Virgin Sports

Originally Posted by OLDGOLD

If that happens and ESPN win an extra package of games (or two), isn't there a danger that ESPN will pull out of being part of XL package and make VM viewers subscribe independently, like they do on the Sky platform?

Why when Setanta had the deal with vm that covered more packages then now 2 i believe ,its a wholesale deal that would last for ex number of years regardless of games available,why would ESPN pull out.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Why when Setanta had the deal with vm that covered more packages then now 2 i believe ,its a wholesale deal that would last for ex number of years regardless of games available,why would ESPN pull out.

Plus ESPN (like Setanta before them) make more from VM subs in the XL pack than if they went standalone.

It works for VM and ESPN.

[OLDGOLD]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Plus ESPN (like Setanta before them) make more from VM subs in the XL pack than if they went standalone.

It works for VM and ESPN.

That's good to hear. I was just worried us fans might end up having to shell out more money yet again, by having two potential sports channels to subscribe to.

[borrissey]

ESPN don't seem to have many live PL games less than Setanta had last season. When's the current PL deal run out?

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by borrissey

ESPN don't seem to have many live PL games less than Setanta had last season. When's the current PL deal run out?

The rest of this season and the following two.

Personally I think ESPN is average and would prefer if it wasn't in XL but the way VM package their channels I need XL to get the other channels I want. For me personally it's a bit of a waste of money but overall XL is quite good value.

I have no doubt this arrangement works for VM and ESPN and probably a lot of subscribers but personally I would be interested to know how much of my sub goes towards a premium channel I have no interest in. I know this could be said for many channels but I am sure ESPN get a far bigger share of my sub than say the music channels which I also have no interest in.

If I want a premium channel I would like to be able to ask for it myself.

[borrissey]

Would be better IMO if VM did what Sky do and have more channel bundle options like tv packs.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by borrissey

Would be better IMO if VM did what Sky do and have more channel bundle options like tv packs.

I totally agree but there will probably be many people who disagree.

I personally don't want kids channels, music channels or ESPN but to get what I want I need XL but as a bundle it's still better value for me than Sky.

[pauldavies83]

Originally Posted by mersey70

The rest of this season and the following two.

Personally I think ESPN is very average and would prefer if it wasn't in XL but the way VM package their channels I need XL to get the other channels I want. For me personally it's just a waste of money but overall XL is quite good value.

I have no doubt this arrangement works for VM and ESPN and probably a lot of subscribers but personally I would be interested to know how much of my sub goes towards a premium channel I have no interest in. I know this could be said for many channels but I am sure ESPN get a far bigger share of my sub than say the music channels which I also have no interest in.

If I want a premium channel I would like to be able to ask for it myself like on Sky.

I'm not convinced your XL pack would decrease by the same amount as it would cost to pay for the premium channel individually, so for the subscriber base as a majority it probably isn't worth it.

VM obviously don't see ESPN as a premium channel, wheras Sky do. Given the lack of top rate sport on the channel (minimal Premier League, no major golf, England cricket etc) I'd be inclined to agree with VM. I suppose its a matter of taste. I'd be quite happy to have some of what I consider tripe removed from XL and made premium and the sub reduced, so its each to their own I suppose.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by pauldavies83

I'm not convinced your XL pack would decrease by the same amount as it would cost to pay for the premium channel individually, so for the subscriber base as a majority it probably isn't worth it.

VM obviously don't see ESPN as a premium channel, wheras Sky do. Given the lack of top rate sport on the channel (minimal Premier League, no major golf, England cricket etc) I'd be inclined to agree with VM. I suppose its a matter of taste. I'd be quite happy to have some of what I consider tripe removed from XL and made premium and the sub reduced, so its each to their own I suppose.

I am aware the subscription would not reduce by the cost of an individual subscription as the channel is bought wholesale but it must be at least a few pounds a month.

VM must see ESPN as a premium channel as it is available as a stand alone option to non XL customers, ranging from £6 to £8 per month.

[pauldavies83]

OK, depends what we define as "premium"

TV Choice/MusicOD is chargeable in all apart from XL, but again I wouldn't consider it "premium".

The problem is not knowing what % of the XL price it encompasses, in relation to other XL channels (ie Disney Channel - I remember a time when that was individually charged)

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by pj 1984

This might seem a really stupid and obvious question but whats stopping Virgin starting a couple of sports channels and start challenging Sky for the Broadcasting rights of the football and other sports.

Money, as already mentioned.

ntl's intention was to get involved in sports I believe, hence the 50/50 tie up with ITN to launch Setanta Sports News. But ntl never took it further and of course never made a bid with Setanta (or own its own) for premiership rights due to lack of dosh. They even left the first 10 places on the sports part of the EPG free for such a possibility of having ntl/virgin branded sports channels.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by Horizon

Money, as already mentioned.

ntl's intention was to get involved in sports I believe, hence the 50/50 tie up with ITN to launch Setanta Sports News. But ntl never took it further and of course never made a bid with Setanta (or own its own) for premiership rights due to lack of dosh. They even left the first 10 places on the sports part of the EPG free for such a possibility of having ntl/virgin branded sports channels.

It was in the Virgin Media days that Setanta Sports News was created.

As has been discussed earlier in this thread NTL did indeed bid for (and win) the excusive rights to broadcast PPV English Premier League football but they subsequently pulled out, there are differening views on why they did this but it paved the way for the Sky Premiership Plus and ITV Sport Select services.

[telegramsam]

I too thought virgin would of launched their own sports channels,especially when setanta collapsed,but as it`s been said it all costs money which sky have lots of and virgin don`t. I did read somewhere that when ESPN got on board sky were quite worried as they know ESPN have got money to compete. The fact that sky are pushing their 3d football games very hard tells me that they`re trying to stay ahead of ESPN before the new premier league contracts are up for renewal. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out.

[OLDGOLD]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

... I did read somewhere that when ESPN got on board sky were quite worried as they know ESPN have got money to compete. The fact that sky are pushing their 3d football games very hard tells me that they`re trying to stay ahead of ESPN before the new premier league contracts are up for renewal. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Yes, it's funny how Sky seem to 'befriend' ESPN, unlike Setanta. They advertise ESPN matches and other sports on ESPN in their Sky magazine. It's as if they want to be seen as their bussom-buddy rather than competitor. Or maybe they're just trying not to pee them off, because they are worried about their financial muscle?