Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldavies83
But it was OK for Virgin to own content and distribution when they had VMTV back in the day? Was that not unfair on Sky?
Only difference being, I'd take a wild guess that Sky's content is a hell of a lot more popular and made a hell of a lot more money in subs than VM's ever was (Sports/Movies/Atlantic etc etc)
|
It possibly would have been a bit more even aguably if sky had not blocked VMs bid for ITV by hoovering up shares in the company.
If the takeover had of happned it could well be that VM might have still been in the content and distribution game.
Sky bought a 17.9% stake in ITV in 2006 just as rival Virgin was finalising a takeover deal with ITV. The move was widely seen as a strategic move to prevent that merger.
---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicki
THey should also force Virginmedia to open its cable Internet to sky as well . It seems virgin want the Tv channels from sky but don't want to give sky access to its broadband. Both company's were at 1 point billions in debt , but sky managed to get a model that allowed it to become debt free. Virginmedia has not managed this yet.But sky should not be constantly penalised for being a success.
|
Well the deals also benefit sky also ,sure they have invested in F1 but by selling the SD version to VM gain access to a potential 3.8 million customers approx,thereby letting sky charge extra for ad space,also seeing as VM customers will have to pay £22.50 a month to get the sky sports package for F1,sky also rake in extra in subs they might not otherwise have got,not a bad deal for either VM or Sky.