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

[Mad Max]

and not sure if ESPN stops on Virgin.

It does, on 31st July!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mikey1981

I actually agree with sky on this one, if bt won't let sky sell their channels to subscribers why should sky pet bt sell skysports, this is also why virgin doesnt have bt sport.

But Virgin will have BT Sport. It hasn't started broadcasting yet!

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

Originally Posted by Jameseh

Sell more what?

Well....channels? Sky could make money out of having a wholesale deal with BT and I don't honestly think that this is in the best interests of the consumer.

Still, since when did that matter to Sky or Ofcom? The whole regulatory system needs turning upside down because it ain't working.

[andy_m]

The notion that competition takes place at the time of bidding is ludicrous. It is, in itself, anti-competitive, since it ensures that the company with the deepest pockets wins the day. Worse still, in this instance BT outbid Sky who were then actually given the chance to respond with an even higher bid, and knew that the package they were bidding for came with the control rights! This is where OfCom should be getting involved - the whole thing was cronyism at its worst.

True competition would mean multiple broadcasters being allowed to show the same packages and the consumer being able to choose who they felt did so the best, and for the best price. It's frankly a scandal that you can do this by entering the European market, but not here where the events being televised are actually taking place. This is our national game that has been snatched from us and what's worse is that we've not only allowed it to happen but we're mostly content to pay for the privilege!

[Chad]

Originally Posted by andy_m

This is our national game that has been snatched from us and what's worse is that we've not only allowed it to happen but we're mostly content to pay for the privilege!

This is a good read:

http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=538

Tells the story of how live top flight football jumped from ITV to SKY back in 1992. In 1988 ITV paid £11 million for the live rights. In 1992 SKY's bid was £304 million.

Would the English Premiership be the league it is today if it wasn't for the SKY money? I firmly believe the English Premiership is the house that SKY built.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think what we should do is this - boycott football on Tv unless its free, and be like those fans did the other day and protest at the costs of shirts.

It cost me and my family in the region of £300/400 to go and see Spurs play (yes we are mad) but l do not see why we should pay extortionate money to go to games and then we pay subs for TV.

We should start a survey on here.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I think what we should do is this - boycott football on Tv unless its free, and be like those fans did the other day and protest at the costs of shirts.

It cost me and my family in the region of £300/400 to go and see Spurs play (yes we are mad) but l do not see why we should pay extortionate money to go to games and then we pay subs for TV.

We should start a survey on here.

I am happy paying sky..would like to pay less, but could say that for lots of things (electricity, food)

I like sky's coverage

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by andy_m

True competition would mean multiple broadcasters being allowed to show the same packages and the consumer being able to choose who they felt did so the best, and for the best price. It's frankly a scandal that you can do this by entering the European market, but not here where the events being televised are actually taking place. This is our national game that has been snatched from us and what's worse is that we've not only allowed it to happen but we're mostly content to pay for the privilege!

While I completely agree the current method of selling the rights is a complete shambles , I'm not sure the method you suggest would work. With multiple broadcasters being allowed to bid and show the same packages the amount each broadcaster would be willing to pay would significantly decrease as they could no longer guarantee revenue due to non exclusivity , the lower amounts would play into the hands of the FTA/terrestrial broadcasters giving the pay TV channels an unfair disadvantage whilst great for us the consumer I believe the football leagues would see a significant drop in the amount of money each club receives.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

While I completely agree the current method of selling the rights is a complete shambles , I'm not sure the method you suggest would work. With multiple broadcasters being allowed to bid and show the same packages the amount each broadcaster would be willing to pay would significantly decrease as they could no longer guarantee revenue due to non exclusivity , the lower amounts would play into the hands of the FTA/terrestrial broadcasters giving the pay TV channels an unfair disadvantage whilst great for us the consumer I believe the football leagues would see a significant drop in the amount of money each club receives.

They survived before the premier league started. I would be surprised if they were not running more financially successfully too. I certainly do not remember too many clubs going into administration, even in previous recessions.
I doubt it would make much difference either if lower league clubs lost money, players would just have to be paid less than they currently are or choose different professions.
Also the FTA/terrestrial channels have an unfair disadvantage currently, so why not change the rules to make it fairer? (rhetorical question)

[spankysmagicpian]

Originally Posted by andy_m

The notion that competition takes place at the time of bidding is ludicrous. It is, in itself, anti-competitive, since it ensures that the company with the deepest pockets wins the day.

Thats always going to be the case. It's a non stop ever-spiralling upwards circle. Higher bids, more money to the clubs, higher wages paid, higher ticket prices and back to square one when the next round of bidding starts.

Simple answer - (I don't think everyone shows everything will work so) Packages EQUALLY split 4 &4 or 3 & 3. No dominance for anyone.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by colin25

I am happy paying sky..would like to pay less, but could say that for lots of things (electricity, food)

I like sky's coverage

that will never happen Colin as sky will keep bidding more to make sure they win the most packs price will only keep going up and up sadly

yes sky coverage is best by million miles on football

[Chad]

Maybe the Premier League could start their own channel that is available across every pay TV platform. 154 live games per year at say £25.00 per month or £200.00 if you buy a full "season ticket" in advance. Then broadcasters are free to differentiate their coverage from other competitors by offering the likes of HD coverage, games in 3D, multiple commentary options and in game red button options.

For terrestrial TV the Premier League could offer a combined package of match highlights and 12 live games per year. The Premier League could use the free to air games to continually advertise and push their 154 live game per year pay channel.

That way there are free to air and pay TV options. Everyone has access to live Premiership action. The problem is as long as people are happy to subscribe to SKY Sports and BT Sports this will never be an option. It's us the consumers that have the power to drive change.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

They survived before the premier league started. I would be surprised if they were not running more financially successfully too. I certainly do not remember too many clubs going into administration, even in previous recessions.
I doubt it would make much difference either if lower league clubs lost money, players would just have to be paid less than they currently are or choose different professions.
Also the FTA/terrestrial channels have an unfair disadvantage currently, so why not change the rules to make it fairer? (rhetorical question)

Very fair point , quite honestly I don't know what the ideal solution is as both the current and the suggested method both have there flaws.

Originally Posted by Chad

Maybe the Premier League could start their own channel that is available across every pay TV platform. 154 live games per year at say £25.00 per month or £200.00 if you buy a full "season ticket" in advance. Then broadcasters are free to differentiate their coverage from other competitors by offering the likes of HD coverage, games in 3D, multiple commentary options and in game red button options.

For terrestrial TV the Premier League could offer a combined package of match highlights and 12 live games per year. The Premier League could use the free to air games to continually advertise and push their 154 live game per year pay channel.

That way there are free to air and pay TV options. Everyone has access to live Premiership action. The problem is as long as people are happy to subscribe to SKY Sports and BT Sports this will never be an option. It's us the consumers that have the power to drive change.

The premier league channel idea was something I mentioned on here a while ago it makes perfect sense , it could also be sold online and via streaming devices. Your idea for terrestrial also makes sense.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Very fair point , quite honestly I don't know what the ideal solution is as both the current and the suggested method both have there flaws.

The premier league channel idea was something I mentioned on here a while ago it makes perfect sense , it could also be sold online and via streaming devices. Your idea for terrestrial also makes sense.

Can't say I can think of a solution either MM. I think the idea that Chad has written and you suggested previously is the fairest solution, not just for for football fans, but non-football fans too. If Sky did not "have to" pay for the football, Sky Sports would be considerably cheaper and fairer for cricket/golf/darts/tennis etc fans. Having said that, I am sure the ECB or all other governing bodies could do as you suggest. In fact if the ECB did sell its own packages, we could possibly have TMS as the commentary team

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by Chad

This is a good read:

http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=538

Tells the story of how live top flight football jumped from ITV to SKY back in 1992. In 1988 ITV paid £11 million for the live rights. In 1992 SKY's bid was £304 million.

Would the English Premiership be the league it is today if it wasn't for the SKY money? I firmly believe the English Premiership is the house that SKY built.

I don't know, but I do know that English football as a whole would be healthier and probably less prone to financial management in pursuit of the money the Premier League (not EPL or English Premier League, thank you very much!) brings. A season where the club that wins the FA Cup, but has to effectively give up on the resulting European place because regaining its Premier League place is more important than anything else, and that is solely because of the money involved, just makes me a bit sad, really.

[bubblegun]

Originally Posted by Chad

Maybe the Premier League could start their own channel that is available across every pay TV platform. 154 live games per year at say £25.00 per month or £200.00 if you buy a full "season ticket" in advance. Then broadcasters are free to differentiate their coverage from other competitors by offering the likes of HD coverage, games in 3D, multiple commentary options and in game red button options.

For terrestrial TV the Premier League could offer a combined package of match highlights and 12 live games per year. The Premier League could use the free to air games to continually advertise and push their 154 live game per year pay channel.

That way there are free to air and pay TV options. Everyone has access to live Premiership action. The problem is as long as people are happy to subscribe to SKY Sports and BT Sports this will never be an option. It's us the consumers that have the power to drive change.

Wasn't this idea put about before but the EU would rule this was a cartel arrangement and therefore illegal.