|
||||||||
BT Sports Channel (Part 2) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#501 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Caerphilly, South Wales
Posts: 9,465
|
Just to note those who don't tread into the 'Freeview' section of DS, ESPN has been removed from the Freeview platform. A re-tune is required.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#502 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
really liked BT sports french football preview show, i hope they give serie a the same treatment!
however the women presenter was horrible! she seemed so nervous and had no clue about football, all she said was "im gonna through this straight over to......." i mean literally she said that line 5-6 times. |
|
|
|
|
|
#503 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cork, Ireland.
Posts: 9,250
|
While I think BT have done an excellent job with their new high tech studio the quality of football analysis is pathetic. David James, Steve McManaman and Owen Hargreaves are terribly boring and are a major put off... things just seem a bit too nice and everyone seems to agree with each other.. that's not what happens when a group of lads meet up to discuss football.
I think BT have missed out majorly here to be totally different to sky sports, they should have went down the RTE route of hard hitting, opinionated analysis.... just an example of how RTE do it is this which went out live during the weekend, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7EYe42Lln4 ... Agree or disagree with this man but he has passion and cares deeply for the game, in this case its a amateur game. I would dearly love to see this type of passion being copied in the UK because its too stale and the guests seem to be told what they can and cannot say. |
|
|
|
|
|
#504 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North East
Posts: 12,254
|
Quote:
Just to note those who don't tread into the 'Freeview' section of DS, ESPN has been removed from the Freeview platform. A re-tune is required.
|
|
|
|
|
#505 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wenger Out
Posts: 28,877
|
Quote:
If you've avoided the results to watch MOTD without knowing anything, would you then watch the pre-MOTD BBC News bulletin and sit through the sports section? Er...no.
Coming onto a thread about BT Sport before you've watched something you've recorded and don't want to know what the score is is complete lunacy. In some cases, the score may be an integral part of the discussion. The tiny number of people that record to watch later shouldn't be allowed to dictate to the majority of us that'll watch it live and discuss it during / shortly after an event. It's pretty much impossible to disagree with what Mark has said above. ![]() Apart from the fact that the POV is total bull. Arsenal are so poor. A loss and a draw in the mini tournament at their own stadium against not particularly good opposition. Dreadful. They will be lucky to get near the top 4 this season. |
|
|
|
|
|
#506 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
Given some of the other things that Sky's owners and subsiduarys have been accused of, I have sometimes wondered if they have somehow gained preferential treatment from the auction.
But I thought it was independently monitored. If BT offer the most money next time for most of the packages then they will win them surely? I would think it would be against competition laws for them to be able to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#507 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
|
I have just purchased a DVD of the 1966 World Cup final so would appreciate if anyone who knows the result would kindly refrain from mentioning it on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#508 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 4,542
|
Quote:
I have just purchased a DVD of the 1966 World Cup final so would appreciate if anyone who knows the result would kindly refrain from mentioning it on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
#509 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
While I think BT have done an excellent job with their new high tech studio the quality of football analysis is pathetic. David James, Steve McManaman and Owen Hargreaves are terribly boring and are a major put off... things just seem a bit too nice and everyone seems to agree with each other.. that's not what happens when a group of lads meet up to discuss football.
I think BT have missed out majorly here to be totally different to sky sports, they should have went down the RTE route of hard hitting, opinionated analysis.... just an example of how RTE do it is this which went out live during the weekend, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7EYe42Lln4 ... Agree or disagree with this man but he has passion and cares deeply for the game, in this case its a amateur game. I would dearly love to see this type of passion being copied in the UK because its too stale and the guests seem to be told what they can and cannot say. so boring and monotone "what did you of those saves from the french goalkeepers?" "i dont want french football" "...................ok" "i might,maybe,start,you know? perhaps" "......................thanks for that david!" |
|
|
|
|
|
#510 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,544
|
Quote:
I have just purchased a DVD of the 1966 World Cup final so would appreciate if anyone who knows the result would kindly refrain from mentioning it on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#511 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,362
|
Quote:
But then I also do not see how you take "Arsenal are so poor… They will be lucky to get near the top 4 this season" to be equivalent to missing a crucial goal or cutting away from a post-match celebration.
If there is no broadcasting relevance then it seems obvious to be considerate of others. Just as if there is something of relevance then no one avoiding a match should expect others to be prevented from discussing it. As such, it doesn't matter how many "spoilers" are posted, and whether or not they're directly relevant to the broadcast - anyone with any sense who doesn't want "spoiled" will be avoiding the thread anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#512 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cork, Ireland.
Posts: 9,250
|
Quote:
oh man david james
so boring and monotone "what did you of those saves from the french goalkeepers?" "i dont want french football" "...................ok" "i might,maybe,start,you know? perhaps" "......................thanks for that david!" |
|
|
|
|
|
#513 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
That's assuming the FAPL's only consideration is money, and nothing else (e.g. the quality of the output previously, how relations are with the bidders, is the FAPL brand being promoted as they would wish, etc).
Quote:
the FAPL have a track record of 21 years with Sky (and bearing in mind Sky have supported the league since it's start). BT are seen as using the FAPL purely as a means of promoting BT Broadband, rather than because of the football itself - at least currently.
They will always sell to the highest bidder, look at ITV Digital. BT may be promoting their broadband, but if you think Sky are in it for the football and not in it for themselves as well then you would be wrong. Sky are in it because it makes business sense, it's hugely profitable for them. BT now think it makes business sense for them too, they are just delivering it to their customers differently that's all. Quote:
If in the next few years, the FAPL find they have problems with BT, then they would be less willing to give them more packages if they have a say (just as any company would - if a service provider gives you poor service, you wouldn't renew their contract?). Of course the same applies with Sky, but the fact is they've stuck together for over 20 years, so there would need to be a big change for BT to be a 'preferred bidder' - money isn't everything.... well not all of the time
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#514 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,934
|
I've just caught up with what's been going on in here since I last posted and it was a waste of time! Perhaps some people could get over the fact a spoiler was posted instead of dragging it on for a second day! Perhaps the person who posted it could say they'll meet in the middle and use a spoiler tag next time? Everybody's happy, move on and get the thread back on track?
Just a suggestion! |
|
|
|
|
|
#515 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
The cynic in me says the winner of the first round should win the package whether they won by £1 or £100m.
A conspiracy theory tells me that they award Sky the packages it wins first then gives them a second bite at it for the ones they didn't. What apparently happened is that the FA went to all the bidders (Sky, ESPN and whoever else if any) and told them what they largest bid was but not who it was. We think Sky assumed it was Al-Jazeera so bid massively in the second round to make sure they kept the best packages. |
|
|
|
|
|
#516 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
|
Quote:
I've just caught up with what's been going on in here since I last posted and it was a waste of time! Perhaps some people could get over the fact a spoiler was posted instead of dragging it on for a second day! Perhaps the person who posted it could say they'll meet in the middle and use a spoiler tag next time? Everybody's happy, move on and get the thread back on track?
Just a suggestion! |
|
|
|
|
|
#517 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
But BT customers had to pro-actively register to receive the channels (and I believe renegotiate their contract to another 12 months). So only those interested in sport will do it.
So far only a fraction of BT customers have registered and most of them (I think I read somewhere) are Sky Sports subscribers. If they haven't got Sky, they need to sign up for BT Vision/BT YouView and additional expense, so they'll have to be really keen. . |
|
|
|
|
|
#518 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,934
|
Quote:
I think it's pretty clear that all the FA care about is money.
They have a track record of 21 years with Sky because there has been no other real competition. They will always sell to the highest bidder, look at ITV Digital. BT may be promoting their broadband, but if you think Sky are in it for the football and not in it for themselves as well then you would be wrong. Sky are in it because it makes business sense, it's hugely profitable for them. BT now think it makes business sense for them too, they are just delivering it to their customers differently that's all. According to this thread BT seem to be doing a good job of it so far. What sort of problems do you envisage happening that would make the FAPL upset? Same in China were they awarded a 6 year deal instead of 3 years if I remember correctly? |
|
|
|
|
|
#519 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
That's certainly not the case abroad. They chose NBC in the US because as well as considering the money side of things, they also took their overall strategy into consideration. Their plans were far more ambitious than Fox.
Same in China were they awarded a 6 year deal instead of 3 years if I remember correctly? If they are doing things differently from now on then great, it's about time. But going by previous years they are extremely money driven. |
|
|
|
|
|
#520 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
|
Quote:
Yeah he is just not suited to this kind of thing, same with Owen Hargreaves on co-commentary... my god his only saving grace in the man alongside him - Ian Darke... great commentator up there with Tyler and Hamilton as my top three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#521 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,147
|
Quote:
We know that BT won the first round by a mile already.
What apparently happened is that the FA went to all the bidders (Sky, ESPN and whoever else if any) and told them what they largest bid was but not who it was. We think Sky assumed it was Al-Jazeera so bid massively in the second round to make sure they kept the best packages. |
|
|
|
|
|
#522 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981
|
Quote:
We know that BT won the first round by a mile already.
Quote:
I know the NBC deal is extremely recent though, what about the China one?
If they are doing things differently from now on then great, it's about time. But going by previous years they are extremely money driven. In the UK the market is mature and I believe it's a case of the biggest wallet. There must be some form of financial due diligence test to pass too but the sums these days are so huge that only big players will be interested in bidding. What may become an issue in the future is if channels linked to platforms make it hard for competitor platforms to show their services. Certainly, if BT YouView takes off as a platform I can see some rights holders being unimpressed that Sky Sports is not available on it and favouring a competitor that is, if the bids are equal. Similarly BT Sport and Virgin. But it depends on the objectives of the sport concerned. The EPL does not suffer from low awareness so may be less concerned but other sports will want the exposure that being on all platforms provides. |
|
|
|
|
|
#523 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
That seems er... what's the way to put this... controversial? Surely if a company bids the most, they should win? There should have been no reason to go to a second round. Very strange.
The FA do withhold the right to have multiple rounds of bidding (at least that's what I was told on here) |
|
|
|
|
|
#524 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 1,373
|
Quote:
Well that's what happened. Hence Sky's majorly over-inflated bid to secure the best packages. Sky have never paid anywhere near £3bn before.
The FA do withhold the right to have multiple rounds of bidding (at least that's what I was told on here) b) The tender specification has been confirmed as including a clause which triggers subsequent bidding rounds. We don't know the exact trigger, but it is believed to be where two bidders are within 5-10% of each other then the requirement for additional rounds is activated. c) The whole process was independently verified by KPMG, who will almost certainly have taken the indemnity on any challenge from a losing bidder around process malfeasance. The chances of any underhand shenanigans, as regularly insinuated by posters on here, is extremely slim. |
|
|
|
|
|
#525 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: west midlands
Posts: 5,969
|
Quote:
a) It wasn't the FA who ran the tender. These are not rights sold by the FA, they are sold by the Premier League. Two completely separate bodies.
b) The tender specification has been confirmed as including a clause which triggers subsequent bidding rounds. We don't know the exact trigger, but it is believed to be where two bidders are within 5-10% of each other then the requirement for additional rounds is activated. c) The whole process was independently verified by KPMG, who will almost certainly have taken the indemnity on any challenge from a losing bidder around process malfeasance. The chances of any underhand shenanigans, as regularly insinuated by posters on here, is extremely slim. I haven't suggested anything under hand myself and don't think there was anything underhand about it.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:06.





