-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Football and money
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
It will be you and me that changes the playing field. The way we watch, how we watch.
Sky and BT(less so) are financially massively exposed. They have committed in advance all the way to 2019 for 'exclusive rights'. They cannot police that or control it. That is ok (to a certain degree) if you haven't outlayed so much money (i mean over £10m for West Brom v Burnley on MNF....wtf). The options for 'alternative' viewing is only going to increase in terms of availabilty and quality.
Also Subscribers must be looking at price increases on the back of this, and our subscriptions are for general sports, not just football and not just our specific team. i.e we get a lot thrown in that we mostly don't care about. Keep increasing prices and the people that like football think 'i'm paying for stuff i don't even watch' and the people that like other sport think 'this is so expensive now just because of the silly football'.
It's a hard one for Sky as i'm not quite sure where they'll be without football.
Sky and BT(less so) are financially massively exposed. They have committed in advance all the way to 2019 for 'exclusive rights'. They cannot police that or control it. That is ok (to a certain degree) if you haven't outlayed so much money (i mean over £10m for West Brom v Burnley on MNF....wtf). The options for 'alternative' viewing is only going to increase in terms of availabilty and quality.
Also Subscribers must be looking at price increases on the back of this, and our subscriptions are for general sports, not just football and not just our specific team. i.e we get a lot thrown in that we mostly don't care about. Keep increasing prices and the people that like football think 'i'm paying for stuff i don't even watch' and the people that like other sport think 'this is so expensive now just because of the silly football'.
It's a hard one for Sky as i'm not quite sure where they'll be without football.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I can't help think that BT have played a clever game with Sky. They have made a big deal of increasing their football coverage and have forced Sky to respond. To keep their share of the games, Sky have upped their bid by around 80%, while BT only upped theirs by 30%. As a result BT are paying significantly less per game. Some executives at Sky might to be too happy with what they have paid.
It will be interesting to see how the regulator handles the cross-selling of games. Will BT be made to pay the increased cost paid by Sky or will they be able to argue that Sky have overpaid the true market rate.
It will be interesting to see how the regulator handles the cross-selling of games. Will BT be made to pay the increased cost paid by Sky or will they be able to argue that Sky have overpaid the true market rate.
That's all I want.
The problem Sky have is that they just don't understand what people want. I don't watch football on a dodgy s.tream because I'm cheap, I do it because I want to watch my team at whatever time they play, in HD, on whatever device is available at the time. I would pay a lot for that.
People download films for the same reason - if films were released for s.treaming in HD as soon as they had closed at the cinema, there would be little demand for the compressed pixelated rubbish that gets uploaded.
Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
"Redzone" is incredible, but it won't work in the PL because you don't know when a goal will be scored in most cases whereas a team on the 10 yard line in throw ball will likely score but we're getting nearer that model and its only a matter of time before most teams in the conference and below go tits up - I don't see there being any trickle down
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
At Palace today
milo
Jack L. Jones
milo
Jack L. Jones
Probably not worth its own thread so I will pop it hear but there was an interesting article a streams in today's Guardian
Free football streaming: how illegal sites keep outpacing broadcasters
http://gu.com/p/4b5zt
Free football streaming: how illegal sites keep outpacing broadcasters
http://gu.com/p/4b5zt
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
it's interesting, I'd be lying if I said I'd never watched one, it is stealing though, content has value too
these people wanting free to air broadcasting seem to have a blinkered view of things, most of the money in football currently comes from advertising around licensed broadcasts, if no one was paying for it it wouldn't be there to stream in the first place
long term I think the best solution for everyone would be an achieved lock down of illegal streaming and on demand reasonably priced live coverage available for professional every game everywhere, there will always be people unwilling to pay anything but they do not have to be catered for
these people wanting free to air broadcasting seem to have a blinkered view of things, most of the money in football currently comes from advertising around licensed broadcasts, if no one was paying for it it wouldn't be there to stream in the first place
long term I think the best solution for everyone would be an achieved lock down of illegal streaming and on demand reasonably priced live coverage available for professional every game everywhere, there will always be people unwilling to pay anything but they do not have to be catered for
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Well it does not effect me as I go to our games and I am not to bothered about watching other teams play, however if Sky etc did not rip of fans by making them pay a lot of money to watch their coverage then I might have some sympathy for those who are against streaming.
Not everyone is in a position to pay what Sky want for their coverage and if there was a way that fans could pay less for a good service that would probably be the way they would go.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
Sky and BT only charge what the market will be bear, they are not holding a knife to anyone's throat, in fact people are calling them in droves to hand over money for the service
not being a TV viewer doesn't protect you from it either, even in the new stadium gate receipts alone will not pay the clubs bills, TV money is huge, sponsorship money for the shirt, stadium hoardings and any other flat surface is all based on expected TV exposure
if everyone was paying, the cost would come down
parklane1
Tony Galvin
In their opinion they are but not in those who either choose not to and those who can not afford it. I am not sure people are calling in drove either, I know lots of people who have cancelled their contracts over the last 12 months.