Disney-backed ESPN line up against Rupert Murdoch

[alwaysabear]

Got this link from DS it is an interesting read http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...rts?CMP=twt_fd

[jtaylor06]

Competition is what help makes companies better in the long-run.
Without competition, less effort will be made in terms of giving what's better to the customer.

Good for EPSN!

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by jtaylor06

Competition is what help makes companies better in the long-run.
Without competition, less effort will be made in terms of giving what's better to the customer.

Good for EPSN!

I can see the Premiership loosing out here if they are not careful, as it says in the article Sky and ESPN have good relations and they may well agree to bid for different packages to keep costs down.

Heard they were setting up a Sports News channel as well. It has always seemed a more 'friendly' channel in comparison to Sky, minus the Cricket coverage, with a presentation more like the BBC.

[alwaysabear]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Heard they were setting up a Sports News channel as well. It has always seemed a more 'friendly' channel in comparison to Sky, minus the Cricket coverage, with a presentation more like the BBC.

I do like the presentation on ESPN better. There are also rumours ESPN2 will launch later this year, there certainly signing rights agreements on a regular basis.

[Digital Fanatic]

Would be good to give Sky some healthy competition, ESPN certainly have the dosh!

[spankysmagicpian]

I was extremely impressed with the ESPN presentation and love the pitchside interviews with the old desk. After Man Citys' match the other week when Roberto Mancini wandered over and sat down for a chat was amazing. Far, far better than a quick 2 minutes in the tunnel.

[one2escape]

Interesting what the court case today will have on the bidding and long term now

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by one2escape

Interesting what the court case today will have on the bidding and long term now

indeed. There is a thread here about the court case.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/64...l#post35165595

[mersey70]

Competition is always good and when the EC ruled that no one broadcaster could hold all 6 EPL packages it opened up the market.

Sadly for the consumer though it also resulted in many subscribers requiring two subscriptions or a high tier of service to watch all televised EPL. Of course Setanta subsequently went bust too. We will see in time if ESPN ever get more packages than they have now as one way or another it will have to be paid for. Imagine if they both got 3 packages each, that would be interesting price wise.

I am not so sure whether we have benefitted from the rule really.

[pauldavies83]

The EU 6 packages has been a disaster for the die-hard football fan.

Where you used to have to pay 1 broadcaster to get all of the games, now you have to pay 2, increasing the cost for the consumer.

The only way to provide genuine competition and reduce prices for the consumer is to allow more than 1 broadcaster to have rights to the same game. Then the consumer can make a choice on the broadcaster they choose to pay for.

But of course, that doesn't align with Sky & Premier League's bank balances.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

The EU 6 packages has been a disaster for the die-hard football fan.

Where you used to have to pay 1 broadcaster to get all of the games, now you have to pay 2, increasing the cost for the consumer.

The only way to provide genuine competition and reduce prices for the consumer is to allow more than 1 broadcaster to have rights to the same game. Then the consumer can make a choice on the broadcaster they choose to pay for.

But of course, that doesn't align with Sky & Premier League's bank balances.

I pretty much agree with you. But let's be clear, Setanta, ESPN or whoever probably wouldn't have bought into that sort of arrangement either, not just Sky.

However something similar has actually happened here, to a point. Sky and ITV Digital held rights to the same PPV EPL games at one time but there were odd circumstances how that came about as NTL originally held those rights then pulled out.

[one2escape]

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

The EU 6 packages has been a disaster for the die-hard football fan.

Where you used to have to pay 1 broadcaster to get all of the games, now you have to pay 2, increasing the cost for the consumer.

The only way to provide genuine competition and reduce prices for the consumer is to allow more than 1 broadcaster to have rights to the same game. Then the consumer can make a choice on the broadcaster they choose to pay for.

But of course, that doesn't align with Sky & Premier League's bank balances.

With the court case as mentioned above don't be surpised if ESPN and Sky come to some sort of agreement to show most games now. I am hearing some things that there will be no longer any 3pm kick offs on a Saturday and a flood of matches over the weekends starting on Friday night and Sunday being nothing but football starting at 12pm. This is to combat the EU "ruling" allowing pubs to show other broadcasters in the UK.

[Mr-S]

Originally Posted by alwaysabear

I do like the presentation on ESPN better. There are also rumours ESPN2 will launch later this year, there certainly signing rights agreements on a regular basis.

Done a couple of focus groups for ESPN and signed to an online focus group that they have. A lot of talk was about 2nd channel etc. They did a online survey asking peoples views on a ESPN 2, Red button, VOD, whether an ESPN 2 should be a weekend only channel or in HD, sports rights they would like on the channel, a Saturday afternoon results show, presenters on the channel etc but ESPNews was never mentioned.

As for costs of Premier League rights to consumers... the biggest issue here that people should have is with Sky. When Setanta launched Sky delibrately pushed prices to freeze them out of market. I find Sky's coverage biased towards certain teams/managers and range of sports (outside of Football and Boxing) that I like isnt covered on the channel. ESPN show more of the sports that I like from wider range of world Football to UFC; NBA and some Boxing coverage.

Most major markets around the world have several pay sports channels in there market and Sky by over inflating the prices they bid for rights in general not just sports effectively stifle competiton and are driving prices up to consumer not the EU. To be honest coz of there stranglehold on Premier League rights and now Champions League rights they have control on the marketplace. If people are happy with paying for monopoly of Sky for the foreseeable future if this ruling is taken out then so be it but to be honest the rules shouldnt allow for more than 4 not 5 packages and should be forced to sell one of top packages as well to another network. Who benefits from the money from this? Greedy footballers, agents and Sky (not ESPN at this moment) so think about it.

Anyone competiting in buying rights has to bid against Sky who will over pay. At least in football world UEFA financial fair play rules are coming in but these doesnt equate in broadcasting world really with EU and Ofcom who still havent gone far enough with Sky.

As VM customers we have had to pay £6 per month for less rights they did 3 years ago and without red button access.

Lets not even start on there PPV for big boxing fights policy!

[alwaysabear]

ESPN are part of a multi national corporation owned by Disney/Hurst Corp which is valued at $75 Billion dollars twice the size of News Corp and Sky. IMO Sky will not try to dominate the Premier League rights bidding in the same way they have before, they simply cannot go toe to toe with ESPN and win, they have to much to lose. I am sure an accommodation will be made between the two and the cost of the rights will actually fall not that we will see any benefit.