Sky versus ch 4

[Firestarter]

Nothing to do with it also being shown on sky

Exactly, if it's going to be dual broadcast, then you would expect those with Sky to automatically tune in to the sky coverage , I chose C4 purposely for the commentry but I suspect many will just habitualy tune in to sky as normal, that's if they knew it was being dual broadcast at all.

I chose to watch ch4 first

[doc]

Recorded both while I was at the match to see the analysis on both channels.

[medlocke]

Picture was superb HD quality on CH4, It was like watching tv in 1993 on SKY, no idea why it wasn't in HD, ended up watching CH4, was ok except for Danikka Primm or whatever you call her

[moto748]

I think most of us agree that C4's coverage is 'better' than Sky's. It's just a shame if they're not prepared to put money into it.

[archiekeith]

When channel 4 pay for the sport I'll be more impressed sky stump up and keep the sport afloat let's not forget that.

I agree that Sky do allow the game to just about keep it's nose above the water, but they still treat it like a second class sport.
Pay as little as possible and not advertise it very well, it's not included in their latest "Greatest Show on Earth" adverts.
It appears to be treated as a filler, when nothing else more important to them, is on.

That’s because it is.

Viewing figures, attendances, sponsors all say so.

Exactly ! It's so obvious

[ian.birchall]

I think most of us agree that C4's coverage is 'better' than Sky's. It's just a shame if they're not prepared to put money into it.

Yes far superior with better commentator although he has appeared from time to time on Sky so perhaps they are going to sign him up. The chap who does the introduction of the programme also injects a lot more enthusiasm to the game, just a pity that leaves us with a choice if Primm or Barry and Tes, between the devil and the deep blue shark infested sea.

[widdenoldboy]

Is the grandfinal on C4 at all?

[Caboosegg]

I agree that Sky do allow the game to just about keep it's nose above the water, but they still treat it like a second class sport.
Pay as little as possible and not advertise it very well, it's not included in their latest "Greatest Show on Earth" adverts.
It appears to be treated as a filler, when nothing else more important to them, is on.

That’s because it is.

Viewing figures, attendances, sponsors all say so.

Exactly ! It's so obvious

I though RL viewing figures where pretty high on TV?

[nathan_rugby]

That’s because it is.

Viewing figures, attendances, sponsors all say so.

Exactly ! It's so obvious

I though RL viewing figures where pretty high on TV?

What made you think that?

Sky would offer more money if that was the case as they wouldn’t want to risk losing out.