I don't disagree michael. However, the entire business model centres on epl. The next contact may not be as lucrative but so is going to compete with them? The only way it folds is if the epl start their own strsaming service. Even then will they make the kind of cash sky are giving them? I binned foxtel (aussie sky) last year. If it was not for the fact the internet is utter ****ing **** for streaming here I would not c onsider going back. I am bending though and expect myself to cave in any day. I will then have to give some other ****s cash as well just to watch celtic.
Celtic TV do a HD stream now for 20 quid a month - should work fine from Oz? and the money goes directly to Celtic, which is always a bonus.
Heard or read 6 months ago or so Sky had a new guy in charge who couldn't believe Sky were spending so much on Sports, football in particular and felt there was more cash to be earned in actually making tv shows and selling that product around the world than the cash received from subscription to sky sports. This deal is to keep the current customers after losing champions league while they work on a new platform which as Mick says takes away the outlay on set top boxes, engineers etc. As for rivals to Sky....BT have played a blinder really, took CL football and increased EPL games and bought ee. They have 3 years to restructure both businesses thus reducing outlay and increasing profits to get more games in 3 years time.
And whats mad about this deal is that this is just for live games!! Don't think this figure includes EPL selling highlights to BBC and all the foreign tv channels!
Domestic rights for next bidding will likely change, you can all but guarantee that both BT and Sky are having meetings as we speak to work together to force the EPL into making these domestic rights Pan European, instead of UK only. Sky will lose subscribers for reasons listed ebove (Netflix etc) so they and BT need a bigger customer base, the only stumbling block though would be BeIN Sport who are owned by Al Jazeera, in turn owned by oil rich billionaire Arabs who would have their own agenda.
Money doesn't make a good football team, big wages don't make someone a better player. The main outcome is a fans/journalists who equate money with quality and **** players like Glen Johnson on £110k a week.
Sounds true enough in theory, but in practice our best players like Wanyama and Forster piss off to provincial clubs like Southampton.
Who would that benefit though? The rights to show EPL games across Europe varies country to country in line with the demand. Would people in Germany, Spain, Italy and France pay €10/20 a month extra to watch EPL football??
They may not have to because BT are rich enough to buy out several of the biggest media companies in Europe. If you don't mind me backtracking, BT didn't lose to Sky in the latest bidding, they came out the big winners from a business perspective but you might have already heard about it in the UK media and investor confidence etc. Less well known is that in the space of just s single year BT has shown not just Sky but also continental Europe's media giants it's future intentions by spending the £1Billion for EPL, £700M for FA Cup, £800M for Champions League, £12Billion for EE and a further £7Billion for Fibre rollout. This is more a warning shot to French firm Vivendi than anyone else, Vivendi is Europes biggest media company but BT is Europes biggest telecommunications company. And BT's message is seen by the stock exchange and as telling everyone else in the EU to get out of the way because the big two are about to go to war over Fibre rollout in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The point that BT is making is that it can spend the same amount as what Vivendi is actually worth as a company, and that it has to to secure EU contracts it will bid high enough to cripple a company and weaken it... aka BSkyB overpaying for EPL. BT won't let it impact their customers, they don't need to charge for a measly £1Billion outlay. But answering your question Sky customers will lose out. They will see a small price hike, BT are very clever and powerful. Even News Corp themselves is ****ting it right now, not even AT&T themselves came into the UK fibre bidding because of BT's presence. They frighten everyone and can undercut the competition and force them into vastly overbidding if necessary where necessary and when nexessary.
We sold them for £22m and replaced them with Johansen, Bitton & Gordon for about £4m in the space of 12 months. There are always good players who need polishing available for a reasonable fee. It's the job of the club to identify these targets and convince them that Celtic is the best place to develop.
Which it seems to be. If our whole strategy is to entice players to stay with us for a couple of seasons in the hope they get a chance to make some really stupid money in England then I suppose we have to get used to it, sure it has its drawbacks but I don't see what else a club in our situation can do. Look at Ajax for example, how many players do they unearth that they then go on to sell? They must have a revolving door at their training ground as it seems they never stop producing good players, not all of whom are Dutch it has to be said.
Sky's NowTV do a 24hr pass for a selection of channels,sports too,pretty much PPV but better. Does that signal the death of subscription?
