Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
What part of ‘testing the waters’ do you not understand?
|
Testing the waters at minimal cost is a completely different kettle of fish from a £5bn+ investment. This is obvious to everyone but you.
Quote:
|
The beauty of streaming services is that you don’t need to worry about filling schedules. Amazon would save the costs of running a channel - absolutely no fillers required. Amazon would have the certainty of a 3-year deal, and if it did not succeed in getting another, they would simply stop streaming. Sky would be floundering about how to fill their Sky Sports channel schedules.
|
There's plenty of filler content on streaming services. Age old BBC/ITV repeats.
If you think that the cost of filler content is a major barrier to entry then you're massively mistaken.
Quote:
Sorry, jfman, but your arguments do not stack up.
As for Netflix, they have no interest in screening live sport - it is not their scene. But any other streaming service with an interest could come in and make a bid. If they are confident they can poach the Sky/BT subscribers and generate further subscriber interest through offering lower price packages for fewer matches, why would they not?
|
They could make a bid, and as you claim it's easy money, why didn't they?