Premier League trying to fight streaming, can the war be won?

brianregan09

batistuta9 wrote: »

What speed is it? 5/6Mb is enough, might get away with less

2 to 3mb unfortunately

NIMAN

All sky sports now dead on Dreamboxes?

theoneeyedman

Oat23 wrote: »

One pub in Sligo pays Sky €850 per month. Eir/BT is separate and I can't remember what I was told exactly, but it was between €200 & €300 IIRC.

It depends on the size of the pub and it's turnover.

Most wont pay it and are on MAG boxes showing the football from beIN and other Asian channels.

That's nucking futs, how can anyone justify charging a grand a month for TV, plus I'm sure imro etc as well.
No wonder there is such a strong market for card sharing etc...

batistuta9

brianregan09 wrote: »

2 to 3mb unfortunately

Is it stable at least? Some offer free trials or shorter sub's worth checking out anyway

Pro. F

brianregan09 wrote: »

2 to 3mb unfortunately

Iirc I streamed standard definition football streams on those speeds with some success years ago. The thing that might stop you is if there's a download limit on your internet package. So you'll want to check that out first. Then try streaming out with some free streams - say the RTE player - and see how it works for you. Then if that works, and it doesn't send you over your ISP's download limit, you can go look for the good stuff. Reddit is a good place to start. The fancy IPTV packages might not work for you, but you can always just look for basic sports streaming.

citytillidie

Pro. F wrote: »

Nah, you are wrong here. If you can't afford the official packages, or you just don't want to be ripped off, you should definitely be looking at the other ways of getting football on your screen. Thankfully those ways are plentiful and come at all sorts of prices and quality, so everybody is happy.

So you go about stealing stuff when you can't afford it

~Rebel~

mikeym wrote: »

Whats the alternative? Wait for Match of the day I dont think so mate.

How if you have a legit subscription and your tv provider isnt showing your team, what do you do then?

People in America can watch all the live premier league matches and us Irish get fleeced big time by Sky & Eir.

It's not as great as all that... get the occasional free to air game on NBC, but for the majority you still need a cable sports package.

Steve

Guys, discussing this topic is borderline at best, offering 'solutions' is definitely outside the line.

Some posts deleted.

~Rebel~

citytillidie wrote: »

So you go about stealing stuff when you can't afford it

People are, and have always been, happy to pay a fair price for a product. When the price charged is well above what people consider to be the value of the product, it becomes far easier to 'steal'.

Exactly like what happened with music. To buy it officially, you had to pay a ludicrous price, and the file you got wasn't even really yours, as it was DRM'd. So everyone torrented everything. Then they removed DRM, and brought the price down, and for the most part people just pay the new fair price.

Sports media is currently using an antiquated system from a different era. When they come around to realizing that things will never be like they were again, that that insane bubble has burst, the prices will come down, and subscriptions will go back up.

It's always been like this - when people see that they're being completely taken advantage of, they stop respecting the seller.

Pro. F

citytillidie wrote: »

So you go about stealing stuff when you can't afford it

Depends on the stuff and the type of stealing. Context is important. How badly do I need the stuff? I, and any sane person, will steal bread if I'm not able to afford it. What harm will the "stealing" do? That's another thing to consider.

While nobody needs to see football video, copying and sharing video of football matches will do absolutely zero harm, so there's no need to object to it.

brianregan09

Pro. F wrote: »

Iirc I streamed standard definition football streams on those speeds with some success years ago. The thing that might stop you is if there's a download limit on your internet package. So you'll want to check that out first. Then try streaming out with some free streams - say the RTE player - and see how it works for you. Then if that works, and it doesn't send you over your ISP's download limit, you can go look for the good stuff. Reddit is a good place to start. The fancy IPTV packages might not work for you, but you can always just look for basic sports streaming.

Never had any problems with WWE Network, Netflix youtube etc .....so I may have a look around and see what I can find

Oat23

Steve wrote: »

Guys, discussing this topic is borderline at best, offering 'solutions' is definitely outside the line.

Some posts deleted.

Me offering to recommend an IPTV service via PM is against the rules? As long as nobody mentions any names or links to any sites on the thread I don't see how it's a problem but alright.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

Depends on the stuff and the type of stealing. Context is important. How badly do I need the stuff? I, and any sane person, will steal bread if I'm not able to afford it. What harm will the "stealing" do? That's another thing to consider.

While nobody needs to see football video, copying and sharing video of football matches will do absolutely zero harm, so there's no need to object to it.

If illegal streaming results in the value of rights going down then it will mean less money coming into the clubs.

If less money comes into the clubs then they will likely employ less people and/or let people go, and I'm not talking about football players, I'm talking about office staff, ordinary men and women like you and I.

It of course will also mean layoffs at the broadcasting stations.

Plus if you are paying a sub for an illegal streaming service where is your money going, to fund other illegal activity ?

Every illegal activity does some harm somewhere.

Steve

Oat23 wrote: »

Me offering to recommend an IPTV service via PM is against the rules? As long as nobody mentions any names or links to any sites on the thread I don't see how it's a problem but alright.

Official viewpoint is boards does not permit any posts that facilitate breach of copyright material.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If illegal streaming results in the value of rights going down then it will mean less money coming into the clubs.

If less money comes into the clubs then they will likely employ less people and/or let people go, and I'm not talking about football players, I'm talking about office staff, ordinary men and women like you and I.

It of course will also mean layoffs at the broadcasting stations.

Plus if you are paying a sub for an illegal streaming service where is your money going, to fund other illegal activity ?

Every illegal activity does some harm somewhere.

If copying, sharing and re-selling video of football matches is stamped out then there will be many small businesses that disappear overnight. Either way some ordinary people will lose employment, while others gain.

And the assumption that the people who run football and the media giants are more trustworthy than the people who copy, share and resell video content is not one I would agree with at all.

~Rebel~

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If illegal streaming results in the value of rights going down then it will mean less money coming into the clubs.

If less money comes into the clubs then they will likely employ less people and/or let people go, and I'm not talking about football players, I'm talking about office staff, ordinary men and women like you and I.

It of course will also mean layoffs at the broadcasting stations.

Plus if you are paying a sub for an illegal streaming service where is your money going, to fund other illegal activity ?

Every illegal activity does some harm somewhere.

I'm not sure how much of this is really true. Everything right now is running on an insane financial level, that on the face of it, looks like a bubble.

So, first off, the amount of money going into the clubs won't go down. Those contracts are signed, and sorted. The figures are set in stone. The rights are paid for. The clubs, and their staff, will all get their money. An insane amount of it.

What could happen is, say, BT don't get the number of subscriptions they wanted, and so don't make the profits they had projected. I think this is somewhat unlikely, as their projections are looking at the number of people they think they can get to pay their subscription, taking into account the people who won't pay and would rather stream. So unless they messed up their projections, they're gonna get around what they expected. It's important to keep in mind here that if streaming was not an option, it doesn't mean those ex-streamers will become subscribers. This is firmly a luxury item, and a very expensive one at that. It's more likely they'd simply stop following this product.

One would expect the next round of projections for the UK and Ireland will be lower, because - perversely - it's never been easier to watch free, and it's never been more expensive to watch legally. In that context, the current deal feels like the last ditch money grab, where they're snaffling up everything they can, before the market demands that the money drops.

So. The next rights deal will be lower, but the profit % will likely be the same for the network, because they're making their deal based on what they can recoup. So the network doesn't really miss out. The clubs will get less, but they're already making several times more than they need, so we might just see the marketplace return dip. The ONLY reason someone offered 30+ million for Troy Deeney last summer was because of the TV money. As that drops, the financial merry-go-round will all drop to match, but the actual moves happening will remain pretty much the same. The effectively 'magic' figures flying around will simply be different magic figures. And these deals are agreed well in advance - so absolutely no club should have any need to downsize their staff, without it being a case of severe mismanagement.

In short - Premier League football is a financial behemoth that is so far beyond normal money right at the moment, that everything could drop 60 or 70 % without anyone having to lose their jobs imo. At some stage, the market will dictate change on the distribution side, which if large enough, could of course cause loss of some jobs - but would obvious create other jobs as whatever alt distribution methods are set up.

The only people to blame for any loss of subscriptions are the services themselves. Someone like BT had a choice - they have the rights, and can distribute as they see fit. So if they wanted, they could make a service half the price, and target twice the number of subscribers. more people see it, more people follow it, more people act legally. But instead they went the opposite direction. They overcharged based on the number of people they know will simply not get involved in all this internet nonsense. But that approach can only last so long. Over time, capitalism evens itself out.

<end of ramble>

Jayop

citytillidie wrote: »

So you go about stealing stuff when you can't afford it

As I already said if you've ever once torrented or streamed a film, TV show or game you're a hypocrite who is only posting in this thread to wum.

Have you ever once streamed content? Are you a thief?

I would hope that people stopped paying the ridiculous prices that BT and Sky charge when you are paying for sport that you dont even want and you dont get all the games you want. As said above, I would happily pay for a subscription for all the United games for the year.

Its 2017 the system they are using for people to watch games is outdated and a Netflix type system will need to be put in place eventually, they are fighting a losing battle.

Fr Tod Umptious

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm not sure how much of this is really true. Everything right now is running on an insane financial level, that on the face of it, looks like a bubble.

So, first off, the amount of money going into the clubs won't go down. Those contracts are signed, and sorted. The figures are set in stone. The rights are paid for. The clubs, and their staff, will all get their money. An insane amount of it.

What could happen is, say, BT don't get the number of subscriptions they wanted, and so don't make the profits they had projected. I think this is somewhat unlikely, as their projections are looking at the number of people they think they can get to pay their subscription, taking into account the people who won't pay and would rather stream. So unless they messed up their projections, they're gonna get around what they expected. It's important to keep in mind here that if streaming was not an option, it doesn't mean those ex-streamers will become subscribers. This is firmly a luxury item, and a very expensive one at that. It's more likely they'd simply stop following this product.

One would expect the next round of projections for the UK and Ireland will be lower, because - perversely - it's never been easier to watch free, and it's never been more expensive to watch legally. In that context, the current deal feels like the last ditch money grab, where they're snaffling up everything they can, before the market demands that the money drops.

So. The next rights deal will be lower, but the profit % will likely be the same for the network, because they're making their deal based on what they can recoup. So the network doesn't really miss out. The clubs will get less, but they're already making several times more than they need, so we might just see the marketplace return dip. The ONLY reason someone offered 30+ million for Troy Deeney last summer was because of the TV money. As that drops, the financial merry-go-round will all drop to match, but the actual moves happening will remain pretty much the same. The effectively 'magic' figures flying around will simply be different magic figures. And these deals are agreed well in advance - so absolutely no club should have any need to downsize their staff, without it being a case of severe mismanagement.

In short - Premier League football is a financial behemoth that is so far beyond normal money right at the moment, that everything could drop 60 or 70 % without anyone having to lose their jobs imo. At some stage, the market will dictate change on the distribution side, which if large enough, could of course cause loss of some jobs - but would obvious create other jobs as whatever alt distribution methods are set up.

The only people to blame for any loss of subscriptions are the services themselves. Someone like BT had a choice - they have the rights, and can distribute as they see fit. So if they wanted, they could make a service half the price, and target twice the number of subscribers. more people see it, more people follow it, more people act legally. But instead they went the opposite direction. They overcharged based on the number of people they know will simply not get involved in all this internet nonsense. But that approach can only last so long. Over time, capitalism evens itself out.

<end of ramble>

Obviously what is signed in the current deal is signed and clubs know what they are getting, what's not sure is how much the TV companies will pay for the next deal an how that will effect everyone.

Your post reads like a post about the Irish housing market from 2006.

It's a bubble built on TV, but like all bubbles when they burst the ripple effect is huge.

I'll give you just three examples of people that are effected by illegal streaming.

The person in the Sky call center taking calls.
The guy in our local shopping center who has had a booth​ selling Sky
The independent contractor who goes around installing Sky systems.

~Rebel~

That assumes that the people streaming would all be paying customers if they weren't streaming. That's almost certainly not true.

There absolutely is a bubble, and it exists because networks/service providers are working with unsustainably high figures, trying to hold on to an overpriced and outdated distribution platform that is no longer relevant. There are plenty of other legal entertainment options available at fair prices. A large, and always growing, number of people have no interest in satalite/cable at all, much less hundreds of pointless channels that you have to buy just to have the option to pay even more to buy multiple sports packages to still only get some of what you actually want. The choice in most cases isn't going to be legal subscription or streaming, it's going to be streaming or nothing.

Jayop

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Obviously what is signed in the current deal is signed and clubs know what they are getting, what's not sure is how much the TV companies will pay for the next deal an how that will effect everyone.

Your post reads like a post about the Irish housing market from 2006.

It's a bubble built on TV, but like all bubbles when they burst the ripple effect is huge.

I'll give you just three examples of people that are effected by illegal streaming.

The person in the Sky call center taking calls.
The guy in our local shopping center who has had a booth​ selling Sky
The independent contractor who goes around installing Sky systems.

That's tripe Tbf. Ordinary people shouldn't be one bit worried about jobs like that being supported when it comes to the choice between paying rip off sky prices or not.

I stream and watch dream box. If I didn't I still wouldn't give sky a single penny.

Honestly your examples are the same as someone complaining that people shouldn't grow their own veg at home because it would put green grocers, delivery men and farmers out of work.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jayop wrote: »

That's tripe Tbf. Ordinary people shouldn't be one bit worried about jobs like that being supported when it comes to the choice between paying rip off sky prices or not.

I stream and watch dream box. If I didn't I still wouldn't give sky a single penny.

Honestly your examples are the same as someone complaining that people shouldn't grow their own veg at home because it would put green grocers, delivery men and farmers out of work.

So you are saying that if Sky's subscription base went down because more people moved to illegal streaming/cardshare, then it would have no konock on effect on people who rely on Sky for their job, i.e call center person, sales person, installer ?

You are not breaking any law growing your own vegetables.
No one ownes the copyright on carrots.

But you are breaking a law by buying vegetables bought off someone who you know robbed them from the green grocer.

It'd be a good time for Sky to offer different types of packages

TallGlass

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one ownes the copyright on carrots.

You'd be very surprised about that one.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100464458

Jayop

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So you are saying that if Sky's subscription base went down because more people moved to illegal streaming/cardshare, then it would have no konock on effect on people who rely on Sky for their job, i.e call center person, sales person, installer ?

You are not breaking any law growing your own vegetables.
No one ownes the copyright on carrots.

But you are breaking a law by buying vegetables bought off someone who you know robbed them from the green grocer.

I'm saying it's not my responsibility to keep people in a job providing a rip off service and I'm saying it's not a choice for most between illegally streaming and paying for Sky. It's a choice between illegally streaming and not watching at all.

I owe no one a job.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I would hope that people stopped paying the ridiculous prices that BT and Sky charge when you are paying for sport that you dont even want and you dont get all the games you want. As said above, I would happily pay for a subscription for all the United games for the year.

Its 2017 the system they are using for people to watch games is outdated and a Netflix type system will need to be put in place eventually, they are fighting a losing battle.

Aren't these two paragraphs contradictory? When I pay for Netflix I'm paying for kiddies cartoons, bollywood films and chick flicks, whereas all I want to see is Borgias and House of Cards.

SuperTortoise

Eventually the bubble will burst, and then clubs will sell their TV rights individually as an online subscription service, and i'd welcome that.

If sky sold a package that showed LFC games only( or at the very least a football only package) and for a sensible price i'd buy it, but as things stand i rarely watch any other football that does'nt involve my club, and there's so much other bull**** bundled into it i see no value for me.

It's like going to buy a car and the salesman tells you , we'll sell you a car but you can only use it every second week oh and you'll have to buy a scooter and a paraglider with it!

Cantona's Collars

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It'd be a good time for Sky to offer different types of packages

It was mentioned in the Satellite forum that sky have plans to do this and launch football packages as a standalone product without people having to subscribe to other packages that they don't need.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jayop wrote: »

I'm saying it's not my responsibility to keep people in a job providing a rip off service and I'm saying it's not a choice for most between illegally streaming and paying for Sky. It's a choice between illegally streaming and not watching at all.

I owe no one a job.

I'm not saying you owe anyone a job.

I'm arguing against the point that was made that illegal streaming does zero harm.

It does harm, it harms the people I mentioned.

SuperTortoise

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Aren't these two paragraphs contradictory? When I pay for Netflix I'm paying for kiddies cartoons, bollywood films and chick flicks, whereas all I want to see is Borgias and House of Cards.

You make a fair point but for 6.99 a month i can live with all the other crap bundled onto Netflix, a football package with Sky would end up costing north of 100E a month, you could get a season ticket for less!

Fr Tod Umptious

SuperTortoise wrote: »

Eventually the bubble will burst, and then clubs will sell their TV rights individually as an online subscription service, and i'd welcome that.

If sky sold a package that showed LFC games only( or at the very least a football only package) and for a sensible price i'd buy it, but as things stand i rarely watch any other football that does'nt involve my club, and there's so much other bull**** bundled into it i see no value for me.

It's like going to buy a car and the salesman tells you , we'll sell you a car but you can only use it every second week oh and you'll have to buy a scooter and a paraglider with it!

Any club only packages will result in the EPL having a huge disparity in wealth between clubs.

If people are ok with that that's fine, but a lot will change.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Any club only packages will result in the EPL having a huge disparity in wealth between clubs.

If people are ok with that that's fine, but a lot will change.

There's no reason that club only packages would have to mean unequal sharing of the money between EPL clubs.

Jayop

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not saying you owe anyone a job.

I'm arguing against the point that was made that illegal streaming does zero harm.

It does harm, it harms the people I mentioned.

If you assume I'd have paid a sky sub otherwise which I'm telling you over and over as have other people that I wouldn't have done.

Jayop

SuperTortoise wrote: »

You make a fair point but for 6.99 a month i can live with all the other crap bundled onto Netflix, a football package with Sky would end up costing north of 100E a month, you could get a season ticket for less!

And you still only see some of the games. It's madness.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Surely this can't really be an argument on morality? Legally it costs an Irish football fan over 100 euro per month to watch many but not all of the matches they want. Morally there is no justification for the high prices Sky charge for their channels. Most people watch free to air channels as it is. They are basically running a legal scam and not much more.

Morality does not always correspond with legality.

There is not a hope that a cost/benefit analysis of what Sky/Sky Sports does for Ireland would come out favourably for them. There is no exact figures but they hoover out 10's of millions from Irish bank accounts each year (I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the 100's of millions) for a product they are selling to their domestic UK market anyway i.e. there is nothing tangible given by Sky for making at least 10's of millions per year from Ireland.

The only reason Irish football rights is still tied in with the UK is that it is such a little extra earner for Sky. For all intents and purposes we should be treated outside the UK area - different country, different currency, no 3pm ban, there not even going to be in the EU anymore...

SuperTortoise

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Any club only packages will result in the EPL having a huge disparity in wealth between clubs.

If people are ok with that that's fine, but a lot will change.

That's true and of course it would benefit my club as they have a large global fanbase already, but at the same time it would even out the disparity between English clubs and other foreign leagues.

Sunderland as an example will net around 100M pounds from TV rights for this season alone, has an increase in revenue provided us with a better product?
IMO the answer is no, it has just served to bloat transfer fees and wages for very average footballers.
The quality of football on offer by the EPL is no where near that of let's say 10 years ago, yes you might have a little more competition between clubs but overall the quality has gone down.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

There's no reason that club only packages would have to mean unequal sharing of the money between EPL clubs.

So club only packages go up for sale.

How much to you think the Man Utd package will be worth ?

How much demand will there be for it ?

What will it be priced at ?

How much will Utd get.

Then take the Swansea package.

How much will it be worth ?

How much demand will there be for it ?

What will it be priced at ?

How much will Swansea get ?.


If one teams package is more popular than another then why shouldn't that team make more from it ?

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You are not breaking any law growing your own vegetables.
No one ownes the copyright on carrots.

But you are breaking a law by buying vegetables bought off someone who you know robbed them from the green grocer.

Flawed analogy. Carrots can't be copied and sent over the Internet. Copyright monopoly is not at all the same as the laws governing the ownership of physical objects. If somebody steals carrots they have to break into the place where the carrots are stored, possibly have a physical confrontation with the owner (and/or his dog) and then make off with the vegetables. The original owner is then without his carrots.

If somebody copies a video stream, they don't have to do any of those things and the original owner still has their video stream.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So club only packages go up for sale.

How much to you think the Man Utd package will be worth ?

How much demand will there be for it ?

What will it be priced at ?

How much will Utd get.

Then take the Swansea package.

How much will it be worth ?

How much demand will there be for it ?

What will it be priced at ?

How much will Swansea get ?.


If one teams package is more popular than another then why shouldn't that team make more from it ?

Because it would weaken the league. The TV companies don't need individual team subscriptions to know which teams are most popular, they are already well aware of that. But the EPL forces even distribution of the money, because they know that is what's best for the competition. There is no reason why they couldn't keep doing that, even if the video was distributed by team rather then by match.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jayop wrote: »

If you assume I'd have paid a sky sub otherwise which I'm telling you over and over as have other people that I wouldn't have done.

But it's not just about you.

It's about lots of people, people like myself who have had sky in various forms for years, giving it up and going down the illegal route.

Lower subs will trickle down all the way.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

Flawed analogy. Carrots can't be copied and sent over the Internet. Copyright monopoly is not at all the same as the laws governing the ownership of physical objects. If somebody steals carrots they have to break into the place where the carrots are stored, possibly have a physical confrontation with the owner (and/or his dog) and then make off with the vegetables. The original owner is then without his carrots.

If somebody copies a video stream, they don't have to do any of those things and the original owner still has their video stream.

I didn't make the vegetables analogy in the first place.

Pro. F

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Morality does not always correspond with legality.

This is very important. A lot of people can't wrap their heads around it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pro. F wrote: »

Because it would weaken the league. The TV companies don't need individual team subscriptions to know which teams are most popular, they are already well aware of that. But the EPL forces even distribution of the money, because they know that is what's best for the competition. There is no reason why they couldn't keep doing that, even if the video was distributed by team rather then by match.

But that makes no sense, it 4 teams have 80% of the subs why should they share the rewards with the other 16 teams.

This is how the EPL broke away in the first place.
The top 20 or so no longer wanted everything decided by 93 teams.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I didn't make the vegetables analogy in the first place.

You made the stealing of vegetables analogy, which is far less comparable to copying things on the Internet than the growing your own analogy, which you objected to.

Pro. F

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that makes no sense, it 4 teams have 80% of the subs why should they share the rewards with the other 16 teams.

This is how the EPL broke away in the first place.
The top 20 or so no longer wanted everything decided by 93 teams.

It makes perfect sense, because a stronger league, benefits everybody. 4 teams already have 80% of the subs (or whatever the exact breakdown is). The teams and the TV companies already know which teams are most in demand and how they dominate the viewing audiences, and yet the EPL is still happy to have an even distribution of the income.

theoneeyedman

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So you are saying that if Sky's subscription base went down because more people moved to illegal streaming/cardshare, then it would have no konock on effect on people who rely on Sky for their job, i.e call center person, sales person, installer ?

You are not breaking any law growing your own vegetables.
No one ownes the copyright on carrots.

But you are breaking a law by buying vegetables bought off someone who you know robbed them from the green grocer.

Wait until Monsanto et al get to fully control the markets for non propagating seeds, then we'll see who owns the Fvcking carrots.

Another thread was closed here last week for advocating card sharing by some posters (advocating mind, not instructions on how to circumvent anything) , hardly free expression if you ask me.

As many posters have said, charge a fair price for a good service and people will pay it.

BeepBeep67

I think the day is getting closer to personalized packages, how people consume media today has changed and will continue to evolve.

I would be happy to pay Sky €X for access to their services with a basic package, €X+ to have sports package access and then a PPV model to watch live sports.

Each of these would need to be reasonably priced and competitive, something like €20 + €10 +€5 PPV.

Sky would probably get €50+ per month from me, but I would be happy to pay that for the viewing experience and the feeling that I was more in control of my viewing, rather than fannying about with a sub standard viewing experience.

citytillidie

SuperTortoise wrote: »

You make a fair point but for 6.99 a month i can live with all the other crap bundled onto Netflix, a football package with Sky would end up costing north of 100E a month, you could get a season ticket for less!

You can get the sports pass for 50 Euro a month via Now TV but that is only Sky Sports channels

ebbsy

Problem is the amount of money Sky are paying for the Premiership.

Usually I phone them up every year and tell them I've lost me job. Always get a discount.

Lucas Hood

ebbsy wrote: »

Problem is the amount of money Sky are paying for the Premiership.

Usually I phone them up every year and tell them I've lost me job. Always get a discount.

Sky don't show the premiership . BT have rights to that and is probably more suited to rugby forum than here.

Premier league on other hand .