Sky pay £5.1BILLION for Premier Footie

humfer

This is insane. If this covers 4 years and Sky have around 11m UK subscribers then this means everyone is effectively paying well over £100 a year just to fund this. No wonder I currently have to pay nearly £60 a month for a Variety + Movies package with HD and Multiroom........

torbrex

if it keeps the football off real TV i am all for it :T

wiogs

Sky didn't but what's an incorrect headline in today's world.

VisionMan

humfer wrote: »

Sky pay £5.1BILLION for Premier Footie

Err... No they didn't.

humfer wrote: »

This is insane. If this covers 4 years and Sky have around 11m UK subscribers then this means everyone is effectively paying well over £100 a year just to fund this.

No it doesn't. It actually works out at about a £3mth increase per Sky Sports subscriber. But hey what are a few facts on the internet today?

Tropez

humfer wrote: »

This is insane. If this covers 4 years and Sky have around 11m UK subscribers then this means everyone is effectively paying well over £100 a year just to fund this. No wonder I currently have to pay nearly £60 a month for a Variety + Movies package with HD and Multiroom........

I pay less than that for Family, Sports, Movies, HD, Multiscreen, Fibre and Phone.

Need to haggle yourself a new deal, methinks! :money:

Kurtis_Blue

http://business.sky.com/roi/pubs-clubs/

anotheruser

That pays for the footballers wages.
Hey, if they had a serious wage then everyone would be better off.

Perhaps we should ban football for three years and see what happens to people's pockets...

Tropez

anotheruser wrote: »

That pays for the footballers wages.
Hey, if they had a serious wage then everyone would be better off.

Not really. Sky pay so much for the rights to ensure their dominance of the Pay TV market. BT have started coughing up larger sums because their strategy is to expand BT telephony services using sports as a carrot on a stick.

Sky's profits continue to rise, BT have reported a rise in revenues on telephony products since the launch of BT Sport. Therefore, it appears, for now at least, that the outlay on sports, and in particularly top-level football, is beneficial to the positions these two are seeking to maintain. Sky felt threatened by BT who dealt them a blow with taking the Champions League, as well as Discovery, Al-Jazeera and others who made bids, and decided to up their game to continue their position.

Footballer's wages are high, and will increase, but if suddenly their wages were reduced to, say, a national average, all that would happen is that directors and board members would pocket all the cash (like a more extreme version of the NFL which is a licence to print money for the franchise owners) and maybe transfer fees would be even more ridiculous. It wouldn't lower the fees being paid for the rights, nor the amount being asked by Sky and BT for their channels, because of their respective strategies.

Course if they did, the Premier League would lose most, if not all, of its better players to outfits from abroad not hamstrung by this arbitrary salary cap.

VisionMan

Sky paid an 86% increase to maintain their 126 game dominance, which means further cost cutting (over the last increase cost cutting) and further subscription increases.

BT paid a modest 30% increase, which means they can continue to offer BT Sport included in a BT Broadband subscription. This, along with all the Champions League, Europa League and joint BBC/BT Sport FA Cup coverage is a far stronger line up than what they have now.

Interesting times.