Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35570156)

So you think BT are just starting up Three Sports Channels just to stop the VAT man from getting it?:confused:;)

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35570156)

I'm sure I read that Sky has around 6 million Sky Sports subscribers on its own platform and VM has around 700,000 , they also sell to Talk Talk , Smallworld , BT , UPC Ireland so I realistically can't see BT beating Sky Sports viewing figures. How many of their 5 million BB subscribers will have no interest in sport at all or be without BT TV or Sky TV.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35570119)

It might actually be a good thing for non-sports fans with XL and VIP. If ESPN drops out, and BT Sports doesn't come to Virgin at all, suddenly Virgin have extra money to play with. What this could mean is:

1. More HD channels
2. More on demand content
3. A dedicated 3D channel
4. Premier Sports
5. SKY Atlantic
6. Etc...... :D

Originally Posted by raefil (Post 35570196)

All this makes me realise that it us, the consumer, that are the mugs here. For me the introduction of BT into the market is the straw thats broke the camels back. enough is enough. "The fatted calf has only so much fat."

I might aswell join the hoards of others and if there is a match i want to see on TV just stream it!

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570166)

No. Just pointing out that people who are saying that BT somehow can't afford to offer their channels cheaply are wrong.



Sky's record viewing figure was the Manchester Derby last year which peaked at 4.4m. with an average of 4m.

However, they average around 2m viewers per game, some games only 1.5m.

11m peak watched last years FA Cup final on ITV.

United's 2nd leg defeat to Real Madrid averaged 9m.

The point I was trying to make was pretty simple.

If you assume that there are the 6m Sky Sports subscribers, of which on average only 2m ever tune in to watch a game.

And there are 5m BT Broadband subscribers.

It's also sensible to assume that whilst some Sky subscribers may have BT broadband, a lot with have Sky Broadband.

Therefore, you have a hefty chunk of 5m BT subscribers now having access to BT sport channels for free.

You will also get some who move from Sky to BT for BB.

And also some who stay at Sky for BB but still sign up to BT Sport.

So you have BT Sport that will become accessible to at least 5m BT BB users, plus a chunk of the 6m who subscribe to Sky Sports.

Basically, you can envisage BT's matches being available to a wider audience than Sky Sports.

I included ITV's figures because that highlights how people want to watch football but don't want to pay, therefore it's very probable that there's people with BT BB who don't want to pay for sport, but will want to tune in when it's offered to them for free.

If it does bear out that there are higher viewing figures, then BT can extract greater advertising revenue and thereby negate the need to charge.

I highlighted BT's revenue to show that they would only generate in the mid £20m by charging everyone which doesn't cover 10% of the costs of acquiring the rights (let alone paying for "talent").

ie. They're better off trying to get as many people watching as possible and make money out of the advertisements as advertising generates far greater revenue than subscriptions.

Originally Posted by Dash: CF noob (Post 35570198)

Please update your calculator 22.5m per month which is £270m per year.

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35570185)

Not if by doing so they don't drive subscriptions to their own products. Take Sky Atlantic. The argument on here is often that viewing figures are low and they'd make more money from advertising revenue by opening the channel up to cable viewers. But that simplistic argument ignores the fact that Sky estimate that Atlantic drives a quarter of new subscriptions to its platform and, by their own admission, that's where the real money lies.

BT cannot hope to recoup their investment in this rights cycle, in my opinion, and certainly not through advertising revenue generated by wholesaling a channel to other operators when it could be better used to drive subscriptions to its broadband product.

FWIW, I think it's a good deal for BT broadband customers, and having once been one of those I can only say that it's about time BT broadband customers had a good deal!

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570225)

can't be figured out with certainty tho surely?

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35570220)

Does anyone know if the State of Origin Rugby League is on Sky Sports or Premier Sports this year?

EDIT: Just found out it's on Premier sports, and so is the highlights package. Absolutely gutted.

Never mind we are all winners as sports fans.

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35570230)

I wonder how long it will take them to realise all they are doing is pushing people in the direction of streaming sites ?

Originally Posted by coulsontom (Post 35570145)

Everyone's saying BT will make losses on the Sport side of things.

It is logical to predict they will have more viewers than Sky Sports. They could therefore market the advertising slots very competitively and charge more than if they had subscribers paying.

Say they had 1.5m paying £15 that's £22.5m
BT is paying £246m per season. Subscriptions wouldn't even scrap the surface anyway.

BT made a profit of £675m last year.

They're not eating into that too much are they?