Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35715976)

I think that we will see a lot of people dump the sports, it's overpriced, and becoming out of the reach of the ordinary working family, if things continue as they are I would be forced to have a total rethink on my TV spend!

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716425)

Sky Sports 4 to become Ryder Cup channel

http://www1.skysports.com/golf/news/...-biggest-event

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716446)

Another rather silly gimmick.:td:

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716450)

Ryder cup on Sky Sports 4/HD and Champions league moving to the new home of European Football Sky Sports 5/HD..........I wonder why that could be ?

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716450)

Ryder cup on Sky Sports 4/HD and Champions league moving to the new home of European Football Sky Sports 5/HD..........I wonder why that could be ?

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35716452)

Trying to copy Setanta Sports Golf?

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 35716026)

very much agreed. undoubtedly bt will try to rob customers blind the minute the vm contract/CL contract starts. just like sky do. and yet ofcom won't stop this neverending tidal wave where the customer pays the price for living in the uk and being involved in such a competitive football market where each company tries to throw money to beat the other.

lovely.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35715972)

Like most people I only have so much money to spend so as the cost of watching football goes up there will come a point when I will have to choose either Sky Sports or BT Sports. At present I get BT Sports bundled in with my tv package so it isn`t too bad but if that ever changes then obviously I will have to review the situation.
I agree it was better when Sky had all the domestic football and ITV/B.B.C had the internationals and Champions league etc

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35716468)

I do understand that there is a limit we can pay for sports and it is getting a bit much, but I don't get your statement that it was better when Sky had all the domestic football. Now that BT are involved, you get some of it 'free' with the XL pack. You had to pay Sky for all the football before.

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716522)

In another blow to BT TV Customers with Sky Sports the Ryder cup will be on Sky Sports 4 which will re-brand as Sky Sports Ryder Cup from 6am on Thursday, September 18 until 6am on Thursday, October 2.

http://www1.skysports.com/golf/news/...-biggest-event

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35716542)

It's not really much of a blow as precious few BT TV customers have Sky Sports as it's not available on YouView, just the black BT Vision boxes.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35716544)

only sky sports 1+2 on bt so they doing so bt viewers cant watch it

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35716468)

I do understand that there is a limit we can pay for sports and it is getting a bit much, but I don't get your statement that it was better when Sky had all the domestic football. Now that BT are involved, you get some of it 'free' with the XL pack. You had to pay Sky for all the football before.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35716462)

Ofcom is not permitted to get involved in the prices that the Premiership charges Sky and BT nor for how much Sky charges its own sports customers so please don't blame them.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35716565)

BT Sport isn`t free to all virgin customers only those on the higher tier packages,which in effect means you are paying for BT Sport. As Virgin say themselves ``BT Sport included..``, not `free`.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35716478)

I agree with you Old Boy. It's a Forum Myth that it was better when Sky had all the matches as 1) Competition has resulted in more matches being televised 2) The cost of Sky Sports has only kept pace with inflation. See previous posts evidencing this.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35716569)

But you are on the XL pack, so you get it 'free' with your subscription, Sam. That's what I meant. I appreciate that not everyone has XL. I remain of the view that BT's presence in this area will ultimately be a good thing for sports fans.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35716478)

I agree with you Old Boy. It's a Forum Myth that it was better when Sky had all the matches

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35716590)

Not really a forum myth, it's just peoples personal opinions. Personally I preferred when all football was available on SKY Sports and free-to-air TV. Not everyone will agree but the situation suited me more then, than it does now.

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35716590)

Not really a forum myth, it's just peoples personal opinions. Personally I preferred when all football was available on SKY Sports and free-to-air TV. Not everyone will agree but the situation suited me more then, than it does now.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716599)

Completely agree Chad. In the days when only Sky had the Premiership and other sports rights you had the choice of whether to subscribe to Sky Sports or not. It was a simple choice for the consumer.

However as others have pointed out, since the dawn of Setanta, ESPN and now BT Sport the competition has not really helped the consumer due to the cost increases and the fact that you now have to subscribe to two (or potentially more dependant on your interests) providers instead of just one.

Whilst competition is good for a consumer market, it is only good on comparable products. For example, if I want to buy a coffee, I can choose a local cafe, Starbucks, Costa, etc, and choose which provider I want based on my preferred taste and the price I am willing to pay. But ultimately I can get a coffee from any of them.

However, with sports rights, the fact is that Sky & BT offer completely different products as other than Premiership rights, they both have exclusive deals for the other sports they show. Whilst they keep trying to get one up on the other and pay overinflated prices for football rights it is only going to affect us, the consumer, as realistically there is no competition in this field, only a choice of whether to have none, some or all sports and the more you choose, the more you pay.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716599)

Completely agree Chad. In the days when only Sky had the Premiership and other sports rights you had the choice of whether to subscribe to Sky Sports or not. It was a simple choice for the consumer.

However as others have pointed out, since the dawn of Setanta, ESPN and now BT Sport the competition has not really helped the consumer due to the cost increases and the fact that you now have to subscribe to two (or potentially more dependant on your interests) providers instead of just one.

Whilst competition is good for a consumer market, it is only good on comparable products. For example, if I want to buy a coffee, I can choose a local cafe, Starbucks, Costa, etc, and choose which provider I want based on my preferred taste and the price I am willing to pay. But ultimately I can get a coffee from any of them.

However, with sports rights, the fact is that Sky & BT offer completely different products as other than Premiership rights, they both have exclusive deals for the other sports they show. Whilst they keep trying to get one up on the other and pay overinflated prices for football rights it is only going to affect us, the consumer, as realistically there is no competition in this field, only a choice of whether to have none, some or all sports and the more you choose, the more you pay.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35716576)

Yes I get BT Sport as part of my XL package but I was talkng in general. Mind you how long will BT sport be included in the XL package I wonder? What was the length of the deal between Virgin and BT? As BT spent an awful load of money on the Champions league right and Premier league right they`re sure to want to recoup their money,wont they?

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35716452)

Trying to copy Setanta Sports Golf?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716624)

Look its a personal choice on what people want to spend their money as some spend it on home entertainment , some spend it on their home , some spend it on going out and some spend on other things and as we don't drink and smoke we spend some of ours on home entertainment.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716624)

Look its a personal choice on what people want to spend their money as some spend it on home entertainment , some spend it on their home , some spend it on going out and some spend on other things and as we don't drink and smoke we spend some of ours on home entertainment.

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716648)

I cancelled Sky Sports months back and I certainly wouldn't pay a penny for what little BT currently has , I merely receive it as part of my BB , I do however still agree things are now more expensive for those who like to watch all the football.

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute (Post 35716650)

I guess Match of the Day for free is the only alternative but not if the objective is to watch the entire match live

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716622)

BIB. You still have a choice for a sports provider. You can choose (BT Sports) a cheaper option for a lesser PL service, but which still has plenty of football from other leagues on it, as well as some high quality other sports. You can choose a very expensive service to watch numerous PL games, as well as some other games from other leagues and plenty of other sports too. Or you can simply choose to pay stupid amounts of money for both.

Quite why people (not just Superbalde) feel they are being forced to take both subscriptions is beyond me. You have a choice of two services, you can make a decision to to save money by only taking one of the services. You must know your own financial budgets. If you want both providers and can afford it, why moan? All businesses will charge as much as people are willing to pay. If you can't afford both, pick the one you can afford.

Going back to the coffee analogy, I will add a thought to it. If Starbucks were the only provider of coffee for a number of years and charged a high price because they knew they had a very good product and a customer base who would pay the money required. Suddendly, Cafe Nero come along and offer a slightly different product which is a little less tasty, but still offers a good quality product at a much cheaper price, what would you do? Would you choose one coffee provider or would you buy two coffees to satiate your tastes?

This is only an extreme hyperthetical situation and I have not posted it to stir things up, merely to make a point. I chose coffee as an example as Superblade used that as an example. You could make the argument better with clothes (do you buy a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt, or a fat face polo shirt, or do you buy both).

I am aware this will rile a number of posters, but I have not written it cause upset, merely make a point about how daft this whole situation sounds to me. I apologize for offence taken by anyone.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716644)

We have four big supermarkets in the country, people (mainly) shop at the one that suits their budget and their tastes. If there were 4 PL providers would people blindly pay all 4 companies or choose the one that suits their budget and tastes?

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716742)

Harry - no offence taken whatsoever. I always enjoy a good debate and it's good to hear differing opinions. However, I just wanted to clarify that my post wasn't a moan simply a viewpoint about competition only being good when you have comparable products.



Your post above supports the point I was trying to get across. If I want a jar of coffee (sorry about all the coffee analogies ;)) then I have a choice of whether to get this from a local shop, a supermarket, etc, but wherever I choose to get it from and whatever price or brand I choose to pay, I'll end up with a jar of coffee. So therefore competition works as you have choice.

In the current sports tv market, competition hasn't led to choice or price competition as if you take away the Premier League rights, they are different products. If I want Football League, Golf or WWE the only option is Sky Sports or nothing. From the 2015/16 season, if I want Champions League the only choice I have is BT Sports or nothing. So whilst it has been good to increase the amount of football on TV, it has not really led to choice or price wars like competition should.

However, I don't feel that I am in anyway forced to take either or both sports channels. To me pay tv is a luxury that whilst ever I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, I will have it. However, should my budget get squeezed then the sports channels would be the first to go followed by the basic tv package if necessary.

I will be very interested to see how BT Sport fair from next year as the vast majority of their subscribers will get it 'included' with either BT broadband or Virgin XL tv. I would imagine actual full fee paying subscribers will be quite a low number so if they start charging to recoup some of the massive fee they've paid for Champions League, subscribers numbers may drop and they could go the way of those before them. I know I wouldn't pay for BT Sport as a standalone if it wasn't included in my XL tv pack. I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue with the wholesale agreement with VM beyond the current contract as that way they have a guaranteed income each month as opposed to losing money by trying to go it alone as a standalone.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, especially when they do the next Premier League rights auction. However, ultimately due to the lack of choice/competition in this field, the only thing that is certain is that prices will continue to increase.

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35716742)

Harry - no offence taken whatsoever. I always enjoy a good debate and it's good to hear differing opinions. However, I just wanted to clarify that my post wasn't a moan simply a viewpoint about competition only being good when you have comparable products.



Your post above supports the point I was trying to get across. If I want a jar of coffee (sorry about all the coffee analogies ;)) then I have a choice of whether to get this from a local shop, a supermarket, etc, but wherever I choose to get it from and whatever price or brand I choose to pay, I'll end up with a jar of coffee. So therefore competition works as you have choice.

In the current sports tv market, competition hasn't led to choice or price competition as if you take away the Premier League rights, they are different products. If I want Football League, Golf or WWE the only option is Sky Sports or nothing. From the 2015/16 season, if I want Champions League the only choice I have is BT Sports or nothing. So whilst it has been good to increase the amount of football on TV, it has not really led to choice or price wars like competition should.

However, I don't feel that I am in anyway forced to take either or both sports channels. To me pay tv is a luxury that whilst ever I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, I will have it. However, should my budget get squeezed then the sports channels would be the first to go followed by the basic tv package if necessary.

I will be very interested to see how BT Sport fair from next year as the vast majority of their subscribers will get it 'included' with either BT broadband or Virgin XL tv. I would imagine actual full fee paying subscribers will be quite a low number so if they start charging to recoup some of the massive fee they've paid for Champions League, subscribers numbers may drop and they could go the way of those before them. I know I wouldn't pay for BT Sport as a standalone if it wasn't included in my XL tv pack. I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue with the wholesale agreement with VM beyond the current contract as that way they have a guaranteed income each month as opposed to losing money by trying to go it alone as a standalone.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, especially when they do the next Premier League rights auction. However, ultimately due to the lack of choice/competition in this field, the only thing that is certain is that prices will continue to increase.

Originally Posted by harry_hitch (Post 35716785)

That's very well written and its nice to see such a clear answer regarding the sports channels, rather than the usual rants.

The only reason prices are going up though, is because Sky will not lower their prices even though they lost the Champions League rights. It really has very little to do with BT getting CL rights.

If Tesco were to save £400 million by not buying one brand of coffee (that ASDA gained exclusive selling rights to) I can be pretty certain that the money saved would be pumped into making the price of the remaining coffee lower and giving better deals on many different products for customers. I doubt greatly they would pocket it and spend it elsewhere within Tesco and give very little back to their to their loyal customers.

If a third party takes a package of PL games from Sky in the next round of bidding, then it will be up to Sky to lower their prices. If they don't, then yes people will pay more.

Ultimately, the reason there is not a price war is because Sky won't, and do not need to, begin one. They will never start one as things stand, because people still chose to pay the prices they set - whether people pay the cost by making savings in their life elsewhere, or can afford to pay for it comfortably within their budgets it is up to them. Sky wont care where the money comes from, as long as it continues to roll in. It is fine for people to pay for SS, if they want to, but they must accept that prices will continue to increase if they do. Coming on here and stating the obvious gets us no where.

I agree that SS is the only place for a lot of sports (goodness only knows I miss a lot stuff I would like to watch) and I tried to allude to that in my last post, and I agree that is unfair for the general sporting fan. Sadly though the only way to start to lower prices is for people to vote with their wallets. It will never change otherwise.

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716833)

The channel numbers on Sky are changing on 12th August

Sky Sports News HQ - 401

Sky Sports 1 - 402

Sky Sports 2 - 403

Sky Sports 3 - 404

Sky Sports 4 - 405

Sky Sports 5 - 406

Sky Sports F1 - 407

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35716569)

But you are on the XL pack, so you get it 'free' with your subscription, Sam. That's what I meant. I appreciate that not everyone has XL. I remain of the view that BT's presence in this area will ultimately be a good thing for sports fans.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 35716902)

Gavin, is that the channel numbers for SD?

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716909)

All it says is

The new Sky Sports channel portfolio will realign to the following EPG numbers on 12 August 2014:

No word yet whether they'll be the HD or SD channels

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716909)

All it says is

The new Sky Sports channel portfolio will realign to the following EPG numbers on 12 August 2014:

No word yet whether they'll be the HD or SD channels

Originally Posted by speedski (Post 35716864)

More than surprised at the email I just got telling me that SS and SM is only going up by £2 month - expected a far higher rise than that to be fair...almost tempted to keep it now!

Originally Posted by Doug P (Post 35716906)

Bet they charge for Champions League Sam....

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35716918)

They will Doug.

Originally Posted by Doug P (Post 35716906)

Bet they charge for Champions League Sam....

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35716928)

Yes I agree because they (BT) will need to recoup the money they paid out to secure the champions league rights. How that will work out on Virgin I don`t know,close ESPN and re-open it as BT Sports 2,and charge a separate fee to virgin,leaving BT Sport 1 as part of the xl package?

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716931)

Just browsing through the TalkTalk YouView TV guide and it shows BT Sport 1, 2 + HD along with ESPN + HD however I thought TT didn't have the BT Sport channels?

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2014/07/13.png

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/tv-guide/listings

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35716934)

Don't BT own YouView?

Originally Posted by Media Boy (Post 35716934)

Don't BT own YouView?

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35716915)

The thing is though VM will be charging £29.75 for sky sports when the increase arrives where as Sky will be charging £24.50 I know VM need to make a profit ect but the time will come when people end up ditching the SS add-on

Will be interesting to see if TalkTalk up the price as they already charge £30 a month for all the channels

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35716825)

Sky launches ‘Sky Sports News HQ’ offering unrivalled multi-platform service

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post2597.html

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35717092)

Every time I read about Sky Sports News HQ I'm reminded of Media Boy HQ! :)

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35717515)

Would 23 Premiership games and European football rights be enough to keep BT Sports viable?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35717532)

As a tool to retain and gain broadband customers, yes. But as a means to charging for the service, probably not.
One side effect of the Sky Europe creation is that the new Sky will be a lot more endebted so initially may be unlikely to push the boat out so much on rights deals.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35717547)

BT Sports are in it for the long run Chad and they have extremely big pockets so money will be no object to them and that's why l think they will win more PL rights then before.

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35717556)

I am not convinced BT will continue giving it for free. This season yes, future...who knows

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 ----------



I suspect your views are influenced by you getting it for free, wishful thinking having the greatest %s effect. You need to remember Den, despite what you may hope, neither Virgin or BT are benevolent organisations :)

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35717560)

My views are unbiased unlike some others Colin :waving::Yes: so don't need to explain to me that we could be asked to pay more in a years time and l like many others will weigh my options up if it comes to that scenario Sir.:)

Originally Posted by Gavin-D (Post 35717580)

Next year will be very interesting for BT Sport as the bidding is expected to get underway for the premier league rights for the 2016 / 2017 to 2018 / 2019 seasons. Eurosport owner Discovery is rumored to be considering a bid as well

Originally Posted by cityfan247 (Post 35717582)

opening up the bidding process for sports , in particular football, and reducing Sky Sports' monopoly was supposed to benefit the viewers and fans but it has had exactly the opposite effect.

the more players in the market the more subscriptions there are to pay. Now we have Sky Sports , BT Sports and Premier Sports and if Eurosport paid £££ for some rights who's to say that wouldnt be subscription based as well. we are nearing the point when no-one will be able to afford to watch all the EPL and Champions League. The only winners are the tournament organisers, the clubs and in turn the players who's ridiculous wages continue to go up and up.

Originally Posted by cityfan247 (Post 35717582)

opening up the bidding process for sports , in particular football, and reducing Sky Sports' monopoly was supposed to benefit the viewers and fans but it has had exactly the opposite effect.

the more players in the market the more subscriptions there are to pay. Now we have Sky Sports , BT Sports and Premier Sports and if Eurosport paid £££ for some rights who's to say that wouldnt be subscription based as well. we are nearing the point when no-one will be able to afford to watch all the EPL and Champions League. The only winners are the tournament organisers, the clubs and in turn the players who's ridiculous wages continue to go up and up.

Originally Posted by pengedragon (Post 35717751)

nice big ad for the season ticket in my paper this morning

mrs pengedragon is proving a tough nut to crack but i will get this soon :D

Originally Posted by Superblade7 (Post 35717754)

It's a great saving pengedragon, I got mine last week. As den says, if you treat yourself to that, I'm sure your good lady could have a treat too! ;)

Originally Posted by Chad (Post 35717581)

It will be very interesting to see if a 3rd bidder enters the race for rights.

I think SKY are planning to bid big and are already preparing their war-chest. SKY will still have the money they planned to spend on Champions League rights plus I'm sure the recent carriage deals with Virgin Media and Talk Talk are also about raising revenue. Who knows maybe SKY will also use part of the funds raised from selling their stake in ITV.

The truth of the matter is who knows what will happen. I've seen a lot of speculation over the past 48 hours that moving forward SKY plan to bid for sports rights on a continental basis.

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35717757)

I used the virgin offer to discuss a compromise with sky, I will get a 20% discount on my whole sky package. There are positives everywhere

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35717761)

I did exactly the same , I got an excellent discount and now have Sky Sports in HD back.

Thanks VM and BT Sport :D

Originally Posted by cityfan247 (Post 35717765)

VM's sky sports season ticket is a good idea and a step in the right direction to try and cap the expense. But i wish it could be extended to include HD and maybe premier sports and box nation etc to be a truly comprehensive sports 'season ticket' for those who want it.

Retail it at say £200-£250 a year. That's still a fair wedge but offers a very attractive saving for punters. i think that would increase subscriptions enough to increase revenue.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35717788)

Wouldn`t be a good deal for me mate as I have no interest in the sports on offer from Premier Sports and Boxnation. I accept it would be for some of course.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35718200)

l suppose that makes him a expert then.:nono:

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 35718210)

He'll show up the current soo called experts that sit in on PL games.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35718200)

l suppose that makes him a expert then.:nono:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35718416)

BT Sport £13.50pm from October, up from £12pm. Presumably the relatively few VM customers who do not get it as part of a bundle will see the same rise.
http://assets.bt.com/v1/btmail/_2014...l7_online.html

Originally Posted by andy_m (Post 35718423)

When you consider that rise as a percentage of the whole it's staggering compared with the £2 rise for Sky Sports. Especially given that it'll be another year and presumably another price rise before we see any significant changes.

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35718424)

I suspect another increase once champions league kicks in next year anyway. If they get more epl rights, then prices will increase further

Originally Posted by muppetman11 (Post 35718446)

It will come as a shock to the usual suspects who believed BT were a benevolent organisation.:D

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35718450)

What! They weren't created to support virgin customers? I don't believe it

:D

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 35718453)

Most of us saw it coming and as it`s been pointed out there`ll be another rise next year,possibly larger with the champions league games being added by then.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35718691)

BT Sport adds German rights as Sky Sports battle continues.

http://www.goal.com/en-ng/news/4632/...ttle-continues

Originally Posted by colin25 (Post 35718424)

I suspect another increase once champions league kicks in next year anyway. If they get more epl rights, then prices will increase further