|
Post by Simon Lill on Feb 3, 2011 12:26:20 GMT
fourfourtwo.com/news/england/72850/default.aspxAbout time and lets hope it opens up to some competition to Sky in the domestic market as well. This comment winds me up though: "However, the biggest effects could be felt further down the leagues, with attendances facing a severe threat from the presence of live top-flight football in pubs." Yet more arrogance from the 'top flight'. Do they really think that the supporters from the lower leagues are going to suddenly abandon the clubs they support and love just because Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea etc are on TV in the pub at 3pm! Wake up! We support our clubs because we're not sold on all the hype and hysteria that surrounds the Premier League. WE'RE LOYAL!
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Feb 3, 2011 12:31:05 GMT
fourfourtwo.com/news/england/72850/default.aspxAbout time and lets hope it opens up to some competition to Sky in the domestic market as well. This comment winds me up though: "However, the biggest effects could be felt further down the leagues, with attendances facing a severe threat from the presence of live top-flight football in pubs." Yet more arrogance from the 'top flight'. Do they really think that the supporters from the lower leagues are going to suddenly abandon the clubs they support and love just because Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea etc are on TV in the pub at 3pm! Wake up! We support our clubs because we're not sold on all the hype and hysteria that surrounds the Premier League. WE'RE LOYAL! Agree with you but the problem is that not everyone who goes to Oxford games is totally loyal to Oxford. There will be some who will go to the pub and watch Man Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea etc., rather than going to a local game, if they were shown on a Saturday at 3.00pm
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 3, 2011 12:45:37 GMT
The EU hate Sky because they see them as a monopoly or anti competition but they provide a unique service that no other broadcaster is able to do. Years ago they ruled that some matches must be offered to a different broadcaster which allowed Setanta a share of the market but look what happened to them. The EU just want stick their oar in to all walks of British life and make legal rulings which do not consider the people it affects but only the rules that they invent in Brussels.
Sky have ploughed millions and millions of pounds into the game and not all of it is bad, our club does see a tiny slice of that money. I also think Sky's football coverage is second to none, it's sky sports news is unparalleled and while it may seem very noble to open up the market to others, no-one can offer or produce the same product that Sky can. It's competition just for the sake of it....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2011 12:56:12 GMT
Sounds like great news to me. Good to hear EU rules in a positive light for once.
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Feb 3, 2011 13:01:40 GMT
Last time they tried to help the consumer and increase competition, with the aim of reucing prices, we got Setanta (put loads of clubs out of money) and then ESPN> the result for the consumer.....you now pay more if you want to have two packages. They simply dont think the logic through.
Sky are reaping the rewards at the moment...however they put alot of money into it, and took a huge risk, when football was not at all popular. ITV, BBC etc were not willing to take that risk.
|
|
|
Post by sheikdjibouti on Feb 3, 2011 13:02:21 GMT
The EU hate Sky because they see them as a monopoly or anti competition but they provide a unique service that no other broadcaster is able to do. Years ago they ruled that some matches must be offered to a different broadcaster which allowed Setanta a share of the market but look what happened to them. The EU just want stick their oar in to all walks of British life and make legal rulings which do not consider the people it affects but only the rules that they invent in Brussels. Sky have ploughed millions and millions of pounds into the game and not all of it is bad, our club does see a tiny slice of that money. I also think Sky's football coverage is second to none, it's sky sports news is unparalleled and while it may seem very noble to open up the market to others, no-one can offer or produce the same product that Sky can. It's competition just for the sake of it.... If the quality and uniqueness of Skys product is that strong then what have they got to fear? If no-one else is able to do it, then why should they be fearful. Oh, hang on . . . . perhaps others ARE able to do just as well and the arrogance of both Sky and the Premier League has just been exposed.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Feb 3, 2011 13:40:35 GMT
Last time they tried to help the consumer and increase competition, with the aim of reucing prices, we got Setanta (put loads of clubs out of money) and then ESPN> the result for the consumer.....you now pay more if you want to have two packages. They simply dont think the logic through. Sky are reaping the rewards at the moment...however they put alot of money into it, and took a huge risk, when football was not at all popular. ITV, BBC etc were not willing to take that risk. The point was people could pay £10 a month or whatever it was INSTEAD of being ripped off to the tune of £50 a month or whatever it is for Sky. Surely you can see that? It is not forcing people to buy 2 packages, it's called 'choice'. "when football was not at all popular." - You are seriously suggesting football wasn't popular in the 80's? Blimey, you have swallowed a Sky propaganda leaflet haven't you. [distance 'plop' as the bait drops into the river...]
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Feb 3, 2011 14:48:29 GMT
Wasn't fishing :-)
Ok....Im not saying football wasn't at all popular...but there wasn't a whole lot of money in it in the early 1990's. People seem to forget that the first couple of years of Sky, a transfer of £1m was still big news, Brian McClair was probably earning no more than £4k a week, and it certainly wasn't popular with the middle class, mainstream media, or corporates. Thats where the gamble sat.
Agreed people have the choice if they take a £10 package for a limited number of games. I guess it dependswhat the consumer wants. Some games. All games. Their teams games.
Ultimately, I think top flight clubs will be more impacted by Prem games being on at 3pm on a Saturday, not the lower leagues. Perhaps thats more in hope.
|
|
|
Post by Toeby on Feb 3, 2011 18:23:34 GMT
Good competition should improve things for the consumer but how do you get in the market when Sky are paying over a billion pounds for each load of Premier League games?
For the amount of money Sky are getting from the armchair fan, you'd expect 'the best coverage', but realistically, Sky could drop the standards and still rake it in. How do you know they're the best if you don't get to see the rest?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Feb 3, 2011 18:26:51 GMT
Good competition should improve things for the consumer but how do you get in the market when Sky are paying over a billion pounds for each load of Premier League games? For the amount of money Sky are getting from the armchair fan, you'd expect 'the best coverage', but realistically, Sky could drop the standards and still rake it in. How do you know they're the best if you don't get to see the rest? Because you listen to the constant propaganda they put out and believe it. Sky is not the best by any strech of the imagination but its monopoly means it does't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Feb 3, 2011 22:27:28 GMT
Just seen that the UK broadcast rights were £666 million last year - quite an appropriate number.
|
|
|
Post by luvthepink on Feb 4, 2011 0:00:45 GMT
I aint got sky but watch the matches online,they are a bit hit and miss but gift horse an all
|
|
|
Post by outofthegloom on Feb 4, 2011 10:30:49 GMT
Trying to tease apart two issues. Very complex. 1) The restriction on not allowing Saturday 3pm kick-offs to be broadcast in the UK. This is good for football, as it puts a premium on attending games in-person. Also it is right that owners (the Premier League) are able to choose what they can sell. 2) Restriction of broadcasters by national boundaries. Whether for good or bad, the UK is in the European Single Market, as such the present inability of consumers to choose any broadcaster within in it is wrong. If the same game is available from a Greek broadcaster or an English broadcaster, it should be my choice, be it based on price or even the opinions of the presenters . Consequence of this ruling, if it was enforced, is that things would change. Broadcasters would offer English language packages. The Premier League would have to adapt and sell games to many broadcasters for many small amounts instead of just one or two per country for very large sums. Bad for Sky, not so bad for the Premier League.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowbrains on Feb 4, 2011 11:23:00 GMT
www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=10878I thought this article presented an interesting view. It could be that any changes could be to the benefit of Sky, as they would be best placed to get exclusive rights to broadcast the Premier League throughout Europe.
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Feb 4, 2011 12:38:04 GMT
It would of course be bad for Sky. IT would also be bad for the EPL though as it would drive down the value of the package very considerably. From the £666m quoted to probably only circa £150m max. I'll let you do the maths on what that would mean for alot of clubs leveraged to the max on tv money.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 13:01:12 GMT
It would of course be bad for Sky. IT would also be bad for the EPL though as it would drive down the value of the package very considerably. From the £666m quoted to probably only circa £150m max. I'll let you do the maths on what that would mean for alot of clubs leveraged to the max on tv money. My maths gives me this: bad for sky + bad for EPL = good for football
|
|
|
Post by sheikdjibouti on Feb 4, 2011 13:38:18 GMT
It would of course be bad for Sky. IT would also be bad for the EPL though as it would drive down the value of the package very considerably. From the £666m quoted to probably only circa £150m max. I'll let you do the maths on what that would mean for alot of clubs leveraged to the max on tv money. My maths gives me this: bad for sky + bad for EPL = good for football Absolutely. Does anybody (apart form Moobs) actually think that the current business model used by EPL and bankrolled by Sky is either good for the game at all levels or good for its sustainable future?
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Feb 4, 2011 14:32:14 GMT
Isnt technology overtaking Skys business model anyway? With internet tv likely to take off soon how many people are going to pay a subscription for something they can pick up for free? I think sky know this and are desperately trying to build up a large viewing base before going free to air or one off payment and making their money from adverts.
In the case of pubs who can blame them for using foreign feeds when sky try to charge them such a huge amount. Think I know more pubs that use foreign tele than use sky.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Feb 4, 2011 15:47:05 GMT
How much is it for a pub Sky Sports licence now? Last figure I heard was 6 grand a few years back, although that's probably gone up now. That's affordable if you're a large chain like O'Neills or Wetherspoons, but not if you're some small village pub.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Feb 4, 2011 15:54:50 GMT
How much is it for a pub Sky Sports licence now? Last figure I heard was 6 grand a few years back, although that's probably gone up now. That's affordable if you're a large chain like O'Neills or Wetherspoons, but not if you're some small village pub. I heard it was based on square footage regardless of how much business you do. A snooker club I go to show the foreign football instead of sky. They have a big establishment because it's a snooker hall not because it's packed with people watching football.
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Feb 4, 2011 16:02:49 GMT
I got told £30,000 by one landlord but dont know whether thats correct. I know their was a huge price hike a few years back which led to a load of pubs and clubs showing the foreign feeds.
|
|