The EU / OFT deal on Premier League tendering expired years ago. The last two Premier League tenders have taken place outside of any such agreement and could have easily been sold to one broadcaster if that's what the Premier League had wanted.
You state this as fact but it's highly likely the PL would be leaving themselves open to further EU/OFT action if they did sell everything to one broadcaster.
The fact Sky make quite frankly eye watering profits suggests they do massively overcharge their products.
That's crazy logic. The levels of aggregate demand dictate the price, not the pricing decisions of the supplier. What do you expect them to do - drop their prices in the face of stronger demand? They're a company, not a charity. They don't exist to provide a social good.
Thank goodness for Champions League fans that only one subscription is currently needed as ITV hold rights with Sky and any matches shown on ITV4 HD will be covered by the HD pack.
Blame the EU for the nonsense that means two subscriptions are needed to watch Premier League.
With BT on the prowl, will they at some point want a bite of the cherry?
I don't know what's permitted under the rules and law but I could see the qualifying table round being split off as seperate deal to the knockout section.
You state this as fact but it's highly likely the PL would be leaving themselves open to further EU/OFT action if they did sell everything to one broadcaster.
In the current EU regulatory climate (highly liberal) I would be inclined to disagree with you.
With BT on the prowl, will they at some point want a bite of the cherry?
I don't know what's permitted under the rules and law but I could see the qualifying table round being split off as seperate deal to the knockout section.
UEFA seek to ensure at least one package of games is sold to a FTA broadcaster in large markets, which obviously includes the UK.
What do you expect them to do - drop their prices in the face of stronger demand?
No, but I would be happy to see windfall taxes placed on companies which are stockpiling massive amounts of cash rather than investing and kickstarting the UK economy. Use it or lose it.
But you know what?
If you don't like Apple making "frankly eye watering profits", then buy a Nokia.
If you don't like Sky making "frankly eye watering profits", then just watch Freeview.
It's a free world. You have choice.
You are not forced to purchase either.
Terrible analogy !
If I don't want to use Apple, I can go and use another make (Nokia is a poor example to use, no one uses Nokia phones anymore, better to say Samsung) and get an experience which is as good if not better.
If I don't want to pay Sky money, there is no other way for me to get access to the rights they have exclusive access to.
UEFA seek to ensure at least one package of games is sold to a FTA broadcaster in large markets, which obviously includes the UK.
I can understand the thinking behind FTA as it puts the matches on a broader platform and thus a general audience see it, as part of the promoting of the tournament.
Since cricket got tucked away on Sky I have the feeling the general public are less aware of it as a sport.
No, but I would be happy to see windfall taxes placed on companies which are stockpiling massive amounts of cash rather than investing and kickstarting the UK economy. Use it or lose it.
Oh good - sending out the message that the UK is open for business. What you're proposing is the corporate equivalent of taking Cypriot savers' cash out of their bank accounts. Who in their right mind would invest in this country if the threat of the Government taking their legally earned capital reserves was so real?
Then you must put forward a cogent reason as to why Thatcher stopped the BBC setting up a commercial subsidiary carrying sport and movies at additional direct cost to the viewer
and yet put Birt into a position where he carried out her wish to privatise virtually everything that Murdoch didn't see as a potential competitor to his ambitions ....
if the argument is 'shaky', why are we noting the passing of the Television Centre today?
my astonishment is in your lack of interest in historical detail which somewhat scuppers your stance!
astonishment.....really? It think that's overselling it to put it mildly..
No...what you're doing is trying to force in another angle of context that I wasn't discussing with Tassium, and then when I'm not responding to it, trying to belittle my viewpoint. You have no appreciation of my level of interest or knowledge of the history, don't assume you do know.
I don't have a detailed enough knowledge of the ins and outs of Thatchers policy decisions, it would be foolish of me to comment on them, so no...you won't be getting an answer on why she did xyz from me.
I haven't noted the passing of the television centre, make sure you apply the term 'we' in the correct context, your reply could be taken as including me within that context of 'we'.
Oh good - sending out the message that the UK is open for business. What you're proposing is the corporate equivalent of taking Cypriot savers' cash out of their bank accounts. Who in their right mind would invest in this country if the threat of the Government taking their legally earned capital reserves was so real?
errr, how is taxing excessive profits (and £1bn is excessive) the same as taking money away from individuals savings accounts? I accept you might have different opinions on this subject but if you can't be sensible there's no point debating this any further.
errr, how is taxing excessive profits (and £1bn is excessive) the same as taking money away from individuals savings accounts? I accept you might have different opinions on this subject but if you can't be sensible there's no point debating this any further.
I'm surprised you can't see how the two situations would be completely analogous.
Retained profit is earned - the company has already paid its corporation tax. Taking anything else out through the use of a 'windfall tax' or similar is an arbitrary kick in the face for successful business. The money it would raise would be so small compared to the amount of Foreign Direct Investment it would deter would make it a ludicrous decision.
I don't have a detailed enough knowledge of the ins and outs of Thatchers policy decisions, it would be foolish of me to comment on them, so no...you won't be getting an answer on why she did xyz from me.
That is irrelevant to my posting an account of what I directly witnessed and was a (small) party to.
I haven't noted the passing of the television centre, make sure you apply the term 'we' in the correct context, your reply could be taken as including me within that context of 'we'.
you substantially edited your post after I had responded.
No.....again another assumption on your behalf, I changed some of the wording of my post to whilst you were responding, not that your response would've made go back and change it at all anyway.
Do you have anything actually useful to say to me? Or are you just on a mission to try and trip me up; by bringing into the discussion elements I wasn't discussing, and aren't able to comment on to somehow 'prove/win etc' whatever this subjective debate is?
My opinion is that you're indulging in a game of upsmanship without really caring about the subject content so long as you find an angle to 'win'
I'll leave you to your opinions and stance, I don't think I have anything else useful at present to add to this discussion with you.
Comments
You state this as fact but it's highly likely the PL would be leaving themselves open to further EU/OFT action if they did sell everything to one broadcaster.
That's crazy logic. The levels of aggregate demand dictate the price, not the pricing decisions of the supplier. What do you expect them to do - drop their prices in the face of stronger demand? They're a company, not a charity. They don't exist to provide a social good.
With BT on the prowl, will they at some point want a bite of the cherry?
I don't know what's permitted under the rules and law but I could see the qualifying table round being split off as seperate deal to the knockout section.
In the current EU regulatory climate (highly liberal) I would be inclined to disagree with you.
UEFA seek to ensure at least one package of games is sold to a FTA broadcaster in large markets, which obviously includes the UK.
What do you think is too much profit? How much of that gets reinvested back into the next year?
So do Apple.
But you know what?
If you don't like Apple making "frankly eye watering profits", then buy a Nokia.
If you don't like Sky making "frankly eye watering profits", then just watch Freeview.
It's a free world. You have choice.
You are not forced to purchase either.
my astonishment is in your lack of interest in historical detail which somewhat scuppers your stance!
No, but I would be happy to see windfall taxes placed on companies which are stockpiling massive amounts of cash rather than investing and kickstarting the UK economy. Use it or lose it.
Why on earth would FOM do that?
Terrible analogy !
If I don't want to use Apple, I can go and use another make (Nokia is a poor example to use, no one uses Nokia phones anymore, better to say Samsung) and get an experience which is as good if not better.
If I don't want to pay Sky money, there is no other way for me to get access to the rights they have exclusive access to.
I can understand the thinking behind FTA as it puts the matches on a broader platform and thus a general audience see it, as part of the promoting of the tournament.
Since cricket got tucked away on Sky I have the feeling the general public are less aware of it as a sport.
Oh good - sending out the message that the UK is open for business. What you're proposing is the corporate equivalent of taking Cypriot savers' cash out of their bank accounts. Who in their right mind would invest in this country if the threat of the Government taking their legally earned capital reserves was so real?
Think it through.
and yet put Birt into a position where he carried out her wish to privatise virtually everything that Murdoch didn't see as a potential competitor to his ambitions ....
if the argument is 'shaky', why are we noting the passing of the Television Centre today?
astonishment.....really? It think that's overselling it to put it mildly..
No...what you're doing is trying to force in another angle of context that I wasn't discussing with Tassium, and then when I'm not responding to it, trying to belittle my viewpoint. You have no appreciation of my level of interest or knowledge of the history, don't assume you do know.
I don't have a detailed enough knowledge of the ins and outs of Thatchers policy decisions, it would be foolish of me to comment on them, so no...you won't be getting an answer on why she did xyz from me.
I haven't noted the passing of the television centre, make sure you apply the term 'we' in the correct context, your reply could be taken as including me within that context of 'we'.
errr, how is taxing excessive profits (and £1bn is excessive) the same as taking money away from individuals savings accounts? I accept you might have different opinions on this subject but if you can't be sensible there's no point debating this any further.
You're not paying £145 extra for it which is the point, also you can watch it licence free on catch-up via the iplayer.
I'm surprised you can't see how the two situations would be completely analogous.
Retained profit is earned - the company has already paid its corporation tax. Taking anything else out through the use of a 'windfall tax' or similar is an arbitrary kick in the face for successful business. The money it would raise would be so small compared to the amount of Foreign Direct Investment it would deter would make it a ludicrous decision.
Let's celebrate successful British businesses.
No.....again another assumption on your behalf, I changed some of the wording of my post to whilst you were responding, not that your response would've made go back and change it at all anyway.
Do you have anything actually useful to say to me? Or are you just on a mission to try and trip me up; by bringing into the discussion elements I wasn't discussing, and aren't able to comment on to somehow 'prove/win etc' whatever this subjective debate is?
My opinion is that you're indulging in a game of upsmanship without really caring about the subject content so long as you find an angle to 'win'
I'll leave you to your opinions and stance, I don't think I have anything else useful at present to add to this discussion with you.