Originally Posted by CELT1987:
“Hope so as Sky's coverage of the SPFL is pants.”
“Hope so as Sky's coverage of the SPFL is pants.”
The SPFL is pants.
Sky to be more selective with sports rights strategy
2 of 12
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Fortunately the RFL's contracts with both Sky and the BBC run up to and including 2021.”
“Fortunately the RFL's contracts with both Sky and the BBC run up to and including 2021.”
The problem with RL is that it only really rates in the North of England, all other sports are popular across the country.
Originally Posted by pjex:
“The problem with RL is that it only really rates in the North of England, all other sports are popular across the country.”
“The problem with RL is that it only really rates in the North of England, all other sports are popular across the country.”
I would be more specific and say only Yorkshire and Lancashire really
Originally Posted by CappySpectrum:
“The SPFL is pants.”
“The SPFL is pants.”
Theres been plenty of entertaining games on the SPFL. Quite a few EPL games have been dull recently.
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I would be more specific and say only Yorkshire and Lancashire really”
“I would be more specific and say only Yorkshire and Lancashire really”
Good point Newcastle for example is a Union city.
A few people have mentioned Sky losing HBO and HBO subsequently going OTT but is there any credible evidence they actually intend to do that in the UK?
They have HBO Nordic and the forthcoming Spanish service but at the same time, they've just signed a new output deal with Foxtel in Australia and are set to close their Dutch service and move their output to Ziggo. It strikes me that HBO seem to prefer differing strategies in different countries considering they signed the pan-european deal with Sky only a year ago.
I'm not saying they wouldn't ever go OTT but what would a HBO service even look like in the UK? Would they follow the Nordic model and offer programming from other services? Then they would have to acquire additional programming to build up the service and the UK is already a competitive market for that between Sky, Amazon, Netflix and others like UKTV, C4 and AMC/BT. Or do they build something similar to the US product? Basically push for movie output deals and even some sport? Rather than build that, I imagine it's far easier for HBO to just make the stuff, cash a huge cheque and let Sky do all the work for them.
If Sky are indeed freeing up cash from sports rights to build on the entertainment side of things, find it hard to imagine that continuing the HBO partnership isn't part of those plans.
They have HBO Nordic and the forthcoming Spanish service but at the same time, they've just signed a new output deal with Foxtel in Australia and are set to close their Dutch service and move their output to Ziggo. It strikes me that HBO seem to prefer differing strategies in different countries considering they signed the pan-european deal with Sky only a year ago.
I'm not saying they wouldn't ever go OTT but what would a HBO service even look like in the UK? Would they follow the Nordic model and offer programming from other services? Then they would have to acquire additional programming to build up the service and the UK is already a competitive market for that between Sky, Amazon, Netflix and others like UKTV, C4 and AMC/BT. Or do they build something similar to the US product? Basically push for movie output deals and even some sport? Rather than build that, I imagine it's far easier for HBO to just make the stuff, cash a huge cheque and let Sky do all the work for them.
If Sky are indeed freeing up cash from sports rights to build on the entertainment side of things, find it hard to imagine that continuing the HBO partnership isn't part of those plans.
Surely Sky have to bid a reasonable amount for the next CL deal to stop BT getting it "too cheaply". Not sure if they really want it at the amount BT currently pay or more, but they would not want BT getting it much cheaper than that. I don't think UEFA would be happy but is there a case to say that the UK bids actually reduce next time. Didn't BT massively overbid to get it away from Sky and ITV.
One thing that surprises me is that Sky's figures claim their revenue is holding up. Both myself and one of my work colleagues ditched Sky at the start of the year as just too high so now just occasionally use NowTV. I presume they must be keeping the money coming in from all the price rises and getting people to pay for upgrades like Sky Q. They seem to be doing well with NowTV but that seems to be all from very cheap deals they offer through Argos and Amazon. I got a crazily cheap 6 months entertainment pass deal.
One thing that surprises me is that Sky's figures claim their revenue is holding up. Both myself and one of my work colleagues ditched Sky at the start of the year as just too high so now just occasionally use NowTV. I presume they must be keeping the money coming in from all the price rises and getting people to pay for upgrades like Sky Q. They seem to be doing well with NowTV but that seems to be all from very cheap deals they offer through Argos and Amazon. I got a crazily cheap 6 months entertainment pass deal.
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“They risk losing HBO at next renewal at least. As said above they want their own streaming service which they already have in Scandinavia. Would give them significantly more money than what Sky pay. They also have significant back catalogue in addition to the new stuff. Although not sure if the talked about £15pm is achievable given Netflix and Amazon are half that and both have high quality new drama which is starting to approach the volume of HBO. I personally think what Netflix charge or even slightly less is the best they could get in UK.
Back to sport isn't tennis something else Sky could drop. They now only have some men's tour after stopping US Open. Could see both Eurosport and BT being interested. Along with golf and cricket it is great in filling up a whole week's coverage for one of your channels, and has a higher income demographic than football.”
“They risk losing HBO at next renewal at least. As said above they want their own streaming service which they already have in Scandinavia. Would give them significantly more money than what Sky pay. They also have significant back catalogue in addition to the new stuff. Although not sure if the talked about £15pm is achievable given Netflix and Amazon are half that and both have high quality new drama which is starting to approach the volume of HBO. I personally think what Netflix charge or even slightly less is the best they could get in UK.
Back to sport isn't tennis something else Sky could drop. They now only have some men's tour after stopping US Open. Could see both Eurosport and BT being interested. Along with golf and cricket it is great in filling up a whole week's coverage for one of your channels, and has a higher income demographic than football.”
The HBO model in the US is different from what is on offer from SKY Atlantic. They include Sport and Movies as part of the overall package. It could be a slimmed down entertainment package ie SKY Atlantic content or a full blown service. Of course the other issue is Movies which obviously HBO are part of Time Warner. The opportunities are much wider for studios to control their own revenue streams so HBO may just be one example.
Data from the US seems to be mirroring the UK with NBC down 17% this season but it's not just football NFL is falling too which is on the back of disappointing figures for the Rio Olympics. Perhaps with wall to wall sport now being shown and expanded over more days people are becoming more discerning on what games are really worth watching.
One of the dangers is that Premier League money hasn't made clubs more profitable the majority of the money has led to higher transfer fees and wages so if the next EPL contract falls below expectations and cannot meet the money committed to contracts then some clubs could be in trouble.
I think Sky is fast approaching a point where people just won't pay any more for sports, the next football deal could be very interesting as I doubt subscribers will stand for yet another price rise.
Originally Posted by Plektrum:
“A few people have mentioned Sky losing HBO and HBO subsequently going OTT but is there any credible evidence they actually intend to do that in the UK?
They have HBO Nordic and the forthcoming Spanish service but at the same time, they've just signed a new output deal with Foxtel in Australia and are set to close their Dutch service and move their output to Ziggo. It strikes me that HBO seem to prefer differing strategies in different countries considering they signed the pan-european deal with Sky only a year ago.
I'm not saying they wouldn't ever go OTT but what would a HBO service even look like in the UK? Would they follow the Nordic model and offer programming from other services? Then they would have to acquire additional programming to build up the service and the UK is already a competitive market for that between Sky, Amazon, Netflix and others like UKTV, C4 and AMC/BT. Or do they build something similar to the US product? Basically push for movie output deals and even some sport? Rather than build that, I imagine it's far easier for HBO to just make the stuff, cash a huge cheque and let Sky do all the work for them.
If Sky are indeed freeing up cash from sports rights to build on the entertainment side of things, find it hard to imagine that continuing the HBO partnership isn't part of those plans.”
“A few people have mentioned Sky losing HBO and HBO subsequently going OTT but is there any credible evidence they actually intend to do that in the UK?
They have HBO Nordic and the forthcoming Spanish service but at the same time, they've just signed a new output deal with Foxtel in Australia and are set to close their Dutch service and move their output to Ziggo. It strikes me that HBO seem to prefer differing strategies in different countries considering they signed the pan-european deal with Sky only a year ago.
I'm not saying they wouldn't ever go OTT but what would a HBO service even look like in the UK? Would they follow the Nordic model and offer programming from other services? Then they would have to acquire additional programming to build up the service and the UK is already a competitive market for that between Sky, Amazon, Netflix and others like UKTV, C4 and AMC/BT. Or do they build something similar to the US product? Basically push for movie output deals and even some sport? Rather than build that, I imagine it's far easier for HBO to just make the stuff, cash a huge cheque and let Sky do all the work for them.
If Sky are indeed freeing up cash from sports rights to build on the entertainment side of things, find it hard to imagine that continuing the HBO partnership isn't part of those plans.”
If the decision was to be taken now the answer would be no. However no one would have forecast that cable in the US would see the main players break away from the cable eco system. Whilst they are still part of the overall cable system, they also have stand alone services which have led to the offer of either stand alone services that people can opt in and out of, cherry pick just HBO, Disney and a slimmed down package covering CBS, NBC and Fox. There are so many more options now on offer studios have far more control than ever before, international distribution just couldn't be handled on it's own but with infrastructure and subscription management now in place it makes international roll out a stronger possibility 3-5 years down the line.
Amazon and Netflix are also forging ahead with 4K, more original content and cheaper entry. SKY are matching the cheaper entry point with NOW TV but aren't matching them with HD far less 4K. NOW TV will have to match that and when they do it surely is a much more attractive deal over the satellite option for entertainment subscribers. SKY will have to match Netflix and Amazon on all fronts so entertainment rights, production and technology are of far greater importance than they have ever been.
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“Surely Sky have to bid a reasonable amount for the next CL deal to stop BT getting it "too cheaply". Not sure if they really want it at the amount BT currently pay or more, but they would not want BT getting it much cheaper than that. I don't think UEFA would be happy but is there a case to say that the UK bids actually reduce next time. Didn't BT massively overbid to get it away from Sky and ITV.”
“Surely Sky have to bid a reasonable amount for the next CL deal to stop BT getting it "too cheaply". Not sure if they really want it at the amount BT currently pay or more, but they would not want BT getting it much cheaper than that. I don't think UEFA would be happy but is there a case to say that the UK bids actually reduce next time. Didn't BT massively overbid to get it away from Sky and ITV.”
I don't think UEFA would accept less money for the next set of rights than they are currently getting, so that already prevents BT getting it too cheaply. Sky will bid what the rights are worth commercially, which is probably less than BT is currently paying.
Originally Posted by pjex:
“Good point Newcastle for example is a Union city.”
“Good point Newcastle for example is a Union city.”
The Rugby League authorities have only got themselves to blame.
A few years ago they were promoting a team on Tyneside called Gateshead Thunder and they were getting 3,000 - 4,000 crowds at the Gateshead stadium.
The franchise was taken off them and given to Hull back in their old heartlands.
Gateshead Thunder, now called Newcastle Thunder, limped on and now share the Newcastle Falcons Stadium at Kingston Park but are lucky to get crowds in the low hundreds.
Meanwhile Newcastle Falcons Rugby Union team had a crowd of 8,000 last night.
Originally Posted by ftv:
“I would be more specific and say only Yorkshire and Lancashire really”
“I would be more specific and say only Yorkshire and Lancashire really”
.. and towns that were once in Lancashire (Warrington, WIdnes, Wigan, St Helens).
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“I don't think UEFA would accept less money for the next set of rights than they are currently getting, so that already prevents BT getting it too cheaply. Sky will bid what the rights are worth commercially, which is probably less than BT is currently paying.”
“I don't think UEFA would accept less money for the next set of rights than they are currently getting, so that already prevents BT getting it too cheaply. Sky will bid what the rights are worth commercially, which is probably less than BT is currently paying.”
UEFA will have very little choice in accepting less money than the current deal if no broadcaster bids as high again.
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“I don't think UEFA would accept less money for the next set of rights than they are currently getting, so that already prevents BT getting it too cheaply. Sky will bid what the rights are worth commercially, which is probably less than BT is currently paying.”
“I don't think UEFA would accept less money for the next set of rights than they are currently getting, so that already prevents BT getting it too cheaply. Sky will bid what the rights are worth commercially, which is probably less than BT is currently paying.”
BT were very cute with the current premier league deal. SKY may well be the same with the next CL deal. knowing they wont get the rights but make things uncomfortable for BT
The thing about premium football rights is that there could be another company which comes in out of the blue to push up the rights costs further - eg like BT did when they entered the market.
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“If the decision was to be taken now the answer would be no. However no one would have forecast that cable in the US would see the main players break away from the cable eco system. Whilst they are still part of the overall cable system, they also have stand alone services which have led to the offer of either stand alone services that people can opt in and out of, cherry pick just HBO, Disney and a slimmed down package covering CBS, NBC and Fox. There are so many more options now on offer studios have far more control than ever before, international distribution just couldn't be handled on it's own but with infrastructure and subscription management now in place it makes international roll out a stronger possibility 3-5 years down the line.
Amazon and Netflix are also forging ahead with 4K, more original content and cheaper entry. SKY are matching the cheaper entry point with NOW TV but aren't matching them with HD far less 4K. NOW TV will have to match that and when they do it surely is a much more attractive deal over the satellite option for entertainment subscribers. SKY will have to match Netflix and Amazon on all fronts so entertainment rights, production and technology are of far greater importance than they have ever been.”
“If the decision was to be taken now the answer would be no. However no one would have forecast that cable in the US would see the main players break away from the cable eco system. Whilst they are still part of the overall cable system, they also have stand alone services which have led to the offer of either stand alone services that people can opt in and out of, cherry pick just HBO, Disney and a slimmed down package covering CBS, NBC and Fox. There are so many more options now on offer studios have far more control than ever before, international distribution just couldn't be handled on it's own but with infrastructure and subscription management now in place it makes international roll out a stronger possibility 3-5 years down the line.
Amazon and Netflix are also forging ahead with 4K, more original content and cheaper entry. SKY are matching the cheaper entry point with NOW TV but aren't matching them with HD far less 4K. NOW TV will have to match that and when they do it surely is a much more attractive deal over the satellite option for entertainment subscribers. SKY will have to match Netflix and Amazon on all fronts so entertainment rights, production and technology are of far greater importance than they have ever been.”
I actually think Now TV is an interesting thing for Sky - right now it feels almost like a little side project for them (especially on the tech side where they are clearly trying not to make it too much more attractive than the satellite proposition) but I think as Amazon and Netflix become more aggressive, as you say, Sky will have to up their game and then I can see it becoming far more central to the business and their history shows they are quite good at being aggressive themselves - in fact looking at what DirecTV are about to do in the States with their OTT service, it looks like the 'Now TV' model is a good indicator of what pay tv will look like going forward...pay for what you want, content divided into 'packs' of which you can pick and choose, pay monthly or over longer periods at a time and on multiple devices. I actually think even with fewer sports rights, they're in a good position to eventually pivot when they need to.
Originally Posted by Ads:
“The thing about premium football rights is that there could be another company which comes in out of the blue to push up the rights costs further - eg like BT did when they entered the market.”
“The thing about premium football rights is that there could be another company which comes in out of the blue to push up the rights costs further - eg like BT did when they entered the market.”
True, but with advertisers seemingly concerned about their reduced exposure as a result of the current deal, which other company could realistically out bid Sky and BT and provide better exposure too?
I have a sneaky feeling that BEIN Sports have waited patiently for this to happen. Sky and BT have publicly stated that they will not overpay for rights and BEIN have a lot of spare cash. I know BT are pocket rich but not as reckless as what BEIN could be.
I thought this might happen last time so by no means it will happen the next time the PL and Champion League rights come up but I certainly wont be shocked.
I thought this might happen last time so by no means it will happen the next time the PL and Champion League rights come up but I certainly wont be shocked.
Originally Posted by CappySpectrum:
“The SPFL is pants.”
“The SPFL is pants.”
A direct Correlation of no money in Scottish football since the introduction of the EPL. Prior to the EPL money Scotland produced a disproportionate number of very good footballers playing for top clubs winning many titles and European trophies.
The concern for English football is they are catching up with the percentage of home grown players being sidelined by incoming foreign players which sees just 33% of English born players playing at the top level. OK the EPL is stronger as a result but it does very little for the long term future of the national team if the trend continues with less English players playing.
Originally Posted by Plektrum:
“I actually think Now TV is an interesting thing for Sky - right now it feels almost like a little side project for them (especially on the tech side where they are clearly trying not to make it too much more attractive than the satellite proposition) but I think as Amazon and Netflix become more aggressive, as you say, Sky will have to up their game and then I can see it becoming far more central to the business and their history shows they are quite good at being aggressive themselves - in fact looking at what DirecTV are about to do in the States with their OTT service, it looks like the 'Now TV' model is a good indicator of what pay tv will look like going forward...pay for what you want, content divided into 'packs' of which you can pick and choose, pay monthly or over longer periods at a time and on multiple devices. I actually think even with fewer sports rights, they're in a good position to eventually pivot when they need to.”
“I actually think Now TV is an interesting thing for Sky - right now it feels almost like a little side project for them (especially on the tech side where they are clearly trying not to make it too much more attractive than the satellite proposition) but I think as Amazon and Netflix become more aggressive, as you say, Sky will have to up their game and then I can see it becoming far more central to the business and their history shows they are quite good at being aggressive themselves - in fact looking at what DirecTV are about to do in the States with their OTT service, it looks like the 'Now TV' model is a good indicator of what pay tv will look like going forward...pay for what you want, content divided into 'packs' of which you can pick and choose, pay monthly or over longer periods at a time and on multiple devices. I actually think even with fewer sports rights, they're in a good position to eventually pivot when they need to.”
Hats off to Netflix whether people like their content or not I am just thankful they are changing the landscape and allowing people to choose cheaper alternatives, have far more choice and can cherry pick what they want to watch and when to watch it. I subscribed to SKY for 17 years, I wouldn't go back but I do opt in and out of NOW TV, Netflix and Amazon because I prefer watching a whole series at once, I have become too impatient to stay with a series over 8, 10 or 16 weeks. Strange as it seems with so much more choice I am not watching more just better and my bank balance benefits too.
Whether SKY lose or keep HBO is no longer a concern, it is still going to be available in some form. Personally if I had the full HBO package here for £15 a month I would be opting into that also because they are more than TV. Some of their sports documentaries and non action sport shows are great and obviously they have a large catalogue of movies too. My hunch for next year is that Disney may buy Netflix, their CEO is moving aside and Netflix Reed Hastings is favoured by Disney a marraige made in heaven as Disney combined with Netflix would mahe them the largest streaming service in the world with a catalogue of content that would satisfy an awful lot of people. I think this is what concerns SKY most of all, the US giants have a whole new world of opportunities opened up to them, they no longer are dependent on the traditional rights distribution model.
Originally Posted by Gulftastic:
“Worrying news for Rugby League fans.”
“Worrying news for Rugby League fans.”
Not really, they pay us a pittance and the RFL stupidly locked themselves in to a deal to the end of 2021, theyve also cut production costs to a minimum, less studio guests no spinoff shows mid week.
Rugby League delivers good viewers per £. I think its more likely theyll cut showing things like foreign football, they went on a splurge buying things like Dutch football which surely can't deliver that many viewers.
Originally Posted by Ben1980:
“I have a sneaky feeling that BEIN Sports have waited patiently for this to happen. Sky and BT have publicly stated that they will not overpay for rights and BEIN have a lot of spare cash. I know BT are pocket rich but not as reckless as what BEIN could be.
I thought this might happen last time so by no means it will happen the next time the PL and Champion League rights come up but I certainly wont be shocked.”
“I have a sneaky feeling that BEIN Sports have waited patiently for this to happen. Sky and BT have publicly stated that they will not overpay for rights and BEIN have a lot of spare cash. I know BT are pocket rich but not as reckless as what BEIN could be.
I thought this might happen last time so by no means it will happen the next time the PL and Champion League rights come up but I certainly wont be shocked.”
The only problem with this suggestion is whether the UK market can support another premium standalone sports provider on top of Sky and BT.
Even if BEIN Sports have bottomless pockets they have to make a business decision as to whether they can get a reasonable return on any investment. There is no business sense in simply adopting a "reckless" strategy otherwise you risk becoming the next OnDigital.
Sky gave up US Open Tennis
But will they give up ATP year round coverage ??
As said above
Tennis has many hours of daytime coverage
Commentators are provided as well if they dont want to bother paying the Sky Team
But will they give up ATP year round coverage ??
As said above
Tennis has many hours of daytime coverage
Commentators are provided as well if they dont want to bother paying the Sky Team
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“For those like me where sport got too expensive so I cancelled Sky then entertainment is a big issue. I now dip in and out of NowTV and Netflix to catch up on shows and boxsets. If Sky lost HBO content that would be a big hole in what drives NowTV entertainment pass customers.”
“For those like me where sport got too expensive so I cancelled Sky then entertainment is a big issue. I now dip in and out of NowTV and Netflix to catch up on shows and boxsets. If Sky lost HBO content that would be a big hole in what drives NowTV entertainment pass customers.”
Think this is quite possibly the biggest problem that Sky/Virgin have to face.
A lot of people only have the basic packages because they can't get the sports/movies without them. People that can no longer justify the price for Sports/Movies can very easily opt to leave Sky/Virgin totally and have a lower cost alternative from Netflix/Amazon instead plus a little bit of sport from BT at the cost of a basic Sky/Virgin subscription.
2 of 12
