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

[telegramsam]

Of course we`re all getting slightly ahead of ourselves as neither sky nor virgin have officially announced their price increases. And who knows virgin might shock us all and freeze ALL their prices (WAS THAT A FLYING PIG i JUST SAW!)

[dwarfofpoison]

I fail to see how anybody feels that there is ever going to be any real competition for sports on TV. All the rights are currently sold exclusively to individual providers whether it be premier league football, cricket, formula 1, darts or generally any sport that can garner enough television viewers (FTA national treasures like Wimbledon & the World Cup protected by law are another matter).

Until the same rights are sold to several different providers there is absolutely no chance of any real competition. The only competition is for the sports rights themselves between providers, which in turn can only mean price increases for the viewer as the bidding wars become astronomical!

[telegramsam]

[QUOTE=dwarfofpoison;35710871]I fail to see how anybody feels that there is ever going to be any real competition for sports on TV. All the rights are currently sold exclusively to individual providers whether it be premier league football, cricket, formula 1, darts or generally any sport that can garner enough television viewers (FTA national treasures like Wimbledon & the World Cup protected by law are another matter).

Until the same rights are sold to several different providers there is absolutely no chance of any real competition. The only competition is for the sports rights themselves between providers, which in turn can only mean price increases for the viewer as the bidding wars become astronomical![/QUOTE

I agree. As it stands a football fan has to subscribe to both Sky sports and BT sports if he wants to see all the live televised games regardless of cost. The only thing that keeps the cost down a little is not wanting to price themselves out of the market,and Sky are in danger of doing just that if they put their prices up as much as has been suggested.
BT scores a bit of a winner by offering free sport to its broadband customers and by being included in virgins xl package.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by dwarfofpoison

I fail to see how anybody feels that there is ever going to be any real competition for sports on TV.

It's quite easy. Firstly, there is no true national competitor to the Sky platform in terms of a good range of entertainment channels and a good range of sports channels. If BT were able to sell the Sky Sports channels on YouView and provide more entertainment channels on YouView, it would offer genuine competition to Sky which would exert downward pressure on prices.
Secondly, most people buy the sports packages for one reason - the Premier League. If BT Sport and Sky Sports have similar ranges of Premier League matches in the future then BT Sport and Sky Sports become close substitutes and some people will chose the cheaper of the two providers, thus exerting downward pressure on prices.
It's all about close substitutes here, not identical substitutes.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?

i work for the civil service? i'm in the public sector??? train drivers/bus drivers/government workers would all say they're limited to the uk governments pay increase which has been 0.5% for the last 4 years which is below the rate of inflation. both virgin media and sky both technically non uk companies are trading in a uk environment so know public sector workers are earning less than inflation so therefore know these increases are below inflation. the public sector wage in the north of england is actually higher than majority of peoples wages in the same area.

So yes i do expect VM and Sky to know that hikes in bills are going to hit people hard when they arent getting a pay increase?? But then again we're talking about london based companies.

*sigh* i wish people knew the country existed above north london.

But then again how should i be suprised at a country which blocks funding to a manchester organised olympics as "we feel any major sport event should be held in london" to give yet again a dreadful city more funding. 1996 manchester olympics would have been boss but sadly blocked and denied by a southward obsessed country

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

i work for the civil service? i'm in the public sector??? train drivers/bus drivers/government workers would all say they're limited to the uk governments pay increase which has been 0.5% for the last 4 years which is below the rate of inflation. both virgin media and sky both technically non uk companies are trading in a uk environment so know public sector workers are earning less than inflation so therefore know these increases are below inflation. the public sector wage in the north of england is actually higher than majority of peoples wages in the same area.

So yes i do expect VM and Sky to know that hikes in bills are going to hit people hard when they arent getting a pay increase?? But then again we're talking about london based companies.

*sigh* i wish people knew the country existed above north london.

But then again how should i be suprised at a country which blocks funding to a manchester organised olympics as "we feel any major sport event should be held in london" to give yet again a dreadful city more funding. 1996 manchester olympics would have been boss but sadly blocked and denied by a southward obsessed country

What I was saying was rather than accept price rises and pay freezes was to take control and change employers and TV suppliers. I appreciate that this is easier said than done but I know plenty of people who have left the civil service in the north of England who have found their skills useful outside the civil service and found more interesting jobs. Wage freezes are by no means unique to the public sector.
If enough people cancelled Sky Sports then the company would have to freeze or even bring the price down. But people don't so it has no incentive to do so. And you can't blame the management. If they did not maximise profits by raising prices then the shareholders would change the management and get people in who would raise prices and maximise profits. And the shareholders are typically financial services companies investing peoples' pensions, savings, ISAs and insurance premiums for them. If they don't get the best returns their customers will find financial services companies who do.

[vincerooney]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What I was saying was rather than accept price rises and pay freezes was to take control and change employers and TV suppliers. I appreciate that this is easier said than done but I know plenty of people who have left the civil service in the north of England who have found their skills useful outside the civil service and found more interesting jobs. Wage freezes are by no means unique to the public sector.
If enough people cancelled Sky Sports then the company would have to freeze or even bring the price down. But people don't so it has no incentive to do so. And you can't blame the management. If they did not maximise profits by raising prices then the shareholders would change the management and get people in who would raise prices and maximise profits. And the shareholders are typically financial services companies investing peoples' pensions, savings, ISAs and insurance premiums for them. If they don't get the best returns their customers will find financial services companies who do.

i have no skills i'm just a drunk but surely i must be looked after?

[dwarfofpoison]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's quite easy. Firstly, there is no true national competitor to the Sky platform in terms of a good range of entertainment channels and a good range of sports channels.

Sky has developed its sports and entertainment package for over 25 years, they currently own the primary package to the premier league and have the right to sell to whoever they like (bar the ofcom ruling that Virgin managed to win). They own the latest entertainment channel of dessire (Sky Atlantic) by securing exclusive rights and by pricing it in such a way that keeps it as a loss leader.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If BT were able to sell the Sky Sports channels on YouView and provide more entertainment channels on YouView, it would offer genuine competition to Sky which would exert downward pressure on prices.

A little utopian, Basically BT will need to get help from ofcom like Virgin did but it turned out the ofcom ruling was in fact unlawful when Sky challenged it in court.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Secondly, most people buy the sports packages for one reason - the Premier League. If BT Sport and Sky Sports have similar ranges of Premier League matches in the future then BT Sport and Sky Sports become close substitutes and some people will chose the cheaper of the two providers, thus exerting downward pressure on prices.
It's all about close substitutes here, not identical substitutes.

Unfortunately the packages are made and sold by the Premier League, do they want to break up their cash cow. Together with legal rules about what can be shown on UK TV (e.g. you can't televise any game between 3pm & 5pm on Saturday), the bottom line is that it's going to take an awful lot of money to challenge Skys' strangle hold. 879 million for Champions League was the first coo, how much will Premier league rights cost?

We need the government to step in before we have a glimmer of hope that prices fall for the humble punter.

[Chad]

Been a lively day of speculation about SKY Sports prices. Found an old booklet circa 2004 from Telewest highlighting their packages and prices. Took a snap of the prices for SKY Sports back in 2004:



So it was £20.00 per month back in 2004, now it's £27.25 ten years later. I'm surprised SKY Sports has only gone up by £7.25 in 10 years, on average a rise of 72p per year. Plus there was no SKY Sports 4 or SKY F1 back then either.

Some of the broadband deals are shocking 3Mb was £52.99 per month

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chad

Been a lively day of speculation about SKY Sports prices. Found an old booklet circa 2004 from Telewest highlighting their packages and prices. Took a snap of the prices for SKY Sports back in 2004:

So it was £20.00 per month back in 2004, now it's £27.25 ten years later. I'm surprised SKY Sports has only gone up by £7.25 in 10 years, on average a rise of 72p per year. Plus there was no SKY Sports 4 or SKY F1 back then either.

Some of the broadband deals are shocking 3Mb was £52.99 per month

£20 in 2004 would be about £27.30 allowing for the rise in VAT to 20% so Sky Sports has pretty much tracked inflation.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

£20 in 2004 would be about £27.30 allowing for the rise in VAT to 20% so Sky Sports has pretty much tracked inflation.

I don't think it's bad at all considering a packet of 20 cigarettes has jumped up almost £4.00 in 10 years and the trusted pint is up almost £1.80. SKY Sports is now the cost of 40 fags and 3 pints of beer. Call me old fashioned but personally I'd prefer to have sports entertainment ahead of lung cancer and sclerosis of the liver

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by Chad

Call me old fashioned but personally I'd prefer to have sports entertainment ahead of lung cancer and sclerosis of the liver

Well it's good we all have a choice

[MalteseFalcon]

To be a pedantic old git, it is actually cirrhosis of the liver, not sclerosis.

[kgollop]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

To be a pedantic old git, it is actually cirrhosis of the liver, not sclerosis.

Depends how many ciders you've had surely

[Chad]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

To be a pedantic old git, it is actually cirrhosis of the liver, not sclerosis.

Whatever it is, I don't want it