[Dave42]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

If there was no truth in it whatsoever what would be the point of having the channel exclusive on the Sky platform ? Sky are a business and as such are in the game of making money.

which makes the decision to with hold the channels a joke MM as they make lot more money letting others have them

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Originally Posted by coulsontom

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

However, they probably expect to for the first few years, and as others have said, prob hope to take more rights and end up in a 50/50 style share situation with Sky (which would result in BT surely then charging, and presumably sky having to lower their prices)

But if BT get a good increase in viewers, which is likely, as they have 5m Broadband subscribers now, plus the inevitable people they entice, plus those who subscribe who used to have ESPN.

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?

price will continue only to go up no chance they come down