SKY AND BT SPORTS NEXT SEASON.

I agree with this totally, I used to pay for my Sky Sports for something like 8 years straight the price went up, long before the streams became widely available. The price went from €60 to €90 in a short couple fo years and I said **** this and canned it. Then you had the other thing you could buy, if you wanted those extra games, forget what it was called. Some people were paying well in excess of 100 quid a month for their paltry few games a week if you bunged in the normal TV deal as well. Rip off

What dictates the cost in part, a large part is the massive bids they make for getting sporting events, if PL TV money goes up every year so does subscriptions.
All these sporting broadcasters bid and they do not know the bid of the other rival broadcaster so the bids you can imagine have to be big.

The bottom line is this.
People stream because of the high costs, not the other way round, as in costs being high because people stream.

If Sky hadn't been taking the piss I would still be a customer. They took the piss beacuse they were making epic bids to get broadcasting rights. **** em, never paying for it again.

 

Skys last figures saw them make over £500m in the last 6 months of 2014, sizeable yes, but not £17BN mate.

My point was merely that if it continues on the same path then sooner or later something will have to give. Either the TV rights deal will reduce leaving some clubs high and dry, or more people will have to pay for the service that Sky are providing.

 

Can't argue with that.
Certainly if the trend continues and Sky start making less money, they will begin to look at the reasons why this is happening.
But what they will fail to realise is that they are making less money because they are pricing people out of the market, and they are pricing people out of the market because the cost of football rights keeps sky rocketing. That is the main cause. And, as I said at the start, its all going to the clubs, so they can afford to pay their players extra cash on top of their already extortionately high wages.

 

Simple question.

If all of the streams were removed tomorrow and the only place to watch PL football was via a valid subscription, would you conisder paying for it again? Or would you sack off PL football completely?

Honestly.........

 

I would concede that a lot would probably pay, or visit their pub more often.
But what does that prove?
Sky would then have to weigh up the amount of money it would cost to go after these streaming sites with whatever projected extra income they could generate as a result from it being shut down, and let me tell you....there are a **** ton of streaming sites.
The red tape alone, before we even get into the cost of it all, would be astronomical.
Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply, the internet has only exacerabated that truth.

 

Do you think Sky would consider merger with BT :if so, monopoly commission going to agree?.

 

It's a tough question Tobes, my principles make me suffer sometimes. Right now, I say no, but I can't honestly answer until I have gone several weeks to months without football if you get me.

 

@Tobes I will say this, Streaming is a newish thing to be, last 3 years, up to that I went without football on TV for several years so maybe I would just do without tbh I canned my sky before 2008 and didn't start regular streaming till 2012

 

The cost of football rights is only spiralling due to the competition in the broadcasting market.

Sky only pay what they do due to the competition of the likes of BT.

Note that Sky is increasingly spending much more time and money on traditional TV- American exclusives, new dramas etc etc. As if it can cement itself as a broadcaster that's worth some form of low cost overall subscription, then it could consider ditching it's premium football offering and changing it's business model completely.

If the competition ever lessens in the EPL TV rights market by the withdrawl of Sky, then the PL is ****ed, royally ****ed.

 

I know one thing, Sky cannot claim forgone losses, they have no idea who would pay and who would not. There are no operational costs added for people who decide to stream. It is an excuse to raise costs because they want profit margines to raise year on year.

 

That's honest and I completely get it. The fact that you'd consider it is enough.

I only asked the question as it debunks a comment earlier in the thread made by the Gooner.

 

I doubt they'll ever get to grips with streaming, albeit they're trying

Have you noticed the number just above the Sky Sports logo when there's a live game on???

 

After 2008nI am s

AH I get you, fair enough matey. And you know, going without footy is hard

I will say this, after 2008 Sky would have lost a lot of customers in the following years. They raised costs to prevent a loss in revenue. It's not only Sky, the energy companies do the same as people get "greener" and use less, they up the prices, the bottom line is keeping profits rising year on year.

Also, the price hikes pay for the cheap deals they offer to new customers

 

The fact that after the latest TV deal was struck Sky has increased it's prices at far less than it's increased cost i.e. reducing it's margin - shows you that they think that the current consumer market price is about at it's ceiling.

 

Let us hope they take that view.
Rupert Murdoch is a lot of things, but stupid he ain't.

 

Agree
Too right it would be, the sky mainstay are the working man, and with Austerity and an economy in ****, no wonder the new customers streams are running dry, people are now actually considering, "hmm, shall I eat this year or get SKy sports", I'd laugh but for the fact it is true

 

No... your claim that sky put their prices up BECAUSE people stream is the one that is utter garbage.

 

To be fair mate that is what they do, as in that is the excuse they use but the reality is, and Sky know this, is people who could afford it before cannot now. Sky is blaming streams for the loss of growth in the customer base when the truth is the financial crash is the source of their failing to keep a trend of rising subscriptions plus with only so many prospective customers eventually they will plateau, which is what is happening, and as we know, when customer numbers plateau, Sky will want to keep their trend in year on year profit margin increase by raising costs.

You know customer numbers have reached a plateau, that is when they(sky and BT and the like) start the game of stealing customers from each other with "deals", that is how you know new customers have all but dried up. This is not just PPV TV, it's energy, insurance, and all manner of other services.

The Streaming excuse by Sky is smoke and mirrors to excuse rising costs of their packages and also, they lobby for new regulations and laws and the blocking of websites such as First Row.

 

Oh do shut up silly boy.

I actually said;

It's getting more costly partly due to the amount of people who are getting it for **** all as opposed to paying for it..............
If the option to stream wasn't there many of those who are currently nicking it, would choose to pay for it (again) rather than not see it.

Which Sisu (BringBackFootie) is an example of, as he admitted he would consider subscribing again in that circumstance.

It doesn't take Einstein to work out that if all those who were watching it were actually paying for it then the unit price would be lower.

 

Course you didn't say it silly boy:

When more and more people joined Sky in the 90s did they drop their prices? I'm genuinely intrigued and I can only assume you have the figures to hand to prove that they did in fact make it cheaper when more people signed up to them. Or the alternative is you're talking rubbish and getting wound up that people are happy to take the risk of getting something for free that you pay loads for...