in this thread Jimmy?)
  • bc_addick
    bc_addick Posts: 761
    It was Ian Darke
  • Valley11
    Valley11 Posts: 12,004
    JiMMy 85 said:

    floydroadfaithfull said:

    Well I was still going to keep bt broadband so to me it was still "sort of free"!

    It's no additional cost. But I massively respect them. They take from you and make you think it's free. That's good marketing.
    Eh?
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    I like Ian Darke, he's enthusiastic at least!

    @aliwibble - a fair point! But I want to like BT. I just don't like the pig headedness of their initial approach, but I suppose that's required. Jake Humphreys and McManamanam bother me.

    Valley11 - I'm not sure what's not to get... If anyone is getting BT Sport without giving BT any money whatsoever, then it's free. But I don't know of anyone doing that (legally!).


  • Sponsored links:



  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,444
    But by that token, Sky could never advertise that they give people free Sky boxes when you sign up for a subscription. If you're going to be paying the money anyway because you already have BT broadband then I think getting n extra service without paying extra money is a fair definition of "free"
  • JT
    JT Posts: 12,348
    Didn't think there was much point in Mark Halsey
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    aliwibble said:

    But by that token, Sky could never advertise that they give people free Sky boxes when you sign up for a subscription. If you're going to be paying the money anyway because you already have BT broadband then I think getting n extra service without paying extra money is a fair definition of "free"

    You're absolutely right about Sky. But they are rigidly questioned on what can and can't be described as free. We can't say On Demand or Sky Go is free even though 90% of people signed up long before either offering existed and I think that's right - if you're paying money, the money you pay goes on what you're given. My definition of 'free' is not the same as yours, clearly!
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,059
    JiMMy 85 said:

    aliwibble said:

    But by that token, Sky could never advertise that they give people free Sky boxes when you sign up for a subscription. If you're going to be paying the money anyway because you already have BT broadband then I think getting n extra service without paying extra money is a fair definition of "free"

    You're absolutely right about Sky. But they are rigidly questioned on what can and can't be described as free. We can't say On Demand or Sky Go is free even though 90% of people signed up long before either offering existed and I think that's right - if you're paying money, the money you pay goes on what you're given. My definition of 'free' is not the same as yours, clearly!
    But it's marketed as "free to Infinity customer" which is different to just "free" - it assumes this is money you already spend and thus as you pay no extra cost for the additional service it is "free".
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    Let's say ten people pay me a pound each for broadband, but broadband costs me 50p to provide. So I then spend 9.50 on the football rights and then give the games on tv to the ten people. Did they get football for free?
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,579
    se9addick said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    aliwibble said:

    But by that token, Sky could never advertise that they give people free Sky boxes when you sign up for a subscription. If you're going to be paying the money anyway because you already have BT broadband then I think getting n extra service without paying extra money is a fair definition of "free"

    You're absolutely right about Sky. But they are rigidly questioned on what can and can't be described as free. We can't say On Demand or Sky Go is free even though 90% of people signed up long before either offering existed and I think that's right - if you're paying money, the money you pay goes on what you're given. My definition of 'free' is not the same as yours, clearly!
    But it's marketed as "free to Infinity customer" which is different to just "free" - it assumes this is money you already spend and thus as you pay no extra cost for the additional service it is "free".
    I already had Infinity, so it was free to me
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    Kap10 said:

    se9addick said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    aliwibble said:

    But by that token, Sky could never advertise that they give people free Sky boxes when you sign up for a subscription. If you're going to be paying the money anyway because you already have BT broadband then I think getting n extra service without paying extra money is a fair definition of "free"

    You're absolutely right about Sky. But they are rigidly questioned on what can and can't be described as free. We can't say On Demand or Sky Go is free even though 90% of people signed up long before either offering existed and I think that's right - if you're paying money, the money you pay goes on what you're given. My definition of 'free' is not the same as yours, clearly!
    But it's marketed as "free to Infinity customer" which is different to just "free" - it assumes this is money you already spend and thus as you pay no extra cost for the additional service it is "free".
    I already had Infinity, so it was free to me

  • oohaahmortimer
    oohaahmortimer Posts: 34,179
    Even tho the BT broadband or whatever it is is too wank to have where I live I have to subscribe to it (on top of standard house phone) so I get the BT Sport package for £10 rather than £12
  • JiMMy 85
    JiMMy 85 Posts: 10,199
    oohaahmortimer said:

    Even tho the BT broadband or whatever it is is too wank to have where I live I have to subscribe to it (on top of standard house phone) so I get the BT Sport package for £10 rather than £12

  • EpsomAddick
    EpsomAddick Posts: 2,562
    JiMMy 85 said:

    Let's say ten people pay me a pound each for broadband, but broadband costs me 50p to provide. So I then spend 9.50 on the football rights and then give the games on tv to the ten people. Did they get football for free?

    Jimmy, that argument assumes that BT has always charged people more than the broadband/phone actually cost to provide in the expectation of one day being able to provide football. Unless you can show that BT has been doing that, then surely those existing BT customers now getting football are in fact getting it free?

    I'm not expert in this field, so apologies if I'm being stupid.

Categories

“Marketplace”