OT Amazon seems to have suspended its planned cancellation of Visa credit cards.
Which is a shock to no one. All designed to get a better deal off visa
Indeed although I cannot help wondering if a small part was played by people like me who did not register any alternative means of payment. How many people would take out a new credit card just for the benefit of one shop?
No offence, but they taken no notice of it at all. They will believe a) most would have used alternative payment methods and b) its not about you or I, its about strong arming visa. Amazon can afford to take a short term hit on a few people who wouldn't use a debit card or get a mastercard, in order to ultimately shave even a tiny amount off visa charges in the long run.
Most likely but one imagines Jeff Bezos will have kept a weather eye on, in particular, the number of subscribers who had not changed, and whose subscriptions would therefore not automatically and invisibly roll over into another twelve months.
Scots living up to their 'canny' handle, I see. But gosh London disappoints. In fact wtf gives with London there? I live in London and I know nobody with a good word for BoJo. Either that number is wrong or I'm not qualified to speak for my city.
Where is the boundary set? Quite a bit of outer London is (currently) blue, it is in London proper that Johnson is as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
The option the EPL could go with is a hybrid deal like UFC did with Disney. They get Disney / ESPN to produce most of the filler and hype events across the Disney network, in return they get to show some events on their streaming platform, ESPN+, while all events, especially the big events are still on their own streaming channel (plus they then charge PPV extra for the big events).
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
Why not now? Masking does very little and numbers of positives are declining precipitously: it would appear we are past the peak of hospitalisations too.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
They can be moved NOW to voluntary from compusory.
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
They can be moved NOW to voluntary from compusory.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
I read that as an attack on Boris Johnson.
The people truly attacking her integrity are the Johnsonites suggesting that they have inside information giving them a steer on what her findings will be. If that is true, she is corrupt, no question. If it isn't they should not be saying it.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
Live sport is about the only thing keeping ‘linear’ TV alive. I genuinely can’t remember the last time I watched a broadcast TV programme ‘live’, that wasn’t a sporting event or news channel.
Sky (and ESPN in the States) are screwed, if sporting bodies decide to run their own broadcast service and cut out the middlemen.
I don't have the reference anymore but I do remember back in 1994 that it was obvious even then that live sport and events are (in the long run) the only thing that people need to watch live.
One problem with streaming though is that what is live to you may not be as live as it elsewhere. I remember being sat in Paris during the 2018 World Cup final watching a stream 5 seconds behind a nearby pub. A discovery made just "before" the first goal was scored.
Oh indeed, people watching things ‘live’ with slight offsets can make a difference. Various encoding, decoding, satellite trips, commentary adding and compression can mean that some sources of ‘live’ might be a minute behind what actually happens.
If something is on terrestrial and satellite TV, the satellite is always a few seconds behind.
My internet-based commentary of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, was half a lap behind what was actually in front of me!
As the world moves to streaming, one positive might be more opportunity for courtsiding with bookies.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
I see on the previous thread that @HYUFD has now switched his support the retention of masking, because he has read that that is the government's plan.
Is they guy even capable of independent thought?
No I have always supported masking. It is just a small practical measure to contain the spread of Covid in winter on public transport and crowded shops.
Further restrictions on the vaccinated in terms of closing pubs, restaurants and large events and nightclubs is what I am opposed to
So if compulsory masks on trains are scrapped next week, you'll be writing to your MP to complain?
They can be moved in Spring from compulsory to voluntary
They can be moved NOW to voluntary from compusory.
Worth pointing out that the North isn't much better.
The Red Wall seats know they've been lied to and it's hard to see how the Tories will retain those seats in 2023 /24.
I don't believe they would have retained many anyway even without these revelations. Tories have kidded themselves it was about "Get Brexit Done", when in reality it was "Keep Corbyn Out". My guess is most, if not all will return to Labour
Brexit has been done so that does not prove anything.
Keep Corbyn out got the Conservatives a minority government and most seats in 2017, only get Brexit done with Boris got the Conservatives a big majority in 2019
Political aficionados underestimate that not everyone knew the nature of Corbyn in 2017 and that more did by 2019. In addition a common perception was that the Tories were going to win big in 2017 so many thought it low risk to vote Labour and thought that the Tories needed their sails trimming. Again, aficionados were aware of the moves in the polls against May but it hadn't spread out into general public perceptions. Over the years Boris was enabled by the opponents Labour put up against him.
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
The Tories may scrape a 1992 style narrow majority or most seats a la 2017 under Sunak.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
No shit.
And every 24 hours we sit around waiting for Gray is costing them, what, another 3 seats?
I've just read the ITV article, and your summary is somewhat disingenuous. It was a knockabout comment by Starmer, as can be seen by this quote from him:
"I think there’s quite a few in the England team who would equally want to be in the shadow cabinet, so we’ll have a sporting shadow cabinet with all of these stars in."
Electionmapsuk provide interesting political maps including this one for the local elections in May 2022. Colours indicate current control of council, with lighter colours indicating largest party where there is no overall control.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It might be indecision however it could be looked at the other way - if you are a cabinet minister and the PM is an idiot who has the sword of Damocles hanging over him then you pretty much have free reign.
If you want to do something that was being blocked by the PM before then now is the time - he fights you, you quit and help his downfall. Boris is neutered (unfortunately no robably about 30 years too late) so make the most of it.
Added to that you can leave all the upcoming shit to stick to him until the right time to replace him.
It’s cynical but politics is cynical - morally as a cabinet minister you might think he should go now but political and career interests will weigh more in the end.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
It's none of those things and I think when we read the report that will become clear.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East.
Still doesn't get round the fact - the price the EPL would need to charge (£25 a month / £300 a year) is more than most people would be willing to pay. Sky, BT and Amazon generate as much if not more money without any risk to the EPL.
And all 3 (well until BT sells their TV channels) are subsiding the EPL in return for the customers / audience that offering football matches generates).
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The 3pm ban isn't for sellouts in the PL, it is for the EFL. Where they are most definitely not sold out.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
It's a neat trick by Save the Dog, though. They've managed to conflate the adequacy of the enquiry (deeply questionable) with Sue Gray's integrity (not at issue).
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The 3pm ban isn't for sellouts in the PL, it is for the EFL. Where they are most definitely not sold out.
But EPL is separate organisation and we are talking about EPL channel.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
It's none of those things and I think when we read the report that will become clear.
That's assuming we ever get to see the whole, unredacted report.
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
It's a neat trick by Save the Dog, though. They've managed to conflate the adequacy of the enquiry (deeply questionable) with Sue Gray's integrity (not at issue).
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
I've just read the ITV article, and your summary is somewhat disingenuous. It was a knockabout comment by Starmer, as can be seen by this quote from him:
"I think there’s quite a few in the England team who would equally want to be in the shadow cabinet, so we’ll have a sporting shadow cabinet with all of these stars in."
Given the issues with corruption and other issues in professional football, I'd suggest any political party vet candidates from that world *very* carefully.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
Sue Gray is totally independent, so it is entirely up to her whether or not she wants to become Baroness Sue Gray in the near future. #BorisJohnsonResign
The attacks on Sue Gray's integrity are unwarranted
You are, I suggest, missing the point. She is in a position where she cannot reasonably be asked to have integrity. She can't control what happens to her report; and she is in a position where she is being forced to seriously upset her boss and her boss's bosses if a fraction of what has been published about the wider situation is true.
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
It's none of those things and I think when we read the report that will become clear.
That's assuming we ever get to see the whole, unredacted report.
I see from Graun that 'Red' Ken is applying to join the Greens.
Ken who made London safe for property developers is now against glass skyscrapers? Otoh, Ken the newt-fancier is a more natural Green.
The Green Party in the UK is nothing more than an extreme leftist party. The environment is just a cover for far left ideology. Livingstone will be very at home amongst the loons
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
Epping Forest Massive approval keeping the London ratings up...
The London numbers are the big surprise, especially when you compare to Scotland - North and South Remainia giving very different results. Scots have always had Johnson's number of course (remember how he was savaged by Eddie Mair and was too frit to go on Andrew Neil's programme). Perhaps cynical Londoners aren't especially shocked or disgusted by the suitcases of booze etc. It may be an age cohort effect too. Anyway, if he's lost the Midlands he's screwed. That's where elections are won or lost.
Most Londoners repelled by his brand of politics gave up on him long ago
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
Indeed. My leader right or wrong is not a very good look, particularly when that leader happens to be someone as dishonest as Boris Johnson
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
I would pay to watch LCFC, not bothered by any of the rest. Just the away games too as at the home ones anyway. Pay per view would work better for me.
I see from Graun that 'Red' Ken is applying to join the Greens.
Ken who made London safe for property developers is now against glass skyscrapers? Otoh, Ken the newt-fancier is a more natural Green.
The Green Party in the UK is nothing more than an extreme leftist party. The environment is just a cover for far left ideology. Livingstone will be very at home amongst the loons
Which Green Party in the UK? There are three, and they are different from one another.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Read the article; it doesn't say what you suggest.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
Yes, that was the end conclusion from the PL internal report, the upside is marginal and the downside risk is huge, potentially subscription money halving from the annual rights money they get for the first couple of years while it picks up steam, overall a loss of somewhere around £1.9-3.1bn was forecast over 5 years the potential upside after 5 years was weighted against rising licence income and it was deemed to be marginal.
The PL domestic rights are unlike any other major competition, what might work for NFL won't work for the PL.
The BBC is one of the UK's most successful invisible exports. When Liz Truss is trying to promote Global Britain removing the funds for perhaps our best Global brand is lunacy.
In PR and Advertising terms what the BBC gives us is incalculable but that's only a tiny bit of the story. Trace our success in the arts film making media expertise and the BBC will be at it's heart.
Who discovered the likes of Ridley Scott and his Brother Tony......
I really can't be bothered to go on. This country is being governed by a bunch of Philistines and the sooner we either change government or the sensible among us settle somewhere else the better.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I’m still not 100% sure that someone has properly explained the football pyramid to the new Saudi shareholders at Newcastle. They haven’t bought an “EPL franchise”.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What i read was this was the plan. Try it in smaller overseas markets where the rights aren't even that valuable.
My original point was more Sky business model is totally reliant on EPL. That's not a great place to be when technology is running away from them and also there are other massive players like Disney, who not only have the money and tech, they have long history in sports rights / sports coverage.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
Indeed. My leader right or wrong is not a very good look, particularly when that leader happens to be someone as dishonest as Boris Johnson
TBF "what Boris Johnson says" is a rather important fact, sensu OKC's post previous to yours, for some of us. So when it changes ...
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Its already ended....just people aren't paying for it. The idea people can't get access to major US tv channels in the internet age is for the birds.
Another thing on the PL rights. At the moment, the clubs get the money up front. If they go it alone, the clubs would have to accept a few seasons without any money.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
Buying the Magpies doesn't seem to be a good idea if you want to be 'in' the Premier League! Need to spend quite a bit more money later this year to get back I suspect.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
Yes, it's always existed to protect FL clubs (especially lower down the leagues) from losing market share to 3pm TV viewers. I think it still has it's place.
I see from Graun that 'Red' Ken is applying to join the Greens.
Ken who made London safe for property developers is now against glass skyscrapers? Otoh, Ken the newt-fancier is a more natural Green.
The Green Party in the UK is nothing more than an extreme leftist party. The environment is just a cover for far left ideology. Livingstone will be very at home amongst the loons
The Greens are a broad mosque but one thing we all agree on is the utter contempt we have for the white working class so Ken will be fine. If he's gone public that means he's already been accepted by the regional council.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
Indeed. My leader right or wrong is not a very good look, particularly when that leader happens to be someone as dishonest as Boris Johnson
Quite. My leader right or wrong is even dafter than my party right or wrong. Human beings, and human organisations, are fallible.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
That may have been an EU law but the CMA has taken an even tougher line on domestic competition post-Brexit than expected. I can't see them rolling back the existing monopoly providers provision for the PL.
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
What if the PL decides not to sell rights to any broadcasters at all, but keep the rights completely in-house on their own platform?
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
I disagree, I think the 3pm blackout is excellent and it would be a sad day if it were to go.
The problem is that it’s already gone.
Because everywhere else in the world can watch all the matches live, many people in the UK are simply watching the unofficial sources when the official ones are blacked out.
Which makes them aware of the unofficial sources, and less likely over time to keep up the subscriptions to the official ones.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I see from Graun that 'Red' Ken is applying to join the Greens.
Ken who made London safe for property developers is now against glass skyscrapers? Otoh, Ken the newt-fancier is a more natural Green.
The Green Party in the UK is nothing more than an extreme leftist party. The environment is just a cover for far left ideology. Livingstone will be very at home amongst the loons
Which Green Party in the UK? There are three, and they are different from one another.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
LOL at the last part....BBC have bungled BBC Three from the start. They went tv channel it flopped, so they went internet only as a the kidz said we only watched streaming, it flopped even more, now they know they are losing badly in the youth market so pivoting back to traditional tv channel. They haven't a clue how to get the youth market away from Youtube, twitch and Netflix.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
Most of the rest of the English seats up in May are in generally non Tory metropolitan cities not the shires.
Hence my point stands, most Tory MPs to not have local elections in their local authority this May.
As you say Labour and the LDs won most of the councillors up in May even in 2018.
Hence most of the seats the Tories do lose will likely be in the posher parts of London where all seats are up, even those parts of non London England up like here in Epping Forest only elect in thirds
It's increasingly looking like Sue Gray is going to join the long list of those tainted by association with Johnson (in this instance, not her own choice). If she reports concrete evidence Johnson and Case lied, that will cost her job. Anything less & she'll be "a stooge."
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Taking your points in reverse order; certainly for a while. Although it's not unknown for people transfer to another party and fairly soon become a candidate. A certain blonde lady now representing a Norfolk seat comes to mind.
'Merely' a swing voter!!!!! Swing voters are the people who change Governments!
Another thing on the PL rights. At the moment, the clubs get the money up front. If they go it alone, the clubs would have to accept a few seasons without any money.
I think this is probably the biggest reason.....it why that european super league, they had to promise all the founder teams billions upfront payment to consider it.
Labour need to get all over this. Who is their culture spokesperson?
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth · 5h 'Vote Conservative to end the BBC' doesn't sound like an election-winning slogan, does it?
It would be surprisingly popular. However, that's not the choice.
The choice is:
Vote Conservative and the BBC will continue but you won't have to pay for it by threat of imprisonment and you'll only pay for it if you want it.
Or:
Vote Labour and the status quo remains and your granny might end up in prison for owning a telly.
Ditching the licence fee actually seems like good, progressive politics to me as it's not the rich who end up in trouble for not paying their licence fee at the end of the day and for younger people who would rather watch Netflix or YouTube the whole concept of the licence fee is just bizarre...
I'm surprised Labour is so wedded to a telly tax.
Labour should be massively in favour, of ending the single most regressive tax in the country, which takes up so much court time and prison time, giving people criminal records which can be held against them later in life, for the crime of not contributing to Gary Lineker’s seven figure salary.
To be fair I doubt it is prison time. More like wasting time in the civil courts. The main reason why Labour are so keen on the BBC are because it is part of the 'left liberal' establishment which is a large part of its power base. Looking at the BBC, the problem is that a lot of its news coverage etc is not impartial or objective anymore, and the intolerant "woke" agenda has seeped in to a large part of its output. We have had 5 years of Conservative government trying to tackle this, but they get nowhere. So it is reasonable to conclude that there is no hope. On the other hand, its about £10 a month. Not a big deal compared to the coming doubling of energy bills.
Not the civil courts, the criminal courts. TV licence violations are 10% of all cases heard by magistrates, and are mostly poor people with chaotic lives, either unable to afford the licence or guilty of nothing more than administrative errors. A disproportionate number of women and minorities receive criminal records for licence fee evasion. The penalty is a fine, and those imprisoned are for failing to pay the fine.
In any other circumstance, Labour MPs would be all over this, but they like the BBC more than they care about the 200k poor people receiving criminal records every year.
I stand corrected. I thought that the license fee was decriminalised, but see that the government have yet to make a decision about that, so they have chickened out of it. The situation is far worse than I thought, based on that data (which dates back to 2013, but I doubt much has changed). At the very least, the enforcement of the licensing fee should be made a civil matter and no one should be going to prison over it. The whole situation is a complete disgrace.
The problem with a compulsory-but-decriminalised licence fee, is that you end up with bailiffs going to granny’s house with a court order to seize the TV.
As I said on yesterday’s thread, trying to explain to a foreigner the concept of the licence fee, is even more difficult than trying to explain the NHS.
Very different policy in Scotland - procurator fiscal fine only, almost no cases go to court I believe. Been like that for some time; don't think it's anything to do with the SNP particularly, simply that the commercial firm TV LIcensing don't have powers of prosecution in Scotland's courts and the prosecutor fiscal system has different powers to begin with and did it in a common sense way to avoid clogging up the courts.
England has nothing to learn from Jocks. Accepted PBfact.
One thing I do wonder is how the Scons and Slab view the shutting down of the BBC as a compulsory state broadcaster. At least three reasons seem pertinent, two specific to Scotland.
Nobody is listening to the SCons or SLab. Least of all the English Conservative and Labour parties.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
BBC Three is a huge waste of time and money. It's an example of those old fools at the top of the BBC not really having a clue about how to attract under 40s to watch the BBC. It's these people that cling to the old ways that will see the decline and eventual failure of it.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
Another thing on the PL rights. At the moment, the clubs get the money up front. If they go it alone, the clubs would have to accept a few seasons without any money.
I think this is probably the biggest reason.....it why that european super league, they had to promise all the founder teams billions upfront payment to consider it.
Right now the risk is with the broadcasters - the PL and clubs know their income and can budget around it.
If the PL sell the rights direct to consumers, the upside might be much higher, but there is also considerable risk, uncertainty and ramp-up.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Taking your points in reverse order; certainly for a while. Although it's not unknown for people transfer to another party and fairly soon become a candidate. A certain blonde lady now representing a Norfolk seat comes to mind.
'Merely' a swing voter!!!!! Swing voters are the people who change Governments!
We are talking about Neville standing for parliament not merely changing his vote.
Truss was a Tory supporter and campaigner from 1998 to now despite a radical LD student period, as well as being a Tory association chair and councillor, she did not just suddenly become a Tory MP in 2010 from nowhere
BBC Three is a huge waste of time and money. It's an example of those old fools at the top of the BBC not really having a clue about how to attract under 40s to watch the BBC. It's these people that cling to the old ways that will see the decline and eventual failure of it.
I genuinely do not understand how the BBC and BBC supporters look at the reports that Ofcom has been regularly churning out for years and years and think "carry on". If I was in management at the BBC I'd be very, very worried.
In terms of actual voting intention however the Tories are still on 39% in the Midlands, only 6% behind Labour on 45%.
In London by contast the Tories are now well behind Labour on 26% with Labour on 47%.
In fact according to Opinium the Midlands is now the Tories best region, with the Tories on 32% in the North, 34% in the South, 16% in Wales and 21% in Scotland
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
BBC Three is a huge waste of time and money. It's an example of those old fools at the top of the BBC not really having a clue about how to attract under 40s to watch the BBC. It's these people that cling to the old ways that will see the decline and eventual failure of it.
They don’t understand how this demographic consumes its entertainment. But that is part of their problem. How to appeal to this generation. It all very
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
Its not just BBC need to be worries about the future of media, Sky i suggest are in big trouble. Their model of high subscription costs for 1000 channels is again an incredibly out dated model, and they are heavily dependent on a select number of sports rights for the bulk of their subscribers, and although they are investing in original content, the best stuff e.g. on Sky Atlantic, they don't own. its mostly HBO, who have their own streaming app now.
If EPL decide to take the rights in house or their is the massive elephant in the room of Disney, who already own ESPN, and they already set up their offering in US, get ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+ as a package. That's sports, kids and grown ups content and can easily afford sports rights. Much sleaker offering than traditional cable or sky here.
I think the PL would be reluctant to let Sky go. As you say, the PL is massively important to Sky's business. As such, they will do whatever it takes to keep those rights. If Sky ever lose the rights, they could either go out of business, or radically alter their model and not bother bidding for PL rights ever again. Perhaps the new incumbent would then develop the same dependency on the PL rights, but that's far from certain.
Now, I know the bidding has to be fair and if Sky get ousted, that is that. Apparently, BT did outbid them for most of the packages for 2013-16, but not by 10% so it went to a second round in which Sky blew them out of the water. So, it would take quite a lot to remove Sky. I am fairly confident that PL would never bring it in-house when they can sell the rights for such huge amounts.
Actually the analysis is that the EPL would make a lot more from bringing it in house. £10 / month for an EPL channel they would be way ahead of their current deal assuming decent take up from current Sky subscriber base, and that's before considering global markets.
The big thing thay stops EPL is they don't have the tech and all the the filler content (especially if you went global as need multi-language). Sky fills several channels day in day out with EPL related material. The EPL would have to setup an operation to fill this void.
But as we keep saying making your own content gets easier every year and all the clubs have their own output now already. Its the streaming tech platform they need for mass viewership.
Current PL UK deal = £1.6 billion a year Current PL international income = about the same in total as the UK according media reports So total = £3.2 billion a year
That would need around 27 million subscribers at £120 per year to match it, before we even think about increased costs.
I guess there's potential to get more subscribers in the UK and Ireland at a much reduced fee (I'm paying a lot more than £10 a month!), but maybe not many more.
The big question is, how many people around the world who currently don't have to pay to watch the PL would cough up the money to watch it?
You are forgetting they get to run their own ads and corporate tie ins....the likes of the athletic have done in depth analysis of this and all agree EPL would make more money from a PremFlix approach even at £10 a month (and of course they would charge more than this).
They were wrong, I know someone who did the exercise for the PL and it worked out that they would need to charge somewhere around £23-27 per month. That was considered too high for just Premier League football and they also couldn't find a way to get around being the monopoly provider in the UK for all matches to the consumer so people would have to pay say £25 per month to the PL for ~110 games per year and then another £10/m to other providers for the remaining ~80 televised matches that they wouldn't be able to do with their DTC offering. They would also need to completely change the way that money is disbursed because I, as Spurs fan, would give no fucks about paying for Burnley vs Wolves and then we get into offering 3pm K, people nominating teams they'd like more matches for and asking for the ban to be lifted etc...
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
Monopoly provider was only an issue due to EU ruling. That doesn't apply anymore. And the blackout of 3pm kick off is surely has to be for the bin, as any idiot these days can hit a couple of strokes on the keyboard and find a stream from the US, SA or Middle East, and yet every game is a sell out
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
The thing is, right now, the PL is smashing it out of the park. They are miles ahead of the other domestic leagues and the Champions League. The Saudis could have bought a top team in Spain or Italy and gone straight into Europe. They bought Newcastle. Why? Because the PL is the super league. It's the place to be.
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
I agree. The PL rights system is going nowhere.
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
BBC Three is a huge waste of time and money. It's an example of those old fools at the top of the BBC not really having a clue about how to attract under 40s to watch the BBC. It's these people that cling to the old ways that will see the decline and eventual failure of it.
The faulty logic is really on display with BBC Three.
They launched a youth channel that didn't really focus on what the youth wanted so had poor viewership, the youth shifted to streaming, youtube and twitch, so they tried to take the same crap offering to streaming only and lost 90% of their audience (and that is despite two popular shows, in killing eve and nor al people)...so now when the world is going even more streaming and less non-linear programming, they are switching back to a traditional channel.
The BBC don't need dedicated channels, they need the right content. People will find it on iPlayer, just like they do on Netflix with Tiger King, Queens Gambit and Squid game or really random YouTube channels. The word gets out and people, especially the youth, know how to share the links etc
Mr. 1992, the BBC blew £30m on the concept of The Voice (just the concept) and threw away F1 despite it being one of only two sporting events to hit targets (the other being Wimbledon, though F1 was more successful).
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
OT Amazon seems to have suspended its planned cancellation of Visa credit cards.
I only learnt of this possibility on here. If Amazon had been serious, they'd have been informing customers (they weren't) and telling them they needed another way to pay. Given many are wedded to their bank and credit cards, it simply would've meant losing nearly half their customer base.
If I was VISA, I'd have simply called their bluff.....
They for sure were informing customers, they bullied me into substituting a debit card.
Ahhhh. That might be why then. We don't (my wife or I) have credit cards. I'd misread it as any VISA cards (debit cards included).
BoZo clings on and opposition politicians call him a liar in every TV interview until he does go
It’s open season.
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
Bloody dangerous quarry, second only to Cape buffalo. Their skulls are so thick they are effectively bullet proof, and if they charge you that's pretty much the only available target.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Looking at Greater Manchester, there are a couple of safe seats that might be available next time - Rochdale and Blackley. There are plenty of marginals but would you risk a footballer when there might be disgruntled fans of other clubs? Of course, Burnham will want a seat too
Unionists really do seem to want to deliver Christmas 2022 extraordinarily early.
Yes we will refuse indyref2 again as an extra Christmas present for you whether Boris or Sunak is PM then!
Bingo!
And erasing the BBC is a very odd way of convincing elderly people in Scotland that Mr Johnson is dripping with emotion and concern for them in the glorious Union.
James Forsyth @JGForsyth Split opening up between those Tory MPs who have local elections in their patch in May, who tend to favour moving sooner, and those who don’t, who are more inclined to wait and see how those contests go
Is there a map of where local elections are due? And a link to it?
Most council seats up in May are in London, Scotland and Wales.
Most of rural and market town England does not have local elections this year, so most Tory MPs will not have local elections in their local authority in May
Not so.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in:: - the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn), - a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire) - and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
I can see the Tories losing Somerset to the Lib Dems and overall control of Solihull to a Green led rainbow alliance but it's quite hard to see how the Tories suffer catastrophic losses in their own areas, in the North, even in Bolton which is Tory led the Tories are only defending 9 seats, some of which are safe anyway.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.
Oxfam is calling for a 99% tax on billionaires to help fund a COVID vaccination expansion effort in the world's poorest countries where rates can be as low as 7%.
Plenty of Tory MPs seem less flappy this than last week.
Point to lack of bombshell Sunday revelations, and tearoom chitchat this morn around "disappointment not white heat" on the doorsteps.. "1.5% have gone public"
The Invisible Assailant hasn’t been using Sundays though, they prefer weekdays. Sunday week ago was perfectly quiet, anyone saying Boris in mortal danger was being laughed at. Maybe Invisible Assailant think there is more cut through weekedays late afternoon than weekends?
Sounds like MPs are just bottling it and trying to find any excuse - as the majority of PB always expected they would - the only beneficiary of supporting a lame duck are for the opposition who really are going to be listened to and taken seriously now by voters.In other words, Big G is the loser in this delay, MoonRabbit a winner.
For my out in 2022 bet where I double my £50 anytime this year is a winner. 🤑
I accept that it is increasingly likely that Boris will hang on until May and that my belief he would be out in the next few weeks is disappearing mainly due to the indecision of his mps who ultimately have to unite to act
It’s interesting that if the Invisible Assailant (which I think I shall shorten to Norman after Leon saying it’s like what Norman bates done to victims in the shower) doesn’t put anything out, all the great and good of UK investigative journalism isn’t finding anything! That’s why the Sunday’s are so quiet. You would think it would be quite a decent scoop for them. How rubbish are they 🙂
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
it's odd. Both Doms are saying they have spoken to someone who warned the PM in writing it was a party. What is that person now thinking? Gonna wait for Sue Gray's report, or talk to her?
BoZo clings on and opposition politicians call him a liar in every TV interview until he does go
It’s open season.
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
Bloody dangerous quarry, second only to Cape buffalo. Their skulls are so thick they are effectively bullet proof, and if they charge you that's pretty much the only available target.
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
I ask, in all seriousness, do you wish to become a parliamentary candidate ?
I wonder how lifelong labour activists on the candidates list and his shadow cabinet feel about that.
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
Agreed, Gary Neville was happy to not be a Labour member under Ed Miliband and Corbyn when Labour were losing. Hard working local Labour party activists and councillors were. Now Labour look like winning it seems he will be on the Labour candidate list as Starmer starts his version of Cameron's pre 2010 A list.
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
When the facts change, I change my mind. Remember that. And we don't KNOW what 'facts' are important to Neville. Or when they were, or have become now. Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do. Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
If you are merely a swing voter maybe.
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
I ask, in all seriousness, do you wish to become a parliamentary candidate ?
If I ever get elected as a district councillor I might consider it.
Comments
"Between 05:00 and 06:00 UTC on 15 January 2022, 200,000 (lightning) flashes were recorded."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga_eruption_and_tsunami
That's quite a lot of lightning...
But yes, of course Visa was the primary target.
Farrow & Ball have released a new colour: Sue Gray.
However it is a very light shade, which means that if spread too thinly it looks like whitewash.
Now, I'm pretty fundamentally against masks for the reasons @pigeon spells out - but I recognise most people have a more conditional approach to them. At what level of which indicator would you support this?
I think Nick P - who is more up the cautious end of the spectrum - suggested a level of daily positives o around 20,000 at which he'd be happy with this (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, @NickPalmer ) - what is your level?
My gut feeling is that the next election is still wide open if the Tories get rid of BoJo and manage the transition well. Why? Labour's current core beliefs have minority support and majority opposition. It is all to play for and the eventual outcome will depend on the moves made by both parties.
In the end the lump sums they get from Sky, BT and Amazon was seen as the lesser evil.
However whoever leads the Tories, Boris, Sunak, Truss, Raab, the Tories are going to lose seats and will not win the big 80 seat majority they did in 2019 again
What a ridiculous thing to say. He’s hardly proven as a political campaigner or a politician. He’s just another blue tick spouting crap on twitter for likes and retweets. People,left and right do it all the time.
The people truly attacking her integrity are the Johnsonites suggesting that they have inside information giving them a steer on what her findings will be. If that is true, she is corrupt, no question. If it isn't they should not be saying it.
Why couldn't they go the NFL model, every game live. They are already doing it, just not showing UK consumers. Even £25 / month, if its every game, that's a better deal than sky + bt + amazon.
And every 24 hours we sit around waiting for Gray is costing them, what, another 3 seats?
"I think there’s quite a few in the England team who would equally want to be in the shadow cabinet, so we’ll have a sporting shadow cabinet with all of these stars in."
Neville is just a glory hunter, much like fans of his old club, Manchester United in the late 1990s and 2000s
Should be someone else completely, out of the chain of command. What you don't do is to put someone in a potentially career-ending, children-starving position and pretend she has complete freedom.
If you want to do something that was being blocked by the PM before then now is the time - he fights you, you quit and help his downfall. Boris is neutered (unfortunately no robably about 30 years too late) so make the most of it.
Added to that you can leave all the upcoming shit to stick to him until the right time to replace him.
It’s cynical but politics is cynical - morally as a cabinet minister you might think he should go now but political and career interests will weigh more in the end.
And all 3 (well until BT sells their TV channels) are subsiding the EPL in return for the customers / audience that offering football matches generates).
They've managed to conflate the adequacy of the enquiry (deeply questionable) with Sue Gray's integrity (not at issue).
I think that's where the PL will go for it, overseas and if they can make it work then transpose it to the UK after the next rights round is signed. Don't forget they're in no rush, they get £1.6bn per seasons for domestic rights and no one's complaining that it isn't enough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-60002110
So even if some analysts think it is possible to make even more money by radically altering their model, why would you risk it?
Many of us have changed our minds over the years, some quite a lot, some not a lot. It's a perfectly respectable thing to do.
Not changing one's mind under any circumstances isn't though.
The 3pm blackout is definitely a relic from the past, I can walk into a pub out here and watch every game live at 3pm UK time, complete with English commentary.
The PL domestic rights are unlike any other major competition, what might work for NFL won't work for the PL.
In PR and Advertising terms what the BBC gives us is incalculable but that's only a tiny bit of the story. Trace our success in the arts film making media expertise and the BBC will be at it's heart.
Who discovered the likes of Ridley Scott and his Brother Tony......
I really can't be bothered to go on. This country is being governed by a bunch of Philistines and the sooner we either change government or the sensible among us settle somewhere else the better.
My original point was more Sky business model is totally reliant on EPL. That's not a great place to be when technology is running away from them and also there are other massive players like Disney, who not only have the money and tech, they have long history in sports rights / sports coverage.
Johnson should definitely continue.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/24/scottish-seabed-windfarm-auction-set-to-bring-in-860m
Time to review the Barnett Formula
If you want to become a parliamentary candidate for a political party though I would generally expect you to have campaigned and supported that party through thick and thin, win or lose
Francis' argument for both the PL and the BBC seems to be "I think this is outdated, therefore it is outdated and needs changing immediately."
However, this seems to come from a place of assuming that the PL and BBC aren't looking to the future themselves. I'm sure they are, I just don't think they're rushing into it.
Taking BBC Three for example, I've seen it written on here over the weekend that live TV is dead and it's all about streaming, but I'm sure the BBC wouldn't spend the money to restart a TV service that they closed down with fanfare 7 years earlier if they hadn't done their research and found an audience for it.
Because everywhere else in the world can watch all the matches live, many people in the UK are simply watching the unofficial sources when the official ones are blacked out.
Which makes them aware of the unofficial sources, and less likely over time to keep up the subscriptions to the official ones.
Approx 5,000 English seats are up for re-election in May - and only about 1,800 in Greater London.
The other 3,000 odd are heavily concentrated in the non-London big conurbations, with a tiny smattering in two traditional Tory shires (North Yorks and Somerset) as well as the LD/Lab coalition in Cumbria, but a lot of other smaller pockets around England
What's close to what HYUFD said is that the overwhelming majority of this coming May's English seats up for election were won in 2018 by Labour or the LDs. Outside the Tory shires, the only clusters of Tory seats Johnson's awfulness might undermine are the half or third of all council seats up for May election in::
- the poshish fringes of . the big cities (places like Harrogate and Welwyn),
- a few traditional once-safe Tory heartlands (like West Oxfordshire)
- and a possibly disconcerting (to Tory fundamentalists) number of potential swing seats in places like Swindon, Southampton and Nuneaton
Heaven knows how many of these will create enough movement to tip Tory-held councils over to Lib, Lab or lefty alliances. But in many of these councils, only three or four Tory losses will be enough for the Tories to lose their overall majority, making alliances of their opponents likely alternatives.
My money would be on May's real victor in England outside London being Lib/Lab/Green alliances. And that really does change the challenge for a Tory party looking at a 2024 national election.
Hence my point stands, most Tory MPs to not have local elections in their local authority this May.
As you say Labour and the LDs won most of the councillors up in May even in 2018.
Hence most of the seats the Tories do lose will likely be in the posher parts of London where all seats are up, even those parts of non London England up like here in Epping Forest only elect in thirds
https://twitter.com/jessdewahls/status/1482814211344453642?s=21
If she reports concrete evidence Johnson and Case lied, that will cost her job. Anything less & she'll be "a stooge."
https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1483044215911243778
'Merely' a swing voter!!!!! Swing voters are the people who change Governments!
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
2h
Epi to English translation:
"Without a new lockdown there'll be at least 3k deaths/day" = With a bit of WFH advice & masking, we can tough it out
"If schools open there'll be 2k-7k hospitalisations/day" = Do nothing & hospitalisations will peak at ~1k/day - it'll be no problem+
There are tentative signs cases might turn soon" = Cases started falling a week ago & are now dropping 20%/week
"If numbers carry on like this for another week I'll be hopeful the wave has turned" = Case have been falling for several weeks & are now dropping 45%/week
If the PL sell the rights direct to consumers, the upside might be much higher, but there is also considerable risk, uncertainty and ramp-up.
Truss was a Tory supporter and campaigner from 1998 to now despite a radical LD student period, as well as being a Tory association chair and councillor, she did not just suddenly become a Tory MP in 2010 from nowhere
Felling lazy, stupid, dishevelled water-buffalo might not be the prettiest sport, but hey, it’s tremendous fun.
https://youtu.be/C-q4bEULG64
I missed this. The whole of Plan B, inc mask-wearing and care home restrictions, will expire under the sunset clause 26 Jan.
What is being suggested? That they get parliament to vote on a watered-down Plan B?
Can't see it myself. I'm not expecting any of Plan B to be extended.
They may give guidelines of course but any legal restrictions will be lifted I'm pretty sure.
So much for people being employed in media for their contacts, their journalistic skills for finding a scoop! It’s all come from Norman, nothing from the rest of them. Totally embarrassment for The Sun, they even employ people who were at the parties.
They launched a youth channel that didn't really focus on what the youth wanted so had poor viewership, the youth shifted to streaming, youtube and twitch, so they tried to take the same crap offering to streaming only and lost 90% of their audience (and that is despite two popular shows, in killing eve and nor al people)...so now when the world is going even more streaming and less non-linear programming, they are switching back to a traditional channel.
The BBC don't need dedicated channels, they need the right content. People will find it on iPlayer, just like they do on Netflix with Tiger King, Queens Gambit and Squid game or really random YouTube channels. The word gets out and people, especially the youth, know how to share the links etc
I am unpersuaded by the notion the BBC can't make obviously stupid broadcasting decisions.
And erasing the BBC is a very odd way of convincing elderly people in Scotland that Mr Johnson is dripping with emotion and concern for them in the glorious Union.
I'm just not convinced Starmer led Labour will do convincingly well in local elections (as in like the 2012 results) until it actually happens.
I also think Labour will struggle to gain many seats net in London beyond what they got in 2018, even though they really should gain Wandsworth, it is not certain.
The Tories can quite easily spin a victory overall just by holding Wandsworth, Barnet and Westminster.