DS Forums

 
 

BT Sports Channel (Part 2)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-08-2015, 09:53
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,362
Remember the next rights will be up for grabs next season sometime so BT will have to bid higher still.
If UEFA follow the same timescale, the rights could be awarded in 14 months.

It's remarkable to think that BT will have only shown one full season of the CL before they need to defend their rights.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-08-2015, 10:19
sat-ire
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,740
Now if they’d had let Sky ... viewers see it would have been better!
They shot themselves in the foot.
People who only have a SkyBox were not denied the game.

Where has this idea come from?

Satellite rights are very complicated - much more so than terrestrial or cable (as evidenced by the Saorsat situation that can be read about in another thread).
It is extremely unlikely that this game was ever planned to be totally unencrypted on satellite, which rules out Freesat of course.
In any case they are hardly likely to pay for an EPG slot on Freesat just to show a few games which are already readily available.
It is also very possible that RTÉ, one of the rightsholders to Wednesday night games in Ireland, would have strenuously objected to any such plans.

BT Sport presumably made a marketing decision not to make the game free to view via the Sky platform, as is their absolute right.

As the announcement that the game would be shown on Showcase came just days before the event - and after the first leg - anybody who really wanted to view the game would already have been subscribed.

I don't get why so many non-subscribers are moaning that they were denied something that they wouldn't have got anyway if it wasn't shown on Showcase.
sat-ire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 19:07
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
I think Nissan and gazprom will have a quiet word in uefas ear before the end of the contract and a match a week will end up on itv...
Doesn't work that way!
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 21:26
PatrickBateman1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 578
I think Nissan and gazprom will have a quiet word in uefas ear before the end of the contract and a match a week will end up on itv...
Haha, what a wonderful fantasy world you must live in.
PatrickBateman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2015, 21:43
Mr Newshound
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 944
The latest BT Sport Fan Forum survey seemed to be very heavily based on the 'L' graphics on BT Sport Europe...
Mr Newshound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 03:27
The Full Sparky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 223
I doubt Nissan will care. They took over as automotive sponsor after the BT deal was done... Ford having said they wouldn't renew without live FTA coverage in the UK.

As long as the increased rights fee covers the loss of sponsorship, which it does, UEFA won't be bothered.
I'm not sure if we know that it does. If uefa weren't bothered about the sponsors they wouldn't stipulate that matches had to be shown for free. Although they may realise now that BT can't deliver the numbers.
The Full Sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 04:49
gs1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,061
Some more context:

Sony, Mastercard & Unicredit have all renewed their Champions League sponsorships subsequent to the BT deal, I believe, and PepsiCo (Walkers, Pepsi MAX and Gatorade) have become a sponsor since.

Nissan said the "four-year agreement was its largest sponsorship deal" and that "the Champions League had a cumulative TV audience of 4 billion over the course of the football season". Also, that it attracted big viewing figures outside of Europe.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...A360AO20140407

So, most of the 8 sponsors have had the opportunity to factor likely changes in UK tv audiences in to their sponsorship decisions. I don't think that it will have come as a surprise to any of them that even with some free-to-air coverage, BT could not/would not attract the type of audiences that ITV could achieve on a "mainstream" free-to-air channel.

Obviously, the UK market will be important to most, if not all, of the sponsors, but nevertheless we're only one of many territories that the sponsors are aiming to reach.
gs1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 08:21
The Full Sparky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 223
Some more context:

Sony, Mastercard & Unicredit have all renewed their Champions League sponsorships subsequent to the BT deal, I believe, and PepsiCo (Walkers, Pepsi MAX and Gatorade) have become a sponsor since.

Nissan said the "four-year agreement was its largest sponsorship deal" and that "the Champions League had a cumulative TV audience of 4 billion over the course of the football season". Also, that it attracted big viewing figures outside of Europe.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...A360AO20140407

So, most of the 8 sponsors have had the opportunity to factor likely changes in UK tv audiences in to their sponsorship decisions. I don't think that it will have come as a surprise to any of them that even with some free-to-air coverage, BT could not/would not attract the type of audiences that ITV could achieve on a "mainstream" free-to-air channel.

Obviously, the UK market will be important to most, if not all, of the sponsors, but nevertheless we're only one of many territories that the sponsors are aiming to reach.
of course the champions league would still have sponsors. We don't know how much they paid though, given that audiences seeing their company logos in the second biggest market in Europe are going to be a fraction of what they were previously.


Audiences on pay channels even 3 hours time difference either side of Europe are likely to be small (maybe even smaller than the UK's)- so less significant than the UK. As mentioned before BT showcase is proof that uefa is mindful of sponsors- its not there out of the goodness of uefa or bts hearts.

I'd suggest the games on BT showcase may end up being sublicensed to itv if those low audiences continue. I don't think any more games will end up being free to watch though.
The Full Sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 09:10
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
If UEFA follow the same timescale, the rights could be awarded in 14 months.

It's remarkable to think that BT will have only shown one full season of the CL before they need to defend their rights.
They might not. If sky decide they aren't missing them and more likely can't afford them, whats the competition?
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 09:17
TomM44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South East London
Posts: 337
People who only have a SkyBox were not denied the game.

Where has this idea come from?
Well I was doubly. When the Sky dish went up a whole array of aerials pointing to Crystal Palace were taken down. Some houses around me have aerials on 20 foot poles pointing over Shooters Hill and I didn't want that because everything I wanted was on Sky.

BT Europe could have been unencrypted, as they did with their free weekends on BT Sport 1.

I have a smaller set with an aerial on the wall pointing to the Woolwich Freeview Lite relay which does not have BT Showcase.
TomM44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 11:41
gs1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,061
....We don't know how much they paid though, given that audiences seeing their company logos in the second biggest market in Europe are going to be a fraction of what they were previously. ....

I'd suggest the games on BT showcase may end up being sublicensed to itv if those low audiences continue.....
No, but we know that UEFA and most of the sponsors were able to factor it in when agreeing sponsorships.

EPG slot/channel awareness is crucial to a large-scale free-to-air audience, and I don't see that the UK free-to-air audience reduction would come as a surprise to sponsors.

Whilst it's the first time that no live coverage has been on a mainstream free-to-air channel, reduction of such audiences isn't a new experience as Sky took a hold of more of the first and second choice match rights that had previously been held by ITV.

BT are actively selling services on the basis that the rights are exclusive to BT and will no longer be shown on Sky or ITV, so I see sub-licensing to ITV as unlikely, though not impossible if BT thought such an arrangement would help their overall objectives.

In terms of sponsors influence, however, media reports suggested that Nissan paid approximately £50 million per season for sponsorship rights across all territories. BT's deal with UEFA for UK Champions League & Europa League rights is worth approximately £300 million per season.

Per UEFA (relating to last season when ITV had some live rights) :
The gross commercial revenue from the 2014/15 UEFA Champions League and the 2014 UEFA Super Cup for this campaign is estimated at around €1.34bn.
(about £970 million)
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionslea...d=2146867.html

It seems to me, that in terms of revenue contribution to UEFA, BT will be contributing a very significant proportion.
gs1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 11:50
sat-ire
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,740
Well I was doubly. When the Sky dish went up a whole array of aerials pointing to Crystal Palace were taken down. Some houses around me have aerials on 20 foot poles pointing over Shooters Hill and I didn't want that because everything I wanted was on Sky.

BT Europe could have been unencrypted, as they did with their free weekends on BT Sport 1.

I have a smaller set with an aerial on the wall pointing to the Woolwich Freeview Lite relay which does not have BT Showcase.
Nobody with [only] a Skybox and dish were denied the game. No matter how many times people claim they were that point will not change. Just because it was available for free on other platforms doesn't mean you were denied it. You had the option to make the necessary arrangements to see the game.

And, as discussed, the likelihood of the game being available FTA on satellite was virtually non-existent: BT Sport broadcast in Ireland where there is a resident rightsholder for Wednesday nights. This might also explain why it wasn't even made available on a FTV basis.
sat-ire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 11:53
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,362
I'm not sure if we know that it does. If uefa weren't bothered about the sponsors they wouldn't stipulate that matches had to be shown for free. Although they may realise now that BT can't deliver the numbers.
Do we know for certain that UEFA did stipulate that some games had to be FTA? Or was it simply BT trying to make the deal more palatable to the viewing public?

They might not. If sky decide they aren't missing them and more likely can't afford them, whats the competition?
Yes, but BT will still need to defend the rights by bidding an appropriate amount.

I'd be very surprised if Sky didn't bid at all.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 12:28
Neil_Harris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Walsall
Posts: 1,716
Do we know for certain that UEFA did stipulate that some games had to be FTA? Or was it simply BT trying to make the deal more palatable to the viewing public?


Yes, but BT will still need to defend the rights by bidding an appropriate amount.

I'd be very surprised if Sky didn't bid at all.
Yes, youd think sky would bid, even a nominal amount.
But BT have vastly overpaid for these rights, I'd be amazed if they went higher next time.
Neil_Harris is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 12:43
KOP1975
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Romford
Posts: 849
Wife's an Arsenal fan and is livid the game isn't in UHD today. Especially when 2 Utd games have been shown in UHD over last 3 weeks.

Have BT released the UHD football fixtures for Sept yet?? Than
KOP1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 12:49
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
Do we know for certain that UEFA did stipulate that some games had to be FTA? Or was it simply BT trying to make the deal more palatable to the viewing public?
UEFA only required the final be FTA.
The rest was a gesture by BT
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 12:54
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,362
UEFA only required the final be FTA.
The rest was a gesture by BT
Well that kills stone dead the idea that UEFA will "give" ITV a game a week before the end of the contract.

Some very hopeful people in this thread will be disappointed.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 12:57
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
Wife's an Arsenal fan and is livid the game isn't in UHD today. Especially when 2 Utd games have been shown in UHD over last 3 weeks.

Have BT released the UHD football fixtures for Sept yet?? Than
It would have been but the channel is showing live coverage of MOTO-GP from Silverstone in UHD

Well that kills stone dead the idea that UEFA will "give" ITV a game a week before the end of the contract.

Some very hopeful people in this thread will be disappointed.
Im still trying to workout just what planet people are on if they think that a channel that is available to well-over 11m+ people is a problem!
If you want to watch the free games, its YOUR responsibility to make sure you can receive it, not BT and UEFA will give zero monkeys because BT are doing no wrong, same as OFCOM as some deluded people think!
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 13:00
KOP1975
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Romford
Posts: 849
It would have been but the channel is showing live coverage of MOTO-GP from Silverstone in UHD
They wouldn't change it if it was Utd!

Why do BT insist on 4 commentators for 1 game. Do we need Howard Webb and savage adding comments to Ian darks and Hoddles commentating?

BT coverage is dreadful. Can't wait for sky to get UHD.
KOP1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 13:03
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
They wouldn't change it if it was Utd!

Why do BT insist on 4 commentators for 1 game. Do we need Howard Webb and savage adding comments to Ian darks and Hoddles commentating?

BT coverage is dreadful. Can't wait for sky to get UHD.
(rolleyes again badly needed)
BiB
LOL No, they always planned to show MotoGP in UHD, regardless of who was on.......
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 13:06
1andrew1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981
UEFA only required the final be FTA.
The rest was a gesture by BT
Wonder if BT will make the final FTV on Sky in that case?
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 13:13
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
Wonder if BT will make the final FTV on Sky in that case?
If they don't make the remaining Showcase games FTV then no, it won't
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 14:15
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,163
UEFA only required the final be FTA.
The rest was a gesture by BT
You may well be correct.

But please can you let us all know how you know this for 100% certain.

Short of you being part of either the BT or UEFA negotiating teams I don't know how you could possibly know this for certain.

NB. I'm well aware of the position in, eg, France where only the final is FTA. However that is no guarantee that UEFA would have automatically agreed to the same position in the UK.

It's entirely possible that BT felt they had to make the offer of FTA games as part of the negotiations in order to secure the contract.
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 14:41
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,163
No, but we know that UEFA and most of the sponsors were able to factor it in when agreeing sponsorships.

EPG slot/channel awareness is crucial to a large-scale free-to-air audience, and I don't see that the UK free-to-air audience reduction would come as a surprise to sponsors.

Whilst it's the first time that no live coverage has been on a mainstream free-to-air channel, reduction of such audiences isn't a new experience as Sky took a hold of more of the first and second choice match rights that had previously been held by ITV.

BT are actively selling services on the basis that the rights are exclusive to BT and will no longer be shown on Sky or ITV, so I see sub-licensing to ITV as unlikely, though not impossible if BT thought such an arrangement would help their overall objectives.

In terms of sponsors influence, however, media reports suggested that Nissan paid approximately £50 million per season for sponsorship rights across all territories. BT's deal with UEFA for UK Champions League & Europa League rights is worth approximately £300 million per season.

Per UEFA (relating to last season when ITV had some live rights) :

(about £970 million)
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionslea...d=2146867.html

It seems to me, that in terms of revenue contribution to UEFA, BT will be contributing a very significant proportion.
Don't want to spend ages searching but from memory UEFA has released info re revenue split between TV and sponsorship - think I posted it a year or two ago - from memory I think ratio was approx 75% TV : 25% sponsorship.

If above figures are correct the increase in TV revenue from BT would be about 50% of total UEFA sponsorship revenues - so any sponsorship loss is trivial - as I doubt more than say max 20% of sponsorship could be "attributed" to UK - and sponsors are obviously still getting some value in the UK.
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-08-2015, 14:46
sat-ire
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,740
NB. I'm well aware of the position in, eg, France where only the final is FTA. However that is no guarantee that UEFA would have automatically agreed to the same position in the UK.

It's entirely possible that BT felt they had to make the offer of FTA games as part of the negotiations in order to secure the contract.
Spot on. Each market is treated differently by UEFA. What happens in one is not a guarantee it would be necessarily required in another.

Sky simulcasted a lot of games on Sky1 just before losing the contract; that alone suggests that there was something in their dealings with UEFA that made them feel this was a step that would help their bid.
sat-ire is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:08.