As I said, it wasn't free for me. In fact, worse than not being free, it wasn't available! Being a keen sports fan in general (though mainly boxing, soccer and rugby union) I already subscribe to sky sports. But of course I can appreciate the added expense for those who did get it for free before.

benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1429 - 19/05/2014 14:39:39    1590109

TheMaster
County: Mayo
Posts: 11088

Unimpressive as it is essentially the exact same as we had before. I'm sure it'll be grand but one of the selling points of this Sky deal, according to some, was that it'd be different from the same old same old.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13816 - 19/05/2014 14:47:41    1590118

Very, very disappointed with this line up, a repeat of the god awful line up on TV3, all we need is Daithi Regan and Liam Hayes to sign up and it's real déjà vu, O'Connor and Canavan may be knowledgeable and understanding of the game but they are as lively and entertaining as a sloth on sedatives, give me Brolly, Spillane, O'Rourke, Mc Stay, O'Hara anyday, might not always agree with them or like them but at least they liven up the afternoon

Richieq (Meath) - Posts: 3749 - 19/05/2014 15:17:52    1590159

Ara for the sake of a few extra euro a month you're as well off to get the Sky Sports for a bit of comfort. Hopefully they make a good job of it.

ahsure. (Galway) - Posts: 1702 - 19/05/2014 16:52:52    1590245

Ah come on lads
Ye know who ye are and yes know full well ye were proclaiming to us that sky would really improve analysis of Gaa and I had clear debates that all they would do was get the same guys and I was told tv3 analysts were poor during that debate.
Now it seems these same people are trying to use the coverage abroad and tablets and I phones rubbish as a cover up come on lads man up and admit it sky have basically pulled a fast one here the analysis will we worse
Considering they announced earley and English as co commentators and not analysts which means they will just have the presenter and one analyst in the studio .
Bit of a backward step to presenting our games considering rte has three analysts to give an insight into the game and discuss it

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 19/05/2014 17:04:00    1590251

Bit of a backward step to presenting our games considering rte has three analysts to give an insight into the game and discuss it

Depends on what your understanding of the word 'analyst' is. At least the Sky guys have been involved in modern football at some point in the last few years, discussing the amount of cones a team are using in a warm up or how much better football was when they were playing is not much of an analysis. Brolly, Spillane and O'Rourke or Early and Canavan? I know who i'd be listening to.

RebelCork (Cork) - Posts: 789 - 19/05/2014 17:19:10    1590269

That panel is very disappointing. Nothing fresh or new in it.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6181 - 19/05/2014 17:30:36    1590276

Why doesn't everyone actually wait till they begin their first few live shows and then judge. Hill16man can I have a look in your crystal ball please?

Jack_Goff (Meath) - Posts: 2920 - 19/05/2014 18:00:32    1590295

Who pays their subscription to see panellists anyway, doesn't make sense, would you subscribe to Sky to see Redknapp or Neville? no you do it to see football (soccer), what about to see Stuart Barnes or Dewi Morris? nope just wanna watch rugby but what about seeing Wayne Mardle and Rod Harrington?.....nah just want to watch darts.

Using panellist as an excuse to have a go at Sky is a little bit silly, unless of course you're not capable of watching a game and understanding it without a panellist coming on tele and explaining to you exactly what just happened in a game you've just watched.

Htaem (Meath) - Posts: 8657 - 19/05/2014 18:19:45    1590323

Jack_Goff
County: Meath
Posts: 933

1590295
Why doesn't everyone actually wait till they begin their first few live shows and then judge. Hill16man can I have a look in your crystal ball please?

In fairness people would probably give Sky the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for some people telling us how great Sky's coverage was going to be, and be an improvement on TV3/RTÉ.

I find today's announcement a little disappointing to be honest. A more expensive version of TV3 is all.

Now I'm sure it'll be grand but I don't think they're going to break the mold in terms of showcasing the game.

It is great that it may reach a larger audience with Sky in the UK in fairness.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13816 - 19/05/2014 18:25:22    1590327

Htaem
County: Meath
Posts: 5230

1590323
Who pays their subscription to see panellists anyway, doesn't make sense, would you subscribe to Sky to see Redknapp or Neville? no you do it to see football (soccer), what about to see Stuart Barnes or Dewi Morris? nope just wanna watch rugby but what about seeing Wayne Mardle and Rod Harrington?.....nah just want to watch darts.

Using panellist as an excuse to have a go at Sky is a little bit silly, unless of course you're not capable of watching a game and understanding it without a panellist coming on tele and explaining to you exactly what just happened in a game you've just watched.

People have trumpeted Sky for the GAA for a number of reasons. And if you look back over all the threads, Sky's ability to showcase the games and present them well was one of the arguments. That Sky would be a major improvement on the likes of TV3 for example.

So you just wanna see the games? Me too, we could see them last year on TV3. Now we've to pay extra.

Now that's grand and all. People can say that the extra money is okay if it helps get our games to a wider audience in the UK, that's a fair enough point but people are probably underwhelmed by Sky just taking TV3's presentation of the games.

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13816 - 19/05/2014 18:30:33    1590332

Seriously, some of you should just go out there and find a sport you actually enjoy watching if you rely on Brolly or Spillane to "liven up the afternoon". I mean, who would it have taken for you to go "wow, Sky have really pushed the boat out here" because I can't quite think who you were all expecting to now be so disappointed with the announcement.

benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1429 - 19/05/2014 18:41:48    1590336

benjyyy
County: Donegal
Posts: 980

1590336
Seriously, some of you should just go out there and find a sport you actually enjoy watching if you rely on Brolly or Spillane to "liven up the afternoon". I mean, who would it have taken for you to go "wow, Sky have really pushed the boat out here" because I can't quite think who you were all expecting to now be so disappointed with the announcement.

I think it is more a case being disappointed by getting what we expected. Sky won't be any better than RTÉ or TV3.

The only difference is that Sky will be more expensive. Paying more for the same product is generally seen to be a disappointing experience is it not?

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13816 - 19/05/2014 18:49:36    1590339

But its not the same product. Its in HD, its available on phones and tablets and its available in Northern Ireland.

Can I ask who you would liked to have seen? Who would have changed your mind about the whole deal?

benjyyy (Donegal) - Posts: 1429 - 19/05/2014 19:01:37    1590347

MesAmis

People have trumpeted Sky for the GAA for a number of reasons. And if you look back over all the threads, Sky's ability to showcase the games and present them well was one of the arguments. That Sky would be a major improvement on the likes of TV3 for example.


Well look I have Sky and have had since 1998 and to me they always took the 'safe option' if you want to call it when it comes to analysis, they don't generally go for the Spillane, Dunphy or Hook types. So anybody who thought they were going to go down that route probably hasn't got Sky or was being naive, Sky kick to touch, that's their MO as far as I'm concerned.

But I think they will be a major improvement on TV3 simply because Sky can get the games out their, that's why I'm happy about the Sky deal. Ok I accept peoples concerns over having to pay extra money to see our national sports and if this doesn't work out I'd be ok with the Gaa parting ways with Sky but again if people were expecting world class analysis from Sky then they don't really know Sky.

Htaem (Meath) - Posts: 8657 - 19/05/2014 19:04:53    1590351

Not impressed with most of the chosen pundits,bar Jamesie O Connor.Very conservative choices.BLAND.

cuederocket (Dublin) - Posts: 5084 - 19/05/2014 19:12:38    1590358

people said neville and carragher were shockingly bland pundits to do the soccer. Along with sky they've done a great professional job. TV3's production quality was terrible and remained the same for 6 years without improvement. Simply not good enough.

Jack_Goff (Meath) - Posts: 2920 - 19/05/2014 19:19:46    1590366

Thought Sky had a chance to make a statement, and they blew it. Instead of bringing in a Jayo or a Galvin or a Mullane, they played it safe. Boo-urns. ~PHS

Pope_has_spoken (Dublin) - Posts: 138 - 19/05/2014 19:24:23    1590372

Yes Sky did play safe, that's what they do, if they went edgy then that would be news but Sky playing safe isn't news, it's as you were.

Htaem (Meath) - Posts: 8657 - 19/05/2014 19:36:44    1590380

Good point Mes Amis.

Darragh O'Se's analysis on TV3 was the best thing about their coverage. Why he isn't on RTE is a bit of a mystery - would be a huge improvement on Spillane and/or O'Rourke. Matt Cooper also did a good job as anchorman, but he's always been capable in this regard. When it came to the football I thought TV3 improved on RTE.

We've yet to see any evidence of why the Sky deal was necessary, for an amatuer association to go down the road of pay per view matches is still unprinicpled, especially in light of GAA GO and it's accessibility to ex-pats.

HighKing81 (Meath) - Posts: 129 - 19/05/2014 19:38:41    1590382