• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
UEFA Champions League on TV
<<
<
113 of 120
>>
>
samburrows
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by Gray77:
“stato and samburrows, both good points well made. The economics are hard to justify for any company to challenge Sky and BT without an existing infrastructure to go along with any PL games.

Amidst the inane dribble about licence fees and 'niche' sports on this forum it is refreshing that we still have good posters making good points in some of these threads.”

Haha thanks - I feel exactly the same way I try to stick to these three or four threads which contain so much interesting discourse.

Glaring error in my post - should say "38 rounds of live football per year"
mlt11
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by samburrows:
“Haha thanks - I feel exactly the same way I try to stick to these three or four threads which contain so much interesting discourse.

Glaring error in my post - should say "38 rounds of live football per year" ”

Just to endorse your comment - several excellent quality posts above.

A few random points re the above posts:

Sky, BT, VM all charge VAT on TV subs. Maybe Google / Apple might avoid it (I don't know) but if not 20% more subs will be needed to generate the revenues referred to above.

One stat I think is always worth keeping in mind - in the 3 year period from 1996 to 1999 Sky had 3m subs and zero customer growth - with 100% of live PL (albeit 60/66 games), 1st pick live FA Cup + exclusive live England games. Today - 10m subs - with a live PL competitor, no FA Cup, no England.

Broad point is that premium football can only take you so far. It is critical content but it's content which is "necessary but not sufficient" if you want to go beyond what is a relatively small core - ie only a limited number of households will pay for content if that content is only for one family member - and indeed the rest of the family may well be actively hostile to having it.

Sky Germany is now where Sky UK was in 1999 - obviously there will be differences in the markets but they are now attempting to broaden out with the hope that that will then lead to much greater growth. Whether they can succeed in replicating the UK who knows - but they would have no chance without broadening what they offer.

I don't see why Google / Apple shouldn't enter the premium football market but the point is that to succeed it must be part of a broadly based offer (at a minimum in terms of other content and preferably also in terms of other products) which will be attractive to all members of a family.
Mr Newshound
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Sky, BT, VM all charge VAT on TV subs. Maybe Google / Apple might avoid it (I don't know) but if not 20% more subs will be needed to generate the revenues referred to above.”

They wouldn't be able to: VAT MOSS rules would apply (at least while we're in the EU!)

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vate-consumers

This also affects companies outside the EU that supply digital services to consumers in EU countries. So if Google were billing you from the US they'd be required to collect VAT.
Li4m
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Newshound:
“They wouldn't be able to: VAT MOSS rules would apply (at least while we're in the EU!)

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vate-consumers

This also affects companies outside the EU that supply digital services to consumers in EU countries. So if Google were billing you from the US they'd be required to collect VAT.”

MLB.TV subscribers in the UK (and, presumably, elsewhere in Europe) got a bit of a shock last season when VAT was charged on subscriptions for the first time.
mlt11
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Newshound:
“They wouldn't be able to: VAT MOSS rules would apply (at least while we're in the EU!)

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vate-consumers

This also affects companies outside the EU that supply digital services to consumers in EU countries. So if Google were billing you from the US they'd be required to collect VAT.”

Many thanks.

I'm not 100% on this but from memory I thought Sky was only charging a much lower rate (3%?) VAT on their broadband subs only as these were routed through Luxemburg and again from memory I thought VM might have been charging a similarly low rate on some of their services (again not sure what).

Has this all now changed?
Mr Newshound
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Many thanks.

I'm not 100% on this but from memory I thought Sky was only charging a much lower rate (3%?) VAT on their broadband subs only as these were routed through Luxemburg and again from memory I thought VM might have been charging a similarly low rate on some of their services (again not sure what).

Has this all now changed?”

Yes. The VAT MOSS stuff was brought in because of companies using Luxembourg and other low VAT rate countries. Apple used it for iTunes purchases and I'm sure lots of other companies did too.

At the moment it only relates to "digital services" but it's been suggested the same would apply to physical goods at some point in the future.
mlt11
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by Mr Newshound:
“Yes. The VAT MOSS stuff was brought in because of companies using Luxembourg and other low VAT rate countries. Apple used it for iTunes purchases and I'm sure lots of other companies did too.

At the moment it only relates to "digital services" but it's been suggested the same would apply to physical goods at some point in the future.”

Many thanks.
Sirius C
03-09-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Many thanks.

I'm not 100% on this but from memory I thought Sky was only charging a much lower rate (3%?) VAT on their broadband subs only as these were routed through Luxemburg and again from memory I thought VM might have been charging a similarly low rate on some of their services (again not sure what).

Has this all now changed?”

Virgin Media charged for premium channels in this manner.

Setanta Sports I'm sure did the same.
Judio
06-09-2016
Club Brugge v Leicester
Next Weds night
Free on Showcase Ch 59 on freeview
Judio
06-09-2016
and in a change for this season, both Sky and Virgin Media viewers will also be able to watch BT Sport’s live free-to-view broadcasts.
jlp95bwfc
06-09-2016
Originally Posted by Judio:
“and in a change for this season, both Sky and Virgin Media viewers will also be able to watch BT Sport’s live free-to-view broadcasts.”

Finally. Good to know they've seen sense on this one.
Rich1977
06-09-2016
Originally Posted by Judio:
“and in a change for this season, both Sky and Virgin Media viewers will also be able to watch BT Sport’s live free-to-view broadcasts.”

Not a change for Virgin as you could watch for free last season on channel 548.
Neil_Harris
06-09-2016
Originally Posted by Judio:
“and in a change for this season, both Sky and Virgin Media viewers will also be able to watch BT Sport’s live free-to-view broadcasts.”

What's the sky channel number?
popeye13
06-09-2016
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“What's the sky channel number?”

BT Sport 2, channel 414
Judio
08-09-2016
http://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum/view....0609185245.xml

Having a look at this forum it looks like Scottish Champions will be faced with up to EIGHT matches to get into the new CL Group Stages !!
snukr
08-09-2016
Originally Posted by Judio:
“http://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum/view....0609185245.xml

Having a look at this forum it looks like Scottish Champions will be faced with up to EIGHT matches to get into the new CL Group Stages !!”

That's all speculation.
Judio
08-09-2016
Not if you look further down forum to yesterday
mlt11
08-09-2016
Partizan Belgrade post 07/09/16 at 17.12 almost certainly looks right to me.

It's also got a beautifully clever twist in it - if CL winner qualifies automatically it lets TWO more countries into CL group stage automatically - ie Countries 11 + 12.

The way that happens is that the number of countries qualifying through Champions route falls from 4 to 3.

So one extra place available - two more go in automatically then one less qualifies but that doesn't penalise countries from 13 onwards as they play the same number of games and in final qualifying round they can't play country 11 or 12 - so they are actually helped - albeit only marginally.

OK, it didn't quite require Einstein to work it out but it's still a very clever way of doing it.

(Not sure what happens if CL + EL winners both qualify automatically but if they do it can only help Countries 13/14).

The proposal is also identical to my post 2764 on this thread (if they go for Non Champions Option A) - though I didn't go as far as designing the clever twist referred to above.
Judio
08-09-2016
The extra ranking points for winning the UEFA Cup in 1973 is an interesting Option!!!


NEW CLUB COEFFICIENTS CALCULATION STARTING FROM 2018:


PERFORMANCE previous 10 seasons
2 points for win, 1 point for draw

BONUS previous 10 seasons
UCL: 4 points for GS, 5 points for R16
UCL/UEL: 1 point for KO as of QF

TITLES:
Last 5 seasons: UCL 15 (or 12, will be decided in next months), UEL 3
As of 1992/93: UCL 10 (or 8, will be decided in next months), UEL 2
Before 1992/93: UCL 5 (or 4, will be decided in next months), UEL 1
Ginger Daddy
08-09-2016
10 years is ridiculous. Are they going to backdate it so that in 2018 the teams performances from 2008 will automatically start counting, or build it upto 10 years starting from 2018 performances?
mlt11
08-09-2016
Wonder if country co-efficients will also be done over 10 years?

Could make a significant difference - the difference between being ranked 12th and 18th is absolutely massive - switching to 10 years must surely affect some countries to quite a degree.
mlt11
08-09-2016
Originally Posted by Judio:
“The extra ranking points for winning the UEFA Cup in 1973 is an interesting Option!!!


NEW CLUB COEFFICIENTS CALCULATION STARTING FROM 2018:


PERFORMANCE previous 10 seasons
2 points for win, 1 point for draw

BONUS previous 10 seasons
UCL: 4 points for GS, 5 points for R16
UCL/UEL: 1 point for KO as of QF

TITLES:
Last 5 seasons: UCL 15 (or 12, will be decided in next months), UEL 3
As of 1992/93: UCL 10 (or 8, will be decided in next months), UEL 2
Before 1992/93: UCL 5 (or 4, will be decided in next months), UEL 1”

The first 10 year period (for clubs) will be 2008/09 to 2017/18.

Liverpool is going to gain absolutely massively - all the points for 5 CL titles plus 3 EL titles and then the following will also just creep into the 10 years:

08/09 - CL QF
09/10 - CL group + EL semi (in same season)

For countries it's a year in advance so potentially 2007/08 to 2016/17 determining country positions for 2018/19.
Judio
08-09-2016
All the big Italian clubs except Juve are the big winners.

Inter and Milan have fallen off the current rankings

New ones will make them big again.
If they come 4th they will also make CL group.
Sirius C
09-09-2016
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“One stat I think is always worth keeping in mind - in the 3 year period from 1996 to 1999 Sky had 3m subs and zero customer growth - with 100% of live PL (albeit 60/66 games), 1st pick live FA Cup + exclusive live England games. Today - 10m subs - with a live PL competitor, no FA Cup, no England.

Broad point is that premium football can only take you so far. It is critical content but it's content which is "necessary but not sufficient" if you want to go beyond what is a relatively small core - ie only a limited number of households will pay for content if that content is only for one family member - and indeed the rest of the family may well be actively hostile to having it.”

I've read this post a few times now as it's near the top of the page, but do the stats not argue against the point you are trying to make?

As the number of games on Sky Sports has rose from 60 (in that period) to 126 at present so has the number of subscribers. Sky, in 1996, was relatively expensive to only see your team 3 or 4 times per season and against strong coverage of European football (where there was UK interest) and FA Cup, England internationals on terrestrial television.

As more football has gone behind a paywall the number of subscribers has steadily rose. While Sky now have competition from other broadcasters, they have always been in a position to say there's more football than ever before on Sky Sports, at least until they lost the Champions League.
brundlebud
09-09-2016
Originally Posted by Sirius C:
“ Sky, in 1996, was relatively expensive to only see your team 3 or 4 times per season...”

Not sure that this is relevant - subscribers aren't only subscribing to see their own team. Historically, TV football has been watched by supporters of all sorts of teams, not just those in action.
<<
<
113 of 120
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map