Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35738058)

Do you think the XL subscription will be reduced (by £7 since that is the subscription charge) now that this channel is no more. Pigs fly etc.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35738096)

With regards to those disappoined by the whole Liverpool TV/MUTV exclusive deals, it's no different to VM paying for exclusive rights to TIVO or VM withholding their BB in my eyes. How much do VM pay TIVO for exclusive rights?

If Sky pay good money to help launch a channel or two, why should they let anyone else have access to it? If VM were willing to help fund the channel, I am pretty sure they could have got the channel on the platform.

If VM started to market the corner in content based apps and stopped smart TV's or Sky having having them, would that be acceptable? Two wrongs don't make a right after all.

Waitrose pay Heston Blumenthal to produce exclusive meals, deserts, snacks, drinks, alcoho, Christmas products and to advertise for Waitrose. Should Waitrose allow Heston to give all the products to Tesco or Sainsbury without Tesco or Sainsbury paying back Waitrose for their original outlay given to H.B.? Would a film company, who financed a film, allow another company to screen the film without paying any royalties? It would never happen. Whilst exclusivity may be wrong, we accept in many different aspects of our lives.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of Sky with holding content, but I understand it is their right to do so. VM had Film4hd exclusive for long enough, but no-one seemed to mind about that.

It seems that when it comes to a few select TV channels that Sky keep exclusive, Sky are the worst people in the world, even though the content is readily available elsewhere. I am not Sky's biggest fan, but they ar every little wrong.

Originally Posted by Bircho (Post 35738058)

Do you think the XL subscription will be reduced (by £7 since that is the subscription charge) now that this channel is no more. Pigs fly etc.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35738133)

bit sad there hasnt been any offical announcement as jobbie said they shouldnt find out whilst trying to use the service

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35738150)

MB Views: LFC TV to reappear at later date on Virgin Media?

I know that Virgin has says LFC TV has been axe from Virgin Media but why is the EPG on Channel 544 still not saying "Channel no longer broadcasting" for?

On V and V+ Boxes it saying: "LFC TV is upgrading its service"

Media Boy HQ thinks Virgin are still in talks with Liverpool FC - Look what happen with ESPN in August 2013.

Originally Posted by DaMac (Post 35738151)

There is no exclusivity on MUTV HD, MUTV can't reach a deal with VM because of all the reasons that make VM an awquard an obstinate delivery vehicle.

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Ps MUTV bought themselves out from other broadcasters so they could market their own product, given that MUTV is available all over the world on various satellite and cable platforms they arnt the ones holding up a deal with VM.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35738153)

I would like to agree with you but the VM statement seems to kill off all hope of it coming. Whereas with BT Sport in 2013 VM said it was in negotiations.

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35738155)

Well LFC TV says:
http://help.liverpoolfc.tv/app/answe...UVdtblk5Nm0%3D[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35738136)

Well put but i think ofcom have to get involved at some point to stop this happening. I know the argument is its a business and this is how business should be. Perhaps in competing coffee shops on the same high street yes but why must we television do the same? the uproar which would have happened in the 80s if channel 4 had launched exclusively to people in southern england.

i know im a dreamer but surely something must be done to protect the consumer more. Where in theory vm will bring you benefits for some stuff and sky benefits for other stuff but having both costs too much.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35738231)

Erm "slightly" owned?;):D

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------



But why should TV be any different? Its odd how a reasonable amount of posters on here think Sky are in the wrong about the whole exclusivity deals, but no-one seems to complain about Netflix or Amazon Prime having exclusive content. What is the difference?