Sky Sports; increases - how much is too much?

howard hhoward h Posts: 23,347
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Just wondering, reading the papers this morning who suggest there will be a large increase in subs to pay for premiership rights;
What increase will be sufficient to keep you subscribing, or will you subscribe regardless of hikes?
What will you do if the sub is greater than your threshold (NOW? Move to BT only? Pirates??)
Are you an other sports fan who doesn't like and/or doesn't want to pay for football and will either continue to sub whatever, or will leave SS??

Me - I only sub to NOW Sky Sports occasionally, and if that rises for my non-football activities I won't bother.
«13

Comments

  • The PhazerThe Phazer Posts: 8,487
    Forum Member
    Sky Sports is already insanely overpriced for the value I get out of it.

    I don't think I'd accept any increase before getting rid of it. I only watch Premiership games occasionally (easily replaced by the pub), and there are legal alternatives for the NFL.

    It would be a shame to watch Final Score over Soccer Saturday, and lose the cricket, but they're not worth the money on their own.
  • A.D.PA.D.P Posts: 10,288
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I agree SS and Sky is very overpriced already but they now have football fans over the barrel, they know the fans want to see football live, so they will exploit that and recover these obscene amounts of money being paid. Viewers are going to be continued to be fleeced, and watching will be for the elite who can afford it, - the less well off, pensioners etc will only be able to watch MOTD for their football hobby.

    It's a cartel and it should be stopped, the funds in as Alan Sugar says is like prune juice all it will do is pay footballers more money.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 22,278
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I certainly think I'm near my limit of what I'm willing to pay.

    I don't actually watch that much Premier League football on it. I watch some of it, and I used to watch a lot of it when I first got Sky 7 or 8 years ago, but it's SO overexposed and there are SO many matches (including other divisions/countries) that the novely of constant football actually wore off on me so I only watch football sparingly now.

    Overall though I like having Sky. I watch a lot of general sport on it, plus some other shows I wouldn't get on Freeview, so I think I get value out of it. I don't need it for anything, perhaps other than F1 now that the BBC only have half of it live (and I'm not much of a fan of delayed highlights of F1).

    However I do think the value of what I get out of it is being eroded by price increases - I don't think it's that long since the last one. I pay just under £50 a month for my TV package and that's perilously close to what I think I'm happy to pay for it.
  • orangeballoonorangeballoon Posts: 10,944
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think it is getting close... and not because i begrudge paying for sports but because there is now so much i really do not want to watch but have to have...

    i dont care for tennis as its the same every time
    i dont care for golf
    i dont care for non uk cricket
    i dont really care for uk cricket
    the wwe shows they have are just an infomercials for its own network so should be free
    i dont care for foreign rugby union
    i dont care for foreign rugby league
    i dont care for foreign football
    i dont care for non uk sports period eg nfl

    but they are all compulsory. and all of that stuff is adding a chunk to the sky sports cost that has hit a tipping point in the question "am i getting value"
  • packerbullypackerbully Posts: 2,812
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the general problem is that people like me, who do not watch the EPL / football, are being overcharged for the sport we watch.

    If Sky had a couple of football channels then people who want to watch football can subscribe to those channels and I for one should have a lower subscription for the sport I want to watch on the other channels.

    I do subscribe to BT Sport as I get a lot more value from their 3 channels - particularly the sport under contract from ESPN, the NBA and MLB.
  • ftakeithftakeith Posts: 3,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    you can get sky sports 1/sky sports 5 only package for €20 per month
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,036
    Forum Member
    I would perhaps be tempted to get Sky Sports if I could just subscribe purely to receive that (currently a steep £24.50 a month) - but instead you have to get the basic Sky tv package first, which is a ludicrous £21.50 a month for mostly dross channels. Then if you want HD its another £10 a month. So altogether its £55 a month. Its just not good value.
  • yesman2012yesman2012 Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vote with your wallet. It's as simple as that.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yesman2012 wrote: »
    Vote with your wallet. It's as simple as that.

    Yep, I just went without until they offered me a great deal. Just go down the pub for the big games and enjoy the highlights more (although avoiding results can be hard these days).
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Yep, I just went without until they offered me a great deal. Just go down the pub for the big games and enjoy the highlights more (although avoiding results can be hard these days).
    I would suppose the prices they are charging pub landlords will increase too. Will be quite an equation for them - what % of ex-subscribers will drift down to the pubs to watch, to justify higher business rates?
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    I like sport a lot, so even if they stick it up another £5/£10 I still think it's very good value for money for me in my circumstances. I guess the calculation for Sky is how many people like me there are and if there are enough of us. So far they've calculated this correctly.

    If you're the sort of person who only likes one or two sports then NOW TV seems like a no brainer in terms of value for money.
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,634
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's getting near the limit tbh. I only subscribe for cricket, but I'm paying mostly for premiership football, which holds no interest to me.
  • howard hhoward h Posts: 23,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Resonance wrote: »
    It's getting near the limit tbh. I only subscribe for cricket, but I'm paying mostly for premiership football, which holds no interest to me.

    This is becoming a theme. If viewers like yourself contacted Sky and pointed that out, and you are unwilling to pay any more to prop up the football, they may (but probably won't) do something about it. The only answer then is to leave - they may offer a more realistic sub (maybe half-price) for you. But if thousands did that, they would be losing an enormous amount of money.

    Sky seem to assume EVERYONE loves football and is glued to every game. I think they're in for a shock.
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,366
    Forum Member
    Resonance wrote: »
    It's getting near the limit tbh. I only subscribe for cricket, but I'm paying mostly for premiership football, which holds no interest to me.
    Why not take SS2 standalone then? No need to take the lot.
  • THOMOTHOMO Posts: 7,446
    Forum Member
    I will continue to subscribe to Sky even if the price goes up by quite a lot as I like to watch a lot of different sports and not just football and I also subscribe to BT Sport along with Sky Movies. So all in all, I'm very happy with what I pay.
    Ian.
  • Jaycee DoveJaycee Dove Posts: 18,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sky are not stupid. No way are they going to suddenly put it up by £5 pm to pay for this deal. Especially as prices are falling elsewhere AND they lose Champions League next season so have to beware viewer reaction to that.

    They will spread the cost over all their entertainment packages and also raising broadband and phone costs as they can deflect some of the blame for that onto BT.

    Also they will even it out over the next 3 years or so. As such you will see rises of at most £2 pm in Sky Sports each year I imagine. Possibly only £1.50 this first year.

    Plus they will set aside a big fund to retain customers who decline to pay the rise by locking them into cheaper long term contracts.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    howard h wrote: »
    This is becoming a theme. If viewers like yourself contacted Sky and pointed that out, and you are unwilling to pay any more to prop up the football, they may (but probably won't) do something about it. The only answer then is to leave - they may offer a more realistic sub (maybe half-price) for you. But if thousands did that, they would be losing an enormous amount of money.

    Sky seem to assume EVERYONE loves football and is glued to every game. I think they're in for a shock.

    I would think their analysts have done their homework, weighing up which approach is best....

    A stand alone sports package @ £24.50 a month or minimum subscription plus sports package @ £55 a month. They would have to more than double their customer base to come out even if they went with the former, could that be achievable, what would this figure be 5m/6m?

    It would certainly benefit the customer if there was a stand alone sports package.
  • ktla5ktla5 Posts: 1,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Did we not see all this coming when everyone wanted more completion to show sports? they go all out to outbid each other driving up costs, with the PL getting a bigger cut, with only one provider the broadcaster can call the shots to a certain extent
  • leon_blayerleon_blayer Posts: 230
    Forum Member
    ftakeith wrote: »
    you can get sky sports 1/sky sports 5 only package for €20 per month

    can this be done in england and if so how?
  • andersonsonsonandersonsonson Posts: 6,454
    Forum Member
    Its bad value, but I love football. Netflix for £6pm is good value. Skysports for £30 a month, hmm

    I wish premier league done something like the WWE network. YOu could watch any watch online for say £200 a season.

    5 millions subs, would be £1 billion per year, which still doesn't match the new 1.7 billion per year deal sky are paying.

    so they would probably need to charge at least £300 per season, almost as dear as Sky. Stop paying the footballers so much I say and cut the prices PREMIER LEAGUE
  • irishfeenirishfeen Posts: 10,025
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    One thing for certain - foreign subs, online streaming and cam sharing is going to explode in numbers if sky raise their prices by much. Subscription TV is almost destroying itself from the inside forcing people away with ridiculous prices.

    We are now in the ridiculous position that say an Arsenal fan must pay sky massive money even though every game is not on TV... its getting ridiculous.
  • CELT1987CELT1987 Posts: 12,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    THOMO wrote: »
    I will continue to subscribe to Sky even if the price goes up by quite a lot as I like to watch a lot of different sports and not just football and I also subscribe to BT Sport along with Sky Movies. So all in all, I'm very happy with what I pay.
    Ian.
    Sky loves customers like you.
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Its bad value, but I love football. Netflix for £6pm is good value. Skysports for £30 a month, hmm

    I wish premier league done something like the WWE network. YOu could watch any watch online for say £200 a season.

    5 millions subs, would be £1 billion per year, which still doesn't match the new 1.7 billion per year deal sky are paying.

    so they would probably need to charge at least £300 per season, almost as dear as Sky. Stop paying the footballers so much I say and cut the prices PREMIER LEAGUE

    5m x £24.50 is just short of 1.5b, £4.5b over three years, without the yearly increases.

    But sports customers have to pay £55 a month to get sports, that's £3.3b a year. Maybe Sky use that to subsadise the EPL rights as sub's from their family pack customers are more than enough to cover the cost of that content.
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why not go to the pub to watch the games?

    A pint or two is cheaper.
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's amazing how people find the money from somewhere though. That's why Sky are doing it, because people are not voting with their wallets..

    Might have to give up another luxury, prioritise
Sign In or Register to comment.