Football TV Rights.

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Blanchflower said:
PLTV already exists - they produce ready made programmes to sell around the world.

Absolutely makes no sense to have Sky, BT, Amazon, etc adding in an extra layer of profit margin.

Just sell rent a channel on Sky and sell subscriptions direct, would be cheaper and the clubs would make more money.
Click to expand...
It is bizarre, to say the least.

If you have the "product" that everyone wants to watch why would you:
a) Dilute that product by selling the rights to a third party(s) who only have a tiny percentage of subscribers that can view it. Therefore driving and creating a market for illegal streaming and massive lost revenue.
b) With internet streaming why in fact would the PL even bother renting a channel? Just stream the games live from your own dedicated player for pay per view, and/or different level of subscription like all the games to just club-specific and/or home/away. Sell direct to advertisers and keep 100% of the ad revenue. And own all the data on each and every subscriber worldwide!!!

Basically reverse engineer (in today's bullshit bingo "disrupt") what is the current status quo, get the punters to come directly to you as you have want they and the distribution channels want.
 
Guido said:
It is bizarre, to say the least.

If you have the "product" that everyone wants to watch why would you:
a) Dilute that product by selling the rights to a third party(s) who only have a tiny percentage of subscribers that can view it. Therefore driving and creating a market for illegal streaming and massive lost revenue.
b) With internet streaming why in fact would the PL even bother renting a channel? Just stream the games live from your own dedicated player for pay per view, and/or different level of subscription like all the games to just club-specific and/or home/away. Sell direct to advertisers and keep 100% of the ad revenue. And own all the data on each and every subscriber worldwide!!!

Basically reverse engineer (in today's bullshit bingo "disrupt") what is the current status quo, get the punters to come directly to you as you have want they and the distribution channels want.
Click to expand...

All you need is a platform direct to customer and cut out the middle man. Cant be that hard if everyone else can do it.
 
ArmadilloSackRace said:
I expect to see something like they do with the NBA. I can buy the League Pass for £179.99 for the season, which means I can watch every single game live, highlights or full games on demand whenever I want, and other stuff; or I can pay £99.99 for all that but just for my team. There's also the option to pay monthly at £24.99/£14.99

There's way more games in the NBA, but I could see the costs being pretty similar for the Premier League anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats the ideal scenario. 100 quid for spurs. Job done.
 
VoiceOfThePoshSeats said:
All you need is a platform direct to customer and cut out the middle man. Cant be that hard if everyone else can do it.
Click to expand...
The only risk is miscalculating the value in which the current rights holders do in promoting the PL and making it the product that it has become. So if they weren't buying and promoting the rights would it be this big? For the PL it's I guess 'safe' money in the bank if they can collect the billions from all those companies that take the financial risk in the first place.

But feel the product is big enough to stand on its own feet now, invest the "new" income stream into promoting their own platform.
 
Guido said:
The only risk is miscalculating the value in which the current rights holders do in promoting the PL and making it the product that it has become. So if they weren't buying and promoting the rights would it be this big? For the PL it's I guess 'safe' money in the bank if they can collect the billions from all those companies that take the financial risk in the first place.

But feel the product is big enough to stand on its own feet now, invest the "new" income stream into promoting their own platform.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Its all about visibility versus money. Boxing could be huge were it on terrestrial tv. People like frank bruno were household names. Now its a niche sport on pay per view but the boxers get more money.

I think you have to wait until over the top streaming becomes mainstream. Too early and the product gets lost.

I suppose it depends on smart tv owning customers, broadband capability etc...

But its only a matter of time.
 
Some of that drivel....

"Streaming is a terrible idea for less-supported clubs because it will reveal all too nakedly how uninterested the world is in their games when not against the big six. Do they really want that? Of course they don’t. They stand to lose and lose big.

The Premier League also knows that most if not all of the other 14 will not make big Premflix sales. They already know how unpopular so many games are on TV. They know that Sky broadcast 128 games and 112 got under two million watching for three minutes consecutively. Imagine how low those numbers would be if you could watch any other game instead of the only game they’re showing?

But the league is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has to change with the times but in doing so they should already know they will undermine themselves. The league can’t let the big six do their own thing and keep the integrity of the league intact. Yet negotiating broadcast rights without them would mean massively shrunken incomes for the other 14, as broadcasters would pay a lot less without the big six attraction."
 
ArtyB said:
Some of that drivel....

"Streaming is a terrible idea for less-supported clubs because it will reveal all too nakedly how uninterested the world is in their games when not against the big six. Do they really want that? Of course they don’t. They stand to lose and lose big.

The Premier League also knows that most if not all of the other 14 will not make big Premflix sales. They already know how unpopular so many games are on TV. They know that Sky broadcast 128 games and 112 got under two million watching for three minutes consecutively. Imagine how low those numbers would be if you could watch any other game instead of the only game they’re showing?

But the league is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has to change with the times but in doing so they should already know they will undermine themselves. The league can’t let the big six do their own thing and keep the integrity of the league intact. Yet negotiating broadcast rights without them would mean massively shrunken incomes for the other 14, as broadcasters would pay a lot less without the big six attraction."
Click to expand...

Straight from harvard business school this guy.

Sky doesnt give a fuck how many people watch west ham v burnley. As long as you buy a subscription thats all that matters.

Theres no way to watch man u without paying for burnley included.
 
ArtyB said:
Some of that drivel....

"Streaming is a terrible idea for less-supported clubs because it will reveal all too nakedly how uninterested the world is in their games when not against the big six. Do they really want that? Of course they don’t. They stand to lose and lose big.

The Premier League also knows that most if not all of the other 14 will not make big Premflix sales. They already know how unpopular so many games are on TV. They know that Sky broadcast 128 games and 112 got under two million watching for three minutes consecutively. Imagine how low those numbers would be if you could watch any other game instead of the only game they’re showing?

But the league is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has to change with the times but in doing so they should already know they will undermine themselves. The league can’t let the big six do their own thing and keep the integrity of the league intact. Yet negotiating broadcast rights without them would mean massively shrunken incomes for the other 14, as broadcasters would pay a lot less without the big six attraction."
Click to expand...
It is what the new owners are gambling on though selling rights individually rather than collectively - that's the end goal and will be detrimental to the league as a whole. An on demand service just makes their argument more compelling.
 
VoiceOfThePoshSeats said:
Straight from harvard business school this guy.

Sky doesnt give a fuck how many people watch west ham v burnley. As long as you buy a subscription thats all that matters.

Theres no way to watch man u without paying for burnley included.
Click to expand...
A TV season ticket with the selling club is the way the owners of Man U / Chelsea / Liverpool / City (and even us to a certain extent) is where they will be able to get more revenues.
 
VoiceOfThePoshSeats said:
Premier league wont do it. As competition makes a better competition
Click to expand...
The Premier league is a members club - the owners of the "big 6" will keep threatening a break away - the remaining clubs will have to stand strong against it.

This is the argument they have been making for international rights and although its only a small change currently its potentially a thin edge of the wedge. My confidence in the "Premier league wont do it" is less than yours.

www.theguardian.com

Premier League’s top six win battle for larger share of overseas TV rights

The Premier League’s top six clubs have won their fight to take a bigger share of the top tier’s booming international broadcasting revenue
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"The so-called big six Premier League clubs have won their persistent battle to be paid a greater share of the income from its burgeoning international TV rights which have for 26 years been shared equally between all the league’s clubs.

Led by Manchester City and Liverpool, supported by Manchester United, Woolwich, Chelsea and Spurs, the six have pressed the case that as they are the prime attractions for global audiences and money paid by international broadcasters, they should receive more of the money."
 
If individual clubs sell their own rights, we'll be left well behind the rest of the big 6, baring probably Man City.

I think the NBA package splits profits equally, regardless of whether somebody pays the lesser amount to only watch 1 team's games, rather than the full package. That seems the right way to go for me. The last thing we want is for Liverpool and Man Utd to make 10 times the amount we do from TV rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom