lol, the point was moot mate, not the technology As for Sky, their coverage has always been superb in fairness & now subscribers can access the channel via all of the currently available media. However, what you must remember is WHY Sky are paying £750m per season for the EPL. When they started it was the carrot to attract subscribers, but now their programming has improved dramatically & people pay for the Sky platform & don't have Sports. Will they still need the EPL to maintain a stable customer base when the next contract expires???? They have a total of 10m subscribers, I've no idea how many of those take the Sports package, but even if they all did @ £22 per month (which they don't) it still wouldn't cover 1/3 of what they're paying the EPL...... So the EPL better hope that a new company appears shortly that needs the EPL to build their new media business....
Sky & BT pay £6.5m per game for the rights. They'd need an audience of 13m per match to break even (their current record is 4m) & they'd not have subscribers, merely casual users, so their business model wouldn't work.
Don't forget sky get around £400m per year of the £760m back from selling to pubs, clubs and other outlets and from ads and sponsorship related to their coverage. Given that it's estimated they have 7million customers with sports package paying on average £500 year, in very broad terms – sky will be paying around £360m a year for the rights, in effect, to get £3.5bn a year in income.
and this is one means by which they are getting those not willing to pay the 22 per month. watchign it in pub for me is horrible as i like hearing it and not being distracted seeing it.
so now youare getting down to the numbers which is great. so..... now that JB has highlighted how sky recoup the money from pubs etc your numbers might need rework i don't know. however i know i'm paying £1 now for my matches and getting the other sky sports 1 content too.... so they'll give it you. i just feel picking and choosing is the future. Yes sky have done a good packaging and yes they have evolved and yes they've pushed other broadcasters... i.e away from one camera and sheepskin coats. however i think new challenges are going to push sky and will blow them away if they are not careful.
Pubs, clubs and hotels pay about £850 - £1000 month for sky, from what I've read. So they certainly recoup many times over what they are paying out for tv rights to the epl.
i dunno i really just would rather a pay as you go approach that doesn't rip me off. like phone, want this match? pay for it. hell, even use the technology to let you see 5mins then pop up a do you want to keep watching thing and you press select and on your bill it goes. charge me just enough to get me interested.... put the prematch on for free and nudge me to buy the fully sky sports. and its the same for BT. BT are going to kill sky cos hey are actually more internet based and i am SURE would love to kill sky and own the lot.... bt are i guess the mobile platform type or should be. in any event.... back to individual tv rights, i would far rather pay my moeny to LFC directly than to anyone. so F everton and the rest. they can afford to spend on mccarthy so they must be rich right?
I wonder how it will affect gate receipts, the more and better live tv coverage gets. Those who have thought about giving up on matchday hassle may only need a little shove to pack in the traveling and become armchair fans instead. I'm with you on a pay per view as well, as long as it is reasonable price not this £9.99 nonsense. I'm probably more of a Liverpool fan now than a fully fledged football fan so it's our games that interest me more [world cup, euros too]. And then there's the purists who say Liverpool fans shouldn't have anything to do with sky/Murdoch!!
The mere fact that you cannot even see that technology is continually making the restrictive media practices built around copyright diminishes your total argument and really makes you sound like a dinosaur. Since the major record labels 'allowed' the taping of their output the foundations of their 'rights' have been continually eroded. If you look back at what I have written even you should be able to discern that I have talked about technology. The argument regarding the use to which that technology is put is an evolving matter. I would put back to you the capitalistic argument that copryright, as it is interpreted and used by organisations like Sky, is in itself a restraint of trade. If your having trouble getting your head around that concept then think about the points that MITO has been making. BTW, you do not have a clue as to how many times per season I actually attend at Anfield - so don't go saying that you do. BUT I will repeat I certainly wouldn't drive 5 miles to see Everton play UNLESS they were playing Liverpool.
Pubs & clubs @ £10k per annum, per head x 30,000 (no.of UK subscribers) equates to £300m,so you need to check your maths, as they're paying £750m per annum to the EPL EDIT: your research is wrong anyway, as the average for a pub across the UK is £400 a month & thus £4800 p.a. so therefore less than half of your estimate
Even as a Hull City fan I have to ask who the **** is going to be tuning in to watch our match with Stoke. It's about as attractive a proposition for the neutral football fan as a night at a Premier Inn with John Wayne Gacy.
Dinosaur? lol, my irony meter has just exploded The copyright issue isn't in question ffs. The streaming of EPL football is ILLEGAL, the law is being transgressed, therefore the broadcaster's issue IS NOT the legal framework, as that is fully behind them. There is nothing to suggest that there's any form of restriction of trade that would give any feasible excuse to those currently breaking the law by streaming their product. You need to get "your head around" the simple fact that you & the people responsible for the feeds, are breaking the law, pain & ****ing simple. Their issue is enforcing the law, which due to the technology & the relative simplicity of setting up a stream, means that as soon as they put out one fire another one starts.
It's a bit like with films and music, they've made a rod for their own back by being greedy. If it hadn't have become so expensive then people wouldn't have looked for "alternatives". Now the alternatives are available and well used, there is no going back as it is near on impossible to stop without going all big brother like.
As I've said earlier in the thread, I think it's a bit rich accusing the owners of the material of being directly responsible for those breaking the law. It's merely an excuse imo, people would still watch streams for free, even if the cost of subscription was much cheaper. It's human nature I suppose. I'd love to be the man who came up with some form of encryption that cracked the issue though, I'm sure that idea is worth a few quid.
I don't need to check my maths at all. As I said it's broadly speaking and not exact but Sky get approx. £400m from pubs, clubs, gyms, hotels plus sponsorship deal with Fords and advertising during the game - which roughly speaking is about £400m. Add to that customer subscriptions of £3,500,000,000 - take out £760m to epl - not a hard sum to work out!
Sky: Dec 7, 17:30: Sunderland v Tottenham Dec 8, 13:30: Fulham v Aston Villa Dec 8, 16:00: Arsenal v Everton Dec 9, 20:00: Swansea v Hull Dec 14, 17:30: Hull v Stoke Dec 15, 13:30: Aston Villa v Man Utd Dec 15, 16:00: Tottenham v Liverpool Dec 22, 13:30: Southampton v Tottenham Dec 22, 16:00: Swansea v Everton Dec 23, 20:00: Arsenal v Chelsea Dec 26, 12:45: Hull v Man Utd Dec 28, 12:45: West Ham v West Brom Dec 28, 17:30: Cardiff v Sunderland Dec 29, 13:30: Newcastle v Arsenal Dec 29, 16:00: Chelsea v Liverpool Jan 1, 12:45: Swansea v Man City BT: Dec 3, 20:00: Crystal Palace v West Ham Dec 4, 19:45: Swansea v Newcastle Dec 7, 12:45: Man Utd v Newcastle Dec 14, 12:45: Man City v Arsenal Dec 21, 12:45: Liverpool v Cardiff Dec 26, 15:00: West Ham v Arsenal Dec 26, 17:30: Man City v Liverpool Jan 1, 15:00: Southampton v Chelsea Jan 1, 17:30: Man Utd v Tottenham Where we are in the league table by January 2014 would give us some clue where we are going to finish at the end of the season.
