Rupert fucks us once again.

[Gangster Octopus]

The Open becomes invisible to humans...

[Tramp The Dirt Down]

Rupert fucks us once again.

I thought The Open was classed as one of the sporting "crown jewels" that Sky couldn't touch?

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Yes, it was, once, along with home cricket test matches, the Derby, and the FA Cup.

FUCK YOU, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. FUCK YOU ALL TO HELL.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Sky have given a commitment to only have 4 minutes of adverts in every 60 minutes of coverage.

Oh you naive fucking twats that'll mean 20 minutes of fucking adverts in the last hour, they won't put any on in the first three hours.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Rupert fucks us once again.

R&A respond to their "postbag" of complaints

I don't recall using any "quite intemperate language". I think I just said I wanted to kick him to the floor and shit on him.

[SouthdownRebel]

Rupert fucks us once again.

I wonder when the various UK Sports (capital S) will start realising, as the NFL has done, that there is significant bunce to be had from cutting out the middle man and offering live streaming subscription packages.

After all, a one-off £60 for the Open each year is likely to be far more agreeable to golf lovers than £40 a month going into Uncle Rupert's pocket in exchange for four days of coverage.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Rupert fucks us once again.

If it's like with the Ryder Cup, you can already get all Sky's sports channels on "Now TV" for £20 for a 72 hour package over a particular weekend, with no other tie-in or subscription, but I get your point.

[Gangster Octopus]

Rupert fucks us once again.

The Beeb have basically given up...

[Flynnie]

Rupert fucks us once again.

If it's like with the Ryder Cup, you can already get all Sky's sports channels on "Now TV" for £20 for a 72 hour package over a particular weekend, with no other tie-in or subscription, but I get your point.

Or you can just stream it on the internet for free. Might not be legal, but Murdoch can suck my balls.

[Satchmo Distel]

Rupert fucks us once again.

How long before Wimbledon becomes unavailable on free TV? I already watch it only on Internet stream (in the US) but I dunno if streaming is available in the UK (unless using a proxy, illegal site, etc)

Once that happens, the Beeb may as well become a non-sports channel except for highlights and (I assume still) World Cups.

[Snake Plissken]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Isn't it amazing how the plucky little upstart keeps beating out the big bad BBC?

[Janik]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Wimbledon very recently sold their rights to the BBC for another three years. And that was an extension, the current deal was not about to expire. IIRC it covers everything up to the 2020 Championships. They surely know they could get substantially more from Sky, but just don't seem interested in that.
The AELTC, and from what they pitch onwards the also the LTA, are a rare sports organisation which are flush with cash. In fact the LTA keeps getting it in the neck for frittering large amounts away. They don't need more, and may actually be embarrassed to have it!

Also, the AELTC is pretty heavy on the tradition, and Wimbledon being on the Beeb is a significant part of that. It is, apparently, the longest partnership in sports broadcasting history, dating back unbroken to 1937.

[ad hoc]

Rupert fucks us once again.

However, outside the Uk, they seem to take the opposite line (I don;t know exactly what happens, so I'm just extrapolating from where the coverage is - in Romania at least, Eurosport gets full coverage of all the other 3 grand slams, and yet not Wimbledon, which is obviously sold to the highest bidder)

[San Bernardhinault]

Rupert fucks us once again.

I always think it's a terrible decision by sports administrators to take sports away from Free To Air, because it inherently restricts your audience to people who cared about your sport to start off with. You'll find it much harder to get new converts and expand your participation and audience levels.

But, for golf, which in Britain is a fairly exclusive sort of sport, perhaps it's much less of an issue. British golf never really cared about attracting plebian scum to join their sport. They're one of the few sports where it really probably doesn't matter much who they sell their rights to.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Well, there is a strong public benefit in attracting fewer people, plebeian or otherwise, into playing golf, considering the vast amounts of land required to enable relatively small numbers to play, and the environmental costs of the proliferation of golf courses across the planet (especially, but by no means only, the waste of water in dry countries).

Seriously, fuck golf.

[Janik]

Rupert fucks us once again.

See also Tennis. And Rugby Union.

However, a wise sport can recognise this as an opportunity. As other sports migrate to platforms with a barrier to access in return for a short-term buck, it reduces competition for any others happy to play a longer game of marketing themselves as widely as possible.

[anton pulisov]

Rupert fucks us once again.

If I was the Wimbledon organisers, I'd tell the BBC, who pretend that all other tennis tournaments don't exist, to go fuck themselves.

[Satchmo Distel]

Rupert fucks us once again.

Hasn't Wimbledon also been guilty in the past of pretending that no other tournaments exist? It kept its own seedings for a long time (defending champ usually No. 1) and still goes its own way on clothing restrictions and not having a 5th set tie-break.

One person's "tradition" is another person's "insularity".

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Rupert fucks us once again.

The clothing dimension is one reason why I will never be able to regard any other tournament as the equal of Wimbledon. Wimbledon, the first, the best, and the one with style, elegance and fine tradition.

Just look at some of the hideous branded clothing the players wear at other tournaments. Simply awful.

On a less taste-driven note, isn't Wimbledon's seeding divergence based on an objective "grass-weighted" formula? Seems perfectly fine to me. I wouldn't see anything wrong with, say, Roland Garros adopting a clay-weighted seeding formula. Seems fair and sensible tbh, to make sure the strongest players for the surface are less likely to meet too early.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Rupert fucks us once again.

The no fifth set tie-break has led to two or three of the greatest finals of all time. As well as two or three of the longest matches, usually involving Isner.

[Satchmo Distel]

Rupert fucks us once again.

IIRC it was the players who rebelled against "seeding by surface". They wanted a standardized system across all tournaments. They also felt that, having played 12 months to earn a ranking, this ranking should be honoured.

I agree that the clothing and "no tiebreak" policies work well, although perhaps when it gets to 12-12 they could reconsider, purely on health grounds, except maybe in the final.

[Janik]

Rupert fucks us once again.

satchmo76 wrote: Wimbledon... still goes its own way on... a 5th set tie-break.

I'm only aware of one event that uses a 5th set tie-break; the US Open. All others that play best-of-5, Wimbledon, French Open, Aussie Open, Davis Cup and the Olympic Men's Singles Final, have an advantage set in the decider.