World Cup 2006 rights bidding starts 2moro

[Salty25]

...yes, and its seems FIFA are particularly interested in PPV TV deals, ie SKY!!!

Of course, the World Cup is meant to be a 'crown jewel' in sports events on TV, so its meant to be terrestrial only, but that against EU rules on competition or something, so what is to stop Rupert and co from taking the greatest event of all from the majority of people?

Personally, I think people would feel truelly walked over if that happens, and they'd think twice about football at all. I still find it hard to accept that Sky has half the rights to the Champions League, you can't even see highlights of Wednesday games on terrestrial.

I know people will say, 'Well, Sky won't be allowed to broadcast the home nations' games exclusively', but I'm sure they said the same when they said that about the big teams' game when they first got Premiership rights.

I'm sick of Sky, I mean its not that their coverage is bad (its better than ITV, but BBC will always be the best), or that I don't believe in markets or profits/investment for the sport etc, but £35-41 a month is too much, way to much, and they have shown they are biased in game selection (and I'm a Manchester United fan!) towards the 'big three'.

 

[wolfav]

well said but the price will be going up for sly as there are rumours that the cup games will be broadcasted in highdef and if you hav'nt got the right tv there bound to want highdef prices still!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Salty25]

yes, HDTV is an absolute gimmick, I mean, we have to be getting to the point now where the human eye can not notice any inperfections in the picture.

Its such an irony, the EU says that its against a monolopy like Sky having all the Premiership coverage, they do not approve if Britain's 'crown jewels' of sport law, yet they are completely unwilling to protect the consumer from Sky's prices, which I think is the real reason for people's dislike of Sky, I don't believe people are THAT sentimental about the BBC.

Put it this why... we would be half as worried if Sky was only £20 a month max?

Sometimes I hear, and sometimes I even think, that football is the peoples game, and it belongs to us. Unfortunately, thats not the case, and we have to be realistic and understand that football ius just a product that can be brought and sold at a price. Doesn't mean I don't mind getting something for nothing though!!!

 

[RedDevil_UK]

this all brings us to another subject.... the TV Licence!!!

many years ago, when it was cheaper the Licence paid to the BBC (and still is) paid for the BBC to show us top films and sport events as well as making top documentarys and sit coms...
Today.... the BBC has NO new films, NO live sport, NO new documentaries (all old ones repeated) and NO new sitcoms either... and cant afford to buy the american ones like Stargate, Star Trek, Simpsons etc etc... all this and the TV Licence is now dearer!! and they are gonna put it up again!!! WTF!! they are taking the piss..

people should be allowed to opt out, and say they dont want any BBC channels at all and not have to pay the TV Licence fee...

you say SKY is a monopoly... at least you pay for what you watch with sky, i havent watched the BBC for about 10 years, but i have been FORCED to buy a TV licence...

if it is a TV Licence... then why doesnt the money get divided between the BBC, ITV networks and Sky too???
and to add insult to injury i dont even like the BBC radio stations either!!!

BTW, i dont have sky fitted either, i think its too dear. but by not watching it... it costs me nothing!! i dont watch the BBC and it costs me over £100 a year.

anyway got to go, a man from Ford has just knocked on the door... i have to pay for a new car i dont want or need and ill never see

 

[jimbo]

I think you sky haters have it all wrong. The real 'tax collectors' are the organisations that run football, demanding astronomical fees for TV rights so they can pay players anything up to £100,000 per week. That sort of money multiplied through a squad plus the pay for managers, coaches and various support staff doesn't come through the turnstiles. It comes from marketing and TV rights plays a big part. So Sky pay the going rate and the BBC can't afford to. Sky's charges to cover their outlay doesn't seem OTT to me. Over 100 channels (yep some rubbish agreed) Sky Sports 1,2,3 and extra for just under £8 per week seems reasonable in the scale of things I just described. FFS it costs £25 to go to one game.

So if you think it's too much get on to the football powers that be and suggest they lower players wages to £100,000 a year instead of a week. I can see the point to that because I could scrape by on it.

 

[Salty25]

You have to bear in mind though what BBC, I'm always using their website, and they do have the best news coverage, I know thats sound cheesy, but its true.

For example, sorry to pick out such a horrible event, but when that Beslan school thing happened, the BBC knew whats really happening, even CNN looked a bit amatuerish compared to the BBC's coverage.

Also, whenever the BBC do have football, ie Internation, FA Cup, they seem to have that feeling that you don't get from any other channel, that kind of 'good ole days' feel, and thats face it, if the BBC didn't dothe Olympics, Sky would definitely put it on PPV and no oned could watch it!

Sorry Jimbo, but would you agree to pay £41 still if the EU ruled it was unfair? For example, as far as I've been informed, in Scandanvia, Canal+ is about £20, and they get more football, and the channel quantity is less, but all the channels are quality.

As for the Sky vs. match ticket price argument; I don't think the two issues really matter, since most fans now don't see their team on a regular basis, so when they do, its more like a one-off day out type affair, whereas Sky is a monthly subscription, like a magazine.

From what I remember, from this season onwards, all the big games were meant to be on terrestrial after the EU argued with Sky over it, then in the end the BBC/ITV couldnt afford to buy them anyway! It seems to me that, from this, that it is Sky, who set the price of the rights, not the league. Basically, the clubs need the money now more than Sky need the football, because a) player wages outstripe profits, and the clubs need the publicity, especially in grow markets like Asia (although thats a completely different issue!).

 

[rolfw]

If you really look at what the different national providers offer in the mainstream European contries, there is not much real difference in value. Some may be cheaper, but offer less in the way of channels. A common mistake is counting the PPV channels as part of the paid package, take the Kiosk channels, many hobbyists take these for granted, but they are actually PPV, looks like a pretty lacklustre package when those are removed.

With regard to the Internatiional matches involving the home teams, I would be very surprised if they do go to Sky in the short to medium term, but wouldn't rule it out long term.

Of course the love of football is not universal and a lot of sports fans do not understand how much annoyance is caused to non sports fans when prgrammes are delayed or cancelled because of football matches on BBC or ITV. Hopefully this will be circumvented when digital switchover is complete.


I would not be very happy if the BBC entered into too many of the bidding contests, was not particularly impressed with the amount they bid for the Harry Potter film the other Christmas, they could have produced a mini series for the same money.

I certainly wouldn't want one penny of the licence money directly going to the commercial broadcasters, as it would be their shareholders who benefit, not the licence payers. Look at the mess that ITV made of their original digital platform, heavily down to entering into a bidding war on football, wouldn't trust them with my money.

 

[Salty25]

Yes, I'm pretty sure the problem of sport delaying normal programming will be addressed, via different screens (red button feature etc).

Indeed, using the license fee to pay out for rights is controversial, and again it would be unfair to spend it on sport when many more people would enjoy drama etc. If only we spent so much money on our film industry, theres so much potential in this country for great cinema.