Sport Today

by **Will Sutto** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:12:03

they dont want to be accused of been racist so they are pretending
it doesn't exist

by **Craig Sutto** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:28:44

Quote:

> they dont want to be accused of been racist so they are pretending
> it doesn't exist

Yes but the joke is they said they spent all their Cricket Budget on the
cricket worldcup. Well what a ^%$*& joke that also is, as they never showed
every match and we missed some great games.

Is it on tv in Aus?

by **Will Sutto** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:08:47

Quote:

> > they dont want to be accused of been racist so they are pretending
> > it doesn't exist

> Yes but the joke is they said they spent all their Cricket Budget on the
> cricket worldcup. Well what a ^%$*& joke that also is, as they never showed
> every match and we missed some great games.

> Is it on tv in Aus?

Not as far as I know. The only one I have seen advertised is the English
matches Nat West Matches and the Sth African tour

by **Captain Haddo** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 01:24:04

IIRC, its being held in Sri Lanka.

Capn.

by **Paul Galvi** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:14:33

Quote:

> Yes but the joke is they said they spent all their Cricket Budget on the
> cricket worldcup. Well what a ^%$*& joke that also is, as they never
showed
> every match and we missed some great games.

> Is it on tv in Aus?

Missed some great games? Really? Which "great games" did Sky NZ miss from
the WC?

If it has come down to spending all their budget on the world cup, I would
rather they cut back on the WC in favour of more test matches - from
anywhere!
--
Yours in cricket,
Paul.

by **Mr Sceb** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:25:38

Quote:

> they dont want to be accused of been racist so they are pretending
> it doesn't exist

I saw an ad for Eng v Zim in May! Tell me it isn't true.

--
Mr Scebe
"He doesn't win many of the close one's, does he"
~Grant Fox talking about Taine Randell

by **Craig Sutto** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:32:05

Quote:

> > Yes but the joke is they said they spent all their Cricket Budget on the
> > cricket worldcup. Well what a ^%$*& joke that also is, as they never
> showed
> > every match and we missed some great games.

> > Is it on tv in Aus?

> Missed some great games? Really? Which "great games" did Sky NZ miss from
> the WC?

> If it has come down to spending all their budget on the world cup, I would
> rather they cut back on the WC in favour of more test matches - from
> anywhere!
> --

Several of Kenyas upset wins were not screened

by **Craig Sutto** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:32:34

Quote:

> > they dont want to be accused of been racist so they are pretending
> > it doesn't exist

> I saw an ad for Eng v Zim in May! Tell me it isn't true.

Its not true of course its just highlights..oh and they have put up the
price as well!

by **Paul Galvi** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:56:57

Quote:

> --
> Several of Kenyas upset wins were not screened

Oh yeah, that's right! Stupid Sky - fancy not being able to predict "several
of Kenya's upset wins" to include in their programming. (I assume "several"
is a synonym for Sri Lanka) Unless you count wins against Bangladesh and
Canada as upsets.
--
Paul
(hoping he's just been trolled)

by **Swati Pate** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:44:31

Quote:

> > Several of Kenyas upset wins were not screened

> Oh yeah, that's right! Stupid Sky - fancy not being able to predict
"several
> of Kenya's upset wins" to include in their programming. (I assume
"several"
> is a synonym for Sri Lanka) Unless you count wins against Bangladesh and
> Canada as upsets.
> --

Actually, whenever NZ played the lesser teams, this was shown, rather than
the other more interesting game.

by **Craig Sutto** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:57:18

Quote:

> > > Several of Kenyas upset wins were not screened

> > Oh yeah, that's right! Stupid Sky - fancy not being able to predict
> "several
> > of Kenya's upset wins" to include in their programming. (I assume
> "several"
> > is a synonym for Sri Lanka) Unless you count wins against Bangladesh and
> > Canada as upsets.
> > --

> Actually, whenever NZ played the lesser teams, this was shown, rather than
> the other more interesting game.

Skys coverage was poor could you see them not covering all matches say of
the Rugby World cup? no i think not. They had Sky Sports 1,2 and Skysport 3
was added just for the Worldcup.They could of showed every match but chose
to be cheapskates and not broadcast them. Same as NZ vs Sri lanka why isn't
it on, answer could be they have rugby and nrl scheduled for all weekend and
wouldn't dare upset the rugby viewers. Well Don't know why they couldn't put
Skysport 3 back on the service for the Cricket.

by **Paul Galvi** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:30:21

..

Quote:

> Skys coverage was poor could you see them not covering all matches say of
> the Rugby World cup? no i think not. They had Sky Sports 1,2 and Skysport
3
> was added just for the Worldcup.They could of showed every match but chose
> to be cheapskates and not broadcast them. Same as NZ vs Sri lanka why
isn't
> it on, answer could be they have rugby and nrl scheduled for all weekend
and
> wouldn't dare upset the rugby viewers. Well Don't know why they couldn't
put
> Skysport 3 back on the service for the Cricket.

The problem really comes down to money(doesn't it always.) By international
standards Sky NZ subscriptions are cheap. It cost $US300 for the CWC alone
in the States. The thing that pisses me off is while I appreciate Sky has to
operate within budget, I would like to be given the option on a pay-per-view
basis, eg pay $20 a day for each test. But we don't get that option and
that's annoying.

Your comparisom with rugby is completely irrelevant. Apart from the huge
disparity in popularity,(in NZ), consider this. An ODI (100 overs) lasts 7
hours. ie 420 minutes. A game of rugby lasts 80 minutes. Therefore you could
argue that 1 ODI=5 rugby games. Or 1 cricket test could equal 25 rugby
games. Using rugby as an example actually weakens your argument.

I just wish Sky would allow us the option of paying extra to watch the
cricket. Whatever happened to that "nudge-nudge, wink-wink,-can't tell you
too much, but watch this space option you brought up months ago?) As I say,
if I want to watch cricket, I know that in these days I'll have to pay.
--
Enjoy your cricket,
Paul.

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:21:45

Quote:

> > Yes but the joke is they said they spent all their Cricket Budget on the
> > cricket worldcup. Well what a ^%$*& joke that also is, as they never
> showed
> > every match and we missed some great games.

> > Is it on tv in Aus?

> Missed some great games? Really? Which "great games" did Sky NZ miss from
> the WC?

1. NZ beating India. Don't remember seeing that one.
2. NZ dismissing Australia for 100 then knocking the runs off for the loss
of a couple of wickets. Sky showed a horror movie instead.
3. A competitive final.

<snip>

Andrew

by **Craig Sutto** » Sat, 26 Apr 2003 17:30:08

Quote:

> The problem really comes down to money(doesn't it always.) By
international
> standards Sky NZ subscriptions are cheap. It cost $US300 for the CWC alone
> in the States.

Tha pricing was for the U.S market entirely different based on Cricket
worldcup being a specialized event that the average american has no interest
in.

The thing that pisses me off is while I appreciate Sky has to

Quote:

> operate within budget, I would like to be given the option on a
pay-per-view
> basis, eg pay $20 a day for each test. But we don't get that option and
> that's annoying.

Pay tv should be about offering a VARIETY of sporting events that give the
consumer the choice. If there are 3 test matches being played in the world.
I want the choice to tune into any of them.

Quote:

> Your comparisom with rugby is completely irrelevant. Apart from the huge
> disparity in popularity,(in NZ), consider this. An ODI (100 overs) lasts 7
> hours. ie 420 minutes. A game of rugby lasts 80 minutes. Therefore you
could
> argue that 1 ODI=5 rugby games. Or 1 cricket test could equal 25 rugby
> games. Using rugby as an example actually weakens your argument.

Skys support of NZ cricket has been pathetic the moment they tour overseas
Sky can't find any money to cover it. Last Sharjah tour for example Sky
claimed "the promoters want to much money" the tour of the West Indies..
Only part coverd once NZ cricket stepped in. Its 2003 we shouldn't have to
sit listening to these games on the Radio (which by the way has now gone to
some rugby broadcast)

Quote:

> I just wish Sky would allow us the option of paying extra to watch the
> cricket. Whatever happened to that "nudge-nudge, wink-wink,-can't tell you
> too much, but watch this space option you brought up months ago?) As I
say,
> if I want to watch cricket, I know that in these days I'll have to pay.

Starting in June, HOPEFULLY offering with cricket, least it should force Sky
to smarten up a bit.

Sport Today

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ

Dear SKY TV in NZ