MSE News: Premier League football comes to Amazon Prime

Online giant Amazon has today bought the rights to 20 live Premier League matches per season...
Read the full story:
'Premier League football comes to Amazon Prime'

OfficialStamp.gif
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.
«1

Comments

  • worried_jim
    worried_jim Posts: 11,631
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Happy days. I think it's time for me to finally pack in the tv license, Amazon meet all my needs for less than the Beeb.
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Another win for the consumer. I'm so happy that one company is prevented from taking all the matches to make it cheaper and better for us. Not that it means 3 subscriptions rather than 1 or anything........ :rotfl:


    Another well intentioned ruling that nobody thought through.
  • Midnighter
    Midnighter Posts: 18,277
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    mije1983 wrote: »
    Not that it means 3 subscriptions rather than 1 or anything........ :rotfl:

    That'll cost you just shy of £1k!!! That's if you want to watch all the matches that are televised, not that I do.
    '...luck came to those who left a space for it.' Terry Pratchett
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Midnighter wrote: »
    That'll cost you just shy of £1k!!! That's if you want to watch all the matches that are televised, not that I do.

    Probably more once the rights kick in. Prime price will no doubt rise as well as Sky and BT (again). I'll just stick to my 60% off Sky sub (if they are still rewarding my 'loyalty' by then) and forego any on BT or Amazon. Can't justify the extra expense for a handful of games.

    Is it any wonder though that illegal streaming is so plentiful with costs like that? If one provider had the sole rights, I can't see it being anywhere near the price someone would have to fork out now for all 3.

    However, it's never going to change. Now the PL has seen just how many golden eggs their goose can lay, they aren't going to restrict it.
  • iniltous
    iniltous Posts: 3,021
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 10 June 2018 at 8:28AM
    mije1983 wrote: »
    Probably more once the rights kick in. Prime price will no doubt rise as well as Sky and BT (again). I'll just stick to my 60% off Sky sub (if they are still rewarding my 'loyalty' by then) and forego any on BT or Amazon. Can't justify the extra expense for a handful of games.

    Is it any wonder though that illegal streaming is so plentiful with costs like that? If one provider had the sole rights, I can't see it being anywhere near the price someone would have to fork out now for all 3.

    However, it's never going to change. Now the PL has seen just how many golden eggs their goose can lay, they aren't going to restrict it.

    I'm not sure why you think , if say 'Sky' won all rights , the price of one Sky subscription would be less than the total of 3 subscriptions.
    it's the EPL that would have to do a sweetheart deal (which they couldn't do anyway) , but EPL know what the rights are worth, so Sky would have to pay what the EPL wanted, if the EPL could get £XX's from 3 company's, why would they accept any less than £XX , from Sky.
    if you wanted BT to leave the field clear for Sky as far as EPL rights , I bet you wouldn't be happy if the cost of BT doing this was Sky leaving the phone/broadband field clear for BT, its a market , if you bar BT from bidding for EPL , why not bar Sky from broadband/phone, or are Sky shareholders more worthy than BT shareholders so it's OK to penalise one group in favour of another
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 10 June 2018 at 11:16AM
    iniltous wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you think , if say 'Sky' won all rights , the price of one Sky subscription would be less than the total of 3 subscriptions.

    I'm not sure why you think , if say 'Sky' won all rights , the price of one Sky subscription would be more than the total of 3 subscriptions.

    Sky have roughly two thirds of the games. Even if my Sports subscription rose by a third, I would still be paying less with one provider than I would paying all 3. In fact, it could rise by a lot more than a third before I'd be paying more. Price rise history shows that even Sky don't hike their prices that much, that quickly.

    iniltous wrote: »
    it's the EPL that would have to do a sweetheart deal (which they couldn't do anyway) , but EPL know what the rights are worth, so Sky would have to pay what the EPL wanted, if the EPL could get £XX's from 3 company's, why would they accept any less than £XX , from Sky.

    Erm yes, that was my point. The costs have risen markedly since one provider was barred from obtaining exclusive live rights. Why anyone thinks rising prices are good is beyond me. But that was always going to be the result of the decision.

    iniltous wrote: »
    if you wanted BT to leave the field clear for Sky as far as EPL rights

    I really couldn't care less whether it's Sky, BT, Amazon or someone else entirely. What I care about is not spending more money. If Sky lost them all then fine, I can cancel my Sports sub and use that money to sub to whichever platform obtained them.

    iniltous wrote: »
    I bet you wouldn't be happy if the cost of BT doing this was Sky leaving the phone/broadband field clear for BT, its a market , if you bar BT from bidding for EPL , why not bar Sky from broadband/phone, or are Sky shareholders more worthy than BT shareholders so it's OK to penalise one group in favour of another

    Could you just point out to me where I said BT (or anyone for that matter) should be barred from bidding for anything? Or are you just making things up to substantiate your point?

    Also, your move into BB comparison makes no sense . But if you insist on using it let me actually make it a relevant analogy. It's like saying if you want to access the internet then you have to pay one provider to get to websites beginning A-P, another to view websites Q-W, and a third to access X,Y&Z. Or pay one to access the internet Sun-Wed, another Thurs & Fri, and a 3rd for Saturday access.

    But you'd be happy with that, right? Paying 3 different providers? Free market and all.......
  • JReacher1
    JReacher1 Posts: 4,652
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    This is a bad deal for Amazon. Twenty games but only actually two days of football a year. I am sure many people will sign up just for one month, cancel then sign up again for a second month.

    You can get one month free and the other month will cost you about £7.99 so I am unsure where the money for amazon is here. They need a game a week really to make people sign up.
  • mije1983
    mije1983 Posts: 3,665
    First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper First Anniversary
    Forumite
    JReacher1 wrote: »
    This is a bad deal for Amazon. Twenty games but only actually two days of football a year. I am sure many people will sign up just for one month, cancel then sign up again for a second month.

    You can get one month free and the other month will cost you about £7.99 so I am unsure where the money for amazon is here. They need a game a week really to make people sign up.

    I imagine it's a 'dip the toe into the water' entry to start with, just to see how popular it is for them. Plus, like all free trials, there will be a percentage of people who forget to cancel.

    I suppose if it goes well, they will be more active in the next package auction.
  • JJ_Egan
    JJ_Egan Posts: 20,281
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Will Amazon accept returns ???
    Will the match come in a very very large box .
  • iniltous
    iniltous Posts: 3,021
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    edited 10 June 2018 at 1:28PM
    mije1983 wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you think , if say 'Sky' won all rights , the price of one Sky subscription would be more than the total of 3 subscriptions.

    Sky have roughly two thirds of the games. Even if my Sports subscription rose by a third, I would still be paying less with one provider than I would paying all 3. In fact, it could rise by a lot more than a third before I'd be paying more. Price rise history shows that even Sky don't hike their prices that much, that quickly

    Sky paid less per game this deal this deal than last

    Erm yes, that was my point. The costs have risen markedly since one provider was barred from obtaining exclusive live rights. Why anyone thinks rising prices are good is beyond me. But that was always going to be the result of the decision.

    I certainly don't want higher prices, but I also don't want a Sky monopoly either




    I really couldn't care less whether it's Sky, BT, Amazon or someone else entirely. What I care about is not spending more money. If Sky lost them all then fine, I can cancel my Sports sub and use that money to sub to whichever platform obtained them.

    You don't care who delivers the EPL , but how would any other company get involved without bidding ? , given that's how he EPL offer the product to retailers


    Could you just point out to me where I said BT (or anyone for that matter) should be barred from bidding for anything? Or are you just making things up to substantiate your point?

    There is a contradiction, you don't mind BT bidding as long their involvement doesn't push the price up, but the prime reason of an auction is to maximise the price obtained, you think the way to keep the price down is by having only one exclusive provider, so how could anyone ever win without outbidding Sky,

    Also, your move into BB comparison makes no sense . But if you insist on using it let me actually make it a relevant analogy. It's like saying if you want to access the internet then you have to pay one provider to get to websites beginning A-P, another to view websites Q-W, and a third to access X,Y&Z. Or pay one to access the internet Sun-Wed, another Thurs & Fri, and a 3rd for Saturday access.

    Sky moved into 'BT' territory offering phone/broadband taking advantage of a system that was designed to reduce BT market share of telecoms, and although Sky don't own the rights to EPL, what you want is them to be the defacto owner, and not allow BT to move in Sky territory, all I asked was would you be happy for BT to leave the TV sports rights arena , if the price for doing so was Sky leaving the Telecoms arena

    But you'd be happy with that, right? Paying 3 different providers? Free market and all.......

    No, what I would be happy with is the EPL making its 'asset' available on the same basis that BT have to make their 'asset' available to anyone who wants to purchase it
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards