- This topic has 27 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think it is worth mentioning that most – or certainly some of the major – online bookmakers have the function to watch a race that you have had a bet on via streaming.
And therein lies the problem – you need to have had a bet. For punters who are selective in their betting such a model is not really workable.
Yes a great tool if you have bet on a particular race but chocolate teapot land if you haven’t.
Also, unless you are a very successful punter, viewing this way is probably a lot more expensive than taking out a subsscription to RUK or SKY.
I’d have no problem paying 66p a day for RUK. Isnt that about 1/3 the price of the mostly dire Racing Post?
Their far from perfect but RUK’s demise would be a huge loss for fans of the sport imo.
I originally subscribed to ruk and would be happy with that, do not watch the other stuff on setanta still these companys seem to think the world revolves around bloody football just like the get on section of atr.
- Total Posts 17716
I used to favour RUK becoming the sole broadcaster of non-terrestrial racing coverage but, bearing in mind the way they sabotaged youtube replays at the apparent behest of the Racing Post, and that they charge their own subscribers extra to view these replays, I’d say God forbid that either channel should ever have a monopoly.
Having said that, even that evil would be preferable to the Racing Post having anything to do with it as, at the moment, even a simple task like producing an intelligible racecard seems beyond them.Drone, if it came to the choice between RUK and ATR 99 times out of 100 it would be the latter for the following reasons.
a) The supercilious tone of some of the RUK presenters who are really not
quite
as good as they think they are.
b) Reet Hard’s excellent point above about youtube. Many a night I spent wallowing in excited nostalgia when all was going wrong in the daytime. The experience was like a form of therapy and an evocation of just how useful the Internet was ten years ago before he corporates got a toehold. Then they took this beautiful free resource away. If RUK went out of business they would deserve it for that alone.
c) ATR covers a wider range of horse racing including Ireland, has far better previews, offers a holistic approach to a days racing (including "Get On"), and Stateside.
d) The ATR website.There is no choice really, imo. But saying that, despite working ft nowadays, I still pay for RUK and would probably throw away a score to keep it going.
All valid points Max, that logically I can’t counter; but being illogical:
a) I find the ever-so-slightly-pompous attitude of RUK both agreeable and amusing
b) The removal of youtube replays was bad and sad, but was it RUK’s decision or was their hand forced by the RP and/or Setanta? cf. my wish for a newly independent RUK financed only by its subscribers
c) All jolly good if you like that sort of thing presented to you in a brash, noisy, superficial manner with breaks for adverts every 10 minutes but I don’t.
d) Can’t comment on the website as I don’t use it, though from what has been written on here I suspect it’s a useful resource.
Don’t want to see the end of ATR, just that I wouldn’t miss it in its current format; but I would RUK in its, despite it costing >12 sovs a month extra
As ever Max we’ll agree to disagree.
poles apart but sharing a passion
Indeed, sir. I often think the debate about ATR and RUK we have periodically is like comparing Stella and Grolsch.
However, I would recommend you have a look at ATR’s website. I’m impressed. Could do with a bit more ooomph now they’ve got the new features, but otherwise, it’s good stuff. I miss the old RP site bigtime (another sad loss to the corporates), but ATR acts as the methadone.
Do you (or anyone), see a merger between the two specialist channels in the future?
Do you (or anyone), see a merger between the two specialist channels in the future?
I would not rule it out, especially with the Setanta situation.
However if there was to be a single organisation I would hope they maintain the two separate platforms to minimise the split screen clashes.
So "Racing One" could show up to three UK meetings with the 10 minute gaps. "Racing Two" could show the Irish and "fourth" UK meeting.
On the days with fewer meetings, live racing could be shown on "Racing One" with rolling replays on Racing Two.
I’ve posted on another forum, that why has Racing got 2 Satellite channels? Ridiculous really – politics again, I’m afraid.There should be one dedicated channel, end of. Of course it won’t happen – and while we’re at it – what about a channel on You-Tube, like a lot of sports have. After the race has run, it is put on. Taking them off is doing nobody any good – an extremely short sighted decision.
I would not rule it out, especially with the Setanta situation.
However if there was to be a single organisation I would hope they maintain the two separate platforms to minimise the split screen clashes.
So "Racing One" could show up to three UK meetings with the 10 minute gaps. "Racing Two" could show the Irish and "fourth" UK meeting.
On the days with fewer meetings, live racing could be shown on "Racing One" with rolling replays on Racing Two.
Agree on every point. The sheer volume of racing (welcome in my view though I accept not in everyone’s), particularly during the summer months, is more than one channel can do full justice to without too great a recourse to split screens or wholesale omission of certain meetings on contentious, meritocratic grounds.
ATRUK1 and ATRUK2 – largely predicated on Paul’s model – sounds the best fit to me. Maybe even whack in an ATRUK3 for the more workaday foreign racing (i.e. outwith the likes of the Dubai Carnival), the point-to-points (you know where to find me
) and the stockpile of archive footage, special features, stable tours, etc.gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Having two independent racing channels is a little bizarre, much like the two ‘world championships’ of Darts and Boxing, though as mentioned in a previous post having two does lessen the chance of race clashes. I think it likely there will be a merger sometime in the future (recessionary pressures can hardly be strengthening the balance sheets of either ATR or RUK) be that by default with one channel failing or by a ‘shake of hands’ realisation that having two is untenable cf. The Racing Post/Sporting Life merger.
Should a merger occur I would very much agree with Paul and GC in hoping that a second channel is maintained so that, when necessary, we can choose what racing to watch, full screen and live. I would also favour a subscription channel if a firm undertaking is given that this will mean no adverts and not being beholden to a particular bookmaker/exchange, or combinations thereof.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.