Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716599)

Completely agree Chad. In the days when only Sky had the Premiership and other sports rights you had the choice of whether to subscribe to Sky Sports or not. It was a simple choice for the consumer.

However as others have pointed out, since the dawn of Setanta, ESPN and now BT Sport the competition has not really helped the consumer due to the cost increases and the fact that you now have to subscribe to two (or potentially more dependant on your interests) providers instead of just one.

Whilst competition is good for a consumer market, it is only good on comparable products. For example, if I want to buy a coffee, I can choose a local cafe, Starbucks, Costa, etc, and choose which provider I want based on my preferred taste and the price I am willing to pay. But ultimately I can get a coffee from any of them.

However, with sports rights, the fact is that Sky & BT offer completely different products as other than Premiership rights, they both have exclusive deals for the other sports they show. Whilst they keep trying to get one up on the other and pay overinflated prices for football rights it is only going to affect us, the consumer, as realistically there is no competition in this field, only a choice of whether to have none, some or all sports and the more you choose, the more you pay.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35716576)

Yes I get BT Sport as part of my XL package but I was talkng in general. Mind you how long will BT sport be included in the XL package I wonder? What was the length of the deal between Virgin and BT? As BT spent an awful load of money on the Champions league right and Premier league right they`re sure to want to recoup their money,wont they?

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35716452)

Trying to copy Setanta Sports Golf?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716624)

Look its a personal choice on what people want to spend their money as some spend it on home entertainment , some spend it on their home , some spend it on going out and some spend on other things and as we don't drink and smoke we spend some of ours on home entertainment.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716624)

Look its a personal choice on what people want to spend their money as some spend it on home entertainment , some spend it on their home , some spend it on going out and some spend on other things and as we don't drink and smoke we spend some of ours on home entertainment.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716648)

I cancelled Sky Sports months back and I certainly wouldn't pay a penny for what little BT currently has , I merely receive it as part of my BB , I do however still agree things are now more expensive for those who like to watch all the football.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35716650)

I guess Match of the Day for free is the only alternative but not if the objective is to watch the entire match live

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716622)

BIB. You still have a choice for a sports provider. You can choose (BT Sports) a cheaper option for a lesser PL service, but which still has plenty of football from other leagues on it, as well as some high quality other sports. You can choose a very expensive service to watch numerous PL games, as well as some other games from other leagues and plenty of other sports too. Or you can simply choose to pay stupid amounts of money for both.

Quite why people (not just Superbalde) feel they are being forced to take both subscriptions is beyond me. You have a choice of two services, you can make a decision to to save money by only taking one of the services. You must know your own financial budgets. If you want both providers and can afford it, why moan? All businesses will charge as much as people are willing to pay. If you can't afford both, pick the one you can afford.

Going back to the coffee analogy, I will add a thought to it. If Starbucks were the only provider of coffee for a number of years and charged a high price because they knew they had a very good product and a customer base who would pay the money required. Suddendly, Cafe Nero come along and offer a slightly different product which is a little less tasty, but still offers a good quality product at a much cheaper price, what would you do? Would you choose one coffee provider or would you buy two coffees to satiate your tastes?

This is only an extreme hyperthetical situation and I have not posted it to stir things up, merely to make a point. I chose coffee as an example as Superblade used that as an example. You could make the argument better with clothes (do you buy a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt, or a fat face polo shirt, or do you buy both).

I am aware this will rile a number of posters, but I have not written it cause upset, merely make a point about how daft this whole situation sounds to me. I apologize for offence taken by anyone.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716644)

We have four big supermarkets in the country, people (mainly) shop at the one that suits their budget and their tastes. If there were 4 PL providers would people blindly pay all 4 companies or choose the one that suits their budget and tastes?

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716742)

Harry - no offence taken whatsoever. I always enjoy a good debate and it's good to hear differing opinions. However, I just wanted to clarify that my post wasn't a moan simply a viewpoint about competition only being good when you have comparable products.



Your post above supports the point I was trying to get across. If I want a jar of coffee (sorry about all the coffee analogies ;)) then I have a choice of whether to get this from a local shop, a supermarket, etc, but wherever I choose to get it from and whatever price or brand I choose to pay, I'll end up with a jar of coffee. So therefore competition works as you have choice.

In the current sports tv market, competition hasn't led to choice or price competition as if you take away the Premier League rights, they are different products. If I want Football League, Golf or WWE the only option is Sky Sports or nothing. From the 2015/16 season, if I want Champions League the only choice I have is BT Sports or nothing. So whilst it has been good to increase the amount of football on TV, it has not really led to choice or price wars like competition should.

However, I don't feel that I am in anyway forced to take either or both sports channels. To me pay tv is a luxury that whilst ever I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, I will have it. However, should my budget get squeezed then the sports channels would be the first to go followed by the basic tv package if necessary.

I will be very interested to see how BT Sport fair from next year as the vast majority of their subscribers will get it 'included' with either BT broadband or Virgin XL tv. I would imagine actual full fee paying subscribers will be quite a low number so if they start charging to recoup some of the massive fee they've paid for Champions League, subscribers numbers may drop and they could go the way of those before them. I know I wouldn't pay for BT Sport as a standalone if it wasn't included in my XL tv pack. I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue with the wholesale agreement with VM beyond the current contract as that way they have a guaranteed income each month as opposed to losing money by trying to go it alone as a standalone.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, especially when they do the next Premier League rights auction. However, ultimately due to the lack of choice/competition in this field, the only thing that is certain is that prices will continue to increase.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716742)

Harry - no offence taken whatsoever. I always enjoy a good debate and it's good to hear differing opinions. However, I just wanted to clarify that my post wasn't a moan simply a viewpoint about competition only being good when you have comparable products.



Your post above supports the point I was trying to get across. If I want a jar of coffee (sorry about all the coffee analogies ;)) then I have a choice of whether to get this from a local shop, a supermarket, etc, but wherever I choose to get it from and whatever price or brand I choose to pay, I'll end up with a jar of coffee. So therefore competition works as you have choice.

In the current sports tv market, competition hasn't led to choice or price competition as if you take away the Premier League rights, they are different products. If I want Football League, Golf or WWE the only option is Sky Sports or nothing. From the 2015/16 season, if I want Champions League the only choice I have is BT Sports or nothing. So whilst it has been good to increase the amount of football on TV, it has not really led to choice or price wars like competition should.

However, I don't feel that I am in anyway forced to take either or both sports channels. To me pay tv is a luxury that whilst ever I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, I will have it. However, should my budget get squeezed then the sports channels would be the first to go followed by the basic tv package if necessary.

I will be very interested to see how BT Sport fair from next year as the vast majority of their subscribers will get it 'included' with either BT broadband or Virgin XL tv. I would imagine actual full fee paying subscribers will be quite a low number so if they start charging to recoup some of the massive fee they've paid for Champions League, subscribers numbers may drop and they could go the way of those before them. I know I wouldn't pay for BT Sport as a standalone if it wasn't included in my XL tv pack. I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue with the wholesale agreement with VM beyond the current contract as that way they have a guaranteed income each month as opposed to losing money by trying to go it alone as a standalone.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, especially when they do the next Premier League rights auction. However, ultimately due to the lack of choice/competition in this field, the only thing that is certain is that prices will continue to increase.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716785)

That's very well written and its nice to see such a clear answer regarding the sports channels, rather than the usual rants.

The only reason prices are going up though, is because Sky will not lower their prices even though they lost the Champions League rights. It really has very little to do with BT getting CL rights.

If Tesco were to save £400 million by not buying one brand of coffee (that ASDA gained exclusive selling rights to) I can be pretty certain that the money saved would be pumped into making the price of the remaining coffee lower and giving better deals on many different products for customers. I doubt greatly they would pocket it and spend it elsewhere within Tesco and give very little back to their to their loyal customers.

If a third party takes a package of PL games from Sky in the next round of bidding, then it will be up to Sky to lower their prices. If they don't, then yes people will pay more.

Ultimately, the reason there is not a price war is because Sky won't, and do not need to, begin one. They will never start one as things stand, because people still chose to pay the prices they set - whether people pay the cost by making savings in their life elsewhere, or can afford to pay for it comfortably within their budgets it is up to them. Sky wont care where the money comes from, as long as it continues to roll in. It is fine for people to pay for SS, if they want to, but they must accept that prices will continue to increase if they do. Coming on here and stating the obvious gets us no where.

I agree that SS is the only place for a lot of sports (goodness only knows I miss a lot stuff I would like to watch) and I tried to allude to that in my last post, and I agree that is unfair for the general sporting fan. Sadly though the only way to start to lower prices is for people to vote with their wallets. It will never change otherwise.