• 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
Sky to be more selective with sports rights strategy
<<
<
7 of 12
>>
>
the-master
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“I don't think any of us disagree with each other we just have a different interpretation of how all services are interlinked.”


Yes and I think that mlt11 & gs1 have it the right way around, not you. Sky's business model would near enough collapse in the hypothetical situation that the tv end of the market stopped. Not so with broadband, even if the loss of revenue would be considerable it would not be substantial in comparison to the tv market.
mightymillie
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Rich1977:
“I think some of you have missed a trick here. In that many are thinking saturation in terms of Sky Sports and yet talking in terms of EPL on TV.

If like me you refuse to give Sky a penny and rely on other broadcasters for their EPL fix then if anything more would be nice.

I was truly gutted that BT only got 42 games last time round, from what I understood they were in the running for up to 70 games (the Sunday 2pm pack) but Sky blew them out the other water in the second round (it was a similar story the previous tender). 2 games every weekend on BT (or anyone but Sky) would have been perfect.

I really hope with the proposed extra 22 games up for tender next time round SKY are true to their 'selectiveness policy' and decide to at least stick with the 126 they have. Leaving at least 64 games, roughly two per round for other broadcasters. However I bet they won't.”

Sky will go for the maximum number of games they are allowed.
If 190 games are available it would be in five packs of 32, and two of 15. Sky would want (and likely get) 144 games.
brundlebud
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“People wanting their own team doesn't necessarily equate to them wanting more live games in total (not sure where you're getting that from tbh) - it just means they want more of their own team.

That is surely not that difficult to understand

Personally, I just want a particular 38 games - despite the fact that I get to the stadium for near enough half of them. If more games are on live it doesn't affect me either way.”

And yet in another thread, when I was arguing that having more games available didn't mean people would WATCH more games, you were arguing that people WOULD watch more football if their team was available every week, as they would watch their own team PLUS any big games.

So which is it?

For everybody to be able to have all of the 38 games available to them for their own team (assuming they are an EPL team supporter) means that all 380 games need to be available, whether they want to watch them or not.

As a business model for Sky/BT/EPL, do you really think that it adds an awful lot to their ability to generate money?
David_Flett1
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by the-master:
“Yes and I think that mlt11 & gs1 have it the right way around, not you. Sky's business model would near enough collapse in the hypothetical situation that the tv end of the market stopped. Not so with broadband, even if the loss of revenue would be considerable it would not be substantial in comparison to the tv market.”

What I find frustrating is that I have not mentioned anywhere hypothetically or otherwise about TV "not" being the real focus for SKY.

Throughout I have said all three services were interlinked and that cannot be disputed. It is obvious if one of those services were badly affected such as sport to a direct competitor such as BT they would be in danger of not only losing sports subscribers but also broadband customers because there is no doubt that BT would use sport to attract subscribers, after all it was BT's entry into sport that arrested their falling market share to SKY and since have recovered that share.

You also have to take into consideration that to sign up to sports subscriptions on the satellite platform you first must take the entertainment bundle. So if you have SKY mainly for their football coverage or sport in general are you likely to still pay for an entertainment subscription if that disappears? Another reason why I said that it is interlinked.

If you wish to take TV on it's own SKY have a massive infrastructure and subscription management overhead which most, certainly subscription management is shared across all three services. If you remove a vital part of the three services such as communications and sport may be the reason that people move to BT then the burden of that overhead becomes much larger for TV and therefore TV subscription cost would have to increase to accomodate this increased cost.

We can go round and round in circles but I haven't at anytime said TV wasn't important, that SKY could not sustain their business concentrating more on TV what I have said is that the three services are interlinked and sharing the overhead is crucial to keeping TV subscriptions from increasing beyond what most are willing to pay.

A footnote is that although I believe linear TV which includes SKY and traditional way of viewing or subscribing will stay with us and remain dominant for sometime we cannot ignore the impact that streaming is having. More people wish to schedule the time they want to watch a show not be tied to TV scheduling it for them. More people want to op in and out of providers and don't want to be tied into 12 month contracts. More people can have all three services, Netflix, Amazon and SKY's Now TV for the entry price of the satellite platform. SKY will be forced to upgrade NOW TV not so much content but performance, they can't continue streaming at much lower quality than what Amazon, Netflix and other catch up services offer. There will be a cost element to that.

Overall spending has to increase substantially on entertainment because SKY not only face more competition but they also face huge increases in cost of production and acquisition with HBO and Netflix setting the bar so high for production costs. Sterling alone will add significant costs.
David_Flett1
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“Sky will go for the maximum number of games they are allowed.
If 190 games are available it would be in five packs of 32, and two of 15. Sky would want (and likely get) 144 games.”

No one knows what position SKY will take.
JCR
23-11-2016
WWE has said in a investor conference call that Sky are paying them an average of US$ 30 million a year till 2019. Presumably sky saw that as worth it as they were the only legit draw on box office, though that picture may have drastically changed in the last couple of years due to WWE's streaming service.

Doubt Sky would want to ditch Scottish football, given the rights are cheap (they are paying more for wrestling than Scottish football).
sat-ire
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“And yet in another thread, when I was arguing that having more games available didn't mean people would WATCH more games, you were arguing that people WOULD watch more football if their team was available every week, as they would watch their own team PLUS any big games.

So which is it?

For everybody to be able to have all of the 38 games available to them for their own team (assuming they are an EPL team supporter) means that all 380 games need to be available, whether they want to watch them or not.

As a business model for Sky/BT/EPL, do you really think that it adds an awful lot to their ability to generate money?”

Huh? Your argument in said thread was a very definitive one. You were arguing that people only watch one game per week, and that would still be the case even if their own team were available every week. I pointed out that surely if a subscriber's preferred team was on every week, as opposed to the (at best) 1 in 2 at present, then it is really not a stretch to suggest that they would watch other games too. You were insistent, and strangely adamant, that they would still watch just one game.

In this thread, you are misreading my post, presumably for effect, so - as I've made no statement that could read lead to your response above, here it is again:

Quote:
“People wanting their own team doesn't necessarily equate to them wanting more live games in total (not sure where you're getting that from tbh) - it just means they want more of their own team.”

It's a face value thing. In most cases they are not thinking about the increase of games across the board, or whether or not they'd watch any, or all, of the other 9 games on top of their preferred game. The just want to be able to see more of their own team. You are reading all the extra points that you are making into it.

I cannot speak for anybody else but it really is so very simple: people want to be able to watch their own team every week.

Speaking for myself, I want my team's 38 games. Whilst I don't really care about the other games, the fact that I have all 380 means that I do watch other games in any given week. But if they weren't available to me I wouldn't be pushed.
pjex
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“Sky will go for the maximum number of games they are allowed.
If 190 games are available it would be in five packs of 32, and two of 15. Sky would want (and likely get) 144 games.”

That's some pretty poor Maths!
wolvesdavid
23-11-2016
I don't think Sky would get rid of the Scottish Football.

The question is could the SPFL get more money if they went exclusively with BT, or set up their own service. And I think the answer is they wouldn't.
Sirius C
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by wolvesdavid:
“I don't think Sky would get rid of the Scottish Football.

The question is could the SPFL get more money if they went exclusively with BT, or set up their own service. And I think the answer is they wouldn't.”

Setanta (prior to the PL) was a de-facto SPL TV. So they will be aware of the rough ability to market their own product. IIRC £15 a month and 89k subs was the break even point and they narrowly got there. That contract was based on around £9m a season going to the league.
Col87
23-11-2016
If every premier was shown live then no one wins. Supporters would stop going to the ground so the club loses millions a year which in turn means they can no longer afford the best players and in some cases the clubs might be close to bankruptcy. Sky and BT lose as they show even more matches with empty stadiums plus to many will cause boadrom. They also then can't show much else which put non football viewers off losing subscribers so they then lose money. Fans can see the best bits of all matches as it is anyway by signing up to their clubs website. Clubs like Boro have tried their own TV stations in the past including showing every match as live. It didn't work so the majority of football supporters don't want to see every game live on TV at all. It only the armchair fans who want that.
LOSG
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Sirius C:
“Setanta (prior to the PL) was a de-facto SPL TV. So they will be aware of the rough ability to market their own product. IIRC £15 a month and 89k subs was the break even point and they narrowly got there. That contract was based on around £9m a season going to the league.”

Weren't Setanta a PPV service pre PL rights?
Col87
23-11-2016
Getting this back on target realistically what will sky be willing to lose. The speed way could way on BBC red button with the occasional live coverage on BBC Two but what else is there?
David_Flett1
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“If every premier was shown live then no one wins. Supporters would stop going to the ground so the club loses millions a year which in turn means they can no longer afford the best players and in some cases the clubs might be close to bankruptcy. Sky and BT lose as they show even more matches with empty stadiums plus to many will cause boadrom. They also then can't show much else which put non football viewers off losing subscribers so they then lose money. Fans can see the best bits of all matches as it is anyway by signing up to their clubs website. Clubs like Boro have tried their own TV stations in the past including showing every match as live. It didn't work so the majority of football supporters don't want to see every game live on TV at all. It only the armchair fans who want that.”

Fans don't want to watch every game and not even more games, they just want a fairer deal than what is on offer compared to those in the US where the deal is 12 times less than what SKY and BT pay for rights here. Premier club fans would obviously choose a stream to watch their team whilst neutrals would watch the main game shown on the main channel.

I also think it is insulting to mention armchair fans, especially when you say TV money brings the best players to the Premier League. Without these so called armchair fans none of these players would be available to Premier League clubs and in all likelyhood stadiums may not be full. One only has to look at how no money invested in Scottish football has changed not just the league but the conveyor belt of Scottish players that disproportionately represented the top English clubs.
Sirius C
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by LOSG:
“Weren't Setanta a PPV service pre PL rights?”

Games were available on a PPV basis on freeview, but they did offer a subscription service. To correct myself I think it may have been less than £15 a month, possibly 12.99 but there was an option to pay a year in advance.

Originally Posted by Col87:
“If every premier was shown live then no one wins. Supporters would stop going to the ground so the club loses millions a year which in turn means they can no longer afford the best players and in some cases the clubs might be close to bankruptcy. Sky and BT lose as they show even more matches with empty stadiums plus to many will cause boadrom. They also then can't show much else which put non football viewers off losing subscribers so they then lose money. Fans can see the best bits of all matches as it is anyway by signing up to their clubs website. Clubs like Boro have tried their own TV stations in the past including showing every match as live. It didn't work so the majority of football supporters don't want to see every game live on TV at all. It only the armchair fans who want that.”

What utter rubbish. All these footballers on thousands a week just hang up their boots to do what? Play golf? Professional rugby? Work in a supermarket?

Selling every game doesn't do harm to every other professional league in West/Central Europe. The cartel isn't able to infinitely raise ticket prices, but cheaper tickets get fans into games.

The status quo suits the cartel. It suits Sky, BT and suits mediocre players earning more in a year than most of us see in a lifetime.
sat-ire
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“If every premier was shown live then no one wins. Supporters would stop going to the ground so the club loses millions a year which in turn means they can no longer afford the best players and in some cases the clubs might be close to bankruptcy. Sky and BT lose as they show even more matches with empty stadiums plus to many will cause boadrom. They also then can't show much else which put non football viewers off losing subscribers so they then lose money. Fans can see the best bits of all matches as it is anyway by signing up to their clubs website. Clubs like Boro have tried their own TV stations in the past including showing every match as live. It didn't work so the majority of football supporters don't want to see every game live on TV at all. It only the armchair fans who want that.”

Sorry, but that really doesn't bear fruit.

Who are the two best supported teams in the PL?

Who gets shown more than (Arsenal aside usually) any other teams?

Whose grounds are full every single home game, no matter the opposition?

Which two teams are extremely oversubscribed for away tickets?

I see your argument to a point (ie long late or night journeys, awkward kick off times) but, again, the two teams who kick off at a different time every week...???

It's far too simplistic to say more TV automatically equates to less supporters in the ground.

Manchester United's clash with Arsenal on Saturday was on Sky TV. Supporters didn't lock themselves into the ground overnight in order to watch MUTV's live TV coverage on the concourses!

You are also being very disingenuous in saying "only the armchair supporter" wants every game live. Most people want every one of their own team's games live - it would be a strange beast that didn't. I include myself, and I get to home games! My OH used to also hold a season card; unfortunate home circumstances means she can no longer go. Should she be denied the chance to watch every game?

You're also still playing the "genuine supporter" versus "armchair supporter" card, a point I addressed previously in response to one of your earlier posts - and have part addressed it above. You ignored it.
Col87
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Sorry, but that really doesn't bear fruit.

Who are the two best supported teams in the PL?

Who gets shown more than (Arsenal aside usually) any other teams?

Whose grounds are full every single home game, no matter the opposition?

Which two teams are extremely oversubscribed for away tickets?

I see your argument to a point (ie long late or night journeys, awkward kick off times) but, again, the two teams who kick off at a different time every week...???

It's far too simplistic to say more TV automatically equates to less supporters in the ground.

Manchester United's clash with Arsenal on Saturday was on TV. Supporters didn't lock themselves into the ground overnight in order to watch MUTV's live TV coverage on the concourses!”

What about the smaller clubs though it will affect them and the more games shown on TV the less likely fans are to go to them especially during the winter months which will affect the revenue a club gets. Sky and BT pay over the top knowning what they get no body is forcing you to pay for either service are they you chose to knowing what you will get. I think the live games as they are are already pushing it most supporters will not stand for this much longer. As for the comment about armchair fans well if you wanting to watch every game on sky or BT instead of going to the ground then that exactly what an armchair fan is.
sat-ire
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“What about the smaller clubs though it will affect them and the more games shown on TV the less likely fans are to go to them especially during the winter months which will affect the revenue a club gets. Sky and BT pay over the top knowning what they get no body is forcing you to pay for either service are they you chose to knowing what you will get. I think the live games as they are are already pushing it most supporters will not stand for this much longer. As for the comment about armchair fans well if you wanting to watch every game on sky or BT instead of going to the ground then that exactly what an armchair fan is.”

Last point first; my point was precisely that there are people who want to go to the ground but can't...

You've done a lot of taking about "genuine" fans, wouldn't genuine fans be turning up at smaller clubs no matter who was playing on TV? I'm not sure Sky, BT or "armchair" fans of "bigger" clubs can be held responsible if they don't....

Don't televised games kick off at staggered times anyway?
mlt11
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by mightymillie:
“Sky will go for the maximum number of games they are allowed.
If 190 games are available it would be in five packs of 32, and two of 15. Sky would want (and likely get) 144 games.”

As a condition for closing VM's complaint re the auction process, OFCOM has stated that for 2019/22 the PL has agreed (see link below):

- Minimum 190 live games
- At least 42 games must be won by a secondary buyer, of which at least 30 must be at the weekend

That means that the maximum any one broadcaster can win will be 148 games.

As far as the packs are concerned, it suggests to me that the following is most likely:

- The large weekend packs will increase from 28 to 30 games (ie Sat 12.30, Sat 5.30, Sun 1.30, Sun 4pm)

- The two small packs will fall from 14 games to 12 - still anchored as at present by midweeks / Bank Holidays with additional games on Sat / Sun.

The above gives (4*30) + (2*12) = 144.

That then leaves 46 more games across Fri and Mon (and possibly some Sun 12pm overspill). How these are split we'll have to see - but I imagine these 46 would be split into two packs.

If the above is correct it would mean an overall increase from 7 to 8 packs.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom...cases/cw_01138
Col87
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Last point first; my point was precisely that there are people who want to go to the ground but can't...

You've done a lot of taking about "genuine" fans, wouldn't genuine fans be turning up at smaller clubs no matter who was playing on TV? I'm not sure Sky, BT or "armchair" fans of "bigger" clubs can be held responsible if they don't....

Don't televised games kick off at staggered times anyway?”

Its fans of bigger clubs I am on about. If every game was shown live and they wasn't much difference in price between sky and BT for the and season ticket what do you think the fan is going to do if he already has sky or BT on a deal anyway. So yes the club might get money if sky and BT but there also lose out. Even if some supporters still go then lose out on the away supporters still. Do you see the point yet. BT and Sky lose out as they have to fit at least 15 games if it was 50/50 split into the schedule every premier league game will take most of the channels for the weekend none football fans lose out cancel subscription. But yes the league one and two sides lose out is well.
sat-ire
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“Its fans of bigger clubs I am on about. If every game was shown live and they wasn't much difference in price between sky and BT for the and season ticket what do you think the fan is going to do if he already has sky or BT on a deal anyway. So yes the club might get money if sky and BT but there also lose out. Even if some supporters still go then lose out on the away supporters still. Do you see the point yet. BT and Sky lose out as they have to fit at least 15 games if it was 50/50 split into the schedule every premier league game will take most of the channels for the weekend none football fans lose out cancel subscription. But yes the league one and two sides lose out is well.”

You keep shifting the goalposts making it difficult to debate with you. You also keep bringing up points that I've already addressed yet you haven't addressed my posts.

So I'll leave you with a point I've already made: the clubs with full grounds every week are the ones shown most on TV.

I have access to every single PL game. That has never, ever stopped me from going and I can also vouch for all of my match-going mates and acquaintances.

It is far too simplistic to say TV is/would be the reason supporters aren't/would stop going. There are many, many other factors which can influence that decision.
wolvesdavid
23-11-2016
I think its a bit silly to compare the American overseas TV rights cost to the Premier League, compared to Sky's own cost here. A domestic cost for the Premier League for Sky and BT, is obviously always going to be higher for the main domestic league here.

I wonder what the American Football rights cost are for the domestic American TV companies compared to the oversees rights cost for the UK broadcasters. I would think it is a lot more for the domestic American TV markets.

Also there seems very little desire for all 380 games to be available on domestic TV in Britain and that includes from within the game, and the Premier League, and the Premier League clubs themselves.
Sirius C
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by wolvesdavid:
“Also there seems very little desire for all 380 games to be available on domestic TV in Britain and that includes from within the game, and the Premier League, and the Premier League clubs themselves.”

It's rational behaviour for a cartel to restrict supply to keep prices high.
Neil_Harris
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“It is far too simplistic to say TV is/would be the reason supporters aren't/would stop going. There are many, many other factors which can influence that decision.”

TV will never stop people going to see any event live. Sport, gigs, theatre, etc..
People love the live experience, the event and the day out.

Football does need to watch itself with accessibility , ie ticket prices and ko times though. This generation has took it on the chin but the next may not.
There were 5,000 empty seats at WBA v Burnley on Monday. Would have been close to a sell out on a Saturday afternoon.
Mark F
23-11-2016
It was said clubs could let fans in for free and still earn more than they used to because of the massive TV deal and the revenue it brings in.
<<
<
7 of 12
>>
>
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