Premier League to sell rights to 168 live games; tender issued today.

14041434546100

Comments

  • frankie_babyfrankie_baby Posts: 1,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I doubt BT will be forced to wholesale, simply because BT sport is available on the sky platform anyway
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    mavreela wrote: »
    Would you also say regarding your comments about Sky 1 that:

    Virgin would be able to bundle it all in one package to their customers which would help Virgin but this wouldn't be good business for Sky. Sky are a business too and naturally want to see a return on their investment. Why should Virgin have all the cake and eat it and charge high prices?

    My point is the same on both threads. If company A is spending their money investing then company B shouldn't get control over how it's retailed. Virgin make little investment yet get to make a profit just for carrying it, this is not fair on Sky and I don't think BT should have to wholesale to Sky either.
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,366
    Forum Member
    I doubt BT will be forced to wholesale, simply because BT sport is available on the sky platform anyway
    The fact BTS is already available on the Sky platform would be irrelevant when it comes to WMO, I believe.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    mogzyboy wrote: »
    The fact BTS is already available on the Sky platform would be irrelevant when it comes to WMO, I believe.

    I think you are right, BT Sports would be under Sky's control for it's subscription if bought wholesale, unlike it is now, Sky could then discount it or even give it away free to sports customers with Sky Broadband - Virgin could even do the same.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    I think the best outcome would be a 50/50 split. This would be truly competitive. Both probably wouldn't face regulation and we would see which company plays the better hand. Would they attempt to undercut each other? Would we get discounted bundle rates?
  • frankie_babyfrankie_baby Posts: 1,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    I think you are right, BT Sports would be under Sky's control for it's subscription if bought wholesale, unlike it is now, Sky could then discount it or even give it away free to sports customers with Sky Broadband - Virgin could even do the same.

    Its cost sky a lot of money to do that, I believe the wholesale price they charge BT for sky sports isn't much less than sky charge for the channels themselves so the same would probably be true in reverse
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,886
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the best outcome would be a 50/50 split. This would be truly competitive. Both probably wouldn't face regulation and we would see which company plays the better hand.

    Depends on whether BT's Champions League rights will be included in any dominance tests.
  • Jim_SJim_S Posts: 168
    Forum Member
    Is there any way that Sky could just cut BT from their system and leave them to go on their own? especially if BT were to take most of the EPL rights or is there some sort of contract signed?

    that would mean they have CL/EPL rights but no platform to show it on because nobody is going to buy a BT Vision box. Also the "free broadband" is going to end this season so that would be another problem.
  • JudioJudio Posts: 11,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    An example of Murdoch for you

    The Sunday Times (run by him) has a fixture grid for the Premier League showing results and fixtures for the season

    The Upcoming TV games in February and March are highlighted by putting a square around the box

    Guess what the games to be shown on BT are not highlighted !!!!
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    Jim_S wrote: »
    Is there any way that Sky could just cut BT from their system and leave them to go on their own? especially if BT were to take most of the EPL rights or is there some sort of contract signed?

    that would mean they have CL/EPL rights but no platform to show it on because nobody is going to buy a BT Vision box. Also the "free broadband" is going to end this season so that would be another problem.

    This is extremely naive.
  • PaulLFCPaulLFC Posts: 1,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jim_S wrote: »
    Is there any way that Sky could just cut BT from their system and leave them to go on their own? especially if BT were to take most of the EPL rights or is there some sort of contract signed?

    that would mean they have CL/EPL rights but no platform to show it on because nobody is going to buy a BT Vision box. Also the "free broadband" is going to end this season so that would be another problem.
    BT have bought slots on the Sky EPG. Sky can do nothing about that provided BT meet the minimum requirements, which they more than do.

    So no.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    If and it's a big if, BT were to grab the majority share of epl rights they face a massive conundrum. How are they going to stop BT broadband customers from leaving when they're only with them because of the appeal of free BT Sport if they decide to start charging a premium for it?
    From working at BT I can say all BT care about is their broadband. The calling plans are not so much as a second thought. The push for broadband sales caused many people to leave and there was huge turnover in the office I worked in. It was high pressure.
    BT risk losing a big chunk of custom and going back to square one if they don't at least keep one BT SPORT channel. I think they will keep a certain amount of games free with the odd top flight game to keep people subscribed to their broadband and will offer a premium channel to those who want the lot and maybe offer it at a slightly subsidised rate if you take broadband.
  • mavreelamavreela Posts: 4,676
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jim_S wrote: »
    Is there any way that Sky could just cut BT from their system and leave them to go on their own?

    No, Sky must provide fair access to its EPG and conditional access service to other broadcasters. Much in the same way that BT must provide access to its exchanges to other broadband providers.

    The only exception to this is in the wholesale requirement for Sky Sports, which allows Sky to refuse to supply their channels to another provider on the same platform. So BT cannot include Sky Sports 1 and 2 in its package to satellite subscribers.
    mogzyboy wrote: »
    The fact BTS is already available on the Sky platform would be irrelevant when it comes to WMO, I believe.

    Indeed, has mt11 as pointed out several times, the issue is about the choice of suppliers, not about the boxes it can be received on.

    To subscribe to Sky Sports you can chose to get it supplied by Sky, Virgin, TalkTalk, and BT.

    To subscribe to BT Sport you can only get is supplied by BT or Virgin.

    If BT Sport won the majority of Premier League rights to go along with the Champions League then Ofcom could regard this as giving them a dominant position. So a similar remedy would require them to offer any regulated channels to any provider. It is possible that only BT Sport 1 would be regulated though, depending on how they split matches between channels.

    BT would, however, still be entitled to offer direct satellite subscriptions to BT Sport in competition with Sky.

    It is also worth noting that the Virgin and Talk Talk deals with Sky Sports are commercial ones rather than supplied under the wholesale regulations so ending the remedy for Sky Sports would only affect BT. Sky Sports was also available on those platforms before the remedy was introduced.
  • Stumacher7Stumacher7 Posts: 614
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sunday Times has a piece advising investors to 'hang up' on BT shares. It says they lodged a 'meaty' bid on Friday and will have to shell out over £1bn to stay in premier league broadcast race.
  • casinoman13casinoman13 Posts: 7,062
    Forum Member
    Stumacher7 wrote: »
    Sunday Times has a piece advising investors to 'hang up' on BT shares. It says they lodged a 'meaty' bid on Friday and will have to shell out over £1bn to stay in premier league broadcast race.

    Now how on earth would they have/got those details?

    The times is run by who?

    If true it looks they are indeed going all out for certain/s packages.
  • PaulLFCPaulLFC Posts: 1,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stumacher7 wrote: »
    Sunday Times has a piece advising investors to 'hang up' on BT shares. It says they lodged a 'meaty' bid on Friday and will have to shell out over £1bn to stay in premier league broadcast race.
    The Sunday Times, how convenient. I trust they didn't make similar recommendations for Sky shares despite them likely having to shell out even more if they keep the majority of rights?
  • casinoman13casinoman13 Posts: 7,062
    Forum Member
    most media speculation is on for a Weds announcement for at least some packages, would this sound right, I would of thought next Friday?
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,886
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sirius C wrote: »
    Imagine they aren't forced to wholesale. It's your worst nightmare coming to fruition.

    No nightmare for me.

    I offloaded a few thousand Sky shares at £9.60 on Friday. Whatever the new deal is there will be the usual knee jerk reaction in the City and they'll fall.

    Buy them back again, when they're cheaper.

    Made a killing when they fell after last year's CL deal.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Stumacher7 wrote: »
    Sunday Times has a piece advising investors to 'hang up' on BT shares. It says they lodged a 'meaty' bid on Friday and will have to shell out over £1bn to stay in premier league broadcast race.

    You would have to be mad to take share tips from any newspaper. Always get the nagging feeling they are talking their own book as we say in the trade.
  • bottleofbestbottleofbest Posts: 8,026
    Forum Member
    Hewjars wrote: »
    You would have to be mad to take share tips from any newspaper. Always get the nagging feeling they are talking their own book as we say in the trade.

    What, the Sun? The Times? Never!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 798
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What, the Sun? The Times? Never!

    I'm sure they would be above such things but you never know....
  • loyalsinceloyalsince Posts: 5,979
    Forum Member
    £1bn is a 33% increase on what they pay now, so would get them two packs I'd have thought.

    If sky bid big then those two packs may be midweek and sat lunch or Sunday dinner. That would result in big drop in quality due to pack changes.

    Probably sat evening more likely if prices don't increase by loads
  • channelsurferchannelsurfer Posts: 362
    Forum Member
    over £1billion "just to stay in" dosent mean they havent bid for all the packs. it suggests that thats the prices just for the 2 base packs and could be the sunday times guessing. they have no confirmation that they only bid for 2 packs or what packs they even bid for?
  • casinoman13casinoman13 Posts: 7,062
    Forum Member
    over £1billion "just to stay in" dosent mean they havent bid for all the packs. it suggests that thats the prices just for the 2 base packs and could be the sunday times guessing. they have no confirmation that they only bid for 2 packs or what packs they even bid for?

    These figures are quite staggering, if true I would suspect that BT will up their bid to make sure they "GET" what they set out for.
    Makes me seriously wonder if Sky are in a good position going into round 2.

    One thing for sure The Premier League are!
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    These figures are quite staggering, if true I would suspect that BT will up their bid to make sure they "GET" what they set out for.
    Makes me seriously wonder if Sky are in a good position going into round 2.

    One thing for sure The Premier League are!

    All these BT supporters seem to be confident. But you never know they all may have a shock in store.
    Ian.
Sign In or Register to comment.