Originally Posted by MaverickJesus (Post 35636797)

Everyone else seems to have picked this one up for me, so I suggest you read the other replies and try again.

Originally Posted by spankysmagicpian (Post 35636759)

It's a commercial arrangement to the financial benefit of VirginMedia Business which although part of the same group, as far as I am aware, nothing to do whatsoever with the consumer side. Same with BT. BT Openreach provide circuits back to VMB POPs where VMB have no fibre presence, it doesn't mean that BT consumer side and VM consumer side are going to jump into bed together when they are both vying for the same customers.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35636740)

Or maybe just Virgin Media business met Sky's requirements the best , its a 5 year deal at around £50 million so basically £10 million a year. Its a financial transaction that's beneficial to both sides nothing more nothing less. Some of the missing Sky channels may very well arrive at some stage but that's still dependant on the two companies reaching a commercial agreement which is beneficial to both parties.

Originally Posted by howardmicks (Post 35636799)

it launches on the 4th november sadly on vm on sd channel sky have hd (exclusive for the moment )

Originally Posted by blue666666 (Post 35636801)

cheers for information

Originally Posted by RobboEdin (Post 35636811)

Source that channel will be only SD on Virgin Media?

I suspect the channel is HD only.

Originally Posted by ocav (Post 35636559)

I'm not going to mention again how the letters MP were used in the article to make it stand out. It just happened to be that the leader of a Rugby Group was an MP. His request to Virgin Media was not in a government capacity, and it was a single MP and MPs

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35636628)

Premier Sports need Virgin far more than Virgin needs Premier Sports IMO

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35636657)

Of course they don't, Dave, but behaving in the way they have been doing in the past is not cricket. In fact, it's downright uncompetitive. What other companies resort to such tactics?

The only thing preventing a deal involving the other missing Sky channels (particularly Sky 3D) is Virgin Media itself. Given that all new large screen TVs are now providing 3D as standard, I don't think Virgin would pass off the opportunity to add Sky's 3D offering because Virgin's is not awfully good at the moment.

So I am pretty optimistic, despite Media Boy's thinking that Sky 3D is not part of the likely Sky deal. We will know for sure within weeks.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35636847)

It seems those good old Sky customers have short memory's then.

£9.99 is just absolutely a rip off as in my mind as a more reasonable price would be around £4.99 per month.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35636847)

It seems those good old Sky customers have short memory's then.

£9.99 is just absolutely a rip off because in my mind a more reasonable price would be around £4.99 per month.

Originally Posted by Tricky Trevor (Post 35636858)

And also a rip off for pathetic picture quality

Originally Posted by Tricky Trevor (Post 35636858)

And also a rip off for pathetic picture quality

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35636857)

I suppose it comes down to what you enjoy.

I pay £10.00 per month for Boxnation because I love boxing. I can understand why others would think £10.00 per month for a non-HD channel dedicated to boxing is a rip off.

For some Premier Sports coverage of Nascar and NHL is worth £9.99 per month.

I know your a big fan of the horses Den. Die hard racing fans probably think Racing UK is a must at £20.00 per month whilst other would think :shocked: :D