General : Coming Soon to Virgin TV (2014) Vol. 2

[BenMcr]

Considering the price increase is affecting Sky's own customers as well, I can't see it's really got anything to do with the VM agreement.

[muppetman11]

So don't pay it simples.......

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

But don't forget, the remaining sports channels are coming to Virgin this summer. There was always bound to be a rise to help pay for it. Just proves my theory, customers want more content but don't want to pay extra for it.

In fairness the rumoured price rises are about price rises applying to Sky's retail customers who already have all the sports channels in HD and not to VM's customers who didn't.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

So don't pay it simples.......

Exactly but there is nothing wrong with many people having their opinion's MM.

[Superblade7]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Exactly Andrew its amazing how many come onto this and other forums moaning about the costs as if they have no alternative but to pay it !!!!!!

Its simple if a customer feels Sky Sports is too expensive or no longer represents value DONT PAY IT , its your choice nobody forces you.

I'd agree to be honest. I used to have Sky Sports in HD all the time but due to the rises over the last couple of years have been more selective and just had it for a month here and there when there are a few things on I want to watch.

However, I think Sky do need to review the HD charge on VM. I know it's a rival provider but it's the difference between the Sky price and the VM price to have the Sports Collection in HD. At the end of the day, most of the money we pay for Sky Sports goes to Sky so they're better off with non-Sky customers taking them with another provider than not at all.

However, a match ticket for the mighty Blades in League 1 is about £25 so I'd hate to think how much they are at Premiership teams. So I guess if you look at a month's subs for Sky Sports is the equivalent of 1 or 2 match tickets so I guess for the amount of games you get, it's not bad value in that sense!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

I'd agree to be honest. I used to have Sky Sports in HD all the time but due to the rises over the last couple of years have been more selective and just had it for a month here and there when there are a few things on I want to watch.

However, I think Sky do need to review the HD charge on VM. I know it's a rival provider but it's the difference between the Sky price and the VM price to have the Sports Collection in HD. At the end of the day, most of the money we pay for Sky Sports goes to Sky so they're better off with non-Sky customers taking them with another provider than not at all.

However, a match ticket for the mighty Blades in League 1 is about £25 so I'd hate to think how much they are at Premiership teams. So I guess if you look at a month's subs for Sky Sports is the equivalent of 1 or 2 match tickets so I guess for the amount of games you get, it's not bad value in that sense!

Exactly , none of us like price rises but if you put the cost of a monthly sports sub against the cost of attending a game it doesn't seem bad value. I have actually cancelled my Sky Sports sub for the off season as I tend not to watch much and I have BT Sport included with my Infinity sub.

I just wish you could take the Sports sub's out without the necessity to have a base pack , I guess we can dream.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Superblade7

I'd agree to be honest. I used to have Sky Sports in HD all the time but due to the rises over the last couple of years have been more selective and just had it for a month here and there when there are a few things on I want to watch.

However, I think Sky do need to review the HD charge on VM. I know it's a rival provider but it's the difference between the Sky price and the VM price to have the Sports Collection in HD. At the end of the day, most of the money we pay for Sky Sports goes to Sky so they're better off with non-Sky customers taking them with another provider than not at all.

However, a match ticket for the mighty Blades in League 1 is about £25 so I'd hate to think how much they are at Premiership teams. So I guess if you look at a month's subs for Sky Sports is the equivalent of 1 or 2 match tickets so I guess for the amount of games you get, it's not bad value in that sense!

Match tickets for most Premier League clubs has become astronomical as they can be anything from £40 upwards generally so yes in terms of value and the matches you get it is definitely much better value in that regard.

[vincerooney]

the whole "sky are upping the prices as they can" argument doesnt work as the percentage of sky sports subscribers has fallen 0.27% in the last year. Not a great deal but still a relevant amount. i've increased my payment to VM more than i've had a wage increase in the last 3 years which is utterly disgraceful.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by denphone

But many do Dave....

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------



And several posters said competition was going to keep prices down....

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trouble is, we've not really got competition in the consumer marketplace yet, just competition for sports rights. That being said, BT's entry has helped in one way ie that Sky is offering discounted/freee broadband to its Sky Sports subscribers. For a lot of people, the cost of the alternative sports provider fell to £0 when BT took over from ESPN.
Trouble is, we've not really got much consumer marketplace competition as BT are not allowed to sell Sky Sports on YouView, TalkTalk is not interested in HD and VM only covers half the country!

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:03 ----------



Sorry?

Looks to me like the rises are to pay for the 'free' broadband.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If true, they can justify it because people are willing to pay for it. Why charge less if the same or a similar number of people will pay more? Why would you take a lower salary for the same job if your employer was willing to pay you more?

Agreed. Whilst people are daft enough to pay it, Sky will be daft enough to charge it.

[nicko]

You can buy a season ticket for Bayern Munich for £120, How does that compare for value?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

i've increased my payment to VM more than i've had a wage increase in the last 3 years which is utterly disgraceful.

VM and Sky can be blamed for many things but your lack of pay rises is not one of them! This may sound harsh and I know it's easier said than done, but maybe it's time to change suppliers and/or employers?

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by nicko

You can buy a season ticket for Bayern Munich for £120, How does that compare for value?

Great value if I was German and supported Bayern Munich

[denphone]

Originally Posted by nicko

You can buy a season ticket for Bayern Munich for £120, How does that compare for value?

Sadly English PL clubs are generally rip off merchants nicko.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...uide-club.html

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

the whole "sky are upping the prices as they can" argument doesnt work as the percentage of sky sports subscribers has fallen 0.27% in the last year.

From Sky's point of view, if you can put up prices by 10% and lose a quarter of one per cent of your customers you're laughing all the way to the bank. The money lost from the few leavers will be more than be made up by the extra from everyone else!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Great value if I was German and supported Bayern Munich

No the masters influence does not spread to outside Britain.