![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3309871.stm
Interesting to see the reaction from the broadcasters and the football clubs, especially next time the contract comes up for renewal Loz |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"loz" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3309871.stm Interesting to see the reaction from the broadcasters and the football clubs, especially next time the contract comes up for renewal Loz Well if I was on the SKY board I would lop off a good few million from the next contract, only worth a billion with the exclusive rights. At least the Premiership has three years warning before the **** hits the fan and TV revenue falls through the floor, enough time I suspect for Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc etc to lay the ground work for selling their own TV rights or the premier league setting up as the service provider. It also brings a European league closer as our big clubs will no longer be tied so close to the English league if the money is not there since most continental clubs have individual deals with broadcasters already. Bottom line is that an unelected/unrepresentative bunch of bearcats and politicians have enough power to influence the selling of a product which does not concern them and has no impact on their own national markets. Were they championing the UK consumer who can't be arsed to go to the local pub to watch the footy or pay for the best footy coverage in the UK? I don't think so, with all things European and political issues like this are so very seldom clear cut and simple. After all they didn't give a toss about us when Tesco were prevented from selling Levi jeans below the price Levi were demanding for their product in the UK. I wonder where this Monti guy was when SKY got exclusive Nationwide rights, I suppose it wasn't glamorous enough for him or for those who pull the strings in Europe and perhaps even from the boardrooms of rival European football clubs and media interests. In Europe who ever can grease the wheels of the gravy train normally gets what they want and in this case the cynic in me sees only an attempt to reduce the huge financial advantage English clubs have by being in the Premier League and thus weaken their position in European football. Mike C |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:10:10 -0000, "Mike_C"
wrote: "loz" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3309871.stm Interesting to see the reaction from the broadcasters and the football clubs, especially next time the contract comes up for renewal Loz Well if I was on the SKY board I would lop off a good few million from the next contract, only worth a billion with the exclusive rights. At least the Premiership has three years warning before the **** hits the fan and TV revenue falls through the floor, enough time I suspect for Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc etc to lay the ground work for selling their own TV rights or the premier league setting up as the service provider. It also brings a European league closer as our big clubs will no longer be tied so close to the English league if the money is not there since most continental clubs have individual deals with broadcasters already. Bottom line is that an unelected/unrepresentative bunch of bearcats and politicians have enough power to influence the selling of a product which does not concern them and has no impact on their own national markets. Were they championing the UK consumer who can't be arsed to go to the local pub to watch the footy or pay for the best footy coverage in the UK? I don't think so, with all things European and political issues like this are so very seldom clear cut and simple. After all they didn't give a toss about us when Tesco were prevented from selling Levi jeans below the price Levi were demanding for their product in the UK. As someone who was working for Tesco at the time (in head office), this had nothing to do with the European union per se. It was to do with the fact that Tesco were importing Jeans from OUTSIDE the EEC, where the trade agreements on selling and pricing are not exercised. Had they bought them in the EEC, Levi's wouldn't have a case. I wonder where this Monti guy was when SKY got exclusive Nationwide rights, I suppose it wasn't glamorous enough for him or for those who pull the strings in Europe and perhaps even from the boardrooms of rival European football clubs and media interests. In Europe who ever can grease the wheels of the gravy train normally gets what they want and in this case the cynic in me sees only an attempt to reduce the huge financial advantage English clubs have by being in the Premier League and thus weaken their position in European football. Mike C |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chelsea Fan" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:10:10 -0000, "Mike_C" wrote: SNIP As someone who was working for Tesco at the time (in head office), this had nothing to do with the European union per se. It was to do with the fact that Tesco were importing Jeans from OUTSIDE the EEC, where the trade agreements on selling and pricing are not exercised. Had they bought them in the EEC, Levi's wouldn't have a case. Yes I know, but if Tesco had bought them from within the trading block then there would not have been any savings to be made and they would have been forced to go along with the price gouging of the UK public. In this case it was the European court that decided in favour of big business regardless of the benefit to the UK consumer of getting access to the same quality goods at much cheaper prices. Mike C |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"loz" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3309871.stm Interesting to see the reaction from the broadcasters and the football clubs, especially next time the contract comes up for renewal Loz Their main reaction won't come until the 2006+ packages are created, determining how many games will be made available in the package aimed at terrestrial broadcasters and their viewers. -- Carl |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike_C" wrote in message ... "loz" wrote in message ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3309871.stm Interesting to see the reaction from the broadcasters and the football clubs, especially next time the contract comes up for renewal Loz Bottom line is that an unelected/unrepresentative bunch of bearcats and politicians have enough power to influence the selling of a product which does not concern them and has no impact on their own national markets. Mike C The EU only became involved because of the failure of UK anti-competition bodies (some of them unelected and therefore unrepresentative) to ensure that terrestrial viewers weren't frozen out of live games. Sky would have a much harder time if they were in the US, where lawyers get rich in what they call "anti-trust" legislature. And the deal could yet make the "fat cat clubs" richer if it leads them to sell their own individual rights or set up their own channels - would you rather pay £10 extra each month to Sky for all games, or pay £7 to each club. -- Carl |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Carl" wrote in message ... would you rather pay £10 extra each month to Sky for all games, or pay £7 to each club. If it were £10 for ALL games, then clearly Sky. But it isn't ALL games at the moment, just their limited selection. If I was a supporter of a specific club, then £7 a month to watch ALL my clubs games rather than the odd one each month would be a much better proposal offer. Loz |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"loz" wrote in message ... "Carl" wrote in message ... would you rather pay £10 extra each month to Sky for all games, or pay £7 to each club. If it were £10 for ALL games, then clearly Sky. But it isn't ALL games at the moment, just their limited selection. If I was a supporter of a specific club, then £7 a month to watch ALL my clubs games rather than the odd one each month would be a much better proposal offer. Loz Assuming the big clubs don't jump ship and enter into a fully fledged European super league then in three years time I suspect the big clubs will do individual deals with dsat and cable operators with the "small" clubs being left with limited exposure on "free" television. The earnings gap between the clubs will then make last seasons £29mill to Man U and £13mill to Sunderland (Positional payment, broadcast games etc) look positively small. I doubt the Premier League itself could afford to set up itself as a provider to all other broadcasters as the startup costs would be huge and any subscription would be higher than broadcasters with existing infrastructure and subscriber base would charge. It's certainly going to be an interesting three years with the boardrooms of football elite up and down the country being very very busy ![]() Mike C |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"loz" wrote in message ... "Carl" wrote in message ... would you rather pay £10 extra each month to Sky for all games, or pay £7 to each club. If it were £10 for ALL games, then clearly Sky. But it isn't ALL games at the moment, just their limited selection. If I was a supporter of a specific club, then £7 a month to watch ALL my clubs games rather than the odd one each month would be a much better proposal offer. Loz But the problem is that the top clubs could sell their matches (or at least their home fixtures) via their own tv channels, while Sky and other broadcasters are left with the fixtures for the remaining teams. But what odds would you get that Sky and others would broadcast every fixture for every team that doesn't go it alone. We're looking at an increased split in what is already a two-tier Premier League, with all the associated financial risks. -- Carl |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_C wrote:
Yes I know, but if Tesco had bought them from within the trading block then there would not have been any savings to be made and they would have been forced to go along with the price gouging of the UK public. In this case it was the European court that decided in favour of big business regardless of the benefit to the UK consumer of getting access to the same quality goods at much cheaper prices. I wonder if the Levi case would have had the same outcome today? The EU does seem to be improving, albeit very slowly. -- Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these. The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/tez5 How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73 Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/ BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/ ---- Only the truth as I see it. No monies return'd. ;-) |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| uniden 4400s looses 10 counts on all satellites | clc | Satellite tvro | 2 | September 16th 03 08:23 PM |
| uniden 4400s looses 10 counts on all satellites | clc | Satellite tvro | 0 | September 16th 03 02:25 AM |
| Premiership rights awarded | Carl | UK sky | 4 | August 9th 03 12:11 AM |