Crowds to return for opening round of Super Rugby Aotearoa

[crossref]

I still have to want to buy it at the price that is asked. Howsoever the supplier arrives at the cost they are asking.

didds

Exactly.
Eventually the market settles on a number where demand equals supply , and that's what we call price

 

[didds]

Yep. (O and A level economics me .

Though of course the market determined price isnt necessarily what I (or anybody else) may still consider "value for money". Coming back to the sky sports thing... the market price for the package may be £40 a month. I only need/want the rugby, not all the football, F1, golf, boxing etc etc ,. So that isn't value for money for me - though its the market price for that package.

didds

 

[crossref]

Yes and if the price is greater than your perception of value, you don't buy
If the price is less than your perception of value , you buy and you enjoy consumer surplus (the difference between the price and the perceived value, for you)

 

[L'irlandais]

My point was slightly different; is £400 a year value for money. Not based on personal opinions about whether 1 Rugby match a week, or 5 matches if you’re a soccer fan are worth it. But rather, to gain their market share Sky Sports invested lots of money, offices & staff around the globe, fully-fledged TV rigs, and God knows what else to set up a live stream infrastructure. Further details of Infrastructure :

• Three quarters of the broadcasting specialists believe that it is not always easy to keep up with the changing media behavior of consumers

You take out a subscription for a service. Years later competition has eroded that market share and Sky are forced to look for economies. Flog their TV-rig for outside broadcasting close regional offices and simply hire local temporary staff to send images of the matches with dubious quality equipment and similar sorts of savings. Yet the monthly subscriptions don’t reflect these savings. That’s what I was getting at, irrespective of whether you are okay with paying £400 a year, it’s the thin end of the wedge if you pay more today for a lesser quality product than you enjoyed several years ago.

[LAWS]Most providers are keen for customers to commit to everything: TV, phone and broadband.[/LAWS]To add insult to injury they what to offer you services you’re not necessarily interested in. Most consumers, like didds above, are not really interested in bundled packages, yet that’s what on offer.

 

[crossref]

I don't subscribe. For me it's not worth the cost
I do have BT Sport , bundled with BT broadband

 

[L'irlandais]

It was the creation of BT Sports which not only ended Sky’s monopoly but also freed up pricing.

UK comms watchdog Ofcom has relinquished its control of Sky's Sports channel pricing due to the emergence of “fair and effective competition” from rival BT Sports

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I understand sports selling out to pay per view but for me it always has a detrimental effect on crowds and interest in the general game.
I remember as a youngster and young man regularly watching cricket on TV and knowing all my local team Lancashire's players. Even though I was never good at the sport I had an interest. Other sports have gone the same way, F1, Boxing, even for me football and both codes of rugby. Never ends well for me.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Anyway.

I watched the Highlanders and the Chiefs.

In terms of value for money you certainly got that if you wanted to listen to Paul Williams blowing his whistle for PK every two minutes.

20 PKs after 55 minutes

31 PKs at FT

No yellow cards for any of it.

A work in progress is being kind.

 

[crossref]

I understand sports selling out to pay per view but for me it always has a detrimental effect on crowds and interest in the general game..

rugby crowds are growing ...
(well, in Englad)

 

[damo]

Anyway.

I watched the Highlanders and the Chiefs.

In terms of value for money you certainly got that if you wanted to listen to Paul Williams blowing his whistle for PK every two minutes.

20 PKs after 55 minutes

31 PKs at FT

No yellow cards for any of it.

A work in progress is being kind.

My fear is that the consequences of the get strict at the breakdown policy is that teams will realise it's better to have territory rather than possession. Teams will adopt the strategy of kicking the ball whenever they get it, and the game will become increasingly full. Essentially what happened in 2009.

The game was in a very good place the last few years. Mess with it at your peril.

 

[dickell]

Anyway.

I watched the Highlanders and the Chiefs.

In terms of value for money you certainly got that if you wanted to listen to Paul Williams blowing his whistle for PK every two minutes.

20 PKs after 55 minutes

31 PKs at FT

No yellow cards for any of it.

A work in progress is being kind.

Yes, the whistle went a lot, but that is because in all four games so far the referees have finally been applying the laws relating to the breakdown and offsides. Once the teams get used to playing to the laws the whistle will be blown less often and the game and the spectacle will be much improved. See Sir Geech in today's Sun Tel.

 

[SimonSmith]

It isn't exactly the running spectacle we thought we would get though.

Because teams are afraid of giving away PK in their bit of the field, the preferred play is the kick. Better to make the oppo play from their 22m and commit a mistake or penalty than do it from your end.

And oh, the endless delays at the bottom of rucks.

I'm honestly preferring the NRL matches just now. Better kicking, better handling, and quick play-the-ball.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I'm honestly preferring the NRL matches just now. Better kicking, better handling, and quick play-the-ball.

tru dat

 

[damo]

Yes, the whistle went a lot, but that is because in all four games so far the referees have finally been applying the laws relating to the breakdown and offsides. Once the teams get used to playing to the laws the whistle will be blown less often and the game and the spectacle will be much improved. See Sir Geech in today's Sun Tel.

Perhaps. Or perhaps teams will figure out that it's better not to have the ball and kick it away all the time. Time will tell.

My issue is that I think the game - in particular the breakdown - has been in a really good place for the last couple of years and I wonder why we want to change that.

 

[Rich_NL]

My issue is that I think the game - in particular the breakdown - has been in a really good place for the last couple of years and I wonder why we want to change that.

I suspect you're in a pronounced minority on that highlighted point; there's been constant criticism of it at pretty much every level, and it's only been growing.

From the little rugby I've been able to see, cleaning things up has had a good effect now that the players are used to it.

 

[L'irlandais]

Some folks, like Chiefs attack coach Roger Randle are struggling with the new breakdown laws.

Adding to the Chiefs’ remarkable downturn in dividends is that they have also had the highest average time in possession per game of any side – 18 minutes and 15 seconds.

But, it’s kicking which is proving to be key, and the Chiefs are still searching for some balance in that department, still looking confused in their approach, whether to play up-tempo or put boot to ball.

“The teams that are turning over the ball the most, and not kicking as much as the other team, they’re losing,” Randle said. “So, you’re not always rewarded for having possession.

 

[damo]

I suspect you're in a pronounced minority on that highlighted point; there's been constant criticism of it at pretty much every level, and it's only been growing.

From the little rugby I've been able to see, cleaning things up has had a good effect now that the players are used to it.

I don't think so. People have been complaining about he breakdown for years. Last 2 years the balance has been good and there has been a lot of excellent rugby played.