Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36098838)

Yes, it does, where choice is plentiful. I think scripted content will always be cheaper on streamers.

Where choice is more restricted (ie sport), it's a different scenario. However, there's a limit to what people will be prepared to pay.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36098842)

What Sky said last time was that they were being more circumspect about the bidding process and that there was a limit on how much they were prepared to bid.

Of course, that might just have been a ploy to convince competitors to keep their bids lower than they might otherwise have done!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36098863)

Is choice “plentiful” or is everyone chasing the best price from the same half dozen independent studios or having to invest in their own?

After all there’s only a finite amount of actors, narrators, directors, producers, etc before you start scraping the barrel quality wise.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36098863)

There’s no evidence that Sky are intending to leave the market completely, this seems to be a significant amount of wishful thinking on your part.

Sky have called the market perfectly in the last two rights auctions for Premier League rights, despite the Premier League trying to magic up from nowhere a stalking horse bidder from a non-existent streamer.

Indeed, it brings us back to the age old question of what a streamer brings to the table that Sky doesn’t?

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k (Post 36098904)

I can't say too much but SKY want to expand on their iptv route.
So take from that what you will.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36098905)

I don’t believe for one moment that Sky want to leave the market. All they have said is that there is a limit to how much they will bid for rights to the Premier League.

I am relaxed about who provides sports content in this country - I don’t watch it and I don’t care. I have merely shared my thoughts on what I think will happen, which is that sooner or later the streamers will take over.

All the streamers bring to the market is financial clout and better ideas on how the rights they acquire could be maximised by bringing sports to a wider audience and possibly by selling merchandise - not to mention take up for other services provided on their platforms. That’s why I am beginning to think there may be better value here for Amazon, Disney and Discovery. However, it is fair to say that Comcast is in a similar position now it has acquired Sky.

Whatever happens, streaming will end up being used for the delivery of the Premier League. The transfer to streaming will be slower if Comcast successfully bids because they have a satellite service and there is no necessity to disrupt that while the satellite service is maintained. Even if streamers successfully bid, they may set up channels temporarily until our broadband system is better, but my view is that they will close those channels in favour of ‘streaming only’ at their earliest opportunity.

By the way, I think we all know that you disagree with that. So we’ll have to wait and see, won’t we?

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------



It’s becoming more apparent by the day that this is Sky’s intention. They may close their satellite service altogether sometime in the 2030s.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36098908)

Well yes, I’ll disagree.

DAZN appear to be regretting their sojourn into boxing and other secondary rights, recognising (as Sky do) that it’s the top dollar rights that bring in customers month in, month out.

Saul Alvarez vs Caleb Plant is on BT Sport Box Office in the UK when that should naturally be part of their ambitions. Eddie Hearn appears to have more limited funds at his disposal, and influence, in the North American market as ESPN and others go from strength to strength.

I’m not sure how we have moved from “deep pockets” to “market clout” I’m intrigued to know what the difference is. Is it, as I’ve been bleating on for what appears to be decades, a viable business model?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36099000)

I said ‘financial clout’. I haven’t moved anything; you just misquote, misinterpret, misrepresent and then claim the other person has changed their position.

As for your ‘business models’ - they just need to make a profit, as Sky and BT do. I don’t know why you cannot see how the streamers can make money out of this when the channel operators can - the whole idea that streamers cannot do this is absurd.

I doubt you know what their business models are anyway!

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36098993)

Are these prices correct ? If so I fail to see how this will compete with Now.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...the-corner/amp

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36098846)

Absolutely agree - but don't think this means "they are both likely to pull out of the market altogether before long."

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36099002)

No bids, OB - except the bargain bucket rights Sky/BT didn’t want. If it’s that easy where were bids? I’m sure they know their business models better than both of us.

“Just need to make a profit” didn’t serve ITV Digital or Setanta well, or ESPN after them. The idea that it is easy is misplaced. Indeed, the blind bidding process is designed to maximise the costs of the rights minimising the profits for the bidder(s) in a competitive auction. Someone bids too much for everyone else. In the case of Sky and BT to date - too much for Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, DAZN, etc.

---------- Post added at 23:54 ---------- Previous post was at 23:53 ----------



Strange pricing - I guess the question is how well “bundles” come out and what retentions look like.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36099008)

We all know you disagree, on most things as it happens, so perhaps we should just leave it there. Others can judge who is right, and events will prove it one way or the other.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36099008)

Surely that depends on how much the streamers are prepared to pay to dislodge Sky.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36099008)

Surely that depends on how much the streamers are prepared to pay to dislodge Sky

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36099034)

Your assertion was that "they [Sky and BT] are both likely to pull out of the [sports TV] market altogether before long."
You've provided no evidence to support your assertion that Sky intend to pull out of the sports TV market.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36098905)

I don’t believe for one moment that Sky want to leave the market. All they have said is that there is a limit to how much they will bid for rights to the Premier League.

I am relaxed about who provides sports content in this country - I don’t watch it and I don’t care. I have merely shared my thoughts on what I think will happen, which is that sooner or later the streamers will take over.

All the streamers bring to the market is financial clout and better ideas on how the rights they acquire could be maximised by bringing sports to a wider audience and possibly by selling merchandise - not to mention take up for other services provided on their platforms. That’s why I am beginning to think there may be better value here for Amazon, Disney and Discovery. However, it is fair to say that Comcast is in a similar position now it has acquired Sky.

Whatever happens, streaming will end up being used for the delivery of the Premier League. The transfer to streaming will be slower if Comcast successfully bids because they have a satellite service and there is no necessity to disrupt that while the satellite service is maintained. Even if streamers successfully bid, they may set up channels temporarily until our broadband system is better, but my view is that they will close those channels in favour of ‘streaming only’ at their earliest opportunity.

By the way, I think we all know that you disagree with that. So we’ll have to wait and see, won’t we?

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------



It’s becoming more apparent by the day that this is Sky’s intention. They may close their satellite service altogether sometime in the 2030s.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36099046)

Or 2040s, 2050s, 2060s etc etc.

Only thing that changes are that your predictions are getting more vague.

Sky's whole business plan has been built around Premier League football - they have survived the loss of Champions League, Premiership Rugby, Autumn Rugby Internationals and a lot of Southern Hemisphere sport.

Yes they are looking at providing their content via broadband - this has been coming for years and is aimed primarily at those who cannot (or don't want) have a dish on their house. If anything I see this as a move to take customers off Virgin

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Whatever happens, streaming will end up being used for the delivery of the Premier League.