[Barnes5603]

Originally Posted by agm2002

So in your perfect world BT would have the 38 games exclusive and Sky would have there 118(?) games exclusively, seems that in your world it would be worse for BT vision subscribers than what they currently have and certainly not enough to warrant a mass exodus of Sky sports subscribers to BT. Also worse for consumers as a whole, which is why I think OFCOM would like all premiership games on all platforms.

You simply will not address the hypocrisy though will you. Supposing BT do want to keep these rights exclusive, how can sky complain about that given their appeals? And how could sky customers who posted the "sky took the risks, why should BT benefit?" mantra on forums possibly complain if BT decided not to let other platforms have this channel?

[THOMO]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

You simply will not address the hypocrisy though will you. Supposing BT do want to keep these rights exclusive, how can sky complain about that given their appeals? And how could sky customers who posted the "sky took the risks, why should BT benefit?" mantra on forums possibly complain if BT decided not to let other platforms have this channel?

And then if Sky are allowed to to take Sky Sports 1 and 2 off BT, then BT customers lose out, as BT will lose 116 matches from Sky, then nobody wins.
Ian.

[agm2002]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

You simply will not address the hypocrisy though will you. Supposing BT do want to keep these rights exclusive, how can sky complain about that given their appeals? And how could sky customers who posted the "sky took the risks, why should BT benefit?" mantra on forums possibly complain if BT decided not to let other platforms have this channel?

I don't think you are quite grasping the argument, I think some Sky customers are saying 'Yes we think a company should be able to keep their football exclusively, but if Sky are being forced to show theirs on each platform then so should BT' Sky took risks so they should keep there packages, BT took a risk so they should keep theirs. OFCOM should overturn their decision and let the market decide, and i'm pretty sure the consumer would decide to go with the 118 Sky games.

Currently if BT were allowed to keep exclusivity then they are being given an unfair advantage by OFCOM as you would agree.

[Barnes5603]

Originally Posted by agm2002

I don't think you are quite grasping the argument, I think some Sky customers are saying 'Yes we think a company should be able to keep their football exclusively, but if Sky are being forced to show theirs on each platform then so should BT' Sky took risks so they should keep there packages, BT took a risk so they should keep theirs. OFCOM should overturn their decision and let the market decide, and i'm pretty sure the consumer would decide to go with the 118 Sky games.

Currently if BT were allowed to keep exclusivity then they are being given an unfair advantage by OFCOM as you would agree.

No, because BT are not in a dominant position.

[THOMO]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

No, because BT are not in a dominant position.

Well then let Sky take Sky Sports 1 and 2 of BT as could well happen and see what happens and see who gets the most subscribers.
Ian.

[Barnes5603]

Whats all this in the daily mail?

BT insist they want a household name and a high-end broadcaster - with Premier League experience - to head up their topflight coverage on a channel that intends to carry other live sports, mainly football from various leagues.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...-hit-list.html

Is it guff or have BT said this?

[agm2002]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

Whats all this in the daily mail?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...-hit-list.html

Is it guff or have BT said this?

I'm pretty sure by 'broadcaster' they mean presenter. "Almost all broadcasters, including Lineker, are technically freelancers these days"

[Barnes5603]

Originally Posted by agm2002

I'm pretty sure by 'broadcaster' they mean presenter. "Almost all broadcasters, including Lineker, are technically freelancers these days"

No, the bit I was interested in was the showing other live games from various leagues. This seems to contradict what we have previously heard.

I wonder if they are going after ESPNs other rights now.

[mlt11]

I think they would like Lineker. Whether they'll get him or not - who knows?

They are going to want to make as much impact as possible and Lineker would enable them to do this better than anyone else.

Maybe they'll go for Hansen too?

[Barnes5603]

Originally Posted by mlt11

I think they would like Lineker. Whether they'll get him or not - who knows?

They are going to want to make as much impact as possible and Lineker would enable them to do this better than anyone else.

Maybe they'll go for Hansen too?

Be interesting to see what they do. I can't see them touching Andy Gray. They might have done if he had left sky under different circumstances. Could they try and poach Redknapp or even Gary Neville from sky?

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

Be interesting to see what they do. I can't see them touching Andy Gray. They might have done if he had left sky under different circumstances. Could they try and poach Redknapp or even Gary Neville from sky?

Neville is very new to Sky so I would doubt he would move. He also has a very high profile role on MNF.

Redknapp would be more possible.

But if they want really big names they'll look to the BBC.

I don't want to get embroiled in the "Sky / BT - is it fair or isn't it etc" debate but the reality is that BT isn't primarily going to be trying to get switchers from Sky.

They are going to be mainly trying to build a brand which will get new people taking Pay TV for the first time - people who will look at BT quite differently to how they've thought of Sky. (With the real aim being to use it as a retention / cross sell tool for BT Broadband / Phone).

Lineker would be absolutely perfect for this - household name, superb image (clean cut, genuine, honest, not hard sell) - perfect for marketing to previously non-Pay TV households.

[jamcambs]

What about the commentators and co-commentators?

I would say try Dave Farrar and Stewart Robson, who have been used for Serie A games on ESPN. Also Alan Brazil used to commentate on ITV sport channel many years ago.

Andy Gray and Richard Keys would be a risk, Alan Smith I think is really good co commentator, but would have to poach him from Sky.

[jamcambs]

Also if BT intend to show just football and from other leagues then do we know when the football rights are up for the following?

La Liga
Serie A
Bundesliga
Blue Square Premier
SPL
Eredivisie

There are other leagues, but I think these ones would be the most valued ones here to watch after the Premier league.

[jamcambs]

I myself have BT Vision, Sky and Freeview HD.

I have for the past 12 months with Sky been on a half price deal, which comes to an end at the end of June. I rang up to cancel and gave my 31 days notice. Interesting the other evening I had a call from Sky and they now offered me all the full entertainment mix, all sky sports channels, all movie channels and HD for just £2.50 a month for 3 months. So it shows that Sky are getting worried about losing subscribers.

[jamcambs]

Also do we know who has the rights to the ESPN goals app and online/ondemand rights from 2013?

As once before BT had the rights to show all Premier league games 24 hours later.

[ktla5]

Originally Posted by jamcambs

I myself have BT Vision, Sky and Freeview HD.

I have for the past 12 months with Sky been on a half price deal, which comes to an end at the end of June. I rang up to cancel and gave my 31 days notice. Interesting the other evening I had a call from Sky and they now offered me all the full entertainment mix, all sky sports channels, all movie channels and HD for just £2.50 a month for 3 months. So it shows that Sky are getting worried about losing subscribers.

No too worried I would have thought, as they would have done a deal for more than 3 months, plus this new agreement for footy does not kick in for over a year, so would be next year, if then, they may worry.
If you get the full hit for 3 months for 2.50, then stay,they will be a lot better off, (by about £650) than if they had not made the offer at all.

[RichardRees]

Originally Posted by jamcambs

Also do we know who has the rights to the ESPN goals app and online/ondemand rights from 2013?

As once before BT had the rights to show all Premier league games 24 hours later.

The League said that it is likely to be September before they get round to thinking about the other UK rights.

[clinch]

Originally Posted by mlt11

I think they would like Lineker. Whether they'll get him or not - who knows?

They are going to want to make as much impact as possible and Lineker would enable them to do this better than anyone else.

Maybe they'll go for Hansen too?

They're both awful. If BT have any sense they will get a professional to front their programming.

[NitaJez]

Originally Posted by Barnes5603

How many people can't get BT broadband?

Probably about 500,000 cant get BT at all and many million more can not get it at what can be deemed a broadband service - ie good enough for tv services.

[Matt_66]

As someone who has Freeview (no landline or internet either) & no real interest in the rather high fees charged by VM or Sky (nearly £40pm for all 3) and even more if you want the Sky Sports pack, I feel BT getting some of the games is great.

I'm not fully aware of how much BT costs but if it is substantially less than the above 2 then the prospect of 38 live Prem games would tempt me into getting BT Vision.

On the much talked about subject of Sky Sports exclusively on Sky and BT sports exclusive on BT etc then I don't see how this is a problem?

If the rights were exclusive (Sky not needing to sell SS to Virgin & Freeview etc) then maybe it would open up to more providers/broadcasters to bid for some of the Prem rights packages and open up choice to the consumer.

[BenFranklin]

wrong thread

[ktla5]

Originally Posted by Matt_66

As someone who has Freeview (no landline or internet either) & no real interest in the rather high fees charged by VM or Sky (nearly £40pm for all 3) and even more if you want the Sky Sports pack, I feel BT getting some of the games is great.

I'm not fully aware of how much BT costs but if it is substantially less than the above 2 then the prospect of 38 live Prem games would tempt me into getting BT Vision.

On the much talked about subject of Sky Sports exclusively on Sky and BT sports exclusive on BT etc then I don't see how this is a problem?

If the rights were exclusive (Sky not needing to sell SS to Virgin & Freeview etc) then maybe it would open up to more providers/broadcasters to bid for some of the Prem rights packages and open up choice to the consumer.

Reckon you are looking at BT BB / Calls at about £20 per month, Line Rental at about £13 per month, BT Vision that starts at a basic £4 per month no frills, plus whatever they will charge for Footy / Sports, plus the cost of a line connection of about £120, which they may do a deal on (or not) so before taking sport into account about £37 pm
(Full BTV but no Sports is £12pm making it £45 or so)

BT Vision is down to line speed, need a minimum of 2MB, below that, they will not supply it to you.

[Clarat]

Wouldn't surprise me if BT do a deal with ESPN to take their fa cup and Scottish rights as well as a few other leagues. Then ESPN would lower their costs considerably allowing them to continue as a Eurosport like basic sports channel or maybe as a niche premium channel for 3 or 4 pounds. BT would get a decent amount of football to fill a channel that would be very attractive for those who cannot afford a full sky package. ESPN and Setanta had a lot of football but no top games so never really worked as a standalone, fans needed sky as well. These 38 games, FA Cup and Scottish/other football would be attractive to a fan who only has 10 quid or so a month to spend.

[RichardRees]

Originally Posted by mlt11

D (Sky) - £214m
A (BT) - £178m
C (Sky) - £165m
E (Sky) - £160m
B (Sky) - £155m
G (BT) - £68m
F (Sky) - £66m

Totals:
Sky - £760m
BT - £246m

One further complication with this is the story that two of the packages were sold in the first round - one each to Sky and BT. If so, I don't think they would have gone for as much as those that went in the second round - especially the one allocated to Sky. BT may well have been bidding high on most but not all packages, and Sky may not have known about BT's involvement. It is possible at least that the one package Sky got on the Friday was relatively uncompetitive. I also doubt if Sky was initially bidding anywhere near as much as it ended up paying in the end. No idea which package Sky won early, but my guess is one of the lesser packs - BT seem to have been going seriously for the better ones. Only when Sky realised it was in a real battle for the best content would it have raised its other bids substantially.

Now, we don't know too much on any of the details, but it may be that BT got package A earlier and Sky a lesser one, which meant Sky knew it needed a knock-out blow for the other packages it really wanted.

[jamcambs]

Originally Posted by ktla5

Reckon you are looking at BT BB / Calls at about £20 per month, Line Rental at about £13 per month, BT Vision that starts at a basic £4 per month no frills, plus whatever they will charge for Footy / Sports, plus the cost of a line connection of about £120, which they may do a deal on (or not) so before taking sport into account about £37 pm
(Full BTV but no Sports is £12pm making it £45 or so)

BT Vision is down to line speed, need a minimum of 2MB, below that, they will not supply it to you.

I have BT line rental for £10.25 a month, anytime calls £4.90, BB for £13.25 and Vision (includes free ESPN) for £10 a month for 3 months then £12.50.