Sky Soccer prices to fall?
Comments
-
The EU rule was to stop any one broadcaster having full rights to their respective countries top flight games. Whilst I can see the intended good in this theres always been the point that the mad "Me need to watch all games..." football fan will then "have to" pay two different operators, but this needs balanced with the fact there would be the fan that could afford the £9.99p - £12.99p a month for the handful ( 1 quarter of the seasons games) of games that feature his/her team. The real problem that nobody seems to address is the complete greed of the EPL and their bed partners Sky, the two of them were happy to boost the cash paid price headlines every few years when the contract was up for renewal. I'd also like to remind fellow forum members that Sky sports offered a two tier approach to their premier league football coverage with their "Season ticket" that got you a few extra games for an extra £50, the adverts on their sports channels ect featured that Irish actor who was in that garbage "Cold Feet" series and claims to be a Man U supporter in real life. Once the EU rule came in Sky "dropped" (How lovely of them! lol) the Season ticket because quite simply they had less games to offer so couldn't have the cheek to try and hold so many games behind a additional fee wall.0
-
Found one of the Prem Plus adverts on YouTube but can't post due to forum rules, but one of the lines is "For just an extra £50 gain access to an extra 40 live premiership games through Sky box office..."0
-
But you are talking about 'maybes' and 'could haves'. We can all only go by the facts as they are now, and that is a person wanting to watch 100% of the televised PL games is now paying more per month than they were when Sky had a monopoly, even allowing for inflation. It's not opinion, it's a fact. So yes, it is a bad idea as most people are now paying more.
I have no particular love for Sky or BT, but it would definitely make things cheaper if one or the other (or someone else entirely, I really don't care) could come in a buy all packages.
I have no desire to keep any company 'honest' (again you seem to me talking about things not mentioned in the thread), but what I do have is a desire to get a cheaper price as I'm sure we all do.
Finally, your telecoms anaology does not make sense. I am not forced to use and pay 2 different providers (say Sky and BT for example) to receive the exact same service I used to be getting which is what would be a true comparison.
Philosophically, monopolys good or bad ?, provide good service or bad service ?, good value or bad value ? If your answer is 'bad unless it's Sky' I'd say that makes you look like fool, or you are Rupert, or a Skyfanboy.
I quite agree it's not the best analogy, after all one private company BT has no say in what price it can ask for its products, when another private company (EPL) has no restriction whatsoever on what it can ask for its products, but does have a restriction requiring it not to do an exclusive sweetheart deal with one 'customer'.
Just say, to watch all EPL content costs £50/month ( £30/20 between the 2 providers ) it's nothing more than conjecture to suggest that it would be less than £50 if only 1 provider had all the games, in fact, if there was only 1 provider arguably they could (would) charge anything the could get away with because the punter has nowhere else to go if they want to watch it, that's the argument against monopolys in a nut shell.
I agree it's not true competition, after all the EPL is only interested in maximising the financial return from its product and so only offer access to their product on terms that suit them and not the consumer , and for as long as people are prepared to pay whatever it takes to access the content, then they will be milked for all they are worth, regardless of 1 provider or 20 -
Perfectly aware that Sky offered a supposed "extra" package of games, but farming this out to Setanda, BT et al did not bring the price for viewing all these games down. The total price went up and customers now have to subscribe to multiple providers if they want to see all the games.I'd also like to remind fellow forum members that Sky sports offered a two tier approach to their premier league football coverage with their "Season ticket" that got you a few extra games for an extra
This is nothing to do with wanting Sky to have the monopoly on Premiere League Football. This is a money-saving site and so we should be campaigning for cheaper options, regardless of which provider shows the footie.
The only level playing field would be if all providers could show the same games. There would be nothing to stop them offering packages which provided less games for a cheaper price.0 -
In direct relation to the ruling that gave smaller operations a go at bidding....... remember Setanta lol Oh my, lost uplink feeds during the middle of live games, awful picture quality on their Freeview multiplex offering, awful customer service, wasn't a good start to the post Sky monopoly.0
-
Totally agree Moneyineptitude, if the same games were offered by more than one company then that would be fair, it's a laugh that the English Premier League can sell complete rights to ALL games to Bein Sports for a quarter of the price they sell the reduced game rights to their own domestic market. Its the age old UK consumer gets bumped silly again situation and it ain't going to change any time soon if at all mate that's for certain. As for Amazon having any involvement in live sports broadcasting rights....no thanks, they should pay some more tax the sods.0
-
Philosophically, monoploys good or bad ?, provide good service or bad service ?, good value or bad value ? If your answer is 'bad unless it's Sky'
As said numerous times on this thread people have no particular love for Sky, or any broadcaster. But it is now more expensive to watch PL games with 2 broadcasters than it was with one. Of that there is no doubt. There was also a 60% rise in the cost of the rights from the last Sky only deal to the joint Sky & Setanta deal, even though the amount of games were static. In fact, it was the biggest deal on deal percentage rise in PL history, and still is (yes bigger than the last one where the number of games increased and still the media couldn't stop talking about the huge rise!). How do they recoup that? They charge consumers more.Inould say that makes you look like fool, or you are Rupert, or a Skyfanboy.
Haha was wondering when that would appear. Although you missed out the 'you must work for Sky' line (other employers are available) that people tend to bring out rather than admit their argument may be incorrect. :rotfl:Just say, to watch all EPL content costs £50/month ( £30/20 between the 2 providers ) it's nothing more than conjecture to suggest that it would be less than £50 if only 1 provider had all the games
It's not conjecture, it's a fact that when the first rights package came into effect after the ruling, it was more expensive to watch all the games than it was when there was one provider. I believe Setanta charged c.£10 a month? So £100 extra a year. Even allowing for PremPlus, and who knows whether that would have still be continuing today (and I think not, purely because there is only so much someone can bleed out of football fans), for the 07/08 season you were paying more than you did for the 06/07 season. Again, not conjecture, fact.0 -
In direct relation to the ruling that gave smaller operations a go at bidding....... remember Setanta lol Oh my, lost uplink feeds during the middle of live games, awful picture quality on their Freeview multiplex offering, awful customer service, wasn't a good start to the post Sky monopoly.
Setanta were pretty bad weren't they!? At least for PL coverage. I don't know what the rest of their output was/is like.0 -
As said numerous times on this thread people have no particular love for Sky, or any broadcaster. But it is now more expensive to watch PL games with 2 broadcasters than it was with one. Of that there is no doubt. There was also a 60% rise in the cost of the rights from the last Sky only deal to the joint Sky & Setanta deal, even though the amount of games were static. In fact, it was the biggest deal on deal percentage rise in PL history, and still is (yes bigger than the last one where the number of games increased and still the media couldn't stop talking about the huge rise!). How do they recoup that? They charge consumers more.
Haha was wondering when that would appear. Although you missed out the 'you must work for Sky' line (other employers are available) that people tend to bring out rather than admit their argument may be incorrect. :rotfl:
It's not conjecture, it's a fact that when the first rights package came into effect after the ruling, it was more expensive to watch all the games than it was when there was one provider. I believe Setanta charged c.£10 a month? So £100 extra a year. Even allowing for PremPlus, and who knows whether that would have still be continuing today (and I think not, purely because there is only so much someone can bleed out of football fans), for the 07/08 season you were paying more than you did for the 06/07 season. Again, not conjecture, fact.
So you are a Sky employee, and quite a senior one at that as you seem to know what Sky would pay the EPL if they had sole bidding rights...usually if you get something exclusively you pay more for it, not less...are you really arguing that the price has only risen since Sky were denied exclusivity ?
Comparing one periods rights negotiation with another is not that enlightening , after all the number of packages, number of games in those packages , kick off times, number of first picks etc, changes each time and you do realise the EPL doesn't put them on Ebay with no reserve, the EPL know what the rights are worth, (what they are worth to the broadcaster.), and this time around there wasn't any price inflation anyway so given that BT were considered real competition to Sky how come the price hasn't rocketed his time around if having two serious bidders puts the price up ? so it is conjecture if the price would have been less if there was only Sky bidding, the EPL wouldn't take kindly if Sky were the only bidder and they put in a derisory bid, and what's more Sky given their dependence on the EPL wouldn't want to p@ss them off0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards