Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35485465)

Many people anticipated that Sky would launch a new channel after the sale. Such potential channels should have been covered in the sale agreement.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------



VM were handing over more than just the content of the channels. They were giving Sky the chance to be the only service provider with content. Sky's only competitor that was both a service and content provider would be gone. That was worth a lot.

I think VM made a mistake by selling the channels; they should have kept them and built up the content. VM's plan was to rely on fast fibre BB, which was fine when they were the only ones providing it. But they didn't look ahead to when other providers would also have fast fibre BB and to the time now, where content is king.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35485351)

Future Sky channels (such as Atlantic) should have been covered in the negotiations when VM sold all their channels to Sky. The VM negotiating team failed to see or did see, but didn't cover, what most other people knew was likely to happen.

How could they have been so short sighted?

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35485483)

It's not about being short sighted. Sky are sneaky.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35485483)

It's not about being short sighted. Sky are sneaky.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35485465)

Many people anticipated that Sky would launch a new channel after the sale. Such potential channels should have been covered in the sale agreement.

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------



VM were handing over more than just the content of the channels. They were giving Sky the chance to be the only service provider with content. Sky's only competitor that was both a service and content provider would be gone. That was worth a lot.

I think VM made a mistake by selling the channels; they should have kept them and built up the content. VM's plan was to rely on fast fibre BB, which was fine when they were the only ones providing it. But they didn't look ahead to when other providers would also have fast fibre BB and to the time now, where content is king.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35068217)

Virgin got rid of a lot of junk channels to Sky in my view :) And we got HD in return :tu:

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35485465)

I think VM made a mistake by selling the channels; they should have kept them and built up the content.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35485498)

Fancy , a firm not letting its main competitor in on its future plans. :)

What is the world coming to , they'll be telling us their trying to improve profits next. :monkey:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35485498)

Fancy , a firm not letting its main competitor in on its future plans. :)

What is the world coming to , they'll be telling us their trying to improve profits next. :monkey:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35485520)

And thy loyal servant will go to the end of the world to support thy master.:)

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 35485526)

Sorry Den this is o so true. Anyone would think that you and others believe that Sky are in business to help other companies take away their customers.

Sky are in it to get as much for their shareholders as they can,not to help Virgin ,B.T or any other company. Certainly not to help them increase their customer base . Den wake up and smell the coffee :p:. So the only time Virgin will get anything from Sky is when it increases the bottom line overall. We have to live with the crumbs from the table -or pull up a chair & join the feast :shocked: not something I actively plan to do but never say never:cool:

Originally Posted by Henkesghost (Post 35485528)

That's cos MM's master treats him well Den, feeding him the freshest finest cuts, whereas ours is a neglectful mean master who tosses us a bit of scrag end once every blue moon:mad:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35485536)

Oh Itshim its so nice to hear such fine eloquent words this morning from you this morning but in the case of Sky please tell me what they have actually got which is actually better then what Virgin have got and apart from having a few more itsy bitsy channels thats about it frankly as Virgin stand shoulders above them on a good many other things and as the old cat advert goes 9 out of 10 cats prefer only the best and in this case and many others thats certainly not Sky.:)

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------




l prefer fillet rather then rump my dear chap.:)

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 35485519)

So why the change of tune?

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35485541)

Can you remind me where and when I posted that SP. I think at one time I did hold that view, but at the same time I also had an uneasy feeling about the channel sale. I now think the uneasy feeling was correct, and the sale was a mistake. It's easy to be seduced and elated by a short term gain, which the content we got from Sky was, but forget or misunderstand the long term consequences of the action.