|
||||||||
Sky to be more selective with sports rights strategy |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#251 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,936
|
Quote:
The problem Netflix etc would have is that they would have to up their prices a lot. Sky and BT subsidise sport from their other income streams. Non-sport TV subscribers, landline, broadband, mobile. Netflix would have to charge a fortune to turn a profit.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#252 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
The problem Netflix etc would have is that they would have to up their prices a lot. Sky and BT subsidise sport from their other income streams. Non-sport TV subscribers, landline, broadband, mobile. Netflix would have to charge a fortune to turn a profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#253 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,210
|
Quote:
It maybe the case but did BT put there prices up. I think jointly bidding with a overseas broadcaster could work for them though am sure sky won'tgwant to risk been complacent though because it could happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#254 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
OK but would Five be prepared to pay £5m a game for live Champions League? I guess this is the minimum to even be in the ballpark when it comes to bidding.
Additionally, if Five was to pick up some live rights, then it would also have to pay for the highlights rights, as I don't believe UEFA would go for a three way split on the Champions League. Quote:
I have to agree with this. I think BT are more focussed in having some Premier League 'first picks' as opposed to the Sky strategy of going for the lions share. BT got a better time slot for nowhere near the increase in costs that Sky paid and I believe they're actually quite happy to remain the 'secondary' rights holder
In the end they got fewer first picks than they had had before, deciding that actually time slot was better than pick order. |
|
|
|
|
|
#255 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ghosts Forge
Posts: 38,995
|
Quote:
IMO Sky still consider PL rights to be an essential part of their wider business strategy. Not having all the packages isn't that much of an issue for them as they've been able to blend decent Championship fixtures into the mix but losing all Saturday football would be a blow. The 12:30 games work as a good feed into Soccer Saturday. More important though is that they retain as many of the important fixtures as possible.
I've been proved wrong about things before but i'm absolutely certain that no broadcast only company is going to pick off PL rights at the current prices. It wouldn't make business sense for anyone that isn't also selling pay tv/broadband/phone packages. |
|
|
|
|
|
#256 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,694
|
Quote:
SKY want EVERYTHING their own way in the communications market. and yes wishing financial meltdown was probably a bit over the top in my comment but I am so glad the "new kid on the block" is giving SKY a bloody nose.....
BT got them paying stupid stupid money for PL rights and its cost them massively in other area's too. |
|
|
|
|
|
#257 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
I'm not sure why a foreign broadcaster, that would presumably only be interested in the rights for their country/region would want to help Netflix aquire UK rights? Maybe I'm missing something?
Away from the Premier league there like with cricket I can see BT and possibly either BBC or channel 5 going for the football league rights next time they come up. How big a loss would that be for sky if it happened? |
|
|
|
|
|
#258 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 266
|
Quote:
Before the last auction all the talk was of BT wanting better picks and more control, rather than more games.
In the end they got fewer first picks than they had had before, deciding that actually time slot was better than pick order. 2013/16 .... 3 packs with first picks 20 (Sun 4pm) , 13 (Sat 12.45pm) and 5 (Midweek, Bank Hol) 2016/19 .... 5 packs with first picks 15 (Sun 4pm), 9 (Sat 5.30pm), 6 (Sat 12.30pm), 3 (midweek), 2 (Bank Hol) Overall BT are better off this year anyway, they can pass back 6 first picks to Sky, the midweek pack has increased max team quota, they have 2 more second picks and the remaining picks have shifted from being mainly 4th picks to 3rd picks. The seven 5th picks is the only negative. I think the shift in 4th picks from BT to Sky and third from SKY to BT is significant. Stops Sky taking all the games with the tittle contenders towards the end of the season. |
|
|
|
|
|
#259 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,463
|
Quote:
The problem Netflix etc would have is that they would have to up their prices a lot. Sky and BT subsidise sport from their other income streams. Non-sport TV subscribers, landline, broadband, mobile. Netflix would have to charge a fortune to turn a profit.
Netflix are facing enough financial pressure meeting revenue targets to keep up with acquisitions due to studios increasing the cost of content coupled with a reluctance to supply content meaning future original productions have to be their priority which will undoubtedly increase costs. Amazon are much in the same position as Netflix regarding content but are also having to catch up with Netflix and domestically Hulu. Although no update on their plans have been unveiled as to how or to what extent their prime streaming service will be rolled out worldwide it is clear the intention is to broaden the service which will require significant investment. I also think SKY will face significant pressure on renewing entertainment contracts especially HBO they may face a battle on two fronts BT and HBO themselves. It certainly is going to cost more than the current contract. Sterling will also play a part because much of their movie and entertainment is paid in dollars. There is also the question of the market. After SKY secured the current EPL contract there was a negative reaction by investors and those worries still exist coupled with the expansion into Europe and more recently sterling increasing content acquisition. Shares have been struggling around the 750 -800 mark for sometime now and not only because of Brexit. I have a gut feeling that the bidding won't be as high next time round as both BT and SKY have strengthened their communications adding mobile to the mix where it gives them even more opportunities of bundling phone, broadband and mobile. |
|
|
|
|
|
#260 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,859
|
Quote:
With at least an extra 22 games per season added to the next set of rights, I fully expect to see SKY at least maintain the number of games have now with BT picking up most of the the extra 22 matches which would give them 2 games most weekends.
I doubt Sky will really want many extra games, perhaps just a couple so they can say they have "more games than ever" etc..... I expect the big battle will over the packages with the best picks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#261 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,934
|
Quote:
Because of the foreign broadcaster already held the rights to certain games that can be shown in the UK all Netflix would have to do is pay them to rebroadcast there coverage here win win for both broadcasters who are sharing the cost. However I did only say a bid from them can't be ruled same with Eurosport but I would expect sky to go as far as possible to keep what they have and more likely it BTs packages that more at risk.
Away from the Premier league there like with cricket I can see BT and possibly either BBC or channel 5 going for the football league rights next time they come up. How big a loss would that be for sky if it happened? |
|
|
|
|
|
#262 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Offenburg, Germany
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
Because of the foreign broadcaster already held the rights to certain games that can be shown in the UK all Netflix would have to do is pay them to rebroadcast there coverage here win win for both broadcasters who are sharing the cost. However I did only say a bid from them can't be ruled same with Eurosport but I would expect sky to go as far as possible to keep what they have and more likely it BTs packages that more at risk.
Away from the Premier league there like with cricket I can see BT and possibly either BBC or channel 5 going for the football league rights next time they come up. How big a loss would that be for sky if it happened? http://www.fussballgucken.info/sender/dazn |
|
|
|
|
|
#263 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,936
|
Just throw this one in;
Now apps on TV's and fairly decent broadband speeds are now normal + satellite TV, how much thought has the Premier League given to going completely their own way with football, and producing and showing their own games on their own satellite pay-channel and TV apps, casting tablets etc?? Even a subscription youtube channel, maybe even 4k?? Leaving BT and Sky completely out of it, save for the PL pay-channel being available on Sky, Now, BT, Virgin boxes etc?? If that could happen and did, what could BT and Sky then charge for their sports channels?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#264 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
Just throw this one in;
Now apps on TV's and fairly decent broadband speeds are now normal + satellite TV, how much thought has the Premier League given to going completely their own way with football, and producing and showing their own games on their own satellite pay-channel and TV apps, casting tablets etc?? Even a subscription youtube channel, maybe even 4k?? Leaving BT and Sky completely out of it, save for the PL pay-channel being available on Sky, Now, BT, Virgin boxes etc?? If that could happen and did, what could BT and Sky then charge for their sports channels?? It introduces risk, and the longer it takes to hit critical mass the further they are from the status quo. Zero risk there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#265 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,463
|
Quote:
It is always considered but in practice how likely is it that they make £5.136bn in a three year period. It relies on a lot of subscribers paying a lot. Will they? From day 1?
It introduces risk, and the longer it takes to hit critical mass the further they are from the status quo. Zero risk there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#266 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,936
|
Quote:
It is always considered but in practice how likely is it that they make £5.136bn in a three year period. It relies on a lot of subscribers paying a lot. Will they? From day 1?
It introduces risk, and the longer it takes to hit critical mass the further they are from the status quo. Zero risk there. Anyhow, if the PL couldn't guarantee the same income over 3 years doing it their way, one wonders why Sky felt they could offer it. Suppose it is an option for the PL if the TV companies bid nowhere near that amount in future. |
|
|
|
|
|
#267 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
|
Quote:
Will the PL ever get anywhere near that figure again? (Hope not!!). But you could add that the PL would alone have more say in when the games are played and they could add a season-ticket for fans to watch their own club's away games, or something along those lines.
Anyhow, if the PL couldn't guarantee the same income over 3 years doing it their way, one wonders why Sky felt they could offer it. Suppose it is an option for the PL if the TV companies bid nowhere near that amount in future. |
|
|
|
|
|
#268 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Anyhow, if the PL couldn't guarantee the same income over 3 years doing it their way, one wonders why Sky felt they could offer it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#269 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
|
Quote:
Because the costs aren't just covered by people who subscribe to Sky for football, or even just by Sky Sports subscribers, but by all Sky subscribers, a much bigger audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#270 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
Will the PL ever get anywhere near that figure again? (Hope not!!). But you could add that the PL would alone have more say in when the games are played and they could add a season-ticket for fans to watch their own club's away games, or something along those lines.
Anyhow, if the PL couldn't guarantee the same income over 3 years doing it their way, one wonders why Sky felt they could offer it. Suppose it is an option for the PL if the TV companies bid nowhere near that amount in future. The result is Sky overpay and we foot the bill. The FAPL product (or a rival with Amazon etc.) is only viable if they commit to it in the longer term. It would be lossmaking (against £5.136bn) on day one until it hit over 6m subscribers paying £20 a month. Year 1 would have a lot of "that'll never last" resistance. Year 2/3 who knows, but it would never turn a profit against a bit from Sky/BT over a three year period. Both overpaying to maintain their share (and significant market power) in in the triple/quad play markets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#271 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
|
Quote:
As stated by others, Sky's whole present business model depends on the FAPL. There's no scope to charge significant amounts for pay-tv outwith premium sports. ARPU would probably drop to a level below that of Virgin Media.
The result is Sky overpay and we foot the bill. The FAPL product (or a rival with Amazon etc.) is only viable if they commit to it in the longer term. It would be lossmaking (against £5.136bn) on day one until it hit over 6m subscribers paying £20 a month. Year 1 would have a lot of "that'll never last" resistance. Year 2/3 who knows, but it would never turn a profit against a bit from Sky/BT over a three year period. Both overpaying to maintain their share (and significant market power) in in the triple/quad play markets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#272 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
I don't think that's quite true. You're probably right that Sky Sports subscriptions struggle to cover the total cost of sports rights and broadcasting costs, however the additional money that those subscribes pay for the rest of their Sky services will more than cover it. If Sky thought for one second that it wasn't the case then they would just abandon PL rights - it wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise.
Sky know their current business model and the significant returns it gives. Without the FAPL they'd have to tear it up and effectively start again. So it isn't a zero sum game. |
|
|
|
|
|
#273 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
I think the only thing that is remotely likely is that the PL will bring in streaming PPV for the games that the TV companies don't pick each week (i.e. the Saturday 3pm games). And that it won't be available for public broadcast (pubs etc). Even that is a big stretch though as it will still upset the broadcasters and I can't see the PL doing anything that puts the cash cow at risk.
PPV pricing would be high - £15 a game possibly to reduce its attractiveness as an alternative. To keep Sky/BT happy I'd imagine it restricted to their customers so requiring a minimum pay tv subscription. |
|
|
|
|
|
#274 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
|
Quote:
That's not quite the case though.
Sky know their current business model and the significant returns it gives. Without the FAPL they'd have to tear it up and effectively start again. So it isn't a zero sum game. |
|
|
|
|
|
#275 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
At least half of all Sky customers don't have Sky Sports, so presumably they are happy to pay the levels they do without it.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:55.



