General ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news - Page 34

Chad · 10-02-2013, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamav

And they'll have the sense to realise that other carriers will bring more customers to them than their own platform, instead of trying to sell an exclusive to draw more customers.

Very true. What always puzzled me is why Setanta Sports and ESPN didn't do better numbers. Both channels where available through SKY, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Top Up TV and Freeview. Almost every home in the UK to access the channels yet the highest amount of subscribers any of these channels reached was roughly 1.3 million by Setanta which included Virgins "free" XL customers.

alwaysabear · 10-02-2013, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

Very true. What always puzzled me is why Setanta Sports and ESPN didn't do better numbers. Both channels where available through SKY, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Top Up TV and Freeview. Almost every home in the UK to access the channels yet the highest amount of subscribers any of these channels reached was roughly 1.3 million by Setanta which included Virgins "free" XL customers.

I t could be that people had to make a decision on cost grounds to go with the content provider that meets most of there needs and as Sky have a much wider range of content rights that is where people put their money.
Should VM have BT sport available I personally would not pay for it as a stand alone channel as Sky Sports cover most of my requirements.

10-02-2013, 17:05

I'l have to see how BT treat the MLS, if they do the same as ESPN and pretend only LA & New York exist then they can shove the channel.

spiderplant · 10-02-2013, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

the highest amount of subscribers any of these channels reached was roughly 1.3 million by Setanta which included Virgins "free" XL customers.

That's not right. Setanta Sports 1 was getting close to 2 million viewers a week. (source)

1.3 million excluding VM XL sounds reasonable. What's your source?

andy_m · 10-02-2013, 21:04

Viewers rather than subscribers?

spiderplant · 10-02-2013, 21:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_m

Viewers rather than subscribers?

Good point, but I still don't believe it. VM have more than 1.3 million XL subs.

Also this suggests Setanta had 1.4m subscribers excluding VM

Quote:

Setanta must pile on an extra 300,000 subscriptions this autumn or it will be at risk of a takeover bid next year, according to a report from Enders Analysis.
<snip>
According to Enders estimates, Setanta needs to net at least 1.7 million subscribers to make up Â£210m in revenue if it is to cover its assumed operating cost of Â£300m next year. The remaining Â£90m required to break even can be secured from other revenue streams such as subscriber fees from Virgin Media and Chorus in Ireland, subscriptions from pubs and clubs, general advertising and merchandising income.

Chad · 11-02-2013, 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderplant

That's not right. Setanta Sports 1 was getting close to 2 million viewers a week. (source)

1.3 million excluding VM XL sounds reasonable. What's your source?

Well the good news is I've searched high and low and have found this interesting article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545282520532809.html

Setanta has 1.2 million direct subscribers and 1.8 million indirect subscribers, who receive the company's programs through other parties such as BT Group BT Vision IPTV service and Virgin Media Inc.

So I was wrong. Setanta had 1.2 million paying customers but also 1.8 million "free" customers. A total of 3 million people with access to the channel when it went down the pan.

denphone · 11-02-2013, 05:26

And in my opinion BT can throw as much money as they want at it but the omens are not good.

andy_m · 11-02-2013, 06:58

So on the basis of research by Chad and Spiderplant, 1.7m subscribers was worth over Â£200m, whilst the Virgin deal - providing a bloc of roughly the same number of subscribers - was worth less than Â£100m.

Have I read that right?

muppetman11 · 11-02-2013, 08:15

I'd be amazed if BT offered their channel to any other pay TV platform on a deal like VM had with Setanta and ESPN however time will tell , BT has bought the football rights too primarily increase the amount of people taking triple play from them. A telephone/BB customer with Sky , Talk Talk , Orange etc still brings BT money as the supplier has to pay a set cost to Openreach each year for a fully Unbundled line , a subscriber with VM cable pays all their money to VM making BT nothing hence why BT is very interested in going after those customers.

andy_m · 11-02-2013, 09:30

Bt bought the rights to compete with Sky, but ended up shooting the moon and paying over the odds for a set of rights that haven't now been able to sustain two broadcasters. I agree, it's very unlikely Bt sports will be available free in any of Virgin's collections - I think there's a decent chance it won't arrive at all - but Bt are very much on plan b here.

spiderplant · 11-02-2013, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_m

So on the basis of research by Chad and Spiderplant, 1.7m subscribers was worth over Â£200m, whilst the Virgin deal - providing a bloc of roughly the same number of subscribers - was worth less than Â£100m.

Have I read that right?

Yes. I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Dash: CF noob · 11-02-2013, 19:44

BT have the money and they are playing the long game.

denphone · 11-02-2013, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash: CF noob

BT have the money and they are playing the long game.

Well they are certainly going to need a bottomless pit of cash and even then that might not be enough to make a huge difference.

Chad · 11-02-2013, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash: CF noob

BT have the money and they are playing the long game.

That's what people said about Disney backed ESPN in 2009.