This one made me laugh though: Danny Baker@prodnose 54m54 minutes ago £5.14 billion bid for PL rights! Sepp Blatter reacted, "**** me, you could have bought the next three world cups off me for that."
David Burns @bbcburnsy 2m2 minutes ago Very good point made by @jameshoggarth on @RadioHumberside Sportstalk. What's the point of a Hull City name change under new TV deal? #hcafc
So wages and transfer fees will get even more ridiculous. Not that I begrudge the "stars' of the show earning a cut.
The stat on radio 5: The new TV deal would be enough to pay every football fan £50 every time they walked through a turnstile.
How the **** do sky and BT make enough money from broadcasting football to cover that monstrosity of an outlay? They must just be throwing their money at it now so as not to miss out, rather than actually make a profit. Nucking futs.
Do the figures and add in the advertising to the subscriptions, domestic and pubs etc, and overseas sales and it isn't hard to imagine why. And they can just up their prices whenever they want.
Last year's financial statements say revenue of £7.23bn. Football is costing them £1.7bn a year (although less because some of that cost is BT sport's. Apparently their "retail subscription" revenue is £6bn. What's that? 6 million people @ £1,000 each? Does it cost ~ £85pm and is 6m a realistic number? https://corporate.sky.com/documents/annual-report-2014/consolidated-financial-statements.pdf
I did take all that into account though not overseas as I understand overseas rights aren't included in the British tv rights. I just can't see how they can recoup all that amount, though go admittedly I have no idea how much advertising fees are. I'm guessing about £100k for a few second advert just before, after and at half time. Can't imagine the other advert breaks in the preview and bollocks talking after the game will cost anywhere near.
Don't forget that they also factor in the fact that people will be attracted to them by he football and purchase their other packages. I think it is fair to say Murdoch has more idea about making money than us on here. He has made billions by using cricket in Australia and then football here to underpin his broadcasting empire. Looking back anyone could have done it, a lot had the chance and dismissed it. He took the gamble and coined it in.
....and they still have to pick up broken glass/dog-****/used condoms/discarded needles/and other litter before kids can get a game.
With this massive influx of money, is there truely any need for Allam to pursue his name change of the club (providing we stay in the EPL.......which I think we will). Surley this would be more money than he could've wished to have gained by any name change (if it would've gained the club more in the forst place)
Let's face facts. If you watch PL football on Sky or BT your subs will be rising to cover the extra outlay. The bidding war between the two is the sole reason for this incredible increase. The PL is no more attractive now then it was 3-4 years ago so quite why the broadcasters think it's worth so is down to one reason only - fear. In Sky's case fear of losing the rights because PL football is THE showcase sporting event around which the business plan rotates. No PL football and they'd lose hundreds of thousands of subscribers. The market has decided the price but sometimes the market overprices a product which I think is the case with this. The more money that will be available will lead to more pressure for teams to stay in the PL, more pressure for Championship teams to be promoted, more managerial sackings, more media hype, etc. The PL will become a circus, if it isn't already.
I'm sure that's true and with so much coverage I think Sky will get away with it, but I think BT are playing a dangerous game. They increased the price this year due to adding rugby, which I've absolutely no interest in, if they put the price up again to cover this, I'll cancel my subscription, I simply don't watch enough games on BT to warrant paying more for it.
