cimbom
12 Nov 2017
Re: Simple facts I do not have an argument but apparently you do! I have stated simple facts you can sing whatever tune you like and have an argument with your own selected data if you so wish.
pyueck
12 Nov 2017
Re: Simple facts Cimbom what is your argument? is it:a) customers want sports in 4K or UHD and sky’s proposition is better placed to do this than other platforms. Well ultra fast broadband is now at 94% of population and increasing every year. [link] within a few years the argument that broadband isn’t good enough for mass ott tv won’t really exist. In any case satellite tv is not availability to everybody. Those in flats without built in satellite or homes surrounded by either trees or other buildings can struggle to get a satellite connection. B) if it is that sky proposition is cheaper as you don’t need fibre broadband well that argument really doesn’t stack up. (the way openreach doesn’t sell line rental to consumers but anyway). Firstly as I previously said with sky q you need broadband anyway. I mayself pay £25 a month for fibre with line rental, but this is only partially for the tv, people want fibre not just so they can watch sports in hd. The argument that without sports in uhd requiring fibre lots of people would be cancelling their fibre I just don’t buy. Let’s look at the numbers currently assuming ( and it’s a big assumption people on Sky don’t have or want fibre).The minimum you can pay a month for sports in UHD is £77.50 a month (£63 in offer period), £85 one off cost, plus £28.99 a month (£18 a month during deal) for Sky broadband. Even in offer period that’s £81 a month, rising to well over £100 after deal plus setup costs.Netflix premium with uhd is presently £9.99 a month, fibre available for £25 a month (£38.99 after offer). So you can get Netflix in uhd for wel under £50 a month, and get fibre. Now with sports Netflix would need to charge over £60 a month extra for it to be more expensive on Netflix than sky. Of course at present sky has channels and shows Netflix doesn’t, but that gap is narrowing all the time. My point is that over time this gap will probably not just close and at that point Sky is dead. Losing the PL rights would be this tipping point.And I haven’t even started to mention the wide availability of pirated boxes which have almost every film ever made and almost every channel in the world at a touch of the button. Now that’s a risk for every operator and is growing wildly.
cimbom
12 Nov 2017
Re: Simple facts Sky Q works on mesh principle that connects all devices, router, main box and multi-room boxes together and makes them all interconnected Wi-Fi access points. Therefore it is true that the state of the art technology does require its own router, however I am not sure if the ISP needs to be Sky. I doubt it but not sure.Difference (apart from on-going offers from every provider) is £20 for SKY between standard broadband (ADSL) and Fibre unlimited. SKY original bundle without offers is £22/month, considering Openreach line rental is £18/month, sports rather new football package is not expensive with uninterrupted UHD availability. Non-satellite broadcasters will never be able to offer this in the UK to more than 10-20% of households.
pyueck
12 Nov 2017
Re: Simple facts Sorry Cimbom but I don’t get your argument. To way uhd on Sky you need sky Q which they won’t let you have without broadband. Ok you don’t need fibre but the price difference there days between broadband and fibre is £5-10 a month depending on the speed of fibre you go for. I think fibre broadband will be standard in a few years.Therefore your argument that OTT providers will not be now to utilise sports rights I don’t think is true. And let’s not forget that to get your sports channel on sky UHD it’s not just a case of buying the sports package! You need to buy basic package and Sky q with multi screen !
cimbom
11 Nov 2017
Re: Simple facts Just to add to above, uninterrupted reception of even a single live UHD broadcast will require fibre broadband not simple ADSL costing upwards of £500 pounds a year much more than SKY charges for its Football channel.Point is already proven with BT that even HD live broadcast reception of football is not possible through ADSL and problematic through fibre to the cabinet in most areas.Non satellite live HD not to mention UHD simply is not viable.
pyueck
11 Nov 2017
Re: Wake up Hopeful:a) the pl already do their own production of all pl games, watch it abroad and you will see it. British rights holders have always decided to compliment this with their own commentary and production. It is though totally possible that rights holders could use PL streams in the uk. Highly unlikely though as production costs are low compared with rights and if you spend so much on rights you want top notch production.B) Netflix and amazon have both invested heavily in content including production. They are doing some lower budget options to get sports production experience such as some tennis events. Of course production of the pl is not insignificant, but sky’s overheads go way beyond that! A totally bloated head office with a snazzy new head office with large marketing , csr and finance functions. It even has an incredible gym and loads of restaurants. These are nice things for employees but the cost base imho has got out of control. Netflix is getting a global subscriber base now approaching 5 times that of sky and growing rapidly. I just think it is inevitable that they will get more into sports as it’s a key differentiator and driver of consumer behaviour in the sector. I think they for competition reasons would need to make the channel available to other providers including sky (which for a while may actually be good for sky’s profits. Long term though I think they will be the dominant player and sky’s product will seem dated. I don’t think the risk is so much that sky’s product will seem awful, it’s more that the consumer will not be able to justify the getting on for £100 a month charge from sky for the complete tv package compared with under £15 for Netflix (yes sure this will rise with more sports but probably not to sky levels).
Hopeful Investor
10 Nov 2017
Re: Wake up You are forgetting one crucial point. If Netflix or Amazon did acquire the PL rights, they would have to pay for the production so suddenly their costs are not as low. Now, you may argue that the PL will employ somebody to do this rather than Netflix etc actually doing the work but that cost will still be borne by the rights holder plus a bit of profit for the production company, IMG or Sunset & Vine or some other respected company. they would also have 'talent' costs etc. So this isn't a case of just shoving it down some pipe into homes, it will require top notch production, production that is then used for sales overseas to bring in further revenue. Low overheads? They will have similar to everyone else taking on the PL and don't think differently. the real question is how will they recoup this money? Will every household end their Sky agreement to buy into yet another provider? No. There is more than just the football fan in most homes.
cimbom
09 Nov 2017
Simple facts Netflix web site states that they need minimum 25MB/s speed for UHD quality download (in practice they need more than that!). That is more than 50% UK homes out. The fact that there are other users in most households; not many receive uninterrupted live broadcast in UHD even in HD ever in any UK household. So Netflix or Google would never get licence or approved bid for Premier League unless they use satellite. Simples!SKY appears to do everything others do; only better. Just amazing. Pity Sky does not take over FOX! 
Hardboy
09 Nov 2017
Re: Sky News El Kel,"Both parties look incompetent to govern."However when it comes to General Elections, the incumbent parties lose them, much more often than the opposition win them. At least a Labour Government would probably have made a decision about the Fox bid a lot sooner. (Sky might be nationalised and become part of the BBC.)
pyueck
09 Nov 2017
Wake up Some people on this board really need to wake up. I mean really wake up.I am so tired of hearing 'we always get told before the PL rights that it will be a disaster it always turns out well'. Right firstly - Sky's profit since 2013 has been falling [link] 2013 pretax profit £979m, 2017 was £691m. In this period revenue has gone from £7.2bn to £12.9bn. Namely Sky has grown (plus bought Italy and Germany) with unprofitable revenue and there are two reasons for this: a) rights costs increased and b) customers moving onto lower margin products i.e. broadband and NOW TV. Secondly things are really different this time. I mean really different. The TV market is changing in front of our eyes. What will be the TV proposition for most customers, not just in 10 years but in 2 or 3 years, if not now! The answer is low cost IP providers who invest heavily in content but have very low overheads. Namely Netflix and Amazon. Look at the shareprice of Netflix [link] Market capital $84bn. The market is telling you something this is the future. This was not true 5 years ago when the main competition was BT or even Disney (espn). The new marketplace is fierce and based on Netflix's deep pockets I can't see how it will compete.Don't get me wrong in many ways Sky is a great company. Their sports presentation is best in class. However...the market is changing before us and if people don't wake up and see it they will get this very wrong. In my opinion Sky is on the brink of losing its market position. I really think in 10 years time people will say 'do you remember when we used to spend £100 a month on Sky!'. Once the PL goes to Netflix or Amazon or Google, and if it doesn't go this time Sky will either pay a crazy amount for it or lose it the next time, Sky as a viable business proposition is in my opinion close to dead. Certainly in it's current guise.That's why for me the Fox takeover, is a) crazy on Fox's behalf and b) the last chance for Sky shareholders to get a good price for their stock. I personally think Fox is just waking up to what is going on and personally if I had to call it I would say the deal will NOT go through.
Hopeful Investor
09 Nov 2017
Re: price drop Not strictly true. If both parties agree, the offer can be withdrawn: SHAREA:When a firm makes an official bid to take over a target company, a legal offer is created. The firm making the offer becomes an offeror, while the target becomes the offeree. If the target firm accepts the offer, the offeror has an obligation to complete the transaction. Both parties are able to cancel the offer, eliminating any legal requirement for the bidder to acquire its targ
El Kel
09 Nov 2017
Re: Sky News I can think of a couple of conviction politicians who may well be leading the country and the economy in the not too far distant future. Scary!---------- -------HardboyI know, I know! As much as I dislike the man's policies, I do (begrudgingly) acknowledge the manner in which he debates with personal conviction. I've been marginally right of centre for most of my adult life and I am currently sick to the back teeth with the ineptitude and fubar mess of this Tory government.I watch Corbyn delivering criticism of the Appleby Papers, police cuts etc etc and I am minded to nod my head on more than one occasion.With my loathing of Corbyn's fundamental beliefs, if I am minded to give him my ear as a relative moderate, it makes me wonder how much support he must be potentially gaining from people more maddened than myself.Both parties look incompetent to govern.Slinging mud at each other from a gutter on one side of the road to the gutter on the other side.Oy vey...
Hugh Betcher
09 Nov 2017
price drop I can't understand the price dropping on the news that Fox held discussions which could have led to Disney acquiring the Fox stake in Sky.One the one hand it doesn't matter if it suggests Fox is not committed to the bid offer - it has made a formal offer and has to go through with it unless it is blocked by the regulators, so no change there. And on the other hand if the deal had progressed, Disney would have acquired 39% of Sky and would itself be obliged to make a full offer for the rest of the shares.So either way, shareholders are no worse off. Tempted to buy, myself.
Hardboy
08 Nov 2017
Re: Sky News "We need conviction politicians"I can think of a couple of conviction politicians who may well be leading the country and the economy in the not too far distant future. Scary!
cimbom
08 Nov 2017
SKY NEWS - Nothing new Sky’s position on Sky News has been in the public domain and was included in its submission to the CMA in October. Hence the government and the minister are simply incapable of proper comprehension of the position they face.SECTION 4: THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF SKY NEWS SHOULD NOT SIMPLY BE ASSUMED4.1 The CMA explains that it intends to conduct its assessment of any change in the levels ofplurality resulting from the Transaction relative to current levels and in doing so, that it willassume the “continued provision of Sky News” in the counterfactual.204.2 The statutory question of “the need, in relation to every different audience in the UnitedKingdom or in a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficientplurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving that audience”, is a differentconsideration to the economic analysis of competition issues in which a counterfactual isused as an analytical tool.214.3 The CMA should not simply assume the “continued provision of Sky News” and its currentcontribution to plurality, “absent the Transaction”. Sky would likely be prompted to reviewthe position in the event that the continued provision of Sky News in its current formunduly impeded merger and/or other corporate opportunities available in relation to Sky'sbroader business, such as the Transaction - in particular having regard to any viewsexpressed by shareholders regarding the denial of such opportunities.
