• 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
<<
<
8 of 12
>>
>
mightymillie
23-11-2016
Originally Posted by pjex:
“That's some pretty poor Maths!”

143 then.
Although mlt's 148 seems a more likely figure.
Sirius C
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Mark F:
“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.”

Indeed. People act like the game survives because of the £5.136bn Sky/BT plough into the cartel. Football existed long before such obscene amounts of money were thrown around.

The cartel is happy to squeeze the fans, both armchair and in the stands, while I see no rush to use their "collective bargaining" skills on players and agents. It's a big gravy train from top to bottom, from the pitch to your living room- Sky, BT, club executives, boardrooms, players, agents and all the associated merchandise.
Col87
24-11-2016
I don't think many of you relise that the clubs only get a majority of the TVymoney of sky/BT if they one of the games been shown live. To go back to sky/ BT showing every game in premier league live then they will have to pay a lot more than the 3 billion between them for the 3 year deal they is now. It once again means next to no other sport or even the foreign leagues will have to go and subscription prices going right up for you all is that what you really all want because that will be the reality.
Sirius C
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I don't think many of you relise that the clubs only get a majority of the TVymoney of sky/BT if they one of the games been shown live. To go back to sky/ BT showing every game in premier league live then they will have to pay a lot more than the 3 billion between them for the 3 year deal they is now. It once again means next to no other sport or even the foreign leagues will have to go and subscription prices going right up for you all is that what you really all want because that will be the reality.”

TV money is linked to all associated revenue, it's isn't directly proportional to the amount of times shown.

It is ludicrous to suggest that with hundreds (thousands?) of live games in foreign and domestic competition that all of the games from the cartel being shown would have a negative impact on the diversity of sport out there. It may end up on other channels, but they won't stop playing football abroad because Sky or BT lose interest. Eurosport and others are waiting in the wings.

I'm happy to pay premium prices for a premium product, rather than forced to endure a not so Super Sunday because quotas make it worth Sky "burning" a pick on Stoke v Hull.
promo-only
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I don't think many of you relise that the clubs only get a majority of the TVymoney of sky/BT if they one of the games been shown live.”

I think that's quite an insulting comment to the majority of people here.

In case you are unaware, TV money is broken down as follows:

- Equal share between all clubs (i.e. 50% of the money received from the UK rights holders is split equally; e.g. in 2015/16 all 20 clubs received £21,924,800)

- Facility Fees (i.e. 25% of the money received from the UK rights holders is paid to clubs each time they are shown live on Sky or BT; In 2015/16, all clubs received a minimum of £8,782,088. I may be corrected on this but I believe they will always pay clubs for at least 10 appearances, even if they haven't been shown 10 times live.)

- Merit payment (i.e. 25% of the money received from the UK rights holders is paid on merit per position; higher position in the table = higher payment)

- Overseas TV and Central Commercial Revenue (i.e. 100% of the money is shared equally between all 20 clubs; e.g. in 2015/16 all 20 clubs received £29,415,848)
samburrows
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I don't think many of you relise that the clubs only get a majority of the TVymoney of sky/BT if they one of the games been shown live. To go back to sky/ BT showing every game in premier league live then they will have to pay a lot more than the 3 billion between them for the 3 year deal they is now. It once again means next to no other sport or even the foreign leagues will have to go and subscription prices going right up for you all is that what you really all want because that will be the reality.”

With respect Col87, I don't think you're in a position (54 poorly worded posts which are difficult to follow because of an optional approach to grammar) to state that other posters "don't relise" (sic) the implications of various permutations.

There are members of this forum who have been debating these models for more than fifteen years. Outside of industry itself (and that's only because we have to guess some of the finer and more confidential details!) I would challenge you to go and find a group of more knowledgeable people with regard to the various Premier League TV contracts and broadcasters..
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“I don't think many of you relise that the clubs only get a majority of the TVymoney of sky/BT if they one of the games been shown live. To go back to sky/ BT showing every game in premier league live then they will have to pay a lot more than the 3 billion between them for the 3 year deal they is now. It once again means next to no other sport or even the foreign leagues will have to go and subscription prices going right up for you all is that what you really all want because that will be the reality.”

Others have pointed out to you the massive fail in your post. If you're going to be condescending at least know what you're talking about

I'll just add that you're being a little short-sighted with the bolded statement. The current subscription TV model is not the only model. Indeed, you are fixating on Sky/BT...

To add, somehow the major leagues in other countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, France) have all their games televised - without outrageous subscription fees being charged - yet somehow subscribers also get to see other sports. Strangely you insist that wouldn't be possible here.
David_Flett1
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Others have pointed out to you the massive fail in your post. If you're going to be condescending at least know what you're talking about

I'll just add that you're being a little short-sighted with the bolded statement. The current subscription TV model is not the only model. Indeed, you are fixating on Sky/BT...

To add, somehow the major leagues in other countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, France) have all their games televised - without outrageous subscription fees being charged - yet somehow subscribers also get to see other sports. Strangely you insist that wouldn't be possible here.”

It's best you let Col87 ramble on he is not just wrong about the distribution of money but he's over £2 billion short on what Sky and BT pay.
BenFranklin
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“To add, somehow the major leagues in other countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, France) have all their games televised - without outrageous subscription fees being charged - yet somehow subscribers also get to see other sports. Strangely you insist that wouldn't be possible here.”

Compared to our PL, the other major leagues in Europe are poorly attended, poorly organised and do very poorly at generating money. Why should the PL look to copy them?
David_Flett1
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“Compared to our PL, the other major leagues in Europe are poorly attended, poorly organised and do very poorly at generating money. Why should the PL look to copy them?”

The major reason that the Premier League can secure so much money in the UK is that it is used to drive subscription revenue for broadband and line rental between BT and SKY. If BT hadn't been losing customers and market share to SKY they would never have entered a biding war with SKY for the Premier League and built a sport platform. So if BT were not a factor then the Premier League would probably have settled around £2.5 billion as BBC and the commercial channels wouldn't have been able to match that figure. A lot was also made of NBC paying over $1 billion for the rights but when you look at the deal it is just over £180 million a year for 6 years and they show 380 games.
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“Compared to our PL, the other major leagues in Europe are poorly attended, poorly organised and do very poorly at generating money. Why should the PL look to copy them?”

We're talking about broadcast issues and the possible obstacles preventing channels from showing all PL games, and how it would affect other sports if all PL games were shown

As for generating money, as long as broadcasters are willing to pay fortunes to show PL football the PL will continue to generate vast sums. In my opinion, though, for as long as subscribers cannot watch their own team live when they want to (ie when not at the match and they are playing) then more and more people will realise there are ways to do exactly that.
BenFranklin
24-11-2016
Still not seeing good reasons for us to copy worse business models.
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“Still not seeing good reasons for us to copy worse business models.”

Still not seeing what any of the things you said have to do with the number of games broadcast on TV
brundlebud
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“
As for generating money, as long as broadcasters are willing to pay fortunes to show PL football the PL will continue to generate vast sums.”

This is a key point. But so far there's no evidence (either way ) that the broadcasters (and viewers) aren't already at saturation point. The point of diminishing returns still needs to be established.
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“This is a key point. But so far there's no evidence (either way ) that the broadcasters (and viewers) aren't already at saturation point. The point of diminishing returns still needs to be established.”

Increasing the amount of games viewers want to see would be a help; we're obviously nowhere near saturation point because the maximum a single broadcaster can show any one team is 21. That's the maximum. Some teams don't even hit ten showings

I still find it utterly baffling that anybody is arguing that viewers don't want to see more games featuring their own team

In the meantime, increased broadband speeds and easier availability of pirated options, even for the least tech-savvy of users, means the saturation point might have long been reached for the subscription model featuring a restricted number of games. In that respect you may be right.
David_Flett1
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by brundlebud:
“This is a key point. But so far there's no evidence (either way ) that the broadcasters (and viewers) aren't already at saturation point. The point of diminishing returns still needs to be established.”

As a viewer I am. I used to watch almost all the games but it just became too much and over too many days. As a neutral I really only look at who is playing, if it's Liverpool, Arsenal or Man City then I will most likely tune in because of the football they play but if it's West Brom, Stoke or Sunderland then I'm out. Champions League has been like that this season too, Bayern have been shocking, Barcelona and Real Madrid not at their best our teams disappointing except Leicester but didn't fancy the teams they were playing. the only team I won't miss is Dortmund.
DUHO
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by David_Flett1:
“As a viewer I am. I used to watch almost all the games but it just became too much and over too many days. As a neutral I really only look at who is playing, if it's Liverpool, Arsenal or Man City then I will most likely tune in because of the football they play but if it's West Brom, Stoke or Sunderland then I'm out. Champions League has been like that this season too, Bayern have been shocking, Barcelona and Real Madrid not at their best our teams disappointing except Leicester but didn't fancy the teams they were playing. the only team I won't miss is Dortmund.”

Good post..........

Premier league football televised live has more than reached saturation point IMHO these days. As you say. If Liverpool are playing (not my team) its a must watch. Same with 3 or 4 others
and then its Champions league and Europa league with by large the same sides talking part (Leicester accepted) but they are hardly a much watch.. Sooner or later and I think that date is coming sooner the bubble will burst which could mean trouble for SKY
Col87
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Others have pointed out to you the massive fail in your post. If you're going to be condescending at least know what you're talking about

I'll just add that you're being a little short-sighted with the bolded statement. The current subscription TV model is not the only model. Indeed, you are fixating on Sky/BT...

To add, somehow the major leagues in other countries (Spain, Italy, Germany, France) have all their games televised - without outrageous subscription fees being charged - yet somehow subscribers also get to see other sports. Strangely you insist that wouldn't be possible here.”

OK I might have got the figures wrong however the point still stands that they will have to pay a lot more than what they are now I'd every premier league game was shown live. That would mean no money left to show any other leagues on sky or BT because all the budget would be used on the premier league. That at least 15 production teams one for every match a reporter at every game a commentary team at every game plus at least 4 camera men ( or women) it all adds up so yes they would be a massive hike in costs because don't forget sky are also paying millions for the F1 is well. So no I am not talking rubbish at all
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“OK I might have got the figures wrong however the point still stands that they will have to pay a lot more than what they are now I'd every premier league game was shown live. That would mean no money left to show any other leagues on sky or BT because all the budget would be used on the premier league. That at least 15 production teams one for every match a reporter at every game a commentary team at every game plus at least 4 camera men ( or women) it all adds up so yes they would be a massive hike in costs because don't forget sky are also paying millions for the F1 is well. So no I am not talking rubbish at all”

You quoted my post yet it appears to have gone floating really high over your head
David_Flett1
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by DUHO:
“Good post..........

Premier league football televised live has more than reached saturation point IMHO these days. As you say. If Liverpool are playing (not my team) its a must watch. Same with 3 or 4 others
and then its Champions league and Europa league with by large the same sides talking part (Leicester accepted) but they are hardly a much watch.. Sooner or later and I think that date is coming sooner the bubble will burst which could mean trouble for SKY”

I have a couple of friends in the US and one was really into the football, again a neutral but loved the Premier League he moved to the States around 9 years ago and he gets every match but he and a number of his friends are a bit like me and only watch the big games. Funny because we were chatting just about this on Saturday because he thought the Arsenal United game was a borefest, I think he is a closet gunner so it could be more through disappointment or frustration which is probably both. He said that it wasn't as bad as the Liverpool United game which he said why are we bothering to get the lads together for this crap.

They get all the games but for midweek games he watches the replays and he said a few of his mates who are Americans are losing a bit of interest. They thought it was great at first but they are getting like him and have watched far too many. Looking at the figures in the States they are down 17% this season but he says NFL is down too because the games are all over the place this season.

So it's not just football, I thnk if you show more and spread them out over more days then people just won't find the time not forgetting that most of us have partners and families too.
Col87
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“You quoted my post yet it appears to have gone floating really high over your head ”

So what you don't think prices will have to go up for less content overall
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“So what you don't think prices will have to go up for less content overall”

You are fixating on the present TV landscape and the current subscription model.

You also keep mentioning Sky/BT as if they are the only possible broadcaster.

You have overlooked the fact that every other country in the world seems to manage just fine with subscription sport - both in quantity and cost.

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary for every single game to receive the Super Sunday treatment. In fact it is not necessary at all. And if a number of games are kicking off at the same time - anything between 2 and 6 so far this season - then there's only a need for one panel. Sky did it for the Champions League after all...

Forget the present; if the Premier League eventually make every game available - and signs are they might have to - it would likely be the contract after next. That's six years away. Things change, sometimes dramatically so....
Col87
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“You are fixating on the present TV landscape and the current subscription model.

You also keep mentioning Sky/BT as if they are the only possible broadcaster.

You have overlooked the fact that every other country in the world seems to manage just fine with subscription sport - both in quantity and cost.

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary for every single game to receive the Super Sunday treatment. In fact it is not necessary at all. And if a number of games are kicking off at the same time - anything between 2 and 6 so far this season - then there's only a need for one panel. Sky did it for the Champions League after all...

Forget the present; if the Premier League eventually make every game available - and signs are they might have to - it would likely be the contract after next. That's six years away. Things change, sometimes dramatically so....”

One panel yes but still need a production team reporter commentry team and cameramen at each game. Your right no one knows what will happen in the future but I think we at the limit of live games and what people are willing to pay. There is a chance of another recession happening that could put people off pay big prices for sport packagea whoever the broadcaster is
sat-ire
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“One panel yes but still need a production team reporter commentry team and cameramen at each game”

It may have escaped you but every game is covered right now. Sky themselves show extended highlights off all bar the BT games.

Originally Posted by Col87:
“Your right no one knows what will happen in the future but I think we at the limit of live games and what people are willing to pay. There is a chance of another recession happening that could put people off pay big prices for sport packagea whoever the broadcaster is”

As far as the rest of your post goes you are still basing your opinion on the here and now, and the present subscription model - and the chances of a recession lmfao,

You're also underestimating what people will pay to see their own team.

I would agree with yours, and most people on here, that we are at saturation point. Where I depart from that PoV is that I believe we are at saturation point for the present model of how PL games are packaged in this country.

Adding another 20 live games in the next round is not going to increase subscriptions for Sky. They will trumpet it (to death on SSNews) but that won't persuade people to sign up.

The only way to attract people who haven't signed up / won't sign up / have unsigned is to give them more games that they want to see. That's what's crucial. People have become tired and weary of numbers. 126 live games per season means nothing when a lot of the games you want to watch take place on Saturday at 3pm.

And I repeat - ad nauseum - other countries do it
samburrows
24-11-2016
Originally Posted by Col87:
“One panel yes but still need a production team reporter commentry team and cameramen at each game. Your right no one knows what will happen in the future but I think we at the limit of live games and what people are willing to pay. There is a chance of another recession happening that could put people off pay big prices for sport packagea whoever the broadcaster is”

Every single Premier League game is currently produced, filmed, broadcast, commentated on and distributed live around the World. The fact they aren't being shown live in the UK does not mean that cost is not being incurred already. IF every game was made available live in the future, I suspect given the low viewing numbers for some fixtures the central Premier League production (aka the 'World Feed') would be used. This is no different to the coverage you (already!) see on Sky a few hours later on a Saturday evening!
<<
<
8 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