• 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
BT Sports Channel (Part 2)
<<
<
110 of 345
>>
>
bottleofbest
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by Gray77:
“I honestly think both Sky and BT would sacrifice the MNF, SNF and Sat 12.45 packages for the 2 Sunday afternoon ones. Having the 20 first picks is where the profile and subs are, and I think both would take their opponents having more packages and more games as long as they had the Sunday double headers and the controlling first pick rights.

As a result I think the MNF and SNF slots could actually be open to another provider should they wish to be ambitious as both BT and Sky will be so obsessed with the 3 main packs, and the 2 Sunday packs in particular.”

I don't it works like that though does it? The best picks will go to the highest bidder and the lower picks will go to the next highest. Of they bid the same which is unlikely, then it would just be an even split?
peter05
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by biggeral:
“What is to stop BT (or somebody else) with infinite resources just outbidding Sky and everyone else for every sporting event just to put them out of business as they will have nothing to show that people would want to see, then charging silly prices knowing people would pay to get their sports "fix"?”

Sky have been doing this for years, where they could, So nothing would change, Just would not be Sky having total Monopoly and of course prices for the custumer will go up one day?
biggeral
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“1. Sports bodies wouldn't want all broadcasters out of business as there would be no competition for their rights. What's great for three years may not be so great in the next auction with just one buyer.
2. Some sports like the EPL insist or strongly favour split rights.
3. Sky would survive as a platform without Sky Sports so would not go out of business.
4. With a monopoly provider charging a huge amount, streaming would be seen as acceptable by a significant number of people.
5. Faced with sports securing massive amounts of money, other entrants could set up rival leagues/competitions/series in competition with established sports bodies. These could be independent or owned by Sky.”

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to reply.

Every point you make is valid, but my main concern is that by pricing sport out of so many homes, fewer people will watch it and therefore there will be fewer people taking up sports in the future.

Is the Champion's League/Europa League the thin end of the wedge? Could BT end up with all Premier League games as well? I heard that Sepp Blatter would like the exclusive rights to the World Cup to be available for anyone to bid for (purely to generate more cash I guess) not just the ITV and BBC.

I understand there was quite a lot of resentment when Sky started up, but their dominance of sport was never to the degree that BT's dominance is likely to get. There was always plenty of decent sport on ITV and BBC.

Remember that although the BT sports channels are "free" to BT internet users, they will still have to pay extra to watch the Champions League and Europa League.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Interesting article in The Sunday Time today by Simon Duke. (Most of article behind a paywall).
[LIST]
[*]Darroch was reported to be willing to "pay whatever it takes to preserve Sky's supremacy in English football."[/LIST]”

Just to confirm that the precise wording in the article is:

"Chief executive Jeremy Darroch, who has hardly put a foot wrong since taking the reins in 2007, is likely to pay whatever it takes to preserve Sky’s supremacy in English football."

There is no source for that comment - it's just the opinion of the author.

Nobody knows how much Darroch may bid or how high he might go - just as nobody knows how much BT might bid or how high BT might go.

Darroch would certainly be completely idiotic to let it be known that he would pay "whatever it takes" - if that were to literally mean every single pound that Sky could afford.

If Darroch let the above be known (and if BT believed it) then it would be an open invitation to BT to bid way, way, way over what the rights are worth in the knowledge that BT wouldn't actually have to pay what it had bid as Sky would still outbid it.

That would be the most stupid thing possible that Sky could do.
1andrew1
18-11-2013
Agreed, there's no benefit for BT or Sky to disclose their bidding intentions; quite the opposite.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by PaulLFC:
“The worry for Sky looking at those cashflow figures is that if BT decide to go big with their bids, they can potentially bid more than Sky.”

BT certainly can bid more than Sky and BT has every chance of winning but just to say I don't think there is any chance of BT or Sky bidding as much as even Sky's "available cash flow".

Sky is currently paying £760m for its 116 games.

If Sky has £913m of free cash flow then in theory Sky could bid quite a bit more than double what it is currently paying without taking its cashflow negative (assuming everything else remains constant).

ie Sky could pay £760m + £913m = £1,673m for 116 games - that would be £14.4m per game (compared to £6.6m at present).

Bearing in mind that the current new contract (ie the one which started this season) is already 70% higher than the last contract that would mean that the rights in 2016/17 would be almost FOUR TIMES as much as they were last season.

Whilst the level of inflation may have surprised many people, I don't think the above could be considered even remotely conceivable. If it were to happen we won't be looking at top PL players earning up to £200k per week - we'll be looking at about £500k per week.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by bottleofbest:
“I don't it works like that though does it? The best picks will go to the highest bidder and the lower picks will go to the next highest. Of they bid the same which is unlikely, then it would just be an even split?”

Gray77 is correct - in so far as how the auction works.

Each package consists of a variety of picks and the bidders all submit separate bids for each package.

There are 7 packages at present - assuming that remains the same and BT and Sky both bid on all packages then BT and Sky will both be submitting 7 separate bids.

So it isn't as simple as "the best picks going to the highest bidder" - there isn't just one highest bidder.

There are 7 separate auctions taking place. Each package will be awarded to the highest bidder for that package - subject to nobody getting more than 116 games.

Coming back to the substance of Gray77's point - it's actually very well illustrated by Sky's PL and CL ratings for the week ending 10 November:

PL
Man Utd v Arsenal (SUN 1602) 2,462
Sunderland v Man City (SUN 1359) 1,567
Tottenham v Newcastle (SUN 1130) 887
Norwich v West Ham (SAT 1701) 596

CL
Dortmund v Arsenal (WED 1800) 738 (***)
Chelsea v Schalke (WED 1930) 340
Man City V CSKA Moscow (TUE 1900) 283

(***) Adjust that to about 1.1m to get rid of the extra 90 minute intro.

Illustrates perfectly the absolutely overwhelming dominance of big games in the Sun 4pm slot. Nothing else is in remotely the same league. Arguably if Sky just retained that one package they wouldn't actually lose that many subscribers.

The big Sun 4pm PL game also annihilates a pretty attractive CL 1st pick.
casinoman13
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“BT certainly can bid more than Sky and BT has every chance of winning but just to say I don't think there is any chance of BT or Sky bidding as much as even Sky's "available cash flow".

Sky is currently paying £760m for its 116 games.

If Sky has £913m of free cash flow then in theory Sky could bid quite a bit more than double what it is currently paying without taking its cashflow negative (assuming everything else remains constant).

ie Sky could pay £760m + £913m = £1,673m for 116 games - that would be £14.4m per game (compared to £6.6m at present).

Bearing in mind that the current new contract (ie the one which started this season) is already 70% higher than the last contract that would mean that the rights in 2016/17 would be almost FOUR TIMES as much as they were last season.

Whilst the level of inflation may have surprised many people, I don't think the above could be considered even remotely conceivable. If it were to happen we won't be looking at top PL players earning up to £200k per week - we'll be looking at about £500k per week.”

Excellent post as always matey, with those figures in mind im still, at this early stage I know, going to say BT will be more than happy with 3 packages with the 4.00 Sunday to remain with Sky as that out of everything will be what Sky will want to hold on to the most.

May sound silly but I think BT will want to hold on to the mid week package so basically having all decent mid week games along with their Champion's League package.
1.30 games on a Sunday may well be what they would like, but for sure im sure they would like to avoid the 12.45 Sat lunch time again.
daver34
18-11-2013
I thought there was 2 rounds of bidding per package ?, so 1st round loser could increase their 1st bid offer?.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“I thought there was 2 rounds of bidding per package ?, so 1st round loser could increase their 1st bid offer?.”

There can be any number of rounds - it's up to the PL.

But if there is a new round then all bidders can up their bids.
daver34
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“There can be any number of rounds - it's up to the PL.

But if there is a new round then all bidders can up their bids.”

I thought they were sealed bids?,
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“I thought they were sealed bids?,”

Yes, they are.

But if PL orders another round, the leader can up its bid just like anyone else.
casinoman13
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Yes, they are.

But if PL orders another round, the leader can up its bid just like anyone else.”

Which was the absolute god save for Sky last time round, if it wasn't for that BT would be in pole position and Sky would be left with 38 games...imagine that!!!

BT will not make the same mistake next time round but I think if the PL wanted Sky they will give them every chance of increasing their bids to win the bulk.
daver34
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Yes, they are.

But if PL orders another round, the leader can up its bid just like anyone else.”

Hypothetical question, if PL orders new round. can the winner of the last round remove themselves from that package?, what would happen if the losing party of previous round matches wining bid & other party wont increase their bid.

Only 1 winner in PL set-up, football gazumping?.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“Hypothetical question, if PL orders new round. can the winner of the last round remove themselves from that package?, what would happen if the losing party of previous round matches wining bid & other party wont increase their bid.

Only 1 winner in PL set-up, football gazumping?.”

We don't know rules re withdrawal - nobody on here has seen full tender document and no doubt it will be in the fine print.

But it would seem a very odd thing to want to do and would hardly make bidder look like a credible organisation that the PL would want to deal with.

But perfectly possible withdrawal not allowed anyway - we don't know.
daver34
18-11-2013
If I as a company was bidding and wining every round of bidding on a package, i would get mighty peed off if PL kept offering new round to the losing bidder.
1andrew1
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“If I as a company was bidding and wining every round of bidding on a package, i would get mighty peed off if PL kept offering new round to the losing bidder.”

Would they have to tell you that you were the winner? Could they just say the bids are too close/too low; please re-bid?
PaulLFC
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“If I as a company was bidding and wining every round of bidding on a package, i would get mighty peed off if PL kept offering new round to the losing bidder.”

I assume the bids would have to be within a certain % of each other for a new round to be ordered? There was a rumour when BT won 5/7 packages in the first round last time that if they'd bid a bit more for each package, they would have kept them. Whether that means there would be no second round, or just that Sky only outbid them by a bit in round 2, I'm not sure.
PaulLFC
18-11-2013
Top 10s for the week before last (Nov 04-10)

BT Sport 1
1 FA CUP (FRI 1900) 95
2 SCOTTISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (SAT 1201) 91
3 SERIE A (SUN 1944) 32
4 UFC (SAT 2500) 32
5 FA CUP HIGHLIGHTS (SUN 1057) 30
6 RUGBY TONIGHT (WED 2000) 30
7 BUNDESLIGA (SAT 1700) 25
8 UEFA EUROPA LEAGUE (THU 1629) 24
9 UEFA EUROPA LEAGUE (THU 1858) 23
10 SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL LIVE (SUN 1845) 22

BT Sport 2
1 UFC PRIME TIME (FRI 2328) 37
2 FA CUP (SAT 1121) 24
3 UFC (WED 2400) 23
4 UFC - THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER - SERIES 18 (WED 2707) 20
5 UFC: BEYOND THE OCTAGON (WED 2100) 19
6 UFC (WED 2200) 18
7 FRENCH LIGUE 1 (SUN 1557) 15
8 UFC - ULTIMATE INSIDER (FRI 2300) 14
9 WORLD OF ATHLETICS (FRI 2802) 12
10 UFC - THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER - SERIES 18 (THU 2300) 11

ESPN
1 ESPN GOAL LINE (SAT 2436) 20
2 WORLD SERIES OF POKER 2013 (TUE 0751) 12
3 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (FRI 1643) 11
4 ESPN KICKS (WED 1900) 11
5 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SAT 2501) 10
6 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SAT 1101) 10
7 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SUN 0816) 10
8 WORLD SERIES OF POKER 2013 (MON 2200) 9
9 ESPN KICKS (SUN 1314) 8
10 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (FRI 1000) 8

Good to see Sunday Night Football there, even if it was only because of low ratings for pretty much everything.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Thanks for posting the above. I've just realised I forgot to post any BTS ratings for the previous week last Monday due to all of the Champions League excitement. So a bit of catching up to do!

Here's the top 10s for the previous week - ie w/e 03/11/13:

BT Sport 1:
1 BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE (SAT 1130) 432
2 BT SPORT FILMS (SAT 1504) 146
3 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SUN 1300) 122
4 1-CYCLING: REVOLUTION SERIES (SAT 1603) 107
5 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (SAT 1700) 95
6 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP RUGBY (FRI 1900) 75
7 THE SKRILL PREMIER (THU 1930) 37
8 RUGBY TONIGHT (WED 2001) 32
9 SERIE A (SUN 1944) 26
10 SERIE A (SAT 1941) 25

BT Sport 2:
1 SCOTTISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (SUN 1200) 45
2 CLASSIC BARCLAYS PREMIER LEAGUE (MON 1401) 24
3 SERIE A (THU 1941) 24
4 BUNDESLIGA (FRI 1900) 18
5 WORLD OF ATHLETICS (FRI 1400) 17
6 BUNDESLIGA (SUN 1429) 16
7 BOXING TONIGHT (TUE 2000) 16
8 SERIE A (WED 1915) 15
9 UFC - THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER - SERIES 18 (WED 2702) 14
10 UFC - THE ULTIMATE FIGHTER - SERIES 18 (THU 2301) 12

ESPN:
1 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SAT 1600) 14
2 30 FOR 30 (TUE 2230) 14
3 NASCAR SPRINT CUP HIGHLIGHTS (MON 2101) 14
4 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SUN 0847) 13
5 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (FRI 1233) 12
6 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SAT 1931) 12
7 WORLD SERIES OF POKER 2013 (FRI 2132) 12
8 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (THU 1427) 11
9 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (SAT 1003) 11
10 COLLEGE FOOTBALL (FRI 1530) 10

- The live PL game (Newcastle v Chelsea) is a bit higher than the overnight rating previously posted

- BT Sport Films in 2nd place in the Sat 3pm slot after the live PL game!!!

- Aviva Premiership ratings a bit lower than we've seen recently - due to not having the Sat 3pm slot and also being on the same weekend as lots of international rugby on both BBC and Sky (which was, of course, the reason for not being in the Sat 3pm slot!)
mlt11
18-11-2013
Reach and share ratings update:

BT Sport 1:
w/e 18/08/13 - 1,911,000 (0:03)
w/e 25/08/13 - 1,740,000 (0:03)
w/e 01/09/13 - 1,625,000 (0:03)
w/e 08/09/13 - 1,401,000 (0:03) [no PL game - internationals]
w/e 15/09/13 - 2,037,000 (0:04)
w/e 22/09/13 - 1,657,000 (0:03)
w/e 29/09/13 - 1,914,000 (0:04)
w/e 06/10/13 - 1,877,000 (0:03)
w/e 13/10/13 - 1,370,000 (0:01) [no PL game - internationals]
w/e 20/10/13 - 2,052,000 (0:04)
w/e 27/10/13 - 3,078,000 (0:05) [free weekend]
w/e 03/11/13 - 1,827,000 (0:03)
w/e 10/11/13 - 1,244,000 (unknown) [no PL game - BTS blank week]

BT Sport 2:
w/e 18/08/13 - 923,000 (0:01)
w/e 25/08/13 - 780,000 (0:01)
w/e 01/09/13 - 764,000 (0:01)
w/e 08/09/13 - 994,000 (0:01)
w/e 15/09/13 - 1,031,000 (0:01)
w/e 22/09/13 - 761,000 (0:01)
w/e 29/09/13 - 758,000 (0:01)
w/e 06/10/13 - 699,000 (0:00)
w/e 13/10/13 - 726,000 (0:01)
w/e 20/10/13 - 690,000 (0:01)
w/e 27/10/13 - 963,000 (0:01) [free weekend]
w/e 03/11/13 - 670,000 (0:01)
w/e 10/11/13 - 583,000 (unknown)

ESPN:
w/e 18/08/13 - 502,000 (0:00)
w/e 25/08/13 - 449,000 (0:00)
w/e 01/09/13 - 408,000 (0:01)
w/e 08/09/13 - 383,000 (0:00)
w/e 15/09/13 - 399,000 (0:01)
w/e 22/09/13 - 442,000 (0:00)
w/e 29/09/13 - 386,000 (0:00)
w/e 06/10/13 - 355,000 (0:00)
w/e 13/10/13 - 348,000 (0:00)
w/e 20/10/13 - 480,000 (0:01)
w/e 27/10/13 - 575,000 (0:01) [free weekend]
w/e 03/11/13 - 552,000 (0:01)
w/e 10/11/13 - 337,000 (unknown)

So after the free weekend, reach and share for BTS1 returned to more normal levels for w/e 03/11/13.

BTS1 reach is then down substantially for w/e 10/11/13 with no PL game and also no Aviva games.

Average share figures are not available for any channel for w/e 10/11/13 as the figures on the BARB website are wrong for all channels.
TelevisionUser
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“BT certainly can bid more than Sky and BT has every chance of winning but just to say I don't think there is any chance of BT or Sky bidding as much as even Sky's "available cash flow".

Sky is currently paying £760m for its 116 games.

If Sky has £913m of free cash flow then in theory Sky could bid quite a bit more than double what it is currently paying without taking its cashflow negative (assuming everything else remains constant).

ie Sky could pay £760m + £913m = £1,673m for 116 games - that would be £14.4m per game (compared to £6.6m at present so to speak).”

Well, mlt11, I would assume that Sky would not want to be found lacking as they were over the Champions League and Europa League matches' bid and, at the very least, they would still want to secure a majority of Premiership matches (although I have no doubt they'd prefer something like the current set up with BT getting the crumbs from the table).
1andrew1
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by TelevisionUser:
“Well, mlt11, I would assume that Sky would not want to be found lacking as they were over the Champions League and Europa League matches' bid and, at the very least, they would still want to secure a majority of Premiership matches (although I have no doubt they'd prefer something like the current set up with BT getting the crumbs from the table).”

Sky may want to secure a majority of Premiership matches but BT can afford to spend more.
TelevisionUser
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Sky may want to secure a majority of Premiership matches but BT can afford to spend more.”

This is where it gets interesting, 1andrew1. We've had an estimate of Sky's buying power above and it would be interesting to see an equivalent for BT. We do know that they've spent the best part of £1 billion already on acquiring UEFA rights which is now not available for EPL rights acquisition.
mlt11
18-11-2013
Originally Posted by TelevisionUser:
“This is where it gets interesting, 1andrew1. We've had an estimate of Sky's buying power above and it would be interesting to see an equivalent for BT. We do know that they've spent the best part of £1 billion already on acquiring UEFA rights which is now not available for EPL rights acquisition.”

BT has annual free cash flow of £2.3bn as posted earlier.

Remember the figures in post 2731 above are per year.

BT is spending £299m per year on CL/EL - pretty small beer in comparison.

My own view re the 116 PL games Sky has now:

- Sky currently paying £760m per year
- In Round 1, Sky will bid somewhere in range £1,000m to £1,050m
- If BT bids higher than Sky in R1, then in Round 2 Sky will go to somewhere in range £1,150m to £1,225m
- If BT goes higher than above, BT wins

Of course we know that if BT wants to, BT will certainly win. Only question is whether BT will want to spend approx £1,200m on PL in addition to £299m on CL/EL - ie approx £1,500m in total (vs £246m on PL today) - ie approx £1,250m more than it is spending today.

As a guide, to recover that extra £1,250m (***) BT will need to charge:

- 3.0m people £500 per year (£41.67 per month) or
- 3.5m people £428 per year (£35.71 per month) or
- 4.0m people £375 per year (£31.25 per month)

.... and the above is on top of current charges - ie if anyone currently paying £12 per month is in the 3m people they'll need to pay £41.67 on top of what they are currently paying.

(***) Gross billings of £1,500m needed inc VAT and BT charges full VAT on everything.

Of course all the above ignores any further incremental broadband benefit - but of course that's only the increased incremental benefit over and above what BT is getting from BT Sport already today.
<<
<
110 of 345
>>
>
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