Originally Posted by Bananaman_007 (Post 35571645)

By creating Atlantic and not putting the shows on Bravo Sky created some further leverage over Virgin. Virgin should have put some kind of deal in the agreement stating that if Sky launched any new channels in the next year Virgin would be able to carry them at the same rate they were paying for the other Sky channels currently.

Originally Posted by weegiegeek (Post 35571542)

Gotcha. From the Guardian piece:



Must admit I wasn't aware of this. If anything, I'd have expected the opposite - VM renting backhaul from BT, since large parts of VM's network are currently overloaded.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35571642)

If Danny Dire ever pops up in an episode of Game of Thrones I'll rip my dish off the wall :mad:

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35571647)

That would be stupid by Sky, why in the world would they do that.

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007 (Post 35571645)

I think what MB was trying to say was Bravo closed so Atlantic could launch. In doing this Sky launched a new channel which they did not have to supply to Virgin. If Bravo had continued, i would imagine it would have still been on Virgin.

By creating Atlantic and not putting the shows on Bravo, Sky created some further leverage over Virgin. Virgin should have put some kind of deal in the agreement, stating that if Sky launched any new channels in the next year Virgin would be able to carry them at the same rate they were paying for the other Sky channels currently.

Before it closed, heavy focus was on Bravo, buying in some big US imports, that were pulling good numbers for the channel. All of the new program budget from Challenge was moved into Bravo. Combine this with the female orientated Living which Sky had tried to replicate and failed and they knew they had to buy them up even if it was to close some of the channels to stop anybody else getting their hands on them and building upon the growing Bravo and Living brands.

Originally Posted by Bananaman_007 (Post 35571691)

Why would it be stupid? They wanted the old Flextech channels, Virgin were in the driving seat for those negotiations and while they did well on the cash front out of the deal, they did not think of the bigger picture.

They sold Sky the 1 bargaining tool they had in agreeing carriage rights. I would have thought Sky were keen to get them at any cost. Sky would have benifited from the deal, by Virgin having access to the channel for a minimum 12 months, which would have been in Sky's favor when agreeing a renewal deal with Virgin.

Originally Posted by jst (Post 35571523)

How can you say that it's not value for money..........how many football, rugby and cricket games can you watch in a month....away and talk some sense!

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35571505)

Except those of us who read the first book with tremendous difficulty and couldn't get into the second one despite our friend's assertion it was a terrific set of books.
I can live without Atlantic as most of the stuff that appears on Sky's premier channel will eventually get shown on another channel when either cancelled or no longer watched by the majority of Sky customers.It's happened time and time again when Sky one was their top channel.:)

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35571447)

A) Got updated today from insiders and as of 12.40pm no new channels are set to launch as far as my insiders knows.

B) Only Two channels are not in all areas of Virgin Media right now and you are on the ball - RTE Radio and WRN Radio (Old Telewest areas only).

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------



Thanks for update Ben B.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35571859)

I'll try to ascertain what these two "minor" channels are when I next speak to him :)

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35571869)

Maybe they are Universal HD and E! HD but that will not happen due them not being ''Minor'' Channels.

Any of the two 'minor' channels may come from:

-The Active Channel (Virgin Media on Facebook confirmed that channel was set to launch on April 9th - No news yet on new launch date.)
-CBS Reality +1
-Fox +1
-Men&Movies
-Information TV
-Showcase TV
-Travel Channel
-Food Network
-Horse & Country TV
-Horror Channel +1
-Sony Movie Channel
-Movies4Men
-Heart TV
-Capital TV
-Chelsea TV
-Premier Sports
-Premier Sports Extra
-Trace Sports
-CCTV News
-RT
-RT HD
-CNC World
-UCB TV
-EWTN TV
-JML Direct
-High Street TV
-Jewellery Channel
-QVC Beauty
-Thane Direct
-Rocks & Co 1
-STAR Plus HD
-ARY Qtv
-ARY Oneworld
-Sahara One
-Al Jazeera Children's Channel

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 35571872)

& Comedy Central Extra+1?

Originally Posted by bamav (Post 35571834)

I suppose it depends on what your interests are. I personally don't think it's value for money as I don't watch sport all the time. I just watch some football when it's my team, or a European game. So I'm having to fork out the same amount of money as someone who has the channel on every hour of the day.

I feel it's over-priced with far too many adverts, which should really be covering the bulk of their costs.

Sky could quite easily cut quite a considerable amount off their subscription rates for sport and still make a comfortable profit for future investments; ie buying rights, etc. Just because Sky have created an artificially high bidding system for sports does not give them retrospective right to over-charge in the first place.

If the lowered sub and wholesale costs, they would get more subscribers which would give then more power with advertisers. Might even balance out for them in the long term, and they come out looking better for it.