• 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
<<
<
9 of 120
>>
>
coventrywooo
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“ITV have it all to lose, Sky will still have Champion's League football no matter what, they offer far to much.

Even if BT Sport were to get only one first pick it would be a huge coup for them.

If UEFA are like our Prem League then they will try and get every penny from their pockets...my point is will ITV have enough to convince them to let them carry on with their coverage.”

but really if bt get first pick, then surely itv wont , cause Sky wont want to loose first pick....
mlt11
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“The game as a standalone might not, but some clever marketing ("See every Champions League game live only on Sky Sports") might drive subscriptions.”

It might be a nice marketing line but Sky will not pay tens of millions per year just so they can use a nice marketing line in adverts.

The public will know that the game is still on ITV and that therefore the position they face is unchanged, ie:

- Happy with one game FTA per week? You don't need Sky.

- Want all other games as well? You do need Sky.

(Putting the BT option to one side for illustrative purposes).
livininadave
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“It might be a nice marketing line but Sky will not pay tens of millions per year just so they can use a nice marketing line in adverts.”

Yes they would. The did it with F1
mlt11
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by livininadave:
“Yes they would. The did it with F1”

No, the reason they paid what they did for F1 was in order to get 50% of the races exclusively live.

Sure, they are happy to simulcast the other races live (just as they simulcast the CL final with ITV and R3/R4 of the US Masters with BBC) but they will not pay large sums of money just to simulcast content.

Simulcast content will not generate subs. Of course if simulcast content is "thrown in" with exclusively live content they will take it - as per the above examples. But the reason for paying big money for rights is the exclusive content.
Neil_Harris
02-10-2013
What were the sums paid for the last TV Contract?
mlt11
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by Neil_Harris:
“What were the sums paid for the last TV Contract?”

Sky just under £80m per year.

ITV just under £50m per year.
casinoman13
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Sky just under £80m per year.

ITV just under £50m per year.”

Would not mind betting that with BT in the frame and have openly stated they will bid what they can....those figures will easily be doubled.

Looking at those figures either Sky got their rights relatively cheaply for what they are showing or ITV had to put in a very strong bid for just 1 first pick.
Neil_Harris
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Sky just under £80m per year.

ITV just under £50m per year.”

ITV paid well over the odds considering they only get one game a week, suppose their ad revenue is higher and they would re-coup more.
mlt11
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“Would not mind betting that with BT in the frame and have openly stated they will bid what they can....those figures will easily be doubled.

Looking at those figures either Sky got their rights relatively cheaply for what they are showing or ITV had to put in a very strong bid for just 1 first pick.”

Remember the rights went down in value last time - it was a very uncompetitive auction with ITV and Sky the only serious bidders.

The vast majority of the value is in the 1st picks - it must break down roughly:

Sky:
Wed 1st - 48
Tue 1st - 13
Wed 2nd - 13
The rest - 4
Total - 78

ITV:
Tue 1st - 48
popeye13
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“Would not mind betting that with BT in the frame and have openly stated they will bid what they can....those figures will easily be doubled.

Looking at those figures either Sky got their rights relatively cheaply for what they are showing or ITV had to put in a very strong bid for just 1 first pick.”

BT bidding for EPL rights drove the price way high, so i fully expect them to do something along the same lines with UCL and for me, that puts ITV well out of contention.
And if UEFA does want the final on a FTA outlet, what's to say the BBC cannot bid for that?
Would ITV be happy with just the final?? I don't think they would
mogzyboy
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“Would not mind betting that with BT in the frame and have openly stated they will bid what they can....those figures will easily be doubled.

Looking at those figures either Sky got their rights relatively cheaply for what they are showing or ITV had to put in a very strong bid for just 1 first pick.”

More than a 100% increase? Really? I think that'd be a bit much.

ITV get 15 matches for that ~£50m (~£3.333m per game)*

I'm guessing Sky's is broadly similar? ie. ~£50m for the Wednesday first picks, plus second picks for Tuesday and Wednesday? The rest is peanuts in comparison, I'd imagine.

* 15 matches if you include the UEFA Super Cup, which would make it ~£3.125 per game

I think doubling that is a tad optimistic personally - maybe around a 40-60% increase is a bit more realistic.

We'll see soon enough, though, I'm sure.
casinoman13
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“BT bidding for EPl rights drove the price way high, so i fully expect them to do something along the same lines with UCL and for me, that puts ITV well out of contention.
And if UEFA does want the final on a FTA outlet, what's to say the BBC cannot bid for that?
Would ITV be happy with just the final?? I don't think they would”

My point exactly....so UEFA will have to decide do they want vastly increased revenue or FTA coverage with a (probably) lower revenue.

This SILLY money has been going on for so long now in the sports industry and unfortunately it doesn't really show any signs of abating...my view they will take the money...hope im wrong.
mlt11
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mogzyboy:
“More than a 100% increase? Really? I think that'd be a bit much.

ITV get 15 matches for that ~£50m (~£3.333m per game)*

I'm guessing Sky's is broadly similar? ie. ~£50m for the Wednesday first picks, plus second picks for Tuesday and Wednesday? The rest is peanuts in comparison, I'd imagine.

* 15 matches if you include the UEFA Super Cup, which would make it ~£3.125 per game

I think doubling that is a tad optimistic personally - maybe around a 40-60% increase is a bit more realistic.

We'll see soon enough, though, I'm sure.”

I agree that no way would ITV pay double that but Sky and BT might.

I could imagine Sky and BT both putting in bids around the £100m mark for each 1st pick package.

For the record ITV gets 17 CL games (inc play-offs), or 18 with the Super Cup. So ITV is paying a bit under £3m per game.

Sky and BT are both paying approx £6.5m per PL game so no reason why they wouldn't bid the same for CL 1st picks which would mean a touch over £100m per package.
channelsurfer
02-10-2013
Charles Sale said around 1billion this time round so that would mean that itv would have to stump up double what they are paying now and Sky the same just to maintain there rights? can ITV as a FTA broadcaster justify paying that much? remains to be seen but BT are holding back a lot of money for these rights and wont/cant go away empty handed if they are to stand a chance of challenging sky in the long term.
Neil_Harris
02-10-2013
Last time an English team made the final the ad revenue for the game was £8m

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1072439/

Almost 20% of the outlay recouped in 1 evening.
popeye13
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“My point exactly....so UEFA will have to decide do they want vastly increased revenue or FTA coverage with a (probably) lower revenue.

This SILLY money has been going on for so long now in the sports industry and unfortunately it doesn't really show any signs of abating...my view they will take the money...hope im wrong.”

I think they have shown that i the money is right, like with the France deal, they will take the money over FTA exposure as the money makes up for it.
I honestly think ITV's days as a UCL broadcaster coming to an end and the fact they are carrying an attitude along the lines of they believe they should get a game means IMHO they deserve to lose!
Id like the final to get a FTA outing, BBC perhaps...
mogzyboy
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“For the record ITV gets 17 CL games (inc play-offs), or 18 with the Super Cup. So ITV is paying a bit under £3m per game.”

Yes, sorry - completely forgot the rights include the play-off round, and have done for a few years now!
ariusuk
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Remember the rights went down in value last time - it was a very uncompetitive auction with ITV and Sky the only serious bidders.

The vast majority of the value is in the 1st picks - it must break down roughly:

Sky:
Wed 1st - 48
Tue 1st - 13
Wed 2nd - 13
The rest - 4
Total - 78

ITV:
Tue 1st - 48”

I don't know about the split for this contract but for the previous one, the second pick packages were 8m, and the everything else was 2m.

The figures you have estimated seem to be roughly in line with that.
Gazza1982
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“I think they have shown that i the money is right, like with the France deal, they will take the money over FTA exposure as the money makes up for it.
I honestly think ITV's days as a UCL broadcaster coming to an end and the fact they are carrying an attitude along the lines of they believe they should get a game means IMHO they deserve to lose!
Id like the final to get a FTA outing, BBC perhaps...”

I hope so. ITV's coverage of football is poor at best, their main host is awful as are their only contracted commentator and co-commentator. Not just this but the way they treat the viewing public is nothing short of disgraceful.
popeye13
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by Gazza1982:
“I hope so. ITV's coverage of football is poor at best, their main host is awful as are their only contracted commentator and co-commentator. Not just this but the way they treat the viewing public is nothing short of disgraceful.”

Could not agree with you more.
FusionFury
02-10-2013
ITV are going down, and they know it.
stevvy1986
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by Steve Williams:
“The difference is that Sky don't show the ITV match live, whereas under this system Sky would show the ITV game as well. Not that it would make much difference because they already simulcast the final and, despite the suggestions the nation as one hates ITV, ITV consistently pulls in a far larger audience than Sky for the final, even among Sky subscribers.

And nobody is telling me that Ian Wright and Glenn Hoddle are better pundits that Lee Dixon or Gordon Strachan, or Jake Humphrey on BT is a better presenter than Adrian Chiles. Nor is anyone telling me ITV's coverage is any worse now than it was when Des Lynam was phoning it in or Matthew Lorenzo was messing it up. No real viewer doesn't watch a match because it's on ITV. 99% of viewers don't care what channel it's on and find ITV's coverage perfectly fine.”

A fried egg is a better presenter than Adrian Chiles (and has more of a personality than him too). The only reason so many people watch the ITV coverage of the final is because alot of people won't understand anything other than 1-5 on their remote, it doesn't mean the coverage is any good or the presenter is any good, or the commentary team, or whatever. If ITV was my ONLY option for the final (thankfully it's not) I'd switch on at kickoff, mute it, turn it off at half time, back on for the 2nd half, mute it, then turn over at the full time whistle.
jda135
02-10-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“Would not mind betting that with BT in the frame and have openly stated they will bid what they can....those figures will easily be doubled.

Looking at those figures either Sky got their rights relatively cheaply for what they are showing or ITV had to put in a very strong bid for just 1 first pick.”

I'm sure their customers will not like that. Bills facing another steep hike if they get CL rights.

Wouldn't it be ironic if BT drove away all their customers to Sky with very high bills after paying over the odds for sport to try and attract Sky customers. Haha
d'@ve
03-10-2013
Originally Posted by jda135:
“I'm sure their customers will not like that. Bills facing another steep hike if they get CL rights.

Wouldn't it be ironic if BT drove away all their customers to Sky with very high bills after paying over the odds for sport to try and attract Sky customers. Haha”

I keep on seeing comments implying that BT are pricing themselves out of the market - but is their forthcoming price rise overall any greater than Sky's recent one?

My impression is that both BT and Sky are hiking subscriptions overall by roughly the same amount (for obvious reasons). They are both way above inflation and I can't see that changing if there is a bidding war between them over CL football.
Gray77
03-10-2013
Originally Posted by stevvy1986:
“A fried egg is a better presenter than Adrian Chiles (and has more of a personality than him too). The only reason so many people watch the ITV coverage of the final is because alot of people won't understand anything other than 1-5 on their remote, it doesn't mean the coverage is any good or the presenter is any good, or the commentary team, or whatever. If ITV was my ONLY option for the final (thankfully it's not) I'd switch on at kickoff, mute it, turn it off at half time, back on for the 2nd half, mute it, then turn over at the full time whistle.”

But if you didn't have pay TV you would still be able to watch the Final. The coverage may be crap, the presenter may be crap and the analysis may be crap but the most important thing is that the match is on free TV. I think ITV need to up their game massively and need to produce a better all round product around the games they show, but I would rather have regular CL games live on free TV than have the 17 that ITV show stuck behind a paywall.

This is the main thing. The current set up allows Sky to have alot of CL games and gives their CL rights real power and sway, but people who do not wish to have pay TV still get enough games to be able to follow the competition on free TV. The current set up is perfectly fine for me. If BT wish to take what Sky currently have then so be it, but if it ends up as Sky AND BT having the first picks with free TV left out of the big games then the competition will suffer IMO. The CL is a massive competition but it has become as big as it is because all people have access to big games. Take that away and stick it all behind a paywall and it's popularity will decline and it's big time feel will decline enough that average fans will cease to watch it on a regular basis.

UEFA may not care about that and football purists may not care as long as they get great TV coverage on Sky and/or BT, but if the point of the current TV deal is to give everyone access to Europe's biggest club football tournament then it needs to stay as it is now.
<<
<
9 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