A BT source told Sportcal that BT Vision will operate a self-retailing service on BSkyB, the established pay-televsion and Premier League broadcaster, under which BSkyB customers will be able to phone up BT to subscribe to the new sports channels on a monthly basis. It is a similar model to that used by the now-defunct Setanta Sports, a previous Premier League broadcaster.
.
BT source needs to get his/her facts right. There was no need to be a BSKYB customer to subscribe to Setanta Sports.
This is why ESPN failed as they blocked out many potential customers. Customers may be interested in ESPN & BT channels but that doesn't mean they are happy to first pay Sky for the channels they don't want to access the channels they want!
Will BT do a deal with Sky re BT Sport 1&2 without at the same time as part of the same agreement also doing a deal for BT to carry the entire Sky Sports portfolio or at least more of it than it does at the moment?
This is complicated by the possible CAT appeal - I would have thought BT may have preferred to wait until next summer when the CAT appeal may have concluded.
I guess BT and Sky could do an all embracing deal whereby BT would not appeal the CAT. But that wouldn't stop VM appealing the CAT and if that appeal succeeds then any new terms imposed would obviously apply to BT as well.
If they were wholesaling from BT, then it would depend on the terms of the contract. One would expect Sky to fight very hard for the right to price the channel as they saw fit, but I would expect BT to insert a price floor clause into any such agreement, to prevent their own BT Vision / direct-to-consumer offering being undercut should Sky try and sell BT Sports to it's sports subscribers at a loss.
Personally, I don't believe Sky would have any interest in retailing a wholesale purchased BT Sports package at a loss. We've seen from other decisions this year that BSkyB are working hard to increase their profitability metrics - as demonstrated by the decision to sub-let their rights to the England away WCQ ,matches.
Good news if there is the option to deal with both BT directly and with Sky. I wouldn't be too surprised if Sky look to do an all encompassing deal with BT (althought not sure what the legality of doing a deal that would see BT not appeal the CAT decision would be) that would put the squeeze on Virgin Media.
One thing that is still to be announced is the situation in the Republic of Ireland. Presumably it would be in Sky's interest for BT to buy the mirror rights for their 38 matches in Ireland and to make BT Sport available to Sky's Irish customers - if they don't then that opens up the possibility of Setanta buying BT's equivalent rights on top of potentially having rights to 3pm matches which would make for a very strong offering from them. Sky currently give ESPN to their Sky Sports customers for free. All depends on how the Premier League has decided to structure the rights I guess.
If they were wholesaling from BT, then it would depend on the terms of the contract. One would expect Sky to fight very hard for the right to price the channel as they saw fit, but I would expect BT to insert a price floor clause into any such agreement, to prevent their own BT Vision / direct-to-consumer offering being undercut should Sky try and sell BT Sports to it's sports subscribers at a loss.
Personally, I don't believe Sky would have any interest in retailing a wholesale purchased BT Sports package at a loss. We've seen from other decisions this year that BSkyB are working hard to increase their profitability metrics - as demonstrated by the decision to sub-let their rights to the England away WCQ ,matches.
It's for that reason I asked. Was just wondering what peoples views were on the scenario of Sky making a loss on it by offering it cheaper than BT themselves.
issue around this is that there's more than just selling TV channels at stake here...need to factor in any activity around line rental, phone and internet packages on offer.
Glad it seems they're actually starting to talk about something.
It wouldn't be good for the consumer (BT or Sky customer) for them to play hard ball with each other, especially when customers are being charged more and more for the 'privilege' of watching PL football these days because of this absurd situation where a single rights holder isn't allowed.
The more and more I look at the £738m figure that BT will pay for just 38 games, the more and more ludicrous I think it is. Having said that, the whole deal is a tad over-the-top.
Glad it seems they're actually starting to talk about something.
It wouldn't be good for the consumer (BT or Sky customer) for them to play hard ball with each other, especially when customers are being charged more and more for the 'privilege' of watching PL football these days because of this absurd situation where a single rights holder isn't allowed.
The more and more I look at the £738m figure that BT will pay for just 38 games, the more and more ludicrous I think it is. Having said that, the whole deal is a tad over-the-top.
That isnt quite correct, as its £738million for 114 games.
It's for that reason I asked. Was just wondering what peoples views were on the scenario of Sky making a loss on it by offering it cheaper than BT themselves.
I think almost literally 0% chance Sky would do that.
I think almost literally 0% chance Sky would do that.
I just don't think implementing deliberate negative margins is a part of Sky's corporate ethos anymore. Once upon a time when they were growing the business they were happy to take those kinds of hits, but now they have penetrated so much of the domestic market they really have no need to.
I'd love to know what margin they make on ESPN sell-on subscriptions currently.
Comments
which is nothing new, nor surprising to anyone.
BT source needs to get his/her facts right. There was no need to be a BSKYB customer to subscribe to Setanta Sports.
This is why ESPN failed as they blocked out many potential customers. Customers may be interested in ESPN & BT channels but that doesn't mean they are happy to first pay Sky for the channels they don't want to access the channels they want!
Will BT do a deal with Sky re BT Sport 1&2 without at the same time as part of the same agreement also doing a deal for BT to carry the entire Sky Sports portfolio or at least more of it than it does at the moment?
This is complicated by the possible CAT appeal - I would have thought BT may have preferred to wait until next summer when the CAT appeal may have concluded.
I guess BT and Sky could do an all embracing deal whereby BT would not appeal the CAT. But that wouldn't stop VM appealing the CAT and if that appeal succeeds then any new terms imposed would obviously apply to BT as well.
In practice, Sky would pay BT per subscriber - ie £x per the number of Sky customers who take BT Sport.
(IF Sky/BT go down this route).
The article doesn't actually say there was such a need.
It says "BSkyB customers will be able to phone up BT".
Non BSkyB customers would obviously also be able to ring up BT.
(NB. If they go down the route suggested).
Who would price the channel - BT or Sky?
If they were wholesaling from BT, then it would depend on the terms of the contract. One would expect Sky to fight very hard for the right to price the channel as they saw fit, but I would expect BT to insert a price floor clause into any such agreement, to prevent their own BT Vision / direct-to-consumer offering being undercut should Sky try and sell BT Sports to it's sports subscribers at a loss.
Personally, I don't believe Sky would have any interest in retailing a wholesale purchased BT Sports package at a loss. We've seen from other decisions this year that BSkyB are working hard to increase their profitability metrics - as demonstrated by the decision to sub-let their rights to the England away WCQ ,matches.
One thing that is still to be announced is the situation in the Republic of Ireland. Presumably it would be in Sky's interest for BT to buy the mirror rights for their 38 matches in Ireland and to make BT Sport available to Sky's Irish customers - if they don't then that opens up the possibility of Setanta buying BT's equivalent rights on top of potentially having rights to 3pm matches which would make for a very strong offering from them. Sky currently give ESPN to their Sky Sports customers for free. All depends on how the Premier League has decided to structure the rights I guess.
It's for that reason I asked. Was just wondering what peoples views were on the scenario of Sky making a loss on it by offering it cheaper than BT themselves.
Huh? No they don't. You have to pay for ESPN if you have Sky (except ESPN Classic).
It wouldn't be good for the consumer (BT or Sky customer) for them to play hard ball with each other, especially when customers are being charged more and more for the 'privilege' of watching PL football these days because of this absurd situation where a single rights holder isn't allowed.
The more and more I look at the £738m figure that BT will pay for just 38 games, the more and more ludicrous I think it is. Having said that, the whole deal is a tad over-the-top.
That isnt quite correct, as its £738million for 114 games.
I think we could all deduce he meant 'per season'...
Even when you say it as 114 games - split over 3 years, it still looks just as crazy!
Last time around they pay £60m for the PL rights, this time it's £300m
Not just the UK that's gone crazy with the PL.
where's that money going to go?
1. Agents.
2. Players.
Its getting beyond a joke, players wages are getting bigger and bigger too.
How do Thai TVs get their money back? Is it their pay tv companies that buy these rights?
They paid £300 MILLION in Thailand? That seems awfully high for an overseas deal... Was it definitely in £ and not $?!
Extra £10 a month in the UK but it comes at no extra cost if you have the Sky Sports pack in Ireland,
http://www.sky.com/ireland/tv/extra-channels/
Only if you take the Sky Sports channels otherwise its £13 I believe.
Free on BTVision and Top end VM pack.
sorry - typo
$ not £.
I think almost literally 0% chance Sky would do that.
I just don't think implementing deliberate negative margins is a part of Sky's corporate ethos anymore. Once upon a time when they were growing the business they were happy to take those kinds of hits, but now they have penetrated so much of the domestic market they really have no need to.
I'd love to know what margin they make on ESPN sell-on subscriptions currently.