General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Firstly let me say that, l have always said that IF BT Sport arrived on VM, l would have no objections in paying extra for it, BUT not £12.00 per month - that is too expensive for three channels.

Secondly, we had a similar problem with Sky over the Basics (look how long we waited for that to appear) and now atlantic, Sky have said countless times that, the channel Atlantic has been offered to VM at a reasonable price, but won't give it away.

Sky is a business on how to make money - l will say again - VM want channels on the cheap, at the end of the day ITS US THAT END UP PAYING FOR IT.

So doesn't VM sit down with Sky and BT Sport and sort out this mess, or are the directors of VM playing golf all day.

I think Monday morning there will be a lot of angry VM customers calling the customer services asking to be released from the contracts. Due to the present BT Sport problem. On this forum there must be quite a customers that are mad football fans - like me - and will go to another supplier for its football.

There are so many contradictions in your post that I don't even know where to begin.....

So you'll pay for it, but not what BT want to charge for it, and somehow this is VM's fault?

If you go to Sky, you will have to pay £12 per month, but you have said you won't pay this - how do you square that circle, Arthur?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hugh my boy, l like it when we have a banter with each other.
Didn't VM have a row with Sky over the Basic package, now we have the Atlantic scenario, and again BT Sport.

VM have been offered all these channels, but wont budge on the price. VM have always been tight fisted and want channels on the cheap and always wil.

It would not surprise me that VM will have BT Sport but will charge the same price, so why all the fuss coming from VM. and quietness.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Hugh my boy, l like it when we have a banter with each other.
Didn't VM have a row with Sky over the Basic package, now we have the Atlantic scenario, and again BT Sport.

VM have been offered all these channels, but wont budge on the price. VM have always been tight fisted and want channels on the cheap and always wil.

It would not surprise me that VM will have BT Sport but will charge the same price, so why all the fuss coming from VM. and quietness.

do you want VM to pay well over the odd for SA Arthur as been proved by Ofcom that sky overcharge on channels

[MaverickJesus]

Did some rough back of a napkin calculations on how this adds up for BT:

The premiership TV deal was ~£730m over 3 years, so adding in the other rights (which are much lower in value), plus running costs, I think for BT to break even purely on the TV they need to be clearing ~£1bn (?) in revenue from BT Sports over the 3 year period, which is ~£28m a month.

Current subscriber numbers are ~500,000, although I would expect that to double by the end of the year once things get rolling. Pricing this is harder, as the BT broadband customers get this for free, but this is offset partially by extra profit they get from increased broadband customers. There is also a dual pricing model (£12 or £15), so to balance out both sides lets just naively class everyone as on the £12 tier. So, at expected end of year rates, they will have less than half of the required customers to hit even - rough estimate, they would need 2.5m users for a like for like offset, knock off 500k+ for the extra profit they would gain from pulling people over to BT Vision, BT Talk and BT Broadband and triple play bundles.

So, to sum up a very simplistic model, BT need to double the year end 2013 customer numbers over three years for it to be a worthwhile venture.

BT: Need 2m
ESPN: Had ~1.2m (estimate)
Sky Sports: Have ~5m (estimate)

So, given the quality of BTs current rights (based on general subscriber popularity), which puts them somewhere above ESPN but well below Sky Sports, if they have hit ~1m by the end of the year I think they will actually be fine without needing to wholesale to BT to anyone.

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

(Basically its almost impossible to tell, but they should manage a break even long term, with significant gains in the other core products as a knock on effect - so it probably does make business sense. Really needs 2+ years data to make any real conclusions)

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Hugh my boy, l like it when we have a banter with each other.
Didn't VM have a row with Sky over the Basic package, now we have the Atlantic scenario, and again BT Sport.

VM have been offered all these channels, but wont budge on the price. VM have always been tight fisted and want channels on the cheap and always wil.

It would not surprise me that VM will have BT Sport but will charge the same price, so why all the fuss coming from VM. and quietness.

so,if you go to Sky, will you pay them the £12 you stated you wouldn't pay VM?

From YOUR post

Firstly let me say that, l have always said that IF BT Sport arrived on VM, l would have no objections in paying extra for it, BUT not £12.00 per month - that is too expensive for three channels.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Hugh

so,if you go to Sky, will you pay them the £12 you stated you wouldn't pay VM?

you pay BT not sky the £12 for BT sports on sky

Originally Posted by Dave42

you pay BT not sky the £12 for BT sports on sky

Thanks for the correction - but Arthur has said he won't pay that to VM, so will he pay it to BT?

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thanks for the correction - but Arthur has said he won't pay that to VM, so will he pay it to BT?

if he moves to sky he got to pay it to bt to get the sport yes

[trevrpb]

Still bemused how many still seem to think that:-

a) Sky has a deal with BT Sport.
There is no deal with Sky, far from it, BT Sport just has an entry on the SKY EPG.

b) VM can just take BT Sport 'at any price'. Business just doesn't work like that. BT call all the shots on this one so VM are at BTs behest and have to 'sit and suffer' whilst negotiating what they consider a feasible price.

c) VM can can say anything more than 'we are in talks with...'
They cannot. These will be commercially sensitive negotiations and because of this, their hands will be tied along with those at BT, who would have to abide to Stockmarket regulations and NOT be allowed to say anything that would be considered share price sensitive.

I've said here previously, I am 100% certain that BT Sport will be made available to VM. I truly think it would be commercially stupid for VM/BT not to come to an agreement. At what cost to VM customers... who knows? Perhaps £10 to £15.

I fully intend to take it WHEN it arrives on VM...and am prepared to pay for it and hope that HD variant is available in any package offering.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Us real gentlemen will be watching the cricket Sir and we will let the hoodlums like you and Colin enjoy your football.

Den

Some of us are off to watch a proper mans game in Castleford

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Den

Some of us are off to watch a proper mans game in Castleford

Well old bean you know we are known as southern softies down here.

[Doug P]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well old bean you know we are known as southern softies down here.

Sadly as the London Broncos are proving this season in Super League... oh well!

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I think that VM customer services will be red hot today and tomorrow with cancelling there contracts, over this.

VM are still showing on there epg that they have ESPN, so surely, legally they are showing deception in one form or another as on ESPN they show a programme, and then they have a notice saying the channel is no longer available.

This is what annoys me, IF the channel is no longer available, how long does it take to remove the ESPN sign - or dont the engineers who run it have the time to remove it.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Doug P

Sadly as the London Broncos are proving this season in Super League... oh well!

Indeed the pies found that out.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

This is what annoys me, IF the channel is no longer available, how long does it take to remove the ESPN sign - or dont the engineers who run it have the time to remove it.

The slates are there for any customers who are unaware that the channels have closed and try to tune to them. It will also make it quicker to restore the channels if/when a deal is done.