Sky/ESPN/BT Sport

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Sure, I get that as things stand, but my point is that it won't be just 38 games and FA Cup/Europa League in future. As I say, this isn't ESPN, who relied on Sky to carry their channel. BT have an alternative platform for distribution, are a bigger and richer company than Sky and a vast budget for this kind of thing. They'll go for the rights of every major sporting event there is over the next few years. And then you might get to the tipping point.

If what you're saying is true then it'll just mean more expense to your average football fan. At present you can pay for Sky and then go to the pub/stream the occasional game on ESPN (and next season on BT). However if the split of games is closer to 50/50 then that's not as easy to do. Sky simply won't be dropping their fees, so there will be no saving there, and BT will have to increase their fees in order to cover the costs od the extra sport they've bid for. So, due to Sky being a "monopoly" and not being allowed to win ALL the football the consumer now has to pay more money to watch the same football via 2 different providers. Exceptional work.

Also forgetting Sky supply over 10 million people with not only sports but a raft of tv channels which BT would simply have to bankrupt themselves to compete with. Virgin was supposed to end Sky dominance 15 years ago. Setanta was going to win all the sports and ESPN was seen as a proper competitor. All have gone by the wayside and ESPN is a multi billion dollar subsidiary of Disney. BT can huff and puff all they like more people will join Sky than BT over the next 3 years

Yep-Great points. I don't like paying sky however there coverage of sport etc is second to none. I certainly wont be paying for BT sport as I didn't ESPN. If any of the top 18 picks are ones I want to watch then I will keep using <a class="postlink" href="http://www.firstrow.eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.firstrow.eu</a> to stram these games.
I would guess that of the top 18 5 will at least include City and I will be at the home games of those.
Not a chance BT will overtake Sky and as I have said if you know how to play game you never ever pay full sky prices anyway.

 

[Henkeman]

If what you're saying is true then it'll just mean more expense to your average football fan. At present you can pay for Sky and then go to the pub/stream the occasional game on ESPN (and next season on BT). However if the split of games is closer to 50/50 then that's not as easy to do. Sky simply won't be dropping their fees, so there will be no saving there, and BT will have to increase their fees in order to cover the costs od the extra sport they've bid for. So, due to Sky being a "monopoly" and not being allowed to win ALL the football the consumer now has to pay more money to watch the same football via 2 different providers. Exceptional work.

Also forgetting Sky supply over 10 million people with not only sports but a raft of tv channels which BT would simply have to bankrupt themselves to compete with. Virgin was supposed to end Sky dominance 15 years ago. Setanta was going to win all the sports and ESPN was seen as a proper competitor. All have gone by the wayside and ESPN is a multi billion dollar subsidiary of Disney. BT can huff and puff all they like more people will join Sky than BT over the next 3 years

Yep-Great points. I don't like paying sky however there coverage of sport etc is second to none. I certainly wont be paying for BT sport as I didn't ESPN. If any of the top 18 picks are ones I want to watch then I will keep using <a class="postlink" href="http://www.firstrow.eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.firstrow.eu</a> to stram these games.
I would guess that of the top 18 5 will at least include City and I will be at the home games of those.
Not a chance BT will overtake Sky and as I have said if you know how to play game you never ever pay full sky prices anyway.

BT are not the same as Virgin or ESPN. Suggesting BT would bankrupt themselves to try and compete simply ignores the reality of the respective companies. BT are twice the size of Sky as a company and nearly three times more profitable. This is not some tiny fly by night organisation taking on the might of Sky, this is a bigger and nastier kid in the playground coming along to steal the ball.

I cannot emphasise this point enough. Comparisons to Virgin or ESPN or Setanta are utterly spurious and miss completely the whole point of this. The last two relied completely on Sky to carry their channels, that's why they could only ever be complementary. Virgin never had the market penetration in any single sector for them to be a viable alternative as a platform, let alone a channel. BT do. Oh boy, BT really do. This is potentially ruinous for Sky.

The whole point of this is that Sky have a lot of customers, but BT have a huge broadband client base, and the aim is to both grow that market further, and also for it to be an alternative platform to the Sky satellite one. It was pretty inevitable that this would happen the moment Sky decided to try and move on BT's territory in the broadband market.

Sky are now incredibly vulnerable. BT have a wide business portfolio but Sky do not. BT's arrival is a direct threat to their viability as a business - and that's why the sports authorities are licking their lips (and yes, that's why from a consumer perspective there's the concern about price rises).

For BT, the potential in broadband consumers more than offsets the cost of paying for sports rights, that's why the analysts think it's a really clever move on their part.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Also forgetting Sky supply over 10 million people with not only sports but a raft of tv channels which BT would simply have to bankrupt themselves to compete with. Virgin was supposed to end Sky dominance 15 years ago. Setanta was going to win all the sports and ESPN was seen as a proper competitor. All have gone by the wayside and ESPN is a multi billion dollar subsidiary of Disney. BT can huff and puff all they like more people will join Sky than BT over the next 3 years

Yep-Great points. I don't like paying sky however there coverage of sport etc is second to none. I certainly wont be paying for BT sport as I didn't ESPN. If any of the top 18 picks are ones I want to watch then I will keep using <a class="postlink" href="http://www.firstrow.eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.firstrow.eu</a> to stram these games.
I would guess that of the top 18 5 will at least include City and I will be at the home games of those.
Not a chance BT will overtake Sky and as I have said if you know how to play game you never ever pay full sky prices anyway.

BT are not the same as Virgin or ESPN. Suggesting BT would bankrupt themselves to try and compete simply ignores the reality of the respective companies. BT are twice the size of Sky as a company and nearly three times more profitable. This is not some tiny fly by night organisation taking on the might of Sky, this is a bigger and nastier kid in the playground coming along to steal the ball.

I cannot emphasise this point enough. Comparisons to Virgin or ESPN or Setanta are utterly spurious and miss completely the whole point of this. The last two relied completely on Sky to carry their channels, that's why they could only ever be complementary. Virgin never had the market penetration in any single sector for them to be a viable alternative as a platform, let alone a channel. BT do. Oh boy, BT really do. This is potentially ruinous for Sky.

The whole point of this is that Sky have a lot of customers, but BT have a huge broadband client base, and the aim is to both grow that market further, and also for it to be an alternative platform to the Sky satellite one. It was pretty inevitable that this would happen the moment Sky decided to try and move on BT's territory in the broadband market.

Sky are now incredibly vulnerable. BT have a wide business portfolio but Sky do not. BT's arrival is a direct threat to their viability as a business - and that's why the sports authorities are licking their lips (and yes, that's why from a consumer perspective there's the concern about price rises).

For BT, the potential in broadband consumers more than offsets the cost of paying for sports rights, that's why the analysts think it's a really clever move on their part.

Hello Mr Rake

 

[Henkeman]

Yep-Great points. I don't like paying sky however there coverage of sport etc is second to none. I certainly wont be paying for BT sport as I didn't ESPN. If any of the top 18 picks are ones I want to watch then I will keep using <a class="postlink" href="http://www.firstrow.eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.firstrow.eu</a> to stram these games.
I would guess that of the top 18 5 will at least include City and I will be at the home games of those.
Not a chance BT will overtake Sky and as I have said if you know how to play game you never ever pay full sky prices anyway.

BT are not the same as Virgin or ESPN. Suggesting BT would bankrupt themselves to try and compete simply ignores the reality of the respective companies. BT are twice the size of Sky as a company and nearly three times more profitable. This is not some tiny fly by night organisation taking on the might of Sky, this is a bigger and nastier kid in the playground coming along to steal the ball.

I cannot emphasise this point enough. Comparisons to Virgin or ESPN or Setanta are utterly spurious and miss completely the whole point of this. The last two relied completely on Sky to carry their channels, that's why they could only ever be complementary. Virgin never had the market penetration in any single sector for them to be a viable alternative as a platform, let alone a channel. BT do. Oh boy, BT really do. This is potentially ruinous for Sky.

The whole point of this is that Sky have a lot of customers, but BT have a huge broadband client base, and the aim is to both grow that market further, and also for it to be an alternative platform to the Sky satellite one. It was pretty inevitable that this would happen the moment Sky decided to try and move on BT's territory in the broadband market.

Sky are now incredibly vulnerable. BT have a wide business portfolio but Sky do not. BT's arrival is a direct threat to their viability as a business - and that's why the sports authorities are licking their lips (and yes, that's why from a consumer perspective there's the concern about price rises).

For BT, the potential in broadband consumers more than offsets the cost of paying for sports rights, that's why the analysts think it's a really clever move on their part.

Hello Mr Rake

Sorry for posting facts about business to you. As you were with your nice little fantasy world.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

BT are not the same as Virgin or ESPN. Suggesting BT would bankrupt themselves to try and compete simply ignores the reality of the respective companies. BT are twice the size of Sky as a company and nearly three times more profitable. This is not some tiny fly by night organisation taking on the might of Sky, this is a bigger and nastier kid in the playground coming along to steal the ball.

I cannot emphasise this point enough. Comparisons to Virgin or ESPN or Setanta are utterly spurious and miss completely the whole point of this. The last two relied completely on Sky to carry their channels, that's why they could only ever be complementary. Virgin never had the market penetration in any single sector for them to be a viable alternative as a platform, let alone a channel. BT do. Oh boy, BT really do. This is potentially ruinous for Sky.

The whole point of this is that Sky have a lot of customers, but BT have a huge broadband client base, and the aim is to both grow that market further, and also for it to be an alternative platform to the Sky satellite one. It was pretty inevitable that this would happen the moment Sky decided to try and move on BT's territory in the broadband market.

Sky are now incredibly vulnerable. BT have a wide business portfolio but Sky do not. BT's arrival is a direct threat to their viability as a business - and that's why the sports authorities are licking their lips (and yes, that's why from a consumer perspective there's the concern about price rises).

For BT, the potential in broadband consumers more than offsets the cost of paying for sports rights, that's why the analysts think it's a really clever move on their part.

Hello Mr Rake

Sorry for posting facts about business to you. As you were with your nice little fantasy world.

You see they are facts but the rest of it is pure speculation. Considering most people who are experts think you are wrong, I guess we will wait and see but you are obviously biased towards BT for some reason. The fact that BT has only 810,000 subscribers despite the fact they have 6.5 million broadband customers is telling in itself although the numbers after the summer will be interesting I wouldn't hedge my bets on Sky worrying too much yet. The real winner anyway is the Premier League

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

Waste of money getting bt sport,they get the shit games like Espn,think city were on about 3 times on espn.

 

[Henkeman]

Hello Mr Rake

Sorry for posting facts about business to you. As you were with your nice little fantasy world.

You see they are facts but the rest of it is pure speculation. Considering most people who are experts think you are wrong, I guess we will wait and see but you are obviously biased towards BT for some reason. The fact that BT has only 810,000 subscribers despite the fact they have 6.5 million broadband customers is telling in itself although the numbers after the summer will be interesting I wouldn't hedge my bets on Sky worrying too much yet. The real winner anyway is the Premier League

Ah yes, the old "I don't agree so you must be on the payroll" gambit. That's pathetic. Are Sky paying you to post for example?

But you don't actually seem to understand the concept of what this is about anyway - as evidenced by your comments about ESPN, Setanta and Virgin. I'd also be more than interested to see the evidence for all your experts who think I am wrong, because pretty much all the coverage I read stated how much of a threat to Sky this was. For the same reason on BT's announcement Sky's share price fell substantially - wonder why that may be...

You're entirely free to disagree with me, but it might be an idea to actually know a little bit about it before doing so - the comparisons you made are simply silly.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Sorry for posting facts about business to you. As you were with your nice little fantasy world.

You see they are facts but the rest of it is pure speculation. Considering most people who are experts think you are wrong, I guess we will wait and see but you are obviously biased towards BT for some reason. The fact that BT has only 810,000 subscribers despite the fact they have 6.5 million broadband customers is telling in itself although the numbers after the summer will be interesting I wouldn't hedge my bets on Sky worrying too much yet. The real winner anyway is the Premier League

Ah yes, the old "I don't agree so you must be on the payroll" gambit. That's pathetic. Are Sky paying you to post for example?

But you don't actually seem to understand the concept of what this is about anyway - as evidenced by your comments about ESPN, Setanta and Virgin. I'd also be more than interested to see the evidence for all your experts who think I am wrong, because pretty much all the coverage I read stated how much of a threat to Sky this was. For the same reason on BT's announcement Sky's share price fell substantially - wonder why that may be...

You're entirely free to disagree with me, but it might be an idea to actually know a little bit about it before doing so - the comparisons you made are simply silly.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/13/bt-premier-league-sky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ma ... league-sky</a>

As its the Guardian probably the least biased view I could find.
I dont think the Virgin comparison is silly either. With nearly 5 million cable viewers and a host of other stuff including broadband they have never really given it a go for some reason.

 

[Rosler1985]

People actually still pay to watch football?

Jesus.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

People actually still pay to watch football?

Jesus.

Yeah quite a lot actually around 15 million people in the country all told