General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by Chad

Does anyone know what the next big set of sporting rights are that will be up for grabs? Football and non-football?

Here you go, it's a long list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_...United_Kingdom

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

As for the ECJ, well, that is just sticking it's nose in places where it does not belong. Is it really an injustice if a glory supporter in Devon can't watch Man Utd at 3 P.M?

Probably not, but if it's not based on any solid evidence that they would otherwise be watching Plymouth Argyle then why should they be denied the opportunity?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by johnathome

Whats interesting in that link it says they went back to Sky to see if they wanted to up their bid, they did that in some other rights as well.

It seems like these bodies are trying to shaft BT?

Because the governing bodies don't give a damn about Joe Public and in my view they have sold us down the river a long time ago in order to satisfy their increasingly greedy grabbing hands as well.

---------- Post added at 06:44 ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

and for all we know Atlantic will be here on Monday!

No channels generally do not arrive on a Monday Max.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Probably not, but if it's not based on any solid evidence that they would otherwise be watching Plymouth Argyle then why should they be denied the opportunity?

That is a very valid point, and those fans probably should not be denied the opportunity, but where is the evidence that fans will still attend lower league football if they had a choice of watching Man Utd v Liverpool, Spurs v Arsenal, Man City v Chelsea or any such variant of top teams being shown on TV each week at 3 P.M on a Saturday?

If the PL clubs shared their revenue with the lower league clubs and they were more than compensated for any potential loss in revenue, I would not have a problem with it. Until then, the lower league clubs should have all the support they can get.

I do believe the NFL survives whilst sharing it's revenues around, so why can't the PL?

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Originally Posted by colin25

lol..I get the feeling you are anti-sky.

No, not really. If I was allowed Sky in my flat and they offered a fantastic deal for me to ditch VM, I probably would, but it would have to be a great, great deal.

I was just making a point that many people are complaining that prices will keep going up because there are two TV players in the football market.

It seems people would prefer one supplier, Sky Sports being the preferred choice because they think it would be cheaper. I do not think if Sky (or anyone else) had a monopoly that it would be cheaper. Judging by what Sky charge already, I doubt greatly they would give customers a cheaper price that what is available now. Also, the PL and UEFA would be able to dictate the prices to Sky (or anyone else). They would then have to pay what is being asked (and one party would pay it) and then pass that cost on to customers.

The way it is, whilst not perfect, is the best way we will get it currently in my opinion. Something does need to change, but it won't whilst people keep paying. I will beat my drum again and say if prices do not down for the cost of sports, it will be down to Sky not passing on their savings, not because BT have bought CL football rights imho. I would be saying the same if BT had the main rights and Sky were the "minnows."

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Because the governing bodies don't give a damn about Joe Public and in my view they have sold us down the river a long time ago in order to satisfy their increasingly greedy grabbing hands as well.

---------- Post added at 06:44 ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 ----------



No channels generally do not arrive on a Monday Max.

You can't blame the governing bodies Den, what are going to do, force Sky and BT to make a loss on sports? Force price cuts on Sky or BT, where is the justification if people happily pay what is being asked? Force the PL not to get the best deal it can for its product? (I don't believe the PL does need the money it gets, but they will keep doing it because they know they can.)

It would be like Tesco (or anyone else) being forced to make a loss (force price cuts) on a chocolate (a luxury commodity, like tv sports) and force Cadbury (or anyone else) to offer it at a lower price than they could get for it from Tesco (or anyone else).

There is no-one else to blame other than the paying public.

[denphone]

l thought this was a interesting piece in The Independent this morning and here are some quotes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...r-8930769.html

The game changed irrevocably at 2am this morning, when BT agreed to pay £897 million to secure exclusive rights to broadcast the Champions’ and Europa Leagues for three seasons, from 2015. It will be football, Jim, but not as we know it.

BT’s business strategy, to use sport as a driving force in its evolution from a telecommunications giant to a more modern, multi-faceted media company, is less of a blunt instrument than the “battering ram” Sky used to sell satellite dishes. But its impact promises to be greater.

Richard Scudamore, popularly assumed to have received a £3m bonus for the Premier League’s current record TV deal, which has yielded in excess of £5bn globally, has another bonanza on the horizon. Viewed logically, Sky have no viable commercial option but to bid extravagantly for the next round of Premier League rights, covering the three years from the 2016-17 season. Under the current deal, Sky broadcasts 116 live games a season to BT’s 38, but the balance of power has shifted significantly.

BT insiders claim they will not formulate their strategy until this time next year, but the admission that “we are a big, efficiently run business which can afford to invest when the deal makes sense” is ominous to their traumatised opposition.

Sky executives, whose plan to “strangle at birth” BT Sport was code-named Project Purple, awoke today to find their prospects of remaining major players in the sports TV market had a sudden, deathly pallor.

It is understood that Sky, confronted by the implications of failure, unsuccessfully lobbied Uefa to re-enter the bidding process after BT’s negotiations, as preferred bidder for the right to show 350 live European games, began on Wednesday night.

The TV market is changing. Al Jazeera, who have made strategic deals to cover Premier League football in Middle Eastern markets, are expected to bid for more extensive rights. Companies such as Amazon, Apple and Google are becoming increasingly attracted to football as a platform for the next generation of social media. The onset of fibre optic cabling opens up the possibility of watching matches simultaneously, in high definition.

BT have changed the dynamics of sport. Things have accelerated rapidly in the three years since, to declare an interest, I helped launch their online presence in football. Unlike previous challengers to Sky, whose annual revenue, £7.2bn is dwarfed by BT’s £18.3bn, they have the money to fund their ambitions.

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

That is a very valid point, and those fans probably should not be denied the opportunity, but where is the evidence that fans will still attend lower league football if they had a choice of watching Man Utd v Liverpool, Spurs v Arsenal, Man City v Chelsea or any such variant of top teams being shown on TV each week at 3 P.M on a Saturday?

If the PL clubs shared their revenue with the lower league clubs and they were more than compensated for any potential loss in revenue, I would not have a problem with it. Until then, the lower league clubs should have all the support they can get.

There isn't any. Which was my point.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

I do believe the NFL survives whilst sharing it's revenues around, so why can't the PL?

The NFL doesn't have to compete with any other significant world leagues. If you like top class American Football you're pretty much watching American teams play. (Not withstanding Jacksonville becoming a suburb of London!)

[Chad]

Not such a positive spin from The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...900m-deal.html

"Football supporters face having to pay more than ever to watch Britain’s top clubs on television after BT confirmed it would charge viewers for its Champions League coverage."

Leading media analyst Claire Enders said: “It is hard to portray this move in any kind of positive light for consumers. People are already spending very much more than on average on pay TV and connectivity in the UK than the rest of Europe.
“The fact is the consumers were served by having free-to-air access for Champions League games, and that will disappear.”

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Originally Posted by johnathome

Here you go, it's a long list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_...United_Kingdom

Cheers bud.

There is some rights due to expire next year that BT could snatch away from SKY Sports.

[johnathome]

Originally Posted by Chad

Cheers bud.

There is some rights due to expire next year that BT could snatch away from SKY Sports.

Well there's the US Open and Masters Golf finishing next year if BT fancy a punt on them.

[Doug P]

Am glad to be an ex-customer of BT. The deal VM made to get the sport channels onto XL gets better by the month but BT customers across the board are going to pay for what is a ridiculously ott payment for the Champions League...

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

The point is not that Sky are complaining about the price but that it IS ridiculously too much and that the customers of BT are going to suffer for it.

VM prices now looking much better value than ever....

[Anypermitedroute]

Considering that sky sports 3&4 are not availAble to bt vision and via freeview subscription certain fans who had subscribed to sky sports were missing out on champions league games held on sky sports 4, so far BT has not withheld channels to any host provider so despite the cost you cannot argue yet they have withheld anything (albeit for a price) so this small section might actually gain here

[Bananaman_007]

The ITV story was quite misleading, it said the sport had moved away from FTA TV and BT would charge for the matches. Well they already do as part of a monthly subscription or free to XL Virgin customers. ITV who were obviously a bit bitter from losing the rights chose to try and spin the story to make it sound like something it was not.

As for channels and new BT sport channels, what we have to remember is VM is not run by the morons who sold Bravo to Sky and then let them move some of the content to a channel they did not have the rights to. Being such a large player would LG really let a deal be negotiated for the BT channels that did not include any future channel launches?

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by andy_m

There isn't any. Which was my point.



The NFL doesn't have to compete with any other significant world leagues. If you like top class American Football you're pretty much watching American teams play. (Not withstanding Jacksonville becoming a suburb of London!)

Fair comment about the NFL.

I think it may best to agree to disagree about the 3 pm games. I think the rule helps the lower leagues, but I understand your point about people who don't attend the lower league games live should have the option.

It would be interesting to see it trialled one season to see if it does effect attendances (if it does at all). In theory my argument could be moot, as the lower league clubs would have die hard fans who would always go, regardless of what is being shown on TV.

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------

Random question, but does anyone know if there is a reason why BBC and ITV could not team up and bid for sports rights? If they got some Golf for example, they could share 2 days each and also share the same commentators, cameras etc.
It would be great to see top sport back on FTA, but it could be very difficult for BBC and ITV to agree who shows what.

[Anypermitedroute]

[/COLOR]Random question, but does anyone know if there is a reason why BBC and ITV could not team up and bid for sports rights? If they got some Golf for example, they could share 2 days each and also share the same commentators, cameras etc.
It would be great to see top sport back on FTA, but it could be very difficult for BBC and ITV to agree who shows what.

In theory they could and have euro championship and World Cup spring to mind but that was using separate commentators and the picture was provided, nearer to home have they both screened the FA cup final?

I guess they could but probably won't due to incompatible commercials set ups and advetising system etc

[Arthurgray50@blu]

At the end of the day its US, the fans that end up paying for Tv football.

Sky and BT do not give a damn about US, with ITV it different - its free to air.
But with Sky and BT, its a battle of spoilt little kids trying to get this and that.

BT have paid out more than enough for the Champions League and Europa League crap, who wants to televise and charge for Europa, thats why its not on Sky.

I would watch lower League stuff and it's enjoyable to watch. In about twelve months time, l bet that there will be an agreement between ITV/SKY to cover some of these games - as BT will want to recoup some of their dough. Or could it be the same thing as Setanta.

I will only watch BT Sport if Spurs are on due to that idiotic logo which spoils it for me.

No, the fans will be hit hard on this.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

In theory they could and have euro championship and World Cup spring to mind but that was using separate commentators and the picture was provided, nearer to home have they both screened the FA cup final?

I guess they could but probably won't due to incompatible commercials set ups and advetising system etc

Hm, forgot about the adverts....d'oh