So, when do you think Mike Ashley

[Kid Dynamite 6147]

Have you ever watched a stream? I cant remember the last one that was truly watchable. I would pay to see 38 league games in decent quality like

 

Yes I have. I've had many watchable ones. It's probably your broadband connection, probably getting it from sky because they bend you over and you accept any extra package with extra charges they offer you. Like anytime plus. So you probably would pay, you'd be their ideal customer. Most people wouldn't pay for it though. It's cheaper to sit in the pub and buy a couple of pints and watch it on a perfect quality foreign channel, which would be better quality than a legal stream.

 

 

Would that be the free Anytime +, the one I watch with my years free HD subscription Not my fault your'e shit at getting a good deal!

[Guest]

Have you ever watched a stream? I cant remember the last one that was truly watchable. I would pay to see 38 league games in decent quality like

 

Yes I have. I've had many watchable ones. It's probably your broadband connection, probably getting it from sky because they bend you over and you accept any extra package with extra charges they offer you. Like anytime plus. So you probably would pay, you'd be their ideal customer. Most people wouldn't pay for it though. It's cheaper to sit in the pub and buy a couple of pints and watch it on a perfect quality foreign channel, which would be better quality than a legal stream.

 

 

Would that be the free Anytime +, the one I watch with my years free HD subscription Not my fault your'e shit at getting a good deal!

 

 

I got a good deal on my iPhone though.

[spongebob toonpants 3661]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

[Guest]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

 

 

How much do the BBC pay for the MOTD rights? How much do sky pay to show live games? Would either be willing to pay that if 100,000 supporters from each club were watching all of their games live elsewhere. Am I missing something here?

[Kid Dynamite 6147]

Insight?

[spongebob toonpants 3661]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

 

 

How much do the BBC pay for the MOTD rights? How much do sky pay to show live games? Would either be willing to pay that if 100,000 supporters from each club were watching all of their games live elsewhere. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes you are pretty much missing the whole point.

 

In the beginning there were live games, which people payed to attend

 

The along came Match of the Day showing highlights on the TV, and paying for the privilege.

People still pay to go the match

 

Then along came Sky and started showing live games-which they pay for.

Match of the Day still exists, and they still pay for the rights.

Not only this people still attend live games and pay to get in

 

Now we have the internet which offers the possibilty of live coverage of all your teams games. Some people will be happy to pay for this service.

Sky will still Show live games

Match of the Day will still exist

People will still go the match.

 

There is no reason to think that those who buy a subscription to their own team will suddenly lose all interest in watching Man U vs Arsenal.

 

Its true that this will benefit the clubs with bigger fanbases more, however these are the clubs that have the most power.

[Happy Face 29]

BBC still get exclusive first show coverage under the model that's evolved. So do Sky and ESPN.

 

They currently give every Premier league club £40m a season for that (not to mention the money that goes to the lower leagues) and you think they'll gladly keep paying that much, despite losing all exclusivity to clubs that sell games directly to punters to bring in a third of the amount?

 

Rupert Murdoch's that daft?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[spongebob toonpants 3661]

BBC still get exclusive first show coverage under the model that's evolved. So do Sky and ESPN.

 

They currently give every Premier league club £40m a season for that (not to mention the money that goes to the lower leagues) and you think they'll gladly keep paying that much despite losing all exclusivity to the clubs selling games directly to punters to bring in a third of the amount?

 

Rupert Murdoch's that daft?

 

 

The model that has evolved though, evolved without the internet. And I don't see why you think its a given that this will have a negative impact on Sky, its an addition not an alternative.

 

I already watch the Newcastle games on the internet, but I will still watch the Saturday lunchtime game,and Match of the Day and the Sunday game on Sky, -unless its Blackburn Wigan or whatever. Maybe the live Sky games aren't included in the internet so you are only paying for the games you weren't already going to see on Sky.

 

As people have said you can already watch all games live on the internet, that genie is out of the bottle. This is about generating new revenue from the opportunity, and the continued evolution of the model as the media developes

 

Its much more likely that Murdoch will have his hand in the internet pie as well. The sky cameras will still be at the ground, obody buys a Sky subscription for goals on SUnday- he can sell the feed to th club -everybody wins

Edited November 19, 2010 by spongebob toonpants

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Have you ever watched a stream? I cant remember the last one that was truly watchable. I would pay to see 38 league games in decent quality like

 

 

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok.

[ChezGiven 0]

Have you ever watched a stream? I cant remember the last one that was truly watchable. I would pay to see 38 league games in decent quality like

 

 

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok.

 

[Guest]

Subscriptions to sky sports would undoubtedly drop therefore so would tv money from them.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

 

 

I cant see how this is new money. Sky arnt going to give up their rights to screen the match live.

 

You seem to implying that it could be screened via sky and the nufc internet at the same time. But advertisers arent going to pay sky the same rate for a newcastle match if they think the audience is split beween internet and sattelite.?

[Guest]

The big sums paid now are down to exclusivity, take that away and guess what happens...

[Christmas Tree 4005]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

 

 

How much do the BBC pay for the MOTD rights? How much do sky pay to show live games? Would either be willing to pay that if 100,000 supporters from each club were watching all of their games live elsewhere. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes you are pretty much missing the whole point.

 

In the beginning there were live games, which people payed to attend

 

The along came Match of the Day showing highlights on the TV, and paying for the privilege.

People still pay to go the match

 

Then along came Sky and started showing live games-which they pay for.

Match of the Day still exists, and they still pay for the rights.

Not only this people still attend live games and pay to get in

 

Now we have the internet which offers the possibilty of live coverage of all your teams games. Some people will be happy to pay for this service.

Sky will still Show live gamesMatch of the Day will still exist

People will still go the match.

 

There is no reason to think that those who buy a subscription to their own team will suddenly lose all interest in watching Man U vs Arsenal.

 

Its true that this will benefit the clubs with bigger fanbases more, however these are the clubs that have the most power.

 

 

Probably covered in my earlier post but if I currently pay Sky £20,0000 to show one of my adverts during the match, Im not suddenly going to pay them the same ammount knowing the audience is now split elsewhere, therefore Skys revenues drop and subsequently the money going into the clubs drop.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Have you ever watched a stream? I cant remember the last one that was truly watchable. I would pay to see 38 league games in decent quality like

 

 

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok.

 

 

 

Hope your laughing at my grammar which is probably shot condidering my currant state.

[ChezGiven 0]

Advertisers pay by viewer CT and this comes through to the club via the broadcast rights. More subscribers too which also boosts broadcast rights payments. If more people are viewing the match, there will be more revenue for the club, without doubt. The question is whether Sky lets it happen as they are the ones who will lose out due to the competition. The reason Sky pays billions for the premier league is because that gets them exclusivity.

 

Someone from the US said 26.99 per week for HD internet. Equivalent of £50 a month. I dont give a shit about Sky folding but anything that can focus the finance around our bigger fanbase is a good thing for me.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Advertisers pay by viewer CT and this comes through to the club via the broadcast rights. More subscribers too which also boosts broadcast rights payments. If more people are viewing the match, there will be more revenue for the club, without doubt. The question is whether Sky lets it happen as they are the ones who will lose out due to the competition. The reason Sky pays billions for the premier league is because that gets them exclusivity.

 

Someone from the US said 26.99 per week for HD internet. Equivalent of £50 a month. I dont give a shit about Sky folding but anything that can focus the finance around our bigger fanbase is a good thing for me.

 

 

Yes but the debate seems to be that this would be extra income. It isnt, it is splitting the current fan base over different medias. There is no way a Newcastle subscribed internet match would have anywhere near the draw if the same match was shown on Mainstream sky.

 

This is the bottom line for advertisers.

[spongebob toonpants 3661]

Advertisers pay by viewer CT and this comes through to the club via the broadcast rights. More subscribers too which also boosts broadcast rights payments. If more people are viewing the match, there will be more revenue for the club, without doubt. The question is whether Sky lets it happen as they are the ones who will lose out due to the competition. The reason Sky pays billions for the premier league is because that gets them exclusivity.

 

Someone from the US said 26.99 per week for HD internet. Equivalent of £50 a month. I dont give a shit about Sky folding but anything that can focus the finance around our bigger fanbase is a good thing for me.

 

 

Yes but the debate seems to be that this would be extra income. It isnt, it is splitting the current fan base over different medias. There is no way a Newcastle subscribed internet match would have anywhere near the draw if the same match was shown on Mainstream sky.

 

This is the bottom line for advertisers.

 

I'm plainly not explaining myself here.

 

Newcastle have say 12 league and cup games a season on sky -that leaves 28 - 36 games not on sky.

 

You are paying the internet subscription for those 28-36 games. Games that are not currently available live. You still subscribe/watch/go the pub for the Sky exclusive matches.

These matches already have the platform in place for live internet distribution as can be proved without doubt by the fact I watch them all already. This is not about harming the existing bottom line, this is about providing another pay for view service that currently doesn't exist. This is about generating a new revenue stream with a media that didn't previously exist.

 

There is self evidently a market out there -I am proof of this. I don't claim to know how big it is but it exists. The market for Newcastle games live is larger than most clubs but smaller than for ManU Chelsea Liverpool Arsenal and maybe a couple more. The more powerful clubs have the most to gain -they will make it happen

 

It will benefit Sky/Murdoch as he will be providing the product to be streamed. It will benefit the clubs as they can exploit a previously untapped market. It will not harm the existing deals because it is complimentary not competitive to them.

 

Look at it another way, I am currently watching these games for free -but I am willing to pay for them, while still paying my Sky subscription. How do you imagine the people who sell the rights to these games view this situation? How do you think the people who own the Football Clubs see this situation?

[spongebob toonpants 3661]

HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free.

 

Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers.

 

Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues.

 

Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club.

 

Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

 

 

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it?

 

What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet?

 

Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue.

The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league

Premier League - concede further control to the clubs.

Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions

Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost?

 

You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences.

 

 

I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before.

 

How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV.

 

Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well.

 

Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc.

 

I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut.

 

I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be.

 

 

How much do the BBC pay for the MOTD rights? How much do sky pay to show live games? Would either be willing to pay that if 100,000 supporters from each club were watching all of their games live elsewhere. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes you are pretty much missing the whole point.

 

In the beginning there were live games, which people payed to attend

 

The along came Match of the Day showing highlights on the TV, and paying for the privilege.

People still pay to go the match

 

Then along came Sky and started showing live games-which they pay for.

Match of the Day still exists, and they still pay for the rights.

Not only this people still attend live games and pay to get in

 

Now we have the internet which offers the possibilty of live coverage of all your teams games. Some people will be happy to pay for this service.

Sky will still Show live gamesMatch of the Day will still exist

People will still go the match.

 

There is no reason to think that those who buy a subscription to their own team will suddenly lose all interest in watching Man U vs Arsenal.

 

Its true that this will benefit the clubs with bigger fanbases more, however these are the clubs that have the most power.

 

 

Probably covered in my earlier post but if I currently pay Sky £20,0000 to show one of my adverts during the match, Im not suddenly going to pay them the same ammount knowing the audience is now split elsewhere, therefore Skys revenues drop and subsequently the money going into the clubs drop.

 

The audience won't be split for Sky matches, the internet will be showing matches not available on Sky. Your advert for a previously unbroadcasted match will now be seen by more people not less

[Dolly Potter MD 0]

On a side-topic, relating to the bitter Whelan vs Ashley rivalry. It must have been a kick to Whelan's guts after the Serious Fraud Office cleared Sports Direct of involvement in cartel activity - given that JJB/Whelan was the party that blew the whistle on Shit Direct last year in exchange for leniency.

[OTF 6457]

Thankfully we get pretty much every game live over here on Foxtel (the equivalent of Sky). The only exception this season was the Blackburn match, which was showed after the match ended because there was five other games on at the same time and the Newcastle game drew the short straw. With retrospect it'd be because it was a Blackburn match and it's a given that it's going to be rubbish to watch.

 

Free Streaming online doesn't compare to that in the quality stakes.

[Happy Face 29]

Thankfully we get pretty much every game live over here on Foxtel (the equivalent of Sky).

 

Exactly.

 

People are going on like we're just waiting for it to become possible here in the UK. It's entirely possible already, it's just not cost effective, no matter how many people say "well I'd pay for both".

 

Like I said last night (and even people that reckon we'll get all games live some time seem to agree), protecting exclusivity is where the big money is, and drip feeding content to the masses gradually. First to the tens of thousands that can get tickets, then to the millions that want to watch a replay later in the day, then to the millions that are willing to pay to see the biggest games of the weekend involving other clubs live.

 

It's analogous to the latest Harry Potter films. They could have made one film, they could have released both at once, millions upon millions would have paid to see both on day 1....but the money men know that if you want to maximise the profit you drip feed your product to maximise the money coming in.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Happy Face

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Advertisers pay by viewer CT and this comes through to the club via the broadcast rights. More subscribers too which also boosts broadcast rights payments. If more people are viewing the match, there will be more revenue for the club, without doubt. The question is whether Sky lets it happen as they are the ones who will lose out due to the competition. The reason Sky pays billions for the premier league is because that gets them exclusivity.

 

Someone from the US said 26.99 per week for HD internet. Equivalent of £50 a month. I dont give a shit about Sky folding but anything that can focus the finance around our bigger fanbase is a good thing for me.

 

 

Yes but the debate seems to be that this would be extra income. It isnt, it is splitting the current fan base over different medias. There is no way a Newcastle subscribed internet match would have anywhere near the draw if the same match was shown on Mainstream sky.

 

This is the bottom line for advertisers.

 

I'm plainly not explaining myself here.

 

Newcastle have say 12 league and cup games a season on sky -that leaves 28 - 36 games not on sky.

 

You are paying the internet subscription for those 28-36 games. Games that are not currently available live. You still subscribe/watch/go the pub for the Sky exclusive matches.

These matches already have the platform in place for live internet distribution as can be proved without doubt by the fact I watch them all already. This is not about harming the existing bottom line, this is about providing another pay for view service that currently doesn't exist. This is about generating a new revenue stream with a media that didn't previously exist.

 

There is self evidently a market out there -I am proof of this. I don't claim to know how big it is but it exists. The market for Newcastle games live is larger than most clubs but smaller than for ManU Chelsea Liverpool Arsenal and maybe a couple more. The more powerful clubs have the most to gain -they will make it happen

 

It will benefit Sky/Murdoch as he will be providing the product to be streamed. It will benefit the clubs as they can exploit a previously untapped market. It will not harm the existing deals because it is complimentary not competitive to them.

 

Look at it another way, I am currently watching these games for free -but I am willing to pay for them, while still paying my Sky subscription. How do you imagine the people who sell the rights to these games view this situation? How do you think the people who own the Football Clubs see this situation?

 

Ok, well now Im clearer where your coming from but I still cant see a great deal of Newcastle fans suddenly paying quite a large price for soenthing they can already have for free. I also dont think it benefits any football club to have all games shown live on a Saturday at 3pm.

[Tooj 17]

The problem is we expect it all to blow up at some point soon or down the line when he makes either another fuckup or sells a player/players the manager wants to keep etc.

 

This is not unique to Ashley though...

 

expand ?

 

 

 

[Christmas Tree 4005]

Thankfully we get pretty much every game live over here on Foxtel (the equivalent of Sky).

 

Exactly.

 

People are going on like we're just waiting for it to become possible here in the UK. It's entirely possible already, it's just not cost effective, no matter how many people say "well I'd pay for both".

 

Like I said last night (and even people that reckon we'll get all games live some time seem to agree), protecting exclusivity is where the big money is, and drip feeding content to the masses gradually. First to the tens of thousands that can get tickets, then to the millions that want to watch a replay later in the day, then to the millions that are willing to pay to see the biggest games of the weekend involving other clubs live.

 

It's analogous to the latest Harry Potter films. They could have made one film, they could have released both at once, millions upon millions would have paid to see both on day 1....but the money men know that if you want to maximise the profit you drip feed your product to maximise the money coming in.

 

Spot on