General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Chad

The thing is none of SKY's current customers would probably care one bit if the channels are withdrawn, by hook or by crook, from BT and Virgin. SKY wouldn't care too much either as it would give them the chance to add a significant numbers of new subscribers at record sign up rates.

I seriously think we are about to see a bit of history repeating. In February 2007 Virgin Media launched which some suggested would shake the British pay TV market and become serious competition to SKY. Within weeks all SKY basic channels were withdrawn from the Virgin platform. This is viewed by many as SKY trying to stick the boot into Virgin right at their birth.

Within the next few months it looks like Liberty Global will enter the UK pay TV market by taking over Virgin whilst BT are set to launch a brand new TV service including BT Sports. I can see SKY repeating their "put the boot in at birth" exercise to both BT and Liberty Global but this time with SKY Sports. Just like in 2007 with Virgin, the mudslinging between BT and SKY has started in the press already.

All the above is possible.

One thing I noticed when the Liberty takeover was announced, was that the head of Liberty specifically said that they had no intention of going into the Premium content acquisition market.

I think that may have been a message to Sky, that Liberty are leaving Sky's prime money making business alone, but the unsaid, but implied reciprocal requirement from Sky was that they would not try to withhold premium content from VM or that could change. I could be wrong and may have read into that something that wasn't there.

[denphone]

And Ofcom just sit idly by as toothless as ever it seems while Sky tramp over everybody else like a 2000 ton gorilla..

[Chad]

Originally Posted by passingbat

All the above is possible.

One thing I noticed when the Liberty takeover was announced, was that the head of Liberty specifically said that they had no intention of going into the Premium content acquisition market.

I think that may have been a message to Sky, that Liberty are leaving Sky's prime money making business alone, but the unsaid, but implied reciprocal requirement from Sky was that they would not try to withhold premium content from VM or that could change. I could be wrong and may have read into that something that wasn't there.

I think over the years SKY and Virgin have been the best of enemies. When I was a Virgin customer it was great when SKY Sports in HD became an option, it was great when the red button launched and it was great when SKY Movies and SKY Sports on demand launched. I think SKY and Virgin will still be able to come to an amicable arrangement.

BT and SKY on the other hand is a different animal all together. SKY see BT as a direct threat to their business, especially their sports customers. I would not be surprised at all if SKY try to price BT out of a wholesale carriage deal. Saying that thought if SKY set a high price for the channels to BT, they will probably have to set the same price for Virgin, Talk Talk etc...

I feel sorry for the consumer here. It will be the consumer that suffers. My Dad is 64 years old and loves watching the football. I got him over to Virgin from SKY about 5 years ago so he could enjoy Setanta Sports in the XL package. I told my Dad recently that he would lose ESPN soon and he might have to pay extra for BT Sports. If SKY jack the price of SKY Sports up in the summer, and Virgin do agree a new deal, Virgin will have to pass the price onto their customers. Come August my Dad could be paying anywhere between £12 to £18 more than he currently does to essentially watch the same thing.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chad

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...s-pricing.html

"The ruling potentially means that Sky no longer has to provide Sky Sports 1 and 2 to platforms such as BT Vision and Top Up TV through an Ofcom-regulated price. The satellite broadcaster could also look to recoup its lost revenue from the price cut over the last two years."

"Sky could look to hike up its wholesale prices and make it no longer viable for BT to continue offering Sky Sports 1 and 2 to its customers."

"Sky can, however, refuse to supply if they are unhappy with the offer the platforms propose."

Both BT's and Virgins carriage deals with SKY for SKY Sports expire in the summer. SKY are reportedly hanging back from negotiating with Virgin until they see what deal is agreed between Virgin and BT for BT Sports. If SKY don't like what they see they will make it very difficult for BT and Virgin when negotiating a new carriadge deal for SKY Sports. Sounds very familiar to what has reportedly happened with SKY Atlantic so it looks like SKY will know exactly what they are doing.

There is a real possibility that SKY will be the only place to watch all SKY Sports and BT Sports channels. BT have already confirmed their channels will definitely be on the SKY platform in the summer, just not on a wholesale basis via SKY. So what is the risk for SKY by not having SKY Sports on Virgin and BT? Well at first a drop of viewing figures, a drop in revenue from advertisers and other TV platforms plus a hit in reputation. I suspect however SKY would quickly make up the shortfall. If SKY is the only place where you can get SKY Sports I'd imagine a significant jump in subscribers moving to SKY from other providers. Get these customers on TV, broadband and phone deals and within no time SKY are no longer making a loss.

What makes you think that when only a handful of VM customers and BT customers take sky sports anyway?

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Chad

SKY and BT agreed the deal for SKY Sports 1 & 2 on the 28th June 2010. For what I can gather, it was a 3 year carriage deal.

No, the whoesale forced price is coming to an end. Sky are still required to supply Sky sports. If they massively inflated the price Ofcom would just regulate it again.

Originally Posted by Chad

The thing is none of SKY's current customers would probably care one bit if the channels are withdrawn, by hook or by crook, from BT and Virgin. SKY wouldn't care too much either as it would give them the chance to add a significant numbers of new subscribers at record sign up rates.

I seriously think we are about to see a bit of history repeating. In February 2007 Virgin Media launched which some suggested would shake the British pay TV market and become serious competition to SKY. Within weeks all SKY basic channels were withdrawn from the Virgin platform. This is viewed by many as SKY trying to stick the boot into Virgin right at their birth.

Within the next few months it looks like Liberty Global will enter the UK pay TV market by taking over Virgin whilst BT are set to launch a brand new TV service including BT Sports. I can see SKY repeating their "put the boot in at birth" exercise to both BT and Liberty Global but this time with SKY Sports. Just like in 2007 with Virgin, the mudslinging between BT and SKY has started in the press already.

Where's the basis for these record rates you speak of? Not many bt or Virgin customers take sky sports. The people that are bothered are already with Sky and their tv uptake is stagnating.

Virgin was never going to be a true competitor to Sky tv, not with it's massive debts, Virgin Media rebrand was just a dodgy paint job.

Originally Posted by passingbat

All the above is possible.

One thing I noticed when the Liberty takeover was announced, was that the head of Liberty specifically said that they had no intention of going into the Premium content acquisition market.

I think that may have been a message to Sky, that Liberty are leaving Sky's prime money making business alone, but the unsaid, but implied reciprocal requirement from Sky was that they would not try to withhold premium content from VM or that could change. I could be wrong and may have read into that something that wasn't there.

They couldn't afford to if they wanted to. Both Liberty and Virgin are saddled with enormous debts. That's the reason they aren't going for premium rate content.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

What makes you think that when only a handful of VM customers and BT customers take sky sports anyway?

You're not offering up any subscription figures for BT or Virgin so it's difficult for me to understand how big a handful really is. I know at the end of the last quarter Virgin reported 831,000 customers subscribe to SKY Premium channels. This of course includes both SKY Sports and SKY Movies. I think a safe bet would be to say anywhere between 400,000 to 500,000 people subscribe to SKY Sports via Virgin, based on the figures published, which is around 12% of all Virgin customers. If BT has a similar take up percentage wise then Virgin and BT could have around 550,000 SKY Sports subscribers in total. If SKY becomes the only place to watch all SKY Sports and BT Sports channels, that's 550,000 potentially unhappy sports fans on rival platforms that SKY can target. Even if 20% only moved to SKY that would be significant.

Originally Posted by tvtimes

No, the whoesale forced price is coming to an end. Sky are still required to supply Sky sports. If they massively inflated the price Ofcom would just regulate it again.

This article suggests SKY could hike prices to to make it no longer viable for BT to carry the channels. Competition lawyer Daniel Geey makes some interesting points in the article also including: ""Sky can, however, refuse to supply if they are unhappy with the offer the platforms propose."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...s-pricing.html

Originally Posted by tvtimes

Where's the basis for these record rates you speak of? Not many bt or Virgin customers take sky sports. The people that are bothered are already with Sky and their tv uptake is stagnating.

In Quarter 2 of 2010/2011 SKY had 10,150,000 TV customers. In Quarter 2 of 2012/2013 SKY had 10,742,000 customers. That's 592,000 customers over 9 Quarters of business meaning on average 65,777 additions each quarter. If SKY is the only place to watch all SKY Sports and BT Sports channels come the summer, with some customers on Virgins XL and VIP package already unhappy about the removal of ESPN, it's a very real possibility that SKy could welcome a volume of new customers that quarter at a rate never seen before.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by Chad

You're not offering up any subscription figures for BT or Virgin so it's difficult for me to understand how big a handful really is. I know at the end of the last quarter Virgin reported 831,000 customers subscribe to SKY Premium channels. This of course includes both SKY Sports and SKY Movies. I think a safe bet would be to say anywhere between 400,000 to 500,000 people subscribe to SKY Sports via Virgin, based on the figures published, which is around 12% of all Virgin customers. If BT has a similar take up percentage wise then Virgin and BT could have around 550,000 SKY Sports subscribers in total. If SKY becomes the only place to watch all SKY Sports and BT Sports channels, that's 550,000 potentially unhappy sports fans on rival platforms that SKY can target. Even if 20% only moved to SKY that would be significant.



This article suggests SKY could hike prices to to make it no longer viable for BT to carry the channels. Competition lawyer Daniel Geey makes some interesting points in the article also including: ""Sky can, however, refuse to supply if they are unhappy with the offer the platforms propose."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...s-pricing.html

Virgin only have £3m tv customers on average and only 20% of these take sky sports so if they move to Sky it wouldn't be the massive uptake never seen before that you're saying. A lot of customers can't or don't want Sky.
BT only have £770,000 customers on BT vision full stop the majority don't take Sky sports.

Sky can't just hike the prices up to price BT out of the market, if they are found to be acting against competition laws then they will just be regulated yet again, maybe more so than last time.

In Quarter 2 of 2010/2011 SKY had 10,150,000 TV customers. In Quarter 2 of 2012/2013 SKY had 10,742,000 customers. That's 592,000 customers over 9 Quarters of business meaning on average 65,777 additions each quarter. If SKY is the only place to watch all SKY Sports and BT Sports channels come the summer, with some customers on Virgins XL and VIP package already unhappy about the removal of ESPN, it's a very real possibility that SKy could welcome a volume of new customers that quarter at a rate never seen before.

As I said only a small percentage of Virgin customers take sports, anyone who is really bothered about sky sports has Sky.

[johnasimmons]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

As I said only a small percentage of Virgin customers take sports, anyone who is really bothered about sky sports has Sky.

That is not correct - as I live in a block of flats and not allowed to install a dish I have cable and subscribe to all the sports channels

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

As I said only a small percentage of Virgin customers take sports, anyone who is really bothered about sky sports has Sky.

This is the issue - 12% is not a small percentage.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by tvtimes

As I said only a small percentage of Virgin customers take sports, anyone who is really bothered about sky sports has Sky.

When Virgin launched in February 2007 they had 3.4 million TV customers. Now 6 years later Virgin have 3.8 million TV customers, a growth of 400,000 customers. If around 400,000 to 500,000 Virgin customers do have SKY Sports clearly they are in the minority. If Virgin drops ESPN out of the XL package, and doesn’t replace it with BT Sports, sports fans with XL or VIP will be either disappointed or unhappy. If Virgin then aren’t able to agree a new carriage deal for SKY Sports 3 & 4 and SKY Sports 1 & 2 in HD, it’s not unthinkable that sports fans will be livid. The potential for 400,000 to 500,000 angry customers leaving to go to another provider would have a massive impact on Virgins business. It could wipe-out 6 years worth of growth.

[Gavin-D]

It's Beckham v Bale! Sky hit back at BT and sign former England captain as an ambassador

Sky has struck back following BT Sport's hiring of Gareth Bale as a guest pundit by unveiling David Beckham as a new ambassador.

The Paris Saint-Germain midfielder has signed a long-term contract with the broadcaster to promote their work supporting grassroots sport across the country.

Beckham, 37, will also appear in adverts about Sky's forthcoming live sporting events.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2QoPS8qsU

[coulsontom]

Originally Posted by johnasimmons

That is not correct - as I live in a block of flats and not allowed to install a dish I have cable and subscribe to all the sports channels

Correct. This isn't true. We used to be with Sky but went to Virgin (with sports) because Sky wanted £250 for a new box.

Now thinking of going back to Sky though due to current situation and likely higher cost with virgin

[Henkesghost]

Originally Posted by coulsontom

Correct. This isn't true. We used to be with Sky but went to Virgin (with sports) because Sky wanted £250 for a new box.

Now thinking of going back to Sky though due to current situation and likely higher cost with virgin

Same for me, thats why I'd left Sky. ESPN free kept Virgin lower than Sky without any Sky initial offers but as ESPN is going to cease broadcasting looks like Sky may now be better value with a better TV service. Will keep my phone and b/band with Virgin though.

[tvtimes]

Originally Posted by johnasimmons

That is not correct - as I live in a block of flats and not allowed to install a dish I have cable and subscribe to all the sports channels

As I said in a previous post some Virgin customers are unable to get Sky.
Subscribers like you wouldn't factor in anyway, because you can't move even if you wanted to.

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Chad

When Virgin launched in February 2007 they had 3.4 million TV customers. Now 6 years later Virgin have 3.8 million TV customers, a growth of 400,000 customers. If around 400,000 to 500,000 Virgin customers do have SKY Sports clearly they are in the minority. If Virgin drops ESPN out of the XL package, and doesn’t replace it with BT Sports, sports fans with XL or VIP will be either disappointed or unhappy. If Virgin then aren’t able to agree a new carriage deal for SKY Sports 3 & 4 and SKY Sports 1 & 2 in HD, it’s not unthinkable that sports fans will be livid. The potential for 400,000 to 500,000 angry customers leaving to go to another provider would have a massive impact on Virgins business. It could wipe-out 6 years worth of growth.

I'm not disputing that, but there's no way they're all going to leave in their droves like you're suggesting. Virgin will do their very best to retain those customers, just like it did when Sky one left Virgin.

[coulsontom]

Originally Posted by Henkesghost

Same for me, thats why I'd left Sky. ESPN free kept Virgin lower than Sky without any Sky initial offers but as ESPN is going to cease broadcasting looks like Sky may now be better value with a better TV service. Will keep my phone and b/band with Virgin though.

Agree. ESPN was a bonus and we didn't bother with it as it was only ever a couple of City games, and the others were no good or on that rubbish Saturday evening slot which wasn't of interest.

BT is different as they have 19 sunday first picks, so would be interested. As in truth, they're is very rarely more than 1 game per week of real quality (if at all). So really Sky Sports is not as good value, considering I never bother watching QPR v Norwich for eg.

[andy_m]

Isn't it the Saturday lunch time kick offs they've got?