Denbighammer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:03 pm
Is it an opportunity though Brickworks? Isn't it just another way the richest clubs will get even richer?
I reckon Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City would have more subscribers than the rest of the league put together. The SKY model works because it is, to a point, fair in its wealth distribution
I’m for seeing it as run by the league not the clubs themselves, but of course you’re right if by the clubs themselves the income would most certainly be heavily weighted towards the top.
Amazon have proven you can do a ‘pick your game all playing at the same time’ thing, we already know all games are televised globally anyway which is where people piggy back onto the streams from overseas.
I’m sure it goes without saying but I’m not condoning what these chaps have done but it shows there is a gap in the market and as for all things where there is no legal means to obtain the goods people will find illegal ways to, imo the best way to combat that is to give a legitimate way to do it and the PL gets the coin.
The rub is the broadcast companies of course pay huge fees for the rights packages in the first place, it’s one of them trade off’s of having a high price few can afford or a lower one many can afford thus retuning a similar income.
Brickworks Iron wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:15 pm
I’m for seeing it as run by the league not the clubs themselves, but of course you’re right if by the clubs themselves the income would most certainly be heavily weighted towards the top.
Amazon have proven you can do a ‘pick your game all playing at the same time’ thing, we already know all games are televised globally anyway which is where people piggy back onto the streams from overseas.
I’m sure it goes without saying but I’m not condoning what these chaps have done but it shows there is a gap in the market and as for all things where there is no legal means to obtain the goods people will find illegal ways to, imo the best way to combat that is to give a legitimate way to do it and the PL gets the coin.
The rub is the broadcast companies of course pay huge fees for the rights packages in the first place, it’s one of them trade off’s of having a high price few can afford or a lower one many can afford thus retuning a similar income.
If sky lowered their prices they would get more consumers which would generate either the same money as now or more
They just go with the old charge through the nose and hope people still pay
If someone offered just the footy for £10 a month add on I bet they would get a lot more people sign up than they do
When they released their packages they set them at £18 each sport or £27 the lot ..
If they had did it say £5 for certain ones and ,£10 for others more would get
I'd of no question paid £5 a month for the golf but no way would I pay £18 a month for it
If they wasn't sending the live 3:00pm feeds overseas then no one would be streaming it back in the UK, it's their greed which allows it to happen.
As mentioned earlier, the time you factor in paying for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Prime etc you're weighing out a shed load and still ain't guaranteed every game, Peacock in the US can legally* for an extra $5 per month.
The whole industry needs kicking into the 21st century........
delbert wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:11 am
If they wasn't sending the live 3:00pm feeds overseas then no one would be streaming it back in the UK, it's their greed which allows it to happen.
As mentioned earlier, the time you factor in paying for Sky Sports, BT Sports, Prime etc you're weighing out a shed load and still ain't guaranteed every game, Peacock in the US can legally* for an extra $5 per month.
The whole industry needs kicking into the 21st century........
* If you're in the US......
It's refusal to modernise will be it's biggest risk. Just look at companies like Blockbuster who insisted on sticking with an outdated model for way too long.
smuts wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:04 am
Someone told me that their local Legion had to cancel Sky Sports as they whacked their bill up from about 800 quid a month to over 1300.
My old boozer was being charged about £20k a year so had to jack it in.
I've never paid more than £10 a month for sky sports. It's the rigmarole of chatting to Sky each time to get the best price that is annoying. If they just said 'right, here's what it costs, regardless who you are', then I reckon more people would do that (at about £10-12 a month) than risk streaming it.
I don't think it's the cost, it's the service. I pay about 25 quid a month for Sky Sports (without 4K, that was another tenner!). I'd pay a few quid more to be able to watch every game, no bother. Although the fact that BT has rights to show games would probably mean another 30 quid on top of that, and then it *does* become about cost.
I've been paying for Sky Sports & Films for years and years - I never even think about cancelling the Sports during the summer [ I'm not a fan of cricket ] so I'm one of the mugs who sponsors the illegal payment mob - I'd happily join in the illegal stuff but I'm too thick to do it so please don't take it as a slur - no angry letters or hard stares , please . I may cancel Sports & Movies , they only show repeats now since Covid .
Denbighammer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:03 pm
Is it an opportunity though Brickworks? Isn't it just another way the richest clubs will get even richer?
I reckon Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City would have more subscribers than the rest of the league put together. The SKY model works because it is, to a point, fair in its wealth distribution
Nail on the head.
Once tv goes to "virtual season tickets" per club, the game is over as a competitive sport.
May as well just usher in the "super league" & have done.
DublinDave wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:44 am
Nail on the head.
Once tv goes to "virtual season tickets" per club, the game is over as a competitive sport.
May as well just usher in the "super league" & have done.
Not if done In a fair wealth share scheme
The NFL have a TV package and share the rights fairly across the league