October 11, 2006 at 12:44 #6445MikkyMo73Member
- Total Posts 1789
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: –>
MikeOctober 11, 2006 at 12:44 #3145
Too many adverts, second class coverage. Way too much dross and not enough top class racing. Is it worth it’s Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 per month to be precise.<br>Free it certainly is not.October 11, 2006 at 12:51 #79659davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
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?October 11, 2006 at 12:53 #79660
But it is not free, as advertised dj. It is a subscription channel.<br>Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 probably is good value, but it is not free.October 11, 2006 at 12:56 #79661yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 3073
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 a month is a bargain, it’s Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£15 a month on Sky:(October 11, 2006 at 13:03 #79662
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3pm is on Sky yeats. Even Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£15pm doesn’t get me ATR. You have to spend Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£18pm, if like me you have the variety and factual package. Any less than that and Sky wouldn’t be worth having. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£15 is the minimum for me. Therefore, I need to spend Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£18 to get ATR, plus all the other sporting dross I don’t want. But I now spend Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£15 anyway, so ATR would cost me an extra Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3.October 11, 2006 at 14:02 #79663jackane24Member
- Total Posts 444
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!!! ;)October 11, 2006 at 14:48 #79664
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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£30 in subscriptions to Sky and Setanta every month, on top of the TV licence fee of Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£500 per year. You have to find compromises, and ATR is going to have to be one of those compromises. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 a month isn’t a lot, but added to the other Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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.October 11, 2006 at 15:13 #79665Ultimate NightmareMember
- Total Posts 326
Quote: from Racing Daily on 3:48 pm on Oct. 11, 2006[br] Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â I can do without limitless dross from Lingfield and Wolves over the winter months. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â The RUK product is far superior and will suffice for me. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â If it was freeview, i’d watch it. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â But I won’t deliberately pay for it.
So Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 a month is too much for Lingfield & Wolverhampton yet you will pay Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£15.00 for one track though.October 11, 2006 at 15:23 #79666yeatsParticipant
- Total Posts 3073
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.October 11, 2006 at 15:25 #79667
Yes UN, I pay Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 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 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£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)October 11, 2006 at 15:31 #79668LUKEMember
- Total Posts 271
If you think 75p a week for ATR is bad value you really need another hobby.October 11, 2006 at 15:32 #79669noreMember
- Total Posts 151
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.October 11, 2006 at 15:34 #79670
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.October 11, 2006 at 15:39 #79671SalselonMember
- Total Posts 883
It’s Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3 a month … why is this even a discussion point?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.