- This topic has 342 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
You’ve gotta laugh <!– s:D –>
<!– s:D –>ATR interview Daryl Jacob on the ‘Get On’ show and Luke Harvey introduces him by showing a clip of Daryl 20 length clear on The Listener in the Hennesy, only to get caught on the line by Beef Or Salmon….
If ever you want a guest to hang up, or hang himself with a telephone wire then surely this is the way to do it <!– s:lol: –>
<!– s:lol: –>To Daryl’s credit he stayed on the line, only for for Luke to refer to him as Daryl Holland within 30 seconds of the interview commencing <!– s:shock: –>
<!– s:shock: –>Mike
Too many adverts, second class coverage. Way too much dross and not enough top class racing. Is it worth it’s £3 per month price tag? Should it go freeview?<br>I think it should, as it seems quite hypocritical to charge for it whilst also showing ads every five minutes. They can’t have their cake and eat it.<br>I am asking this question very deliberately, as I changed my sky package last night. I never watch Eurosport, Sky Sports News, The Golf Channel, etc. So I got rid of them to bring down my subscription. I also lost ATR, inadvertantly. Therefore ATR costs. If you want it, you have to pay. £3 per month to be precise.<br>Free it certainly is not.
FFS
If it only costs 3 quid a month it is an absolute bargain. Have a think about what else you can get for 3 quid a month.
Is it hypocritcal to show adverts on SkySports and charge for that?
But it is not free, as advertised dj. It is a subscription channel.<br>£3 probably is good value, but it is not free.
£3pm is on Sky yeats. Even £15pm doesn’t get me ATR. You have to spend £18pm, if like me you have the variety and factual package. Any less than that and Sky wouldn’t be worth having. £15 is the minimum for me. Therefore, I need to spend £18 to get ATR, plus all the other sporting dross I don’t want. But I now spend £15 anyway, so ATR would cost me an extra £3.
RD, to some extent, I agree with you a lot. The adverts drive me crazy, and I cannot stand having a split-screen between a Group 1 at Chantilly, ie. French Derby, and some Class 5 race at Lingfield.
But recently (I have been watching it more recently, so maybe it was the same before), I have seen lots of interesting features and some stable tours. I still think the picture quality from many courses is not good enough though, and this definitely needs to be improved.
As much as us racing folk I’m sure would like to see ATR get on Freeview, I couldn’t see it happening anytime soon.
However, I STRONGLY recommend that RUK goes Freeview, as well as the 5 supporting channels :biggrin: Please Setanta, please!!! ;)
I have always been an advocate of ATR up to recently. However, their coverage of Royal Ascot was dire. Being their flagship product, I would have expected more. Even not having the 5.30 race on the BBC, their coverage smashed ATR’s offering into touch.<br>With this loss of ATR, even though i’m paying a total of £30 in subscriptions to Sky and Setanta every month, on top of the TV licence fee of £130 per year, it’s tipped me over the edge. There comes a point when you have to say that it is one big take on.<br>I’m on a basic Sky package, and my TV and racing coverage is costing me £500 per year. You have to find compromises, and ATR is going to have to be one of those compromises. £3 a month isn’t a lot, but added to the other £41 per month it is the proverbial one straw too many for me. I can do without limitless dross from Lingfield and Wolves over the winter months. The RUK product is far superior and will suffice for me. If it was freeview, i’d watch it. But I won’t deliberately pay for it.
Quote: from Racing Daily on 3:48 pm on Oct. 11, 2006[br]  I can do without limitless dross from Lingfield and Wolves over the winter months.  The RUK product is far superior and will suffice for me.  If it was freeview, i’d watch it.  But I won’t deliberately pay for it.
So £3 a month is too much for Lingfield & Wolverhampton yet you will pay £15 a month for Kempton. Can’t quite work that one out. I can’t wait for the dross bring it on. i Won’t pay £15.00 for one track though.
I see where you coming from now RD, I thought you were on some special deal on cable. <br>Despite it’s faults I’d sooner pay 3 quid for ATR rather than the 15 quid for all the dross and repeats on Sky I’m forced to pay to enable me to watch ATR.
Yes UN, I pay £15 to watch the winter NH at Kempton as well as for Cheltenham, Aintree, Newbury, Newmarket etc. ;)<br>I don’t mind watching the dross if there is no other racing.  But given a choice, i’d take the above tracks anyday. It isn’t the amount, it’s the principle of paying to watch stuff that i’d rather not watch. I’ll probably fork out the extra £3pm in February. But until then ATR offers nothing much that I am interested in.
(Edited by Racing Daily at 4:31 pm on Oct. 11, 2006)
I always find it amusing that people who are willing to gamble hundreds and, in many cases, thousands of pounds in a month will still debate the ‘value’ in the (relatively puny) cost of a tv channel or newspaper.
Quote: from LUKE on 4:31 pm on Oct. 11, 2006[br]If you think 75p a week for ATR is bad value you really need another hobby.<br>
It’s advertised as a free channel Luke. My experience proves that isn’t free.
I’m merely pointing out that it isn’t a free channel Salselon. Many people think it is :)
<!– s:D –>
<!– s:lol: –>
<!– s:shock: –>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.