General : Sky Sports pricing dispute: appeal ruling looms

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Good summary in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...?newsfeed=true

so sky did lose

Tell me if I'm wrong lol

The regulator believes that Ofcom had, on the whole, ever right to tell SKY that they had to lower the price of Sky Sports to it's competitors but they found the evidence OFCOM gave for those reasons to be incorrect/misleading.

So in conclusion SKY both won and lost!

[gj4009]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Direct link to the findings

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/files/1...act_080812.pdf

Summary of the grounds of appeal and of the Tribunal’s conclusions

I refer you to pages 7&8, sections 12-16, which state Sky's appeals are not upheld.

You are referring to the ruling regarding Ofcom's Challenged Findings, Page 9 Section 20, not the appeals.

That part is about Skys challenge against ofcoms misinterpretation of power, nothing to do with the headline matter that i pointed out which is Sky won there appeal against having the charge less. End of the day ofcom have something against Sky and are on a mission but lets not forget this is the same ofcom that wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds pursuing late night phone in channels if a little bit of pubic hair was flashed or baby oil was rubbed in an overly suggestive manner. Ofcom are not worth a light my friend, they are well and truly chumming up to VM and are upset that they lost.

Just incase there is any further doubt.

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._pay_tv_appeal

Originally Posted by gj4009

That part is about Skys challenge against ofcoms misinterpretation of power, nothing to do with the headline matter that i pointed out which is Sky won there appeal against having the charge less. End of the day ofcom have something against Sky and are on a mission but lets not forget this is the same ofcom that wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds pursuing late night phone in channels if a little bit of pubic hair was flashed or baby oil was rubbed in an overly suggestive manner. Ofcom are not worth a light my friend, they are well and truly chumming up to VM and are upset that they lost.

Just incase there is any further doubt.

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._pay_tv_appeal

Yes BUT

"However, the tribunal did not find in BSkyB's favour on each of the grounds that it contested.

BSkyB was unable to convince the tribunal that Ofcom misinterpreted its powers when it ordered the pay-TV company to reduce its wholesale prices for the two sports channels."

So if Sky lose the part where it suggests OFCOM had no right to force it to lower the price of Sky Sports then they still have to lower the price, no?

This ruleing doesn't mean that SKY can begin to ask for ridiculous prices for its premium channels again!

As far as I can make out what we have now after the ruling is the same as what we had beore it.

Sky must offer it's premium chanels at a decent price.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by gj4009

Just incase there is any further doubt.

http://corporate.sky.com/media/press..._pay_tv_appeal

You have posted the link to what I have previous? But this is good of them?

"At present, Sky has access only to the CAT’s summary of its principal findings and conclusions. Sky will give careful consideration to the full judgment when it is made available."

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Thats the option i see happening

Nice to see Sky get a kicking for once

I bet TELLY will be fuming

Fuming about what? I won't suffer a financial loss or have a financial gain no matter what the out come of this will be. The only effect this "ruling" will have on me is I may pay £1 or £2 more or less for Skysports per month in the months a head.

Although having taken my kids to Splash Landings at Alton towers today and spent nigh on £300 for the day when I reflect tomorrow although I won't be fuming I may be slightly annoyed.

You do need to get over your obsession with me though, its slightly creepy as everytime I log on lately I have a flashing notification that originates from you. Or 8 out of every 10 of your comments either quotes me or mentions me.

Incase you hadn't noticed I've tried ignoring you, but you're very persistant I can only imagine its an age thing, I do hope when I'm your age I have better things to do with my time, I suspect I will be retired abroad though, Not arguing over a paytv provider.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Mobes

Tell me if I'm wrong lol

The regulator believes that Ofcom had, on the whole, ever right to tell SKY that they had to lower the price of Sky Sports to it's competitors but they found the evidence OFCOM gave for those reasons to be incorrect/misleading.

So in conclusion SKY both won and lost!

That is correct.

Basically Sky won. But not for the reasons they contested. Ofcom was wrong to begin with. Sky had no justification to fight the appeal on the grounds they did. But too many people jumped on the bandwagon and thought Sky had lost, while ignoring the bigger picture and the fact that Sky had nothing to answer in the first place.

It seems a bit silly to me that Sky can be judged to be wrong when they had nothing to answer in the first place!

So what does it mean for VM?

It could be a Franz Kafka tale..a summation that makes no sense whatever.

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Mobes

So what does it mean for VM?

It means nothing for VM by the looks of it. VM were at fault for poor negotiation/engagement in this case.

Off course the regulator still has a hump so will no doubt come back. But until then all VM got from this is more showboating by Sky.

[Emel]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

That is correct.

Basically Sky won. But not for the reasons they contested. Ofcom was wrong to begin with. Sky had no justification to fight the appeal on the grounds they did. But too many people jumped on the bandwagon and thought Sky had lost, while ignoring the bigger picture and the fact that Sky had nothing to answer in the first place.

It seems a bit silly to me that Sky can be judged to be wrong when they had nothing to answer in the first place!

I think basically Sky lost. The court said Ofcom was wrong to begin with but that Ofcom still have the right to tell Sky to reduce their prices.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Emel

I think basically Sky lost. The court said Ofcom was wrong to begin with but that Ofcom still have the right to tell Sky to reduce their prices.

Its one of the strangest rulings i have seen in a long time.

[Telly_]

Yep, OFCOM needs to justify its existence, it seems it has chosen Sky as its target to show it has teeth. So it doesn't mean much for anyone.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mobes

So what does it mean for VM?

I am sure we will find out in the next few days once the full ruling is deciphered by the various lawyers on all sides.

[BenMcr]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-channels.html

The next step will be for the tribunal to decide what must take place, with a one-month period in which its ruling can be appealed.