Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 36051740)

Amazon aren't looking for the lions share they merely look for opportunities that arise to include with its Prime offering and make it look even more attractive.

If Amazon really wanted Sport in huge amounts it could of already blown a lot of the American broadcasters out the water.

The rights on a territory by territory basis also aren't as appealing for global streamers. Its also worth noting Amazon spent around $6 billion dollars on its entire content budget for the year so to spend more than that just on Premier League Football just for the UK would seem a little far fetched to me.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36051746)

This reinforces why many of us think Amazon won't bid big for sports rights anytime soon:

https://videoadnews.com/2020/01/08/a...o-live-sports/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36051676)

The football rights Amazon secured last time was designed to test demand for the service and to uncover any technical problems. It was a success, by all accounts.

I’m not sure where your information comes from that Amazon does not have a business model. Is that your assumption or have you seen evidence of this to which the rest of us have not been privy?

I really did not buy your idea that this was a bad risk for Amazon when this was first mooted on here, but I do agree that the pandemic has changed everything and perhaps that is enough to put paid to any plans there might have been considered to bid for the next round. However, they might just see it as an opportunity if bids are much lower from Sky and BT this time around.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36051773)

Success - how many new Prime subscriptions ? And more importantly how many remained after using their free month?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36051773)

Success - how many new Prime subscriptions ? And more importantly how many remained after using their free month?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36051777)

Well, I am sure there will be a significant enough rise in basic Prime subscriptions to Amazon, but this on its own would not make this an attractive venture. However, add the additional charges to subscribers who took the additional football subscription, and I have no doubt that it would pay, just as it pays Sky and BT to offer the football.

I fail to see why some people seem to think that Amazon cannot make a success of it when Sky and BT can! A profit is a profit, after all.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051795)

Yet their own bean counters didn't bid a solitary dime in the first round of the last Premier League rights auction.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051795)

It's self-evident why it's harder for a new entrant. First they have to outbid the incumbents - therefore exceed the value that another organisation has placed on the rights. An existing organisation, with an established customer base, and a profitable business model on day 1. In the case of Sky one probably an organisation that places a price premium on these rights above all others as being essential to it's business model.
Amazon is hardly a minnow. It has much deeper pockets than Sky and BT put together. I think you have a mental block on this. If it’s profitable for Sky and BT, how about you telling us why it cannot also be profitable for Amazon?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051795)

Amazon wouldn't be profitable on day 1. Not does it have a 12 months sports offering. So immediately it's losing money in year 1 it needs to get back by year 3. No guarantee of retaining rights after all. If it's that easy Netflix will have them, or Facebook.

So you ask yourself how to best use £5bn scratching a hole in your pocket. You look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36051799)

What part of ‘testing the waters’ do you not understand?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36051777)

Well, I am sure there will be a significant enough rise in basic Prime subscriptions to Amazon, but this on its own would not make this an attractive venture. However, add the additional charges to subscribers who took the additional football subscription, and I have no doubt that it would pay, just as it pays Sky and BT to offer the football.

I fail to see why some people seem to think that Amazon cannot make a success of it when Sky and BT can! A profit is a profit, after all.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051802)

Testing the waters at minimal cost is a completely different kettle of fish from a £5bn+ investment. This is obvious to everyone but you.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051802)

There's plenty of filler content on streaming services. Age old BBC/ITV repeats.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051802)

They could make a bid, and as you claim it's easy money, why didn't they?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36051803)

You've not answered the questions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36051805)

Well, of course it is, which is why they tested the waters!

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Quite so. But what that’s got to do with a football streaming service is beyond me. All they would have on there would be football matches. Obviously.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------



(sigh) Because they were testing the waters first.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------



I have already pointed out that most if not all Sky or BT subscribers to the football would simply change allegiance. Of course they would. Footie is everything to them.

And if Sky and BT can make a profit, so can Amazon, or whatever other streamer comes forward with big trouser pockets to make a bid in the first place.

Originally Posted by johnasimmons (Post 36051865)

These arguments are getting tiresome...

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36051992)

i thought i'd clicked the wrong thread as i'd already seen this argument....then i realised its going over two different threads!

Does anyone have a list of football contracts i.e. english and foreign leagues? Is this the second year of the new EPL contract or the first year?

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36051992)

i thought i'd clicked the wrong thread as i'd already seen this argument....then i realised its going over two different threads!

Does anyone have a list of football contracts i.e. english and foreign leagues? Is this the second year of the new EPL contract or the first year?

Originally Posted by johnathome (Post 36053163)

PPV football is coming

Sky Sports and BT Sport to unveil Premier League pay-per-view service https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...ticle-masthead

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053167)

That'll go down like a lead balloon.

Originally Posted by buckeye (Post 36053196)

Clubs should give season ticket holders vouchers to get these PPV games free.
It will also be an interesting experiment for the big clubs to see how many fans are prepared to pay outside of a TV sub and how much they are prepared to pay.
If this continues I'd forecast different prices throughout the season.

Originally Posted by Joedm45 (Post 36053185)

It is up to the customers to ensure this is a failure by not subscribing.

As usual, I'm sure there will be a few that do because watching their team is important to them irrespective of cost which is fair enough but hopefully it doesn't become viable enough to continue long term.

Originally Posted by spankysmagicpian (Post 36053200)

Just read about this. WTF!

Whilst I appreciate that they can't continue to broadcast games for free due to the clubs revenue losses, how will this fit in with the games that BT / Sky would be showing normally had C19 not been around?

They can't put all matches on PPV - they need to keep some free for those who subscribe to SS and BT for the football as a matter of course.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053199)

Surely, it’s cheaper than actually going to see the match in the stadium. Those who normally attend these matches are saving money.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36053201)

they still got the same amount of games on SS and BT it the games that's was not picked for tv coverage that on PPV

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053203)

What could be interesting - genuinely - is the ability to assess demand for alternative funding models. Individual match buys, “away season tickets”, etc. and the potential that in future all 380 games are in the main rights auctions.

The down side, for any potential new entrant, is that Sky have all of the data so could value these packages more accurately. The League will be able to work out some metrics from the revenue, and Sky will probably provide them some analysis.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053192)

Doesn't really need to get viewers it only has to keep Sky happy. Costs the league next to nothing to broadcast - every game recorded with English commentary for other markets.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053203)

What could be interesting - genuinely - is the ability to assess demand for alternative funding models. Individual match buys, “away season tickets”, etc. and the potential that in future all 380 games are in the main rights auctions.

The down side, for any potential new entrant, is that Sky have all of the data so could value these packages more accurately. The League will be able to work out some metrics from the revenue, and Sky will probably provide them some analysis.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053210)

I think you are right here, there's definitely a market for fans who only want to see their team in action.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36053213)

Why pick on Sky - it is Sky and BT who are both doing this.

However, I have to agree - way over the top.

Bearing in mind there are 5 games not originally chosen in most rounds, these extra games have gone from being free to costing £75 per round if you want to watch all games!

Unless you are a supporter of a side on Ppv why would you subscribe - especially as all the better games are already on Sky/BT?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053215)

I certainly think the market is there - that customer exists. The problem is how the product they are interested in interacts with the other products.

If it impacts negatively on matchday ticket sales then it could be a negative for the league to allow it. A full season ticket is perhaps more likely to do this than an 'away' season ticket.

Would such a ticket include the games that are currently on Sky/BT (for ease I'm using existing rights holders, but know that this would be a future contract in reality)? If not, then a Manchester United/Liverpool fan could find maybe an additional half dozen games available. If it included all games the shift to a non-exclusive contract would impact on the value of the rights.

Of course - the League could retain the additional rights and endeavour to work with the main rights holder to incentivise subscription through their platform with a tapered cost - that'd also mean that someone who has the subscription services and wants to 'top up' to a full season wouldn't be paying for the same games twice.

It's not insurmountable, but does get more complicated the more rights holders there are. Pay per view football has, to date, generally not been a success in the UK. PremPlus most subscribers took the full year option. There's been a few attempts with minor European qualifiers over the years.

I know in the past France, Italy and Spain all dabbled with making additional games live on a pay per view basis on top of a 3/4 picks on standard subscription. However all now have wholly subscription models and all games live.

---------- Post added at 21:38 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------



I'm not intending to 'pick on' Sky - however I think they've the most to lose with more games going onto BT. Your average BT/Virgin customer who has BT Sport in their package would be less likely to take Sky Sports with the additional games in their package.

I think BT would generally be content with Sky getting extra games so long as they did too.



I think season ticket holders might, but beyond that I'm not sure what the market is for games generally turned down for television already.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36053286)

Bizarrely the PPV games will be free to clubs and pubs.

Surely this will encourage people to congregate together to watch foc - good for those establishments, but not so good for covid rates?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36053286)

Bizarrely the PPV games will be free to clubs and pubs.

Surely this will encourage people to congregate together to watch foc - good for those establishments, but not so good for covid rates?

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36053351)

yet the north west and north east pubs are going to be locked down from wednesday apparently...

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053352)

But restaurants and pubs with big TV sports screens are set to remain open staggeringly.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36053440)

I thought all pubs were closing - restaurants to remain open up to 10pm?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053444)

Pubs that serve substantial meals apparently are staying open.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36053440)

I thought all pubs were closing - restaurants to remain open up to 10pm?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053471)

In England, it's just Tier 3 areas where the pubs are closing and even then, it's only the non-main-meal pubs so Wetherspoon, All Bar One, etc can still open. So far, the only Tier 3 area is the Liverpool City region but other similarly highly-infected regions are expected to follow.

Originally Posted by cupcakes aka dd (Post 36053493)

In Sweden life is pretty normal

Originally Posted by cupcakes aka dd (Post 36053493)

In Sweden life is pretty normal

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053444)

Pubs that serve substantial meals apparently are staying open.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053471)

In England, it's just Tier 3 areas where the pubs are closing and even then, it's only the non-main-meal pubs so Wetherspoon, All Bar One, etc can still open. So far, the only Tier 3 area is the Liverpool City region but other similarly highly-infected regions are expected to follow.

Originally Posted by Loubear (Post 36053653)

Personally I think it’s disgusting that we are being fleeced to fill fat cat pockets. I will be accessing the naughty streams to watch my team. No way am I parting with that kind of money when I pay enough for sports within my current package.

Originally Posted by Loubear (Post 36053653)

Go to on demand, select Live Sports Events and a wrestling event from September will show up!! Press the red button then all the games are shown. £14.95 for HD and SD.

Personally I think it’s disgusting that we are being fleeced to fill fat cat pockets. I will be accessing the naughty streams to watch my team. No way am I parting with that kind of money when I pay enough for sports within my current package.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053813)

The problem isn’t that games are being taken from existing packages - it’s that football fans know where this ends and it doesn’t end well.

In the course of the next 8 weeks or so boxing fans are going to be asked to cough up £110 in pay-per-view events.

So if there’s £14.95 fixtures are a proven success it’s only a matter of time before football fans are getting fleeced further for the more appealing games.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053813)

The problem isn’t that games are being taken from existing packages - it’s that football fans know where this ends and it doesn’t end well.

In the course of the next 8 weeks or so boxing fans are going to be asked to cough up £110 in pay-per-view events.

So if there’s £14.95 fixtures are a proven success it’s only a matter of time before football fans are getting fleeced further for the more appealing games.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053841)

That, I fear, is bang on the money, the TV companies will show the less attractive games on the already paid for subs to Sky Sports and BT Sport, and will then offer the more attractive games at the PPV £14.95 price.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053845)

With that sort of cynicism I don’t know why we don’t agree more often. :D

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053841)

That, I fear, is bang on the money, the TV companies will show the less attractive games on the already paid for subs to Sky Sports and BT Sport, and will then offer the more attractive games at the PPV £14.95 price.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053841)

That, I fear, is bang on the money, the TV companies will show the less attractive games on the already paid for subs to Sky Sports and BT Sport, and will then offer the more attractive games at the PPV £14.95 price.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053871)

I see. So the choice is for the matches that would not normally be televised to be available on PPV or alternatively, for the matches not to be screened at all.

Or you could simply watch them down at the pub.

Well, I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053871)

I see. So the choice is for the matches that would not normally be televised to be available on PPV or alternatively, for the matches not to be screened at all.

Or you could simply watch them down at the pub.

Well, I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053871)

I see. So the choice is for the matches that would not normally be televised to be available on PPV or alternatively, for the matches not to be screened at all.

Or you could simply watch them down at the pub.

Well, I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053879)

Good luck watching them down the pub if you're a Liverpool or Everton fan and live in the region, with its non-food pubs closed and one temporarily renamed.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053872)

Somewhat ironic that the football fans in the thread express concern and the non-football fan who wants to see rights costs driven up and further splintered has no issue with it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053890)

Not necessarily. Sky/BT could drop games depending on quotas to let more attractive games go to PPV - I presume as it's their platforms they get a cut. It also allows them to trial market testing of pay per view football.

Either way, it's not the straightforward innocuous gift from the Premier League to customers you portray it to be. It's very much a Trojan horse, as boxing fans will testify.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053894)

Neither Sky nor BT have said they are doing that. Until it actually happens I will regard that as a conspiracy theory.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that theory is incorrect! :D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053943)

PPV matches were shown the red card by fans when Sky previously tried it. I suspect history will repeat itself.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36054021)

Hopefully, you are correct.

I for one commit to not paying for PPV football matches (or boxing for that matter)

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36054051)

Dazn going linear in Germany

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/...ls-application

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 36054051)

Dazn going linear in Germany

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/...ls-application

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054053)

They'd best get in quick!

Hasn't someone warned them that linear telly will be gone by 2̶0̶2̶5̶ 2̶0̶3̶0̶ 2035? :D

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053940)

I would hope the plentiful games on TV - almost every week being a Champions League week for example - means the “average viewer” who maybe watches a few games a week avoids it and it gets the low thousands (pretty much season ticket holders).

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36054101)

If it is true that the ‘average viewer’ only watches one or two matches a month, PPV might be cheaper!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36054101)

If it is true that the ‘average viewer’ only watches one or two matches a month, PPV might be cheaper!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054053)

They'd best get in quick!

Hasn't someone warned them that linear telly will be gone by 2̶0̶2̶5̶ 2̶0̶3̶0̶ 2035? :D

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 36054143)

I'm a Chelsea season ticket holder. We haven't had to pay anything for this season so I've £900 in the bank if I can't attend home matches this season, but I'm not watching the PPV match this afternoon. £14.99 is too much and, as others have said, it sets a costly precedent if this Sky/BT approach succeeds to gain some traction in the PL.

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 36054143)

I'm a Chelsea season ticket holder. We haven't had to pay anything for this season so I've £900 in the bank if I can't attend home matches this season, but I'm not watching the PPV match this afternoon. £14.99 is too much and, as others have said, it sets a costly precedent if this Sky/BT approach succeeds to gain some traction in the PL.

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 36054148)

I think the thing to bear in mind is that they're games being made that are in addition to the ones you can normally watch with the Sky/BT coverage, which means fans get more if they're prepared to pay more. I think if this had been introduced in a normal season it would have been seen by many as a positive, but it feels like too much for this diminished experience. I can't imagine anyone watching more than one PPV a week, not at £15 a pinch

Originally Posted by nialli (Post 36054143)

I'm a Chelsea season ticket holder. We haven't had to pay anything for this season so I've £900 in the bank if I can't attend home matches this season, but I'm not watching the PPV match this afternoon. £14.99 is too much and, as others have said, it sets a costly precedent if this Sky/BT approach succeeds to gain some traction in the PL.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054103)

It's getting late and I think you've misread a few games a week for a few games a month. ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36054166)

Yes, my bad!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36054155)

The worrying thing is,as others have pointed out,that it becomes the normal and then the big clashes will be the ppv games leaving just average matches on the sky and BT sport's channels.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36054170)

Then if that happens its adios...

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36054173)

Totally agree with you, Den, I'd be cancelling the sports package if that happens, in fact, I'd probably cancel the lot as it's the football that keeps me with Virgin more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36054173)

Totally agree with you, Den, I'd be cancelling the sports package if that happens, in fact, I'd probably cancel the lot as it's the football that keeps me with Virgin more than anything else.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36054170)

Then if that happens its adios...

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054190)

Hence why I don't think there's much motivation for BT and Sky to make this PPV experiment a success as it undermines their business models. ;)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36054271)

I think the League are more interested in seeing it as a success to allow them to explore alternative funding models. Sky/BT would be delighted to see it crash and burn - undermines the Premier League stalking horse of them going it alone or a new entrant.