[Saneboy13]

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

I'd say that's looking at it backwards - £40m sounds a lot, until you realise it works out at 3p per customer per day. Quoting £40m is meaningless when you don't know how many customers VM have, or what revenues they have, not to mention comparing viewers/price for other channels.

Also, surely 3p was the _new_ price, and not the increase?

In answer to your qu, no I wouldn't mind it if 90p per month of my bill went to Sky. I realise that not everyone is okay with that, but then everyone has different tastes. But for everyone, the question is what that money will be spent on instead.[/quote]

I am fully aware of the situation as I work for VM, so the quote of an "Extra 3p per customer per day, equating to an extra £40million a year" is factual. They wanted the £40mil on top of the deal that was there. So for an instance if VM were paying £40million to carry these channels, Sky wanted to double the cost of it being there! Fair? no chance