Sky Sports' moving events between channels.

[Cholo_cws]

I see Sky have moved Ricky Burns's fight from Sky Sports 1 to Sky Sports 3 in the last week. Meaning the advertising of it on Sky Sports 1 on last week's Ringsde, their website etc was false advertising. Anyone know what allows Sky to do this? After all, it is an already advertised event being moved from one channel to another that requires a further, higher subscription and contract. It may or may not be covered in their terms and conditions but to change it so late in the day is poor form...but par for the course for Sky in my experience.

[ste1983]

they'll be covered somehow

it is annoying though I only realised yesterday so had to quickly add sky sports 3 and 4 (as come together with virgin). I usually just stick with 1 and 2 and add 3/4 if and when I need it. Have to keep it for a month though only an extra £4 odd but literally i'm paying that just for tonights card.

[palooka]

they won't miss a trick to skim you; I may get one of those raspberry things.

[Cholo_cws]

Yeah, and they make sure that no repeats get shown on SS1 - precedence given to yet another showing of 'The Premier League Years' etc.. I stopped getting Sky earlier this year (had a continual subscription since 1989 - originally via Radio Rentals) but was hoping to watch the Burns fight with a mate at his house. What with what Sky have done with the cricket coverage and Sky Box Office I shouldn't be surprised.

[handsofstone]

There never seem to be in the studio these days either,always ringside,more cost cutting

[jackukmma]

There never seem to be in the studio these days either,always ringside,more cost cutting

How's that cost cutting? They are still sending team up to report live. I prefer them live at ringside, gives it a better feel

[orbtastic]

There never seem to be in the studio these days either,always ringside,more cost cutting

How's that cost cutting? They are still sending team up to report live. I prefer them live at ringside, gives it a better feel

It costs money to have one of those little boxes/tents put up, you've got to pay people to erect it, then you have to light it, pay the make-up girl, have another camera and someone to operate it.

More importantly, if you have just one team at the event and they're doing the broadcast from ringside, you don't need as many people. Of course it saves money.

[ILikeBeer]

It costs money to have one of those little boxes/tents put up, you've got to pay people to erect it, then you have to light it, pay the make-up girl, have another camera and someone to operate it.

More importantly, if you have just one team at the event and they're doing the broadcast from ringside, you don't need as many people. Of course it saves money.

Does that matter? You still get the pundits providing analysis. Is them being at ringside rather than in a studio really that detrimental to your viewing experience?

If they're going to cost cut somewhere, I'd say there than elsewhere.

[orbtastic]

It costs money to have one of those little boxes/tents put up, you've got to pay people to erect it, then you have to light it, pay the make-up girl, have another camera and someone to operate it.

More importantly, if you have just one team at the event and they're doing the broadcast from ringside, you don't need as many people. Of course it saves money.

Does that matter? You still get the pundits providing analysis. Is them being at ringside rather than in a studio really that detrimental to your viewing experience?

If they're going to cost cut somewhere, I'd say there than elsewhere.

No it doesn't matter [to me, at least], but it's just an explanation as to how it is cost saving. It's pretty simple, don't see the need for a huge discussion about it. Less people=less cost.

[Counter-puncher]

Less people=less cost.

stop him if he's getting too technical here, people.....

[dbf]

HBO have the biggest budget in boxing and they never have a studio just Jim, Max and a fighter ringside. Works really well.

(Edit- maybe they do have one who throw to those guys - don't usually watch the full broadcast)

[ste1983]

they'll be covered somehow

it is annoying though I only realised yesterday so had to quickly add sky sports 3 and 4 (as come together with virgin). I usually just stick with 1 and 2 and add 3/4 if and when I need it. Have to keep it for a month though only an extra £4 odd but literally i'm paying that just for tonights card.

That got even more annoying when I didnt even get to watch the full burns fight.

Fairplay though phoned Virgin Media told them I wasn't keeping Sky Sports 3/4 for a whole month when I had them for 1 fight and couldnt even watch that in full. The guy I spoke to was Scottish and had been watching the fight himself so agreed to cancel it for me

[whiskey]

HBO have the biggest budget in boxing and they never have a studio just Jim, Max and a fighter ringside. Works really well.

(Edit- maybe they do have one who throw to those guys - don't usually watch the full broadcast)

Isn't that what sky do? All the last fights have seen like Paul Smith, Johnny and Glen stood ringside.

This week it was Alex 'those English pigs' Arthur stood next to Glenn after the Burns fight.