[dean michael]

With everything going on with BT,SKY and ESPN. I thought it would make it easy if all the talk about sports rights was put on one thread

[suffolkblue]

Good idea hopefully only boring rugby and prem football on BT. ESPN and sky keep the rest.

[RadioKnower]

Originally Posted by suffolkblue

Good idea

No it wasn't.

[Caxton]

The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.

[stej86]

Originally Posted by Caxton

The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.

This is not correct. The BT and Sky Sports Channels will be available on both platforms. Therefore you can get one of the services and have it all.

It will all come down to which provider gives the cheapest monthly price and any additional extras.

As there is competition the consumer will get a better deal.

Simple business sense mate, ever thought about doing a business course before you comment on such matters?

[dean michael]

how much will the BT Sports cost me per month. If its £10 yes anything over that then the answer is no.

[stej86]

Originally Posted by dean michael

how much will the BT Sports cost me per month. if its £10 yes anything over that then the answer is no

I have heard rumours it will be free (For BT Vision subscribers)

£15.99 a month for everyone else.

BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by Caxton

The only disadvantage I can see about sports being distributed by a number ofd providers is that is will ultimately cast more money to the end user.

Take for just an example that Sky get 50% Premiership soccer and BT gets the other 50%, that means, for those who want to take advantage of watching Premiership matches to the full has to take out 2 subscriptions, one to BT one to Sky this applies to any sports scenario.

If it happens that BT takes 50% sports from Sky it will not half the Sky subscription, and BT will not charge half what Sky does now, it also involves two systems and two basic subscriptions.

The loser is the viewer. So all those jumping with joy with BT coming on the scene, think again, it may not be so damn jolly as you think. It will just ultimately cost more money to the user, not less, the more providers that come on to the scene splitting the goodies.

But the actual reality is not that the existing amount of sport is split between providers, it's that more sport in total is being shown. Regardless of ESPN/future BT deal, Sky is showing more PL games now then it did 5 years ago and will continue to do so. I'm sure there are lot more examples of sport being shown now which wouldn't be if it was left to just one provider.

Of course, if you're an extreme hardcore fan and feel the need to watch every single televised game of your sport then having it split between two providers will probably cost you more. The same is true for ardent fans of multiple sports. However I would suggest that for most viewers it simply provides increased choice, not just of sports channels but also platforms. At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels. It's likely that that will soon change.

I for one would prefer to see much much more choice, with many more providers.

[stato77]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels.

Are you quite sure about that?

[Mr Teacake]

People are overlooking the fact that the minimum cost of watching live pl football in your living room is now much lower than when sky had all six packages.

And as for the disparity in games, Sky broadcast too many live fixtures.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by stej86

BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.

I've not seen that promise, but are they actually in a position to make it?

FT reported that BT's contract for the supply of Sky Sports 1 & 2 runs to next summer; and with uncertainty following the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruling on the “wholesale must-offer” of Sky Sports 1 & 2, are BT in a position to guarantee Sky Sports 1 & 2 on its platform and that all of Sky's Premier League games will continue to be broadcast on them?

These sort of claims have been made in the past, but are no guarantee of commercial success either. Having access to all the live Premier League games at the cheapest price sounds appealing, but how many people would be sufficiently bothered to change their equipment, channel choices, bundles etc. to theoretically save a few quid per month on the price of having all the Premier League football?

[dean michael]

What is the next big sports contract up for grabs?

[stato77]

Originally Posted by Mr Teacake

People are overlooking the fact that the minimum cost of watching live pl football in your living room is now much lower than when sky had all six packages.

You are quite right, it benefits the "casual" fan who wants to watch a match now and again. However, people who want to have access to every televised match end up paying more needlessly.

[dean michael]

Any news if Sky Sports have the rights for this year's US Open Tennis?

[suffolkblue]

Originally Posted by stej86

I have heard rumours it will be free (For BT Vision subscribers)

£15.99 a month for everyone else.

BT have promised they will be the cheapest provider in the UK to see every premier league game live on Sky Sports and BT Vision sports.

What !!!!! BT can shove that up the dark place for that price esp when I'm only paying 10 quid right now for much more sport. 16 quid for a bit of football and rugby and women's tennis your having a laugh ain't you.

[packerbully]

Originally Posted by suffolkblue

What !!!!! BT can shove that up the dark place for that price esp when I'm only paying 10 quid right now for much more sport. 16 quid for a bit of football and rugby and women's tennis your having a laugh ain't you.

Completely agree - that can not be right. ESPN £10 - for 2 channels in HD and a whole mix of sport. For what BT have signed up so far £8.99 seems for reasonable.

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by packerbully

Completely agree - that can not be right. ESPN £10 - for 2 channels in HD and a whole mix of sport. For what BT have signed up so far £8.99 seems for reasonable.

ESPN are spending £47m per year at the moment on PL rights. Add in all their other sports and their total rights cost is well, well under £100m.

BT is spending £246m per year on PL rights alone.

Plus BT aren't aiming at Sky / VM customers - they want BT Vision to be as attractive as possible so want a big price gap between BT Sport on BT Vision and BT Sport on Sky / VM.

For both the above reasons, BT Sport on Sky and VM will cost far, far more than ESPN. I'd expect around £15 per month.

[packerbully]

Originally Posted by mlt11

ESPN are spending £47m per year at the moment on PL rights. Add in all their other sports and their total rights cost is well, well under £100m.

BT is spending £246m per year on PL rights alone.

Plus BT aren't aiming at Sky / VM customers - they want BT Vision to be as attractive as possible so want a big price gap between BT Sport on BT Vision and BT Sport on Sky / VM.

For both the above reasons, BT Sport on Sky and VM will cost far, far more than ESPN. I'd expect around £15 per month.

So in reality they overpaid. Anyway it will be interesting to see how many subscribe if it is £15 a month or what additional rights they pick up. Or further, how many people can get BT Vision / will get BT Vision with less channels (esp HD) than Sky.

[Glenn A]

Originally Posted by dean michael

What is the next big sports contract up for grabs?

The FA Cup contract is being renegotiated this summer, and aren't the England football rights due at the same time? I can see the BBC making a serious bid for the FA Cup, as ITV coverage has been heavily criticised, but ITV will probably want the England rights as they get more viewers.

[Steveaustin316]

I prefer the old days where Sky had exclusive Premier League rights. Much better to have one sports subscription rather than two.

[suffolkblue]

Yes pay tv is getting stupid in this country esp compared to other countrys which would scream at the prices we pay to watch sport.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by stej86

Simple business sense mate, ever thought about doing a business course before you comment on such matters?

I have done a business course, and in this case theory does not match practice.

[Andy23]

Originally Posted by Glenn A

? I can see the BBC making a serious bid for the FA Cup, as ITV coverage has been heavily criticised.

You can see the BBC bidding because ITV's coverage has been criticised? That doesn't make sense

[eljmayes]

Originally Posted by dean michael

Any news if Sky Sports have the rights for this year's US Open Tennis?

Considering they have held them for twenty years I doubt any other broadcaster is that interested.

[wolvesdavid]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

But the actual reality is not that the existing amount of sport is split between providers, it's that more sport in total is being shown. Regardless of ESPN/future BT deal, Sky is showing more PL games now then it did 5 years ago and will continue to do so. I'm sure there are lot more examples of sport being shown now which wouldn't be if it was left to just one provider.

Of course, if you're an extreme hardcore fan and feel the need to watch every single televised game of your sport then having it split between two providers will probably cost you more. The same is true for ardent fans of multiple sports. However I would suggest that for most viewers it simply provides increased choice, not just of sports channels but also platforms. At the moment it is almost impossible to watch premium sports without subscribing to some level of Sky channels. It's likely that that will soon change.

I for one would prefer to see much much more choice, with many more providers.

This is NOT true for the Premier League.

In total between 2004-2013 in all TV deals 138 matches have been broadcast on TV in each season.

Between 2004-2007 this was on Sky Sports and Prem Plus, before the deals with Setanta and now ESPN came through. However the total number of matches between 2007-2013 certainly did not increase.

Next season yes there is an increase (from 138 to 154.) I bet the cost per match for every match is more expensive though. Prem Plus did 50 games for £50, working out at an average of £1 per game.