Sky Sports Golf

[road2ruin]

And Sky wonder why so many now watch sports through less legitimate means.

They paid just over £4bn for the Premier League rights and expect those who have a golf, cricket etc interest to subsidise the football channel.

I think it's a step forward in terms of what they're doing however the pricing isn't right.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

And Sky wonder why so many now watch sports through less legitimate means.

They paid just over £4bn for the Premier League rights and expect those who have a golf, cricket etc interest to subsidise the football channel.

I think it's a step forward in terms of what they're doing however the pricing isn't right.

and how can they justify keeping the sky prices so high when they lost the champs league? more for less

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Quite simply because when the CL rights were won there was no increase in subscription directly attributed to that. So why would a business offer a reduction for something that never had an increase associated.

Sky are a business first and foremost and have made a mess of the EPL rights strategy which has resulted in the need to redefine the pricing and packaging structure. The rights costs were never expected to spike like they did for a number of years yet but the money factory that is English football (the cycle of which someone described perfectly earlier in the thread about fan demand/ultimate cost) has pushed it quicker than expected.
But with most things Sky people will find a way to hate them or moan about them. They don't offer choice, people complain. They offer choice, people still complain.

I often see it written on here that if you don't like it then don't buy/subscribe/follow/read it (delete as appropriate).

they increased their prices when they lost the champs league tho? not justified

 

[GreiginFife]

and how can they justify keeping the sky prices so high when they lost the champs league? more for less

Quite simply because when the CL rights were won there was no increase in subscription directly attributed to that. So why would a business offer a reduction for something that never had an increase associated.

Sky are a business first and foremost and have made a mess of the EPL rights strategy which has resulted in the need to redefine the pricing and packaging structure. The rights costs were never expected to spike like they did for a number of years yet but the money factory that is English football (the cycle of which someone described perfectly earlier in the thread about fan demand/ultimate cost) has pushed it quicker than expected.
But with most things Sky people will find a way to hate them or moan about them. They don't offer choice, people complain. They offer choice, people still complain.

I often see it written on here that if you don't like it then don't buy/subscribe/follow/read it (delete as appropriate).

 

[Papas1982]

and how can they justify keeping the sky prices so high when they lost the champs league? more for less

Because their total outlay is still more than the previous deals that included less.

I don't see hwy people complain tbh, If you want it. Pay for it. If not, don't.

It would cost a lot more to try and watch it all at venue.

 

[pendodave]

I'm sure that the clever people at sky have done the maths, but I'm not sure how it'll work for them.

I can't believe that they will get many new subscribers unless they price the 'other' sports much more competitively. On the other hand, I would imagine that a lot of their current subscribers are footy only and will ditch the rest asap to save a few bob.

Anything that makes people stop and think about how much of their (ever reducing) take home is being shoveled in Mr. Murdoch's direction is surely going to come back to bite them?

 

[GreiginFife]

they increased their prices when they lost the champs league tho? not justified

That wasn't the question. And the fact remains there was no increase attributed to the CL directly. Other costs, including the increased PL rights plus other wholesale investments in programming are more directly attributed to price increases.
Again though, people will have an opinion on Sky (most still thinking Murdoch runs the show) that won't change and everything they do will be the devil.
Subscribe if you think it's worth it, don't if you don't.

 

[hines57]

Also to charge level pricing regardless of which channel isn't right. Whichever shows EPL football should be vastly more than the others since that's where the bulk of their money goes...

fully agree with this input!!!

 

[pendodave]

(most still thinking Murdoch runs the show)

Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox owns a 39.14 per cent controlling stake in the company. OK, so that's lifted from the 100% reliable wikipedia, and I'm sure the exact corporate structures and ownerships are slightly more opaque than this, but lets not pretend that his grubby paws aren't all over it.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Looking at the Sky website it has James Murdoch as Chairman of Sky and top of the pile. Quite a close link to old Rupert.

 

[GreiginFife]

Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox owns a 39.14 per cent controlling stake in the company. OK, so that's lifted from the 100% reliable wikipedia, and I'm sure the exact corporate structures and ownerships are slightly more opaque than this, but lets not pretend that his grubby paws aren't all over it.

Whilst Fox owns a controlling stake the decisions and daily running are still the activities of the BSkyB board, of which KRM is not a member.
But that is not the point of the thread, I will not let the actual facts spoil people's good rants. :this:

 

[Hacker Khan]

All the details here - http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/sports/new-sky-sports

Cost is as above, £18 just for the golf for me is a bit much. Have just cancelled my sky sports as it was due to go up to £65 from £32.75 in August, the best they could offer was £58 for the whole sports package for £18 months. not much of a saving really.

I like the idea of having just a golf channel, but it all depends what they are going to show, obviously it launches Open week so there will be plenty to watch for a couple weeks but after that, say October what are they going to be showing for 7 days a week, will it just be a repeats of chronicles of a champion golfer etc. and the live golf for 3/4 a night and the euro coverage during the days, which unless its a Rolex series event is maybe max 5 hours a day and not all day.

How did they get to 65 quid for just Sky Sports? Or was the the whole Sky package?

 

[Garush34]

Is this going to affect current Sky Sports subscribers? I got my package on a deal which doesn't finish until the end of the year.

No it wont effect you until you downgrade your package I believe. You'll get access to all sky sports content.

 

[GB72]

Does it not concern anyone else thought that if Sky simply decided to lower or drop its bid for any particular sport, the professional level of that sport could go bankrupt over night. OK, golf seems pretty safe as the TV money does not seem to be the be all and end all of it but you would suspect that football, rugby, cricket and a few others could pretty much go poof over night if the satellite broadcasters decided that they were not willing to pay the massive amounts any more.

 

[Garush34]

How did they get to 65 quid for just Sky Sports? Or was the the whole Sky package?

Sorry should have explained better, we got a deal last year for half price on any package for a year so took the sports and entertainment which brought it down to £32.75 a month for the year. So phoned last week to see if they could do better as it was due to go up to £65 a month, the best they could do was the £58. for the same package. So from August we only have the entertainment package which is £38 a month, can't justify the sports at the full price and I know the Mrs wouldn't want to pay for it as she wouldn't watch any of it.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Sorry should have explained better, we got a deal last year for half price on any package for a year so took the sports and entertainment which brought it down to £32.75 a month for the year. So phoned last week to see if they could do better as it was due to go up to £65 a month, the best they could do was the £58. for the same package. So from August we only have the entertainment package which is £38 a month, can't justify the sports at the full price and I know the Mrs wouldn't want to pay for it as she wouldn't watch any of it.

Fair play, I'm in the same boat as about to cancel sky ports as just can't justify the price to watch a few hours at most of the majors now and then plus The Ryder Cup once every 2 years. Wouldn't possibly mind paying for just the golf channel if most of the half decent tournaments did not finish at 1 in the morning on a Sunday evening which is way past my bedtime. Haven't watched a football match in full for a very long time now.

 

[pendodave]

Does it not concern anyone else thought that if Sky simply decided to lower or drop its bid for any particular sport, the professional level of that sport could go bankrupt over night. OK, golf seems pretty safe as the TV money does not seem to be the be all and end all of it but you would suspect that football, rugby, cricket and a few others could pretty much go poof over night if the satellite broadcasters decided that they were not willing to pay the massive amounts any more.

There is some precedent to this - when itv digital went bust, they pulled out of their tv deal with the championship clubs. There was much doom-mongering, but the clubs are still alive.

There will always be a market for sports rights, content will always have worth. Ultimately, salaries might be lower, but will sports just stop existing? I doubt it. The laws of bankruptcy are pretty complicated, look at how clubs like Rangers are still going despite all manner of shenanigans.

 

[fundy]

Does it not concern anyone else thought that if Sky simply decided to lower or drop its bid for any particular sport, the professional level of that sport could go bankrupt over night. OK, golf seems pretty safe as the TV money does not seem to be the be all and end all of it but you would suspect that football, rugby, cricket and a few others could pretty much go poof over night if the satellite broadcasters decided that they were not willing to pay the massive amounts any more.

the creation of BT sport as a decent rival has lessened the risk of that to some degree, there again a few sports could do with the bubble bursting (and yes football is by far at the top of that list). cricket is vulnerable (you only have to look at the current issues going on in australia as they fight over tv money) albeit the game is shifting a little away from internationals and more towards franchise t20s sadly, rugby is also heading down the being vulnerable road (compare the uk to france for eg). obviously there are sports such as darts that have become what they are because of skys coverage and money and any withdrawal would see them take a massive hit for sure

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Does it not concern anyone else thought that if Sky simply decided to lower or drop its bid for any particular sport, the professional level of that sport could go bankrupt over night. OK, golf seems pretty safe as the TV money does not seem to be the be all and end all of it but you would suspect that football, rugby, cricket and a few others could pretty much go poof over night if the satellite broadcasters decided that they were not willing to pay the massive amounts any more.

This is a very good point but it is for each individual sport to run itself accordingly. I agree that many sports are now too reliant on Sky money, rugby seems pretty vulnerable to me but maybe I am wrong. Football has a wider worldwide reach so whilst the payments may drop to an extent the money paid will be high for a while longer and any drop should not decimate the clubs.

 

[Senseicads]

Given the amount of events I am actually interested in, Paying for Now TV packages seems the way forward for me. If the new channels where actually priced sensible and individually then I would think about them. I'd be happy paying like £7.99 for a golf channel alone for example, but £18.99 is just mental. People that subscribe will get all or none, and all that will happen is that sky will decide that this formula doesn't work and isn't wanted. When in reality, its the pricing structure that doesn't actually work.