[Archived] Champions League exclusive to BT Sport

[Paul]

Yes, I've got Sky. They should drop their subscription fee when they lose out on things like this, but they won't.

I think the main thing that riled me was that douchenozzle Patterson saying how he's "thrilled" that I won't be able to watch European football any more. How is that a good thing for any fan? It isn't creating a competitive market for televised sport, as it means a massive price rise if I want to watch it, and it's bad for the majority of BT customers who probably aren't all that bothered about football, because they're the poor saps who'll be footing the bill.

Interesting perspective you have on this. For the past 20+ years our household has been unable to watch a range of sports as we don't have Sky. It's never been "good for any fan" but some only realise this when their provider looses the TV rights.

During those 20 odd years Sky have blown every competitor out of the water and hugely overpaid for PL rights resulting in a distorted competition and football clubs becoming playthings if the rich.

Sport was once free to view so Sky in fact "means a massive price rise if I want to watch" - your words - for everyone not just you. It's called competition and this is how things work out when sporting rights are up for grabs. Many people no longer get to watch sport which moved to Sky, you are now experiencing what others have for years "massive prices" to watch it. I'm afraid you just have to get used to it.

As for BT customers paying for it? We will see. BT Sport is free for us and our broadband, line rental, phone is around £20/month so it seems like a good deal. Not that I'll be watching as CL is a meaningless competition until February/March time.

I think BT's problem will be causal users like me. We now have a free service, one we would never have paid for anyway, and BT needs to convince us to use it. I can't think of any reason to watch BT sport but then I don't see any reason to have Sky either. I have though enjoyed a few PL games at lunchtime Saturday before heading to Ewood.

It's competition get used to it because it won't go away.

[Stuart]

On the flip side it will now be cheaper to see all the games as Bt sport is less than sky sports

At the moment.

As for BT customers paying for it? We will see. BT Sport is free for us and our broadband, line rental, phone is around £20/month so it seems like a good deal.

Who else is going to for the outlay BT Sport have made? You've made a good argument for competition - although these days competition seems synonymous with price fixing - yet seem to think they aren't going to try to recoup their costs.

If Sky customers have any sense, they will boycott BT Sports. However I suspect many will just pay the extra £12 per month and help BT customers to pay less!

The problem Sky now have is convincing people that they will still be value for money. Although PR is something they are extremely good at. Maybe they will just ride it out and let their rivals run themselves into the ground like so many others have over the years.

[Guest Norbert]

Out of curiosity, could someone with Freeview just pay for BT Sport (or ESPN), and not have to buy Sky as well? It is people in my position that BT really have to convince to make this work, and I doubt I would bother.

[Stuart]

Not sure Norbert. Personally I think they are taking on Sky for their share of subscription customers rather than hoovering up 'nonners'.

I'm the Tory-led country we live in, this will be touted as a success for competition and capitalism but that only works if it reduces prices and increases choice - which it won't. Both will claim exclusive rights and remain oligopolies who can charge what they want putting the total price up.

The only winners here are Sky and BT shareholders. BT shareholders are taking a bigger gamble mind.

[chaddyrovers]

BT coverage of PL football and Europa league isnt the best but their coverage of French and Italian Football is really good.

Sky coverage of Football is excellent and they is no way Sky will lose their PL rights.

I had Sky for many years and their coverage of sport is first class whether its Cricket, football or F1.

thats what I have Sky for sport, movies,etc.

[Guest Norbert]

Sky's commentators etc. are so much better than their rivals (at least those I've seen). ITV are just awful, whilst MOTD is just tedious. And now we have to see that tosser Murphy there too. The Football League show is pretty good though.

[Amo]

Michael Owen AND Alan Shearer on MOTD last night? Just hook the diazepam to my veeeeeeein.

[Guest Norbert]

There must be a spate of reports saying football fans suffer sleep deprivation or something like that. Michael Owen is just a very boring man in general. Mind you we all thought that about Ryan Giggs.................

It makes me laugh when the various channels go out of their way to find the most boring ex-players to put on, and then get Savage or Claridge as well to be the 'character'. Surely it would be better to get someone with a bit of personality and knowledge, rather than getting the extremes?

[K-Hod]

I've been with BT since I moved into my new house around 2 months ago, and I've really not been impressed with them, or the coverage- and I am fairly certain that subscription charges will increase hugely before they get CL coverage as well!!

[Mike E]

My dad always says no pundit will ever live up to Brian Clough. Indeed we skip it all now. The only ones who manage to hold my interest are Souness and occasionally Dixon.

[Guest Norbert]

I thought Salgado was pretty good, but he's over doing something in Dubai isn't he?

And I can't think of anyone who'd be as interesting as Clough Snr. He'd never get on nowadays, the directors would be too scared of what he'd say next.

[Amo]

I remember Leonardo made a few appearances on MOTD. The man was class and knew exactly what he was talking about... which is why he's been working at Milan/Inter/PSG and not stuck on a sofa with the rest of the talking heads.

[DE.]

The problem Sky now have is convincing people that they will still be value for money. Although PR is something they are extremely good at. Maybe they will just ride it out and let their rivals run themselves into the ground like so many others have over the years.

As long as Sky have the PL they will be fine. The CL only accounts for 3% of their viewing audience so losing it isn't a huge deal.

[thenodrog]

The problem Sky now have is convincing people that they will still be value for money. Although PR is something they are extremely good at. Maybe they will just ride it out and let their rivals run themselves into the ground like so many others have over the years.

Must say it's never worked with me.

All this daft money has done is buy floating gin palaces and massive villa's around the Med for soft arsed, thick footballers.

M-K.... Leave your 12 quid in your pocket.

[thenodrog]

Not sure Norbert. Personally I think they are taking on Sky for their share of subscription customers rather than hoovering up 'nonners'.

I'm the Tory-led country we live in, this will be touted as a success for competition and capitalism but that only works if it reduces prices and increases choice - which it won't. Both will claim exclusive rights and remain oligopolies who can charge what they want putting the total price up.

The only winners here are Sky and BT shareholders. BT shareholders are taking a bigger gamble mind.

Not sure how you can politicise this Stuart. In fact I'm pretty sure that you can't. Sky has been the bully who kicked sand in the faces of other networks for years. Football, cricket and golf have all been denied to the wider public i.e. the bloke with terrestrial TV and no sat dish for years. All we have now reflects life... a bigger bully has trapped up and kicked sand in Sky's face. Que sera sera.

[Stuart]

Not sure how you can politicise this Stuart. In fact I'm pretty sure that you can't. Sky has been the bully who kicked sand in the faces of other networks for years. Football, cricket and golf have all been denied to the wider public i.e. the bloke with terrestrial TV and no sat dish for years. All we have now reflects life... a bigger bully has trapped up and kicked sand in Sky's face. Que sera sera.

Everything is political, my old twig.

If I'm charged £100 for a service from a monopoly and a new entrant comes into the market, I might hope to pay £80 as they compete for my business. So why is it I end up paying £120?

Competition in the private sector is what the coalition are championing to save the economy. Certainly with energy bills.

These are just a couple of examples where it doesn't work, because the government won't take action against cartels. I wonder why?

[chaddyrovers]

BT Sport are paying 897 million pounds for Champions League and Europe League which is double what Sky and ITV were paying for CL rights(400 million pounds jointly).

IMO, BT Sport have payed well over the odds for European football coverage and I really don't blame Sky or ITV for not paying over the odds.

BT Sport will need to improve their coverage of Football totally. BT PL coverage isn't the best and nowhere near Sky coverage.

that's why Sky will use their cash for keeping most of the TV rights for Premier League coverage and football league coverage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2496251/Champions-League-deal-lands-clubs-25m-bonus-BT-Sport-outbid-Sky-ITV.html

Sky's commentators etc. are so much better than their rivals (at least those I've seen). ITV are just awful, The Football League show is pretty good though.

totally agree with these comments Norbert.

I've been with BT since I moved into my new house around 2 months ago, and I've really not been impressed with them, or the coverage- and I am fairly certain that subscription charges will increase hugely before they get CL coverage as well!!

I expect that Subscription charges will go up for defo.

I thought Salgado was pretty good, but he's over doing something in Dubai isn't he?

working with Richard Keys and Andy Gray on Al-Jazeera sport in Dubai

As long as Sky have the PL they will be fine. The CL only accounts for 3% of their viewing audience so losing it isn't a huge deal.

good comments and a lot of fans who don't support the clubs in CL don't watch the games anyway tbh

[M-K]

It's called competition and this is how things work out when sporting rights are up for grabs. Many people no longer get to watch sport which moved to Sky, you are now experiencing what others have for years "massive prices" to watch it. I'm afraid you just have to get used to it.

Oh, thank you for explaining it so clearly. I hadn't realised what was going on here.

[Paul]

At the moment.

Who else is going to for the outlay BT Sport have made? You've made a good argument for competition - although these days competition seems synonymous with price fixing - yet seem to think they aren't going to try to recoup their costs.

I was thinking of phone and broadband customers really Stuart. The original poster instantly put my mind to the idea of my broadband charges increasing. After some thought I think that's unlikely.

I don't know if it's still the case but BT used to sell a lot of bundles for film etc. After a year I ditched those as our low usage made it poor value. However as basic subscriber I can access all the services on a PPV basis which is great.

I suspect BT will move away from free football and bundle it with a broadband package. So long as basic broadband is still available, which it will be, only those who want football will pay for it.

Hopefully BT will continue PPV access on football and other services. I'm happy to pay £5, 10, 20 to watch a single event but definetely do NOT want a subscription based service.

[Tom]

Chaddy no offence but I presume Bt were well aware of what sky and itv had payed and had a solid business plan behind the move rather than just randomly bidding like an eBay auction in its final stages.

It seems like a lot to pay but if it consolidates BTs position as the market leader in the fibre broadband market it will be a good move

[DE.]

Paying this much for the CL & EL is definitely a gamble to an extent. The best business plan in the world won't make it any different. Whether it works out or not remains to be seen, but BT are playing a dangerous game against a competitor who has far more experience in this market than they do.

[Paul]

BT get green light to bid for World Cup rights:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10445437/BT-given-green-light-to-bid-for-World-Cup-coverage.html

[thenodrog]

BT get green light to bid for World Cup rights:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10445437/BT-given-green-light-to-bid-for-World-Cup-coverage.html

Snouts in the troughs again. Funny how footballs governing bodies consistently bend and sway to whoever has the coin isn't it? Or rather not so much funny as entirely predicatable.

The Champions league money they paid is so ott that it has a touch of our JR transfer fee about it, I'm not sure BT can be as profligate this time.

btw I wonder how suitably the millions of BT customers etc who have no interest in football are impressed?

[M-K]

btw I wonder how suitably the millions of BT customers etc who have no interest in football are impressed?

And that's the point people seem to be missing among all the "it's fair competition, Sky have done it for years" comments.

Rather than reinvest in infrastructure or (god forbid) give something back to its customers, BT has decided to sink its cash reserve into a sport that's widely considered to be an obscene waste of money.

Their long-term milking of a customer base that exists largely because of people's reluctance to change suppliers in the post-monopoly era meant BT could bid three times what Sky thought the rights were worth.

[Tom]

If it was three times what sky thought it was worth why did they attempt to re enter the bidding at the end?

Sky would have paid what BT did they just under estimated the push BT would have for it

Maybe they wish they went ahead with 'project purple'