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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

If that's the case then l expect the auction to bring in up to 40% to 50% extra in rights fees for the Premier League and that in turn means monthly sports subscription fees will rise and keep on rising.

I can't see the business case for beIN Sports entering the UK market as they will be squeezed between two large players who have the benefits of pay-TV/broadband to subsidise them. I appreciate beIN is backed by the Qatar government and it has a presence in France but it does own PSG there. If they do, I suspect it will be in co-operation with BT. There have been forum rumours that beIN would buy Setanta or Premier Sports but I'm sure everyone talks to everyone else and not necessarily about merging.
Prices for Sky Sports traditionally go up yearly by a small amount unrelated to Sky's sporting rights costs so I expect this to continue unless it loses significant rights. The last auction saw Sky's Premier League bill go up by 71%. It was unable to pass the costs of this rise onto its subscribers and if rights went up again by this amount I would only expect the small regular rise again.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I can't see the business case for beIN Sports entering the UK market as they will be squeezed between two large players who have the benefits of pay-TV/broadband to subsidise them. I appreciate beIN is backed by the Qatar government and it has a presence in France but it does own PSG there. If they do, I suspect it will be in co-operation with BT. There have been forum rumours that beIN would buy Setanta or Premier Sports but I'm sure everyone talks to everyone else and not necessarily about merging.
Prices for Sky Sports traditionally go up yearly by a small amount unrelated to Sky's sporting rights costs so I expect this to continue unless it loses significant rights. The last auction saw Sky's Premier League bill go up by 71%. It was unable to pass the costs of this rise onto its subscribers and if rights went up again by this amount I would only expect the small regular rise again.

It might not have passed it on that much on its own platform but that certainly won't be the case when it comes to Virgins platform and its sports subscribers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

It might not have passed it on that much on its own platform but that certainly won't be the case when it comes to Virgins platform and its sports subscribers.

It's not gone up by 71% on Virgin Media, I think it tends to go up by about 5%-10% a year. There's a few reasons why it can't pass the costs onto Virgin Media customers as you suggest it does:
1. Regulatory - the prices for the main channels are regulated by an Ofcom formula.
2. Sky's revenue from VM = number of subscribers x price. If it pushes up the price too much then the number of subscribers drops reducing its revenue.
3. If Sky was able to charge considerably more for Sky Sports whilst keeping the same number of subscribers, it would have done so already. Its owners, mainly pension funds (and Fox) would want it to maximise its profits so they can maximise theirs.
4. Pricing. Sky's pricing is pretty sophisticated, it undertakes extensive research so that it knows the most it can charge without losing significant numbers of subscribers. It's not, for example, a decorating business that looks at its costs then adds on 10%. Sky Sports' costs are pretty much fixed whether it broadcasts to one million or ten million people. It therefore needs to find the right point that gets the most revenue from a combination of price and subscriber numbers.

[denphone]

l did not say it had gone up by 71% on Virgin Media Andrew as l think you misunderstood me but if it goes up by 10% each year you are still talking about a near on £4 rise a month for sports and movies and when you add the regular broadband and phone rental yearly rises into it as well then that's a considerable rise in people monthly bills.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not gone up by 71% on Virgin Media, I think it tends to go up by about 5%-10% a year. There's a few reasons why it can't pass the costs onto Virgin Media customers as you suggest it does:
1. Regulatory - the prices for the main channels are regulated by an Ofcom formula.
2. Sky's revenue from VM = number of subscribers x price. If it pushes up the price too much then the number of subscribers drops reducing its revenue.
3. If Sky was able to charge considerably more for Sky Sports whilst keeping the same number of subscribers, it would have done so already. Its owners, mainly pension funds (and Fox) would want it to maximise its profits so they can maximise theirs.
4. Pricing. Sky's pricing is pretty sophisticated, it undertakes extensive research so that it knows the most it can charge without losing significant numbers of subscribers. It's not, for example, a decorating business that looks at its costs then adds on 10%. Sky Sports' costs are pretty much fixed whether it broadcasts to one million or ten million people. It therefore needs to find the right point that gets the most revenue from a combination of price and subscriber numbers.

It certainly does , blame me for the charges

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

l did not say it had gone up by 71% on Virgin Media Andrew as l think you misunderstood me but if it goes up by 10% each year you are still talking about a near on £4 rise a month for sports and movies and when you add the regular broadband and phone rental yearly rises into it as well then that's a considerable rise in people monthly bills.

Totally agree they all add up.
What I want to pedantically highlight is that Sky is very sophisticated in its subscription pricing. Its subscription pricing for Sky Sports is not related to the costs of its sports rights as these costs don't vary per subscriber, they're fixed costs. It charges to get the most revenue it can which is a combination of price per subscriber x number of subscribers.
If its costs rose by 100% next year it would still charge the same amount, because if it increased the price per subscriber by 100% it would get far fewer subscribers so its revenue would be a lot less.
However, it is able to sneak in small price rises each year as it knows people accept a small annual rise, as their research shows this.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

It certainly does , blame me for the charges

[andy_m]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I can't see the business case for beIN Sports entering the UK market as they will be squeezed between two large players who have the benefits of pay-TV/broadband to subsidise them. I appreciate beIN is backed by the Qatar government and it has a presence in France but it does own PSG there. If they do, I suspect it will be in co-operation with BT. There have been forum rumours that beIN would buy Setanta or Premier Sports but I'm sure everyone talks to everyone else and not necessarily about merging.
Prices for Sky Sports traditionally go up yearly by a small amount unrelated to Sky's sporting rights costs so I expect this to continue unless it loses significant rights. The last auction saw Sky's Premier League bill go up by 71%. It was unable to pass the costs of this rise onto its subscribers and if rights went up again by this amount I would only expect the small regular rise again.

I would suggest that the business case is less about short term profit over the course of one rights cycle and more about gaining influence over the Premier League. The most significant opposition to a winter World Cup is from the Premier League (Qatar don't want one either but it might be the only way they keep hold of it), Qatar also want to stage an off season tournament consisting of Premier League teams and there has been talk about the possibility of a regular season match being played abroad, the so called "game39", which refuses to go away despite mass opposition.

On top of that, of course, is the fact that bein is a global network of channels, so might stand to gain from efficiencies by expanding. It's very possible that they are already in a position to produce Premier League matches for less than either Sky or BT.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by andy_m

I would suggest that the business case is less about short term profit over the course of one rights cycle and more about gaining influence over the Premier League. The most significant opposition to a winter World Cup is from the Premier League (Qatar don't want one either but it might be the only way they keep hold of it), Qatar also want to stage an off season tournament consisting of Premier League teams and there has been talk about the possibility of a regular season match being played abroad, the so called "game39", which refuses to go away despite mass opposition.

On top of that, of course, is the fact that bein is a global network of channels, so might stand to gain from efficiencies by expanding. It's very possible that they are already in a position to produce Premier League matches for less than either Sky or BT.

Interesting points, thanks for posting.

[muppetman11]

http://www1.skysports.com/golf/news/...xtend-coverage

Sky Sports will continue to show live coverage of the Masters from Augusta National thanks to a new multi-year agreement announced today.

The deal means that from 2015, Sky Sports will continue to be the only place in the UK to watch all four days of golf's first Major of the year.

[denphone]

Lets hope that it went out to a transparent tendering process.

[Media Boy UK]

BBC: European Rugby Cup: Heineken Cup replacement gets go-ahead.

The new European Rugby Champions Cup to replace the Heineken Cup has been given the go-ahead to start next season.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26981154

Who got what?

Full information at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...xt-season.html

[denphone]

Good news but don't expect the two bitter rivals to be holding hands as one suspects there will be no ceasefire when it comes to other sports rights which will be coming up soon.

[denphone]

Rupert Murdoch believed to be involved in leading bid for Channel 5.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-bid-channel-5

[Chad]

Some boxing added to the Premier Sports line-up. Tonight at 9pm, live from South Africa, they are showing Manchesters Martin Murray taking on Ishmael Tetteh.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chad

Some boxing added to the Premier Sports line-up. Tonight at 9pm, live from South Africa, they are showing Manchesters Martin Murray taking on Ishmael Tetteh.

Not for us l am afraid.