Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Another good example is BBC MOTD. BBC regards MOTD as very, very important so they bid very high. Many people on here have often said BBC overpays for MOTD but what is happening is that they are bidding right up to their "100" point even if they think the most anyone else will bid is "70" (or even "50") - because they are not willing to take any risk on it.
I will cut this post here and continue below (to avoid this post becoming too long!).”
The market here is massively distorted by the BBC though. Nobody else places any real importance on EPL highlights. A commercial channel would only be able to generate enough revenue to pay about 60% of what the BBC currently pays.
So the BBC is effectively the only bidder... and for the last two auctions ACTUALLY the only bidder.
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I think what it boils down is that the PL rights were worth far, far more to BT (and of course Sky) than ESPN.
BT wanted to use PL rights to drive its overall triple-play business.
”
Yes, although that isn't going well.
The majority of their existing broadband customers haven't signed up for the sport channels, even though they are free. The majority of those who have signed up don't watch at least one programme a week, and the majority of those who are watching the channels get either their TV or their broadband or both from Virgin Media.
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“A question for Ariusuk if he is around, what is the confidence of ITV retaining their rights at the bidding?
Are they really concerned they will end up with nothing?”
There is concern. ITV doesn't have a bottomless pit of money. It can only bid what it expects to earn back.
But I still believe that the rights being shared between two pay broadcasters won't happen.
The most likely outcome is that it will all go to one broadcaster.