[Merged] You have to give Sky their Due!!! - VM Screwed Up? - Page 2

Chad · 02-09-2010, 22:08

The truth is we have SKY to thank for all the HD channels we have available on Virgin today. SKY have been driving hard for 2 - 3 years to launch as many HD channels on their platform as possible. Virgin, until recently, didn't really do much in the way of delivering HD channels however they couldn't allow SKY to continue unchallenged.

Put it this way, if it was the other way around and SKY decided 2 - 3 years not to invest in HD and allowed Virgin to build their HD folio first before challenging, both SKY and Virgin customers would still only have BBCHD!

SKY, making Virgin better

joff81 · 02-09-2010, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jameseh

The side that are selling, and selling because they want to not because they've received an offer out of the blue, are evidently going to get less out of the deal because they're the ones who are relying on the buyer. If VM had went out and said we want this, that and the other Sky could have easily walked out of the deal and we would currently have no Sky HD whatsoever. You should be thankful that Virgin actually pushed Sky for channels in the first place because I highly doubt Sky were offering them in their offer.

it was announced that VM no longer needed to sell their TV assests in march, so all this crap about the people selling get less is rubbish.

selling anything only works if both sides think they are gaining something they would never otherwise get but the point is SKY got their channels and their customers are now enjoying them including living HD that was previously exclusive to VM but VM customers are still waiting for the rest of what was agreed.

surely if SKY can get their side sorted and up and running VM should be able to match without these so called "little details left to sort". all the details should of been sorted once the deal was signed 6 weeks ago.

mattboothers · 02-09-2010, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by joff81

it was announced that VM no longer needed to sell their TV assests in march, so all this crap about the people selling get less is rubbish.

selling anything only works if both sides think they are gaining something they would never otherwise get but the point is SKY got their channels and their customers are now enjoying them including living HD that was previously exclusive to VM but VM customers are still waiting for the rest of what was agreed.

surely if SKY can get their side sorted and up and running VM should be able to match without these so called "little details left to sort". all the details should of been sorted once the deal was signed 6 weeks ago.

Amen to that

Hurdy · 02-09-2010, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thyroid Help

Yawn, if vm had any sense, this would not of happened. And VM have plenty if sense

'of'

Does my head in.

pabloo · 02-09-2010, 22:36

well put chad

MovedGoalPosts · 02-09-2010, 22:40

Two very similar threads covering similar ground, both started today, merged.

--------

It does seem that Virgin Media were a little naive in this deal. Quite a few concerns were voiced on this forum at the time the original Virgin Channels sale deatails wer made public

03-09-2010, 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by joff81

it was announced that VM no longer needed to sell their TV assests in march, so all this crap about the people selling get less is rubbish.

selling anything only works if both sides think they are gaining something they would never otherwise get but the point is SKY got their channels and their customers are now enjoying them including living HD that was previously exclusive to VM but VM customers are still waiting for the rest of what was agreed.

surely if SKY can get their side sorted and up and running VM should be able to match without these so called "little details left to sort". all the details should of been sorted once the deal was signed 6 weeks ago.

1. Virgin would not have announced that they do not need to sell the channels and any one else saying so is not an announcement. Nor as per your wording did Virgin ever "need" to sell the channels.

2. They got 13 HD channels and Â£160 million, I'd say that fell under the category of 'something'.

joff81 · 03-09-2010, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jameseh

1. Virgin would not have announced that they do not need to sell the channels and any one else saying so is not an announcement. Nor as per your wording did Virgin ever "need" to sell the channels.

2. They got 13 HD channels and Â£160 million, I'd say that fell under the category of 'something'.

1. the exact wording was
"there was no compelling need to sell assets such as its pay-TV channels".

here is the link (feb 15th news) http://www.advanced-television.com/2...5_feb19.htm#t1

2. VM didnt get 13 HD channels !!! VM got access to 12 Sky premium channels and 3 SKY HD basics on a 9 year access deal and lets remember this DOES NOT INCLUDE any future SKY owned HD/SD channels. of which only the 12 premium channels have been broadcast to retail.

to be honest a 9 year carrage deal and Â£160million for all VM`s TV assests is not at all a lot as in the end VM have sold their biggest dealing chip for future deals with SKY.
owning physical asssts has got to be better than a 9 year contract and some petty cash !!!

Sirius · 03-09-2010, 06:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedfreak

I hate double negatives, even more so when the story reads like its been written by Vicky pollard

Thats how i saw it

---------- Post added at 07:42 ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thyroid Help

Yawn, if vm had any sense, this would not of happened. And VM have plenty if sense

Yawn indeed

03-09-2010, 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by joff81

1. the exact wording was
"there was no compelling need to sell assets such as its pay-TV channels".

here is the link (feb 15th news) http://www.advanced-television.com/2...5_feb19.htm#t1

2. VM didnt get 13 HD channels !!! VM got access to 12 Sky premium channels and 3 SKY HD basics on a 9 year access deal and lets remember this DOES NOT INCLUDE any future SKY owned HD/SD channels. of which only the 12 premium channels have been broadcast to retail.

to be honest a 9 year carrage deal and Â£160million for all VM`s TV assests is not at all a lot as in the end VM have sold their biggest dealing chip for future deals with SKY.
owning physical asssts has got to be better than a 9 year contract and some petty cash !!!

What a shock. Berkett says "I really don't want to part with these channels" when in actual fact he did.

People involved in selling something, whether it's a second hand car or some tv channels aren't in the habit of saying that they can't wait to get rid of them.

**Hugh** · 03-09-2010, 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

What a shock. Berkett says "I really don't want to part with these channels" when in actual fact he did.

People involved in selling something, whether it's a second hand car or some tv channels aren't in the habit of saying that they can't wait to get rid of them.

I think it's called "negotiating"........

Digital Fanatic · 03-09-2010, 09:49

Anyone else think this thread is pointless?

The deal has been done and the channels are coming.. VM don't have to do everything at the same time as Sky launch Living HD.

As it's been said earlier, VM got the best deal they could... they don't want to be channel owner, they want to be a platform.

muppetman11 · 03-09-2010, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Anyone else think this thread is pointless?

The deal has been done and the channels are coming.. VM don't have to do everything at the same time as Sky launch Living HD.

As it's been said earlier, VM got the best deal they could... they don't want to be channel owner, they want to be a platform.

Agreed but I think people feel everything at Virgin takes an age when compared to sky.

spiderplant · 03-09-2010, 10:04

Some people have very short memories. We've already got 12 of the Sky HD channels.

spankysmagicpian · 03-09-2010, 10:30

I'm pretty patient and tbh, I personally don't watch Sky 1 so the delay is no problem.

The only thing that gets me about all this is Virgin have had the ability to blow Sky and all competitors out of the water technology wise for many years now but through previously mis-directed management (?) and being bogged down by debt have lagged behind substantially.

Now it seems they are never going to catch up and firmly remain also rans compared to Sky which is a shame.