BT vs Sky

[Marty___Mcfly]

It would quite funny if BT do get the bulk of the Prem games, as they already have all the champions league and Europa games.

Sky would be left with maybe a small number of Prem games plus championship and Spanish league? not much of an offering to inspire people to pay a subscription.

Particularly when BT sports channels are free to BT customers..

 

[Czechmate]

My advice is don't pay for anything with any company , it will soon come back onto BBC or ITV !

 

[The_Viper]

I for one think that Sky losing the majority of games will be a massive loss. Sure the people behind Sky are idiots but the coverage, the punditry and the structure in general is above and beyond the capabilities of BT sport it seems at present. With BT also taking away any terrestrial involvement for the Champions League I am automatically against them, they're gonna be far far more of a monopoly than Sky ever was if they win, imo.

Oh yeah and anyone thinking that BT subscribers will continue to get it free once the Champions League comes on dream on lmao

 

[culvers]

Oh yeah and anyone thinking that BT subscribers will continue to get it free once the Champions League comes on dream on lmao

I think there is going to be a subscription channel for champions league but Prem will still be free

 

[sully]

For those wanting to watch all the live broadcast games they'll have to have 4 separate subscriptions and even if Sky handle the two new entrants as standalone subs on a third party basis there will be activation fees (£15 each?) to set it up. Armchair football fans will be seething at laying out more money.

Am I a bad person for not giving a rats arse about armchair football fans? They need to get a life!

I can never understand why people HAVE to have EVERY package going so that they don't miss a single game. Just plain stupid in my book.

 

[matthew]

Am I a bad person for not giving a rats arse about armchair football fans? They need to get a life!

I can never understand why people HAVE to have EVERY package going so that they don't miss a single game. Just plain stupid in my book.

Don't think there's many people who will be obsessive about getting every sinngle package, and if they are they can probably afford it so it doesm't really matter

 

[clippedgull]

I think there is going to be a subscription channel for champions league but Prem will still be free

I got a letter from BT earlier in the week. My 18 month contract with BT runs out at the end of March and I was told in the letter to retain FREE BT Sport I would have to sign another contract, minimum of 12 months. Otherwise I would be charged on a monthly basis even if I kept BT Broadband. So it will remain free if people recommit but will be chargeable if people just go month to month.

 

[The_Viper]

I think there is going to be a subscription channel for champions league but Prem will still be free

If BT win a majority of the Prem games, and it stays free when that deal begins feel free to bounce this and I'll donate a tenner to REMF.

 

[portslade seagull]

If BT win a majority of the Prem games, and it stays free when that deal begins feel free to bounce this and I'll donate a tenner to REMF.

Bounce !!!

 

[Seagulls Downunder]

You need to hope Bein Sport have nothing to do with it, if the service they're providing in Australia is anything to go by.
They have the championship rights here but have brought in to the German & Italian leagues as well, one channel to try and show all this, some matches starting at the same time.
They have an internet channel that shows matches but it's bloody awful, more buffering than an illegal stream.
If you have the time the list of complaints on their Facebook page are worth reading. https://www.facebook.com/#!/beINSPORTSAUS?rf=113025055378760

 

[Brovion]

It would quite funny if BT do get the bulk of the Prem games, as they already have all the champions league and Europa games.

Sky would be left with maybe a small number of Prem games plus championship and Spanish league? not much of an offering to inspire people to pay a subscription.

Particularly when BT sports channels are free to BT customers..

(Clicked 'thumb' instead of 'quote!)


I'd still subscribe to SKY Sports even if they showed no football at all. I watch the NFL, cricket, rugby league and rugby union - and because of the way the packages are structured I get all that for the price each month of a pie and a pint at the Amex.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

(Clicked 'thumb' instead of 'quote!)


I'd still subscribe to SKY Sports even if they showed no football at all. I watch the NFL, cricket, rugby league and rugby union - and because of the way the packages are structured I get all that for the price each month of a pie and a pint at the Amex.

This is the problem I have with BT winning it all. Premier league darts, British Lions, F1, Golf, NFL and Cricket are all sky and all stuff I watch. Football is just another product but if I want to watch it I'll probably end up paying much more than I do to sky now as I will be forking out for 2 subscriptions.

In context the PL rights are worth 3 billion. Anyone thinking it will be free because they buy some shitty broadband package off BT might want to try getting to Narnia via the 2nd wardrobe on the right.

 

[Brovion]

This is the problem I have with BT winning it all. Premier league darts, British Lions, F1, Golf, NFL and Cricket are all sky and all stuff I watch. Football is just another product but if I want to watch it I'll probably end up paying much more than I do to sky now as I will be forking out for 2 subscriptions.

....

Yeah, I must admit I don't understand how splitting it up 'helps the consumer'. If they split the NFL over two or three paid-for sports channels I'd have to have additional subscription for each one that was going to show it. You'd have to do the same thing if they split say, F1. Why don't they just have one package, let one company win it, then if you want to watch Premier League football you only need one sports channel subscription.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I really hope BT do not get anymore football, they are dire.

Terrible pundits and the pre game show is fletcher and Sav..... says it all

 

[seagulls4ever]

I got a letter from BT earlier in the week. My 18 month contract with BT runs out at the end of March and I was told in the letter to retain FREE BT Sport I would have to sign another contract, minimum of 12 months. Otherwise I would be charged on a monthly basis even if I kept BT Broadband. So it will remain free if people recommit but will be chargeable if people just go month to month.

I had an 18 month contract with BT. After 12 months they called and said I had to sign a new contract or my BT Sport would be taken away, which I thought was a bit unfair. I refused and after the remaining 6 months I left BT and transferred over to Sky, and not only is it cheaper, the service is much better.

 

[sully]

This is the problem I have with BT winning it all. Premier league darts, British Lions, F1, Golf, NFL and Cricket are all sky and all stuff I watch. Football is just another product but if I want to watch it I'll probably end up paying much more than I do to sky now as I will be forking out for 2 subscriptions.

You've lost me.

So you don't buy it for the football, but you'd end up buying a second subscription so that you could see all the Premier League games.

I guess I missed the "if" on first read, but it still sounds like an odd argument. "I don't want it, but if I did I'd end up paying more."

Personally, I don't want it so I just think MEH. If there's people prepared to spend that much money just to watch TV, then I just don't understand it. Much more interesting and enjoyable things to spend my money on, so I don't spend time sitting on the sofa.

 

[KJP]

Yeah, I must admit I don't understand how splitting it up 'helps the consumer'. If they split the NFL over two or three paid-for sports channels I'd have to have additional subscription for each one that was going to show it. You'd have to do the same thing if they split say, F1. Why don't they just have one package, let one company win it, then if you want to watch Premier League football you only need one sports channel subscription.

The ridiculous part of it all is that the reason there has to be more than one company involved is because it's apparently unfair on us the consumer not to have a choice.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Am I a bad person for not giving a rats arse about armchair football fans? They need to get a life!

I can never understand why people HAVE to have EVERY package going so that they don't miss a single game. Just plain stupid in my book.

I have had the full football package for 20 years and watch a single game a month

 

[El Presidente]

The big issue is the conclusions reached by the regulators. If it is deemed that the PL strategy of selling packages for individual time slots is inappropriate, then potentially clubs will be allowed to negotiate their own deals, similar to those of Real Madrid and Barcelona.

As much as I loathe Scudamore and Co, the current PL distribution of TV monies is reasonably egalitarian, and allows the smaller clubs to have a fighting chance when up against the Big 4/5.

The Glazers, Fenway Sports Group (who own Liverpool) and one or two others would be delighted if the current pavkages were deemed illegal, and the consequences in terms of increasing the chasm between those who regularly compete in the Champions League and those who don't would be eye opening (Real and Barcelona currently earn more TV money than the remaining Spanish top division clubs put together, for example).

 

[Eeyore]

I have BT only for the Rugby (Premiership and European) and the MotoGp, and Sky Sports just for the F1 (and the odd England Rugby game).
Wish I could just pick and choose what I watched and paid for.

No doubt my BT and Sky bilsl will rise to account for PrimaDonna Premiership Football, which I don't give a rats cr@p about!

I'm with BT broadband for Rugby Union, which I can watch on my PC. We have freeview on the television and I'm not sure how to get it moved to there.