Setanta going the way of Ondigital?

They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike

They live in a land where they really think in the credit crunch people will
still pay for minimal extras.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike

"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike




people have short memories it seems - it was paying over the odds for
football that did for ondigital.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike


Setanta may have overpaid for product (who wants to watch SPL matches, which
old firm aside rarely get into five figures on attendance?), but the main
difference between them and OD was that OD tried to retain ownership of the
boxes.

This resulted in the following in a large store I sometimes use: -

1. Enter store.
2. Notice OD display - box and 12 months subscription for £99.99p.
3. Put box in trolley and continue shopping.
4. Notice small print on box saying the contents remain property of OD and
can be reclaimed.
5. Throw box on floor in aisle (well even I am not so gullible as to pay
£100 for a cardboard box!).

In article ,
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
This resulted in the following in a large store I sometimes use: -

1. Enter store. 2. Notice OD display - box and 12 months subscription
for £99.99p. 3. Put box in trolley and continue shopping. 4. Notice
small print on box saying the contents remain property of OD and can be
reclaimed. 5. Throw box on floor in aisle (well even I am not so
gullible as to pay £100 for a cardboard box!).

Remember when OnDodgy failed - I wrote to them and told them I'd be
charging storage for their box until they arranged for its disposal.
Probably after they'd said I'd have to buy it from them.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:


"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike




people have short memories it seems - it was paying over the odds for
football that did for ondigital.

And yet millions of people are perfectly happy to pay way over the odds
for football to Sky.

Sky football is much better vfm than Setanta. Setanta offer 3rd choice
games with **** picture quality and presentation at an over-inflated
price. Whereas Sky offer 1st/2nd choice games in HD.

Thanks to the EU interference, those that wanted what they had before
****anta got involved were paying £50 per season more than now, for
games in HD, whereas ****anta were charging £13 per month, £117 over a 9
month season for the same amount of games with a picture quality barely
better than Youtube :-)
--
Sean Black

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike


By one account, they failed to pay enough to land the
2nd EPL package they hoped would increase subscriptions.


Setanta may have overpaid for product (who wants to watch SPL matches, which
old firm aside rarely get into five figures on attendance?)


Viewers in Scotland? I don't think crowd attendance
accurately reflects the quality of football on offer,
and that isn't always related to the entertainment
value. For the season or so I held a subscription,
the EPL matches on offer were often pretty poor, the
stakes being too high for mid-table clubs to risk
attacking football. SPL matches shown were nearly
always one side of the Old Firm away to opposition
with little to lose by having a go - at least that
gave the viewer something to watch. Even the English
non-league games they showed (not that I watched many)
could provide honest effort despite the players'
limited abilities. A genuine fan of the game would
not have felt short-changed.

The main losers will be viewers who didn't mind paying
a subscription in principle, but wouldn't consider
paying 3 or 4 times as much for Sky, even with its
premium content. Since Sky won't be allowed to pick
up the EPL package, I wonder who else will step in.
Maybe there's an opportunity for an IPTV operator.
Setanta and Sky offer IP services, but only to
existing subscribers - what's the point of that? BT
Vision already provide Setanta, but could easily
handle the customer side if they took over.

Mike Henry wrote:
In , Sean Black
wrote:

In message , Mike Henry
writes
In , "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:

"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike



people have short memories it seems - it was paying over the odds for
football that did for ondigital.
And yet millions of people are perfectly happy to pay way over the odds
for football to Sky.
Sky football is much better vfm than Setanta. Setanta offer 3rd choice
games with **** picture quality and presentation at an over-inflated
price. Whereas Sky offer 1st/2nd choice games in HD.

...but nevertheless still at inflated prices. To add insult to injury, Sky
Sports viewers also have package subsidised by the normal packages. People
who don't subscribe to Sky Football channels are still contributing
towards them!


Sky depends totally on premium football for its entire
business model. It will therefore pay top dollar for
the packages - in fact, more than it really needs to
just to keep off the competition. That's why
subscribers have to pay through the nose, with most of
their cash going to the major clubs leading to
inflated wages.

Other would-be operators know that football is the
key, but Setanta misjudged its pricing.

Also:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090610...s-baa80c0.html

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:28:27 +0100, Jim wrote:
"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Jim" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Mike GW8IJT" wrote in message
...
They appeared to have agreed to pay well over the top for some football
matches.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8090633.stm
Regards Mike


By one account, they failed to pay enough to land the 2nd EPL package they
hoped would increase subscriptions.


Setanta may have overpaid for product (who wants to watch SPL matches,
which old firm aside rarely get into five figures on attendance?)


Viewers in Scotland? I don't think crowd attendance accurately reflects
the quality of football on offer,



Really - apart from the Old Firm, they never seem to advance very far (or at
all) in international competition...