Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
George Smiley

This Wonga League

Recommended Posts

With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although have no idea whatsoever what this bit has to do with Sky money: "sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year"
Supporters are indifferent to the England team because it is full of self-important w*nkers who think they are better than they are, never perform, and is controlled by non-football people in the FA who dictate team selection and put ''brand'' before football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TheNewBoy"]Yep, a bubble which could pop at anytime. [/quote]

Which is precisely why we have to have the club run within its means.  It may mean ultimately we can''t progress as quickly as some would like, but keeping the club secure in the long term is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="TheNewBoy"]Yep, a bubble which could pop at anytime. [/quote]

Which is precisely why we have to have the club run within its means.  It may mean ultimately we can''t progress as quickly as some would like, but keeping the club secure in the long term is more important.[/quote]
There are no clubs in the Premier League who would remain solvent should Sky pull out of Premier League football. We are giving people three and four year contracts on Premier League money, we are completely reliant on it like every other team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why exactly do we think that Sky are investing the money they are? It is not for charitable reasons. That is one thing that RM does not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote]eh ?If sky dropped out at the next round of TV rights being sold then other providers would simply step in as BT has recently.It is the demand that drives sky, not the other way round.It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football."at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us ) ! ! !I think not. Their squad is composed of lower league hopefuls and freebies.a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England teammuch a s alot of music fans at Glastonbury are indifferent to the Eurovision Song contest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote]eh ?If sky dropped out at the next round of TV rights being sold then other providers would simply step in as BT has recently.It is the demand that drives sky, not the other way round.It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football."at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us ) ! ! !I think not. Their squad is composed of lower league hopefuls and freebies.a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England teammuch a s alot of music fans at Glastonbury are indifferent to the Eurovision Song contest

[/quote]
When you sell a house at auction the winning bid is reached following a process by which multiple bidders will increase the amount that they are willing to pay in a series of small increments. The last one to bid wins the house. 
You may start the bidding at £50,000 - also the reserve - and Mr Smith may win the house for £100,000. There is one other bidder, his name is Mr Jones. His highest bid was £99,500. 
No other parties were interested in the house. If Mr Smith had decided not to place any bids on the house, how much would Mr Jones have paid for it? Not £99,500. He would have paid £50,000.
This is not an attempt to patronise, but a clear and logical example of how football could lose a lot of money should a major party choose not to enter the bidding process. 
We already have a strong example of this happening in English football when Sentanta collapsed after having agreed a £150m deal to show FA Cup and England matches. They likely had to bid for that deal, but when it fell through the resulting deal saw the FA lose £60m.
Would the second highest bid have been £90m initially? Or would it have been more likely something in the region of £145m? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote]

It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football.[/quote]
The domestic deal is worth £3bn. The US deal is worth about £180m for three years. BSkyB also own huge stakes or even controlling stakes in the rights owners in most of the other major economies including most of Asia, Australia, USA, Canada.... so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN.
If the US deal is worth £180m over three years then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas. In China the rights were sold to a subscription service and the number of watchers of our league went from several hundred million people to a few tens of thousands of people. The overseas deals are individual pretty small, because people want to watch our football but not if they have to pay for it. 
What goes up must come down, and that should scare people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.
[/quote]

eh ?

If sky dropped out at the next round of TV rights being sold then other providers would simply step in as BT has recently.

It is the demand that drives sky, not the other way round.

It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football.


"at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us ) ! ! !


I think not. Their squad is composed of lower league hopefuls and freebies.

a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team

much a s alot of music fans at Glastonbury are indifferent to the Eurovision Song contest


[/quote]


When you sell a house at auction the winning bid is reached following a process by which multiple bidders will increase the amount that they are willing to pay in a series of small increments. The last one to bid wins the house. 


You may start the bidding at £50,000 - also the reserve - and Mr Smith may win the house for £100,000. There is one other bidder, his name is Mr Jones. His highest bid was £99,500. 


No other parties were interested in the house. If Mr Smith had decided not to place any bids on the house, how much would Mr Jones have paid for it? Not £99,500. He would have paid £50,000.


This is not an attempt to patronise, but a clear and logical example of how football could lose a lot of money should a major party choose not to enter the bidding process. 


We already have a strong example of this happening in English football when Sentanta collapsed after having agreed a £150m deal to show FA Cup and England matches. They likely had to bid for that deal, but when it fell through the resulting deal saw the FA lose £60m.


Would the second highest bid have been £90m initially? Or would it have been more likely something in the region of £145m? 

[/quote]

 

You don''t say. I''d love to see you in action when it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dear meyou are clearly out of your depth here newchapthe market is driven by what those buying the rights believe they can earn by selling access to games via subscription - it matters a jot who those buyers are as the US has just demonstratedif the demand is there, the rights will be sold at a price that matches that demandas to the US, the latest deal is worth $250m against the previous deal of $80mthe stuff you talk about regarding China is out of date - there is a free to view service therethe overseas rights are set to grow by 30% once the figures are finally releasedESPN is not 40% owned by sky, I suggest you check and come back and tell us the true story

the reality is we all know that the money from the sale of TV rights has inflated PL incomes to an extreme;y high (and possibly) dangerous levellikewise we all know that it is a bubble that could burstunfortunately newsboy hasn''t quite grasped what is cause and what is effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well aren''t you a condescending human male reproductive organ. 
 
[quote] as to the US, the latest deal is worth $250m against the previous deal of $80m[/quote]
So when I said "about £180m" I was out by less than 10%. Wow. 
[quote]  the stuff you talk about regarding China is out of date - there is a free to view service there [/quote] 
I didn''t place any date on those events, it was an example of precedent for the subscription model failing in many global markets, which is precisely why the domestic deal is still worth more than all overseas deals put together. 
[quote] ESPN is not 40% owned by sky, I suggest you check and come back and tell us the true story [/quote]
If I replace the word ''sky'' with ''News Corporation'' then I wouldn''t be a million miles out. Nice effort googling ESPN and reading the wikipedia article on ESPN Inc. Now try again and look at each of the dozens of the global subsidiaries of ESPN, almost all of which own PL rights in their respective markets, then see how many of them are controlled by Fox International. In particular I suggest that you look at ESPN Asia which owns the PL rights for every country is Asia apart from China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam. News Corp. In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story. 
[quote] the reality is we all know that the money from the sale of TV rights has inflated PL incomes to an extreme;y high (and possibly) dangerous level [/quote]
Yes, we do, but with ''possibly'' being ''probably''. 
[quote] likewise we all know that it is a bubble that could burst [/quote]
Yes, we do. 

[quote] unfortunately newsboy hasn''t quite grasped what is cause and what is effect [/quote]
One monopolistic corporation owning the lions share of the global rights seems like reason enough to worry to me. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dearie meare you mad, or simply completely deluded ?The US figures were not about how accurate your statement was in terms of amount, but in terms of comparison. You claimed "then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas". Whereas in reality NBC had bid THREE TIMES the amount previously bid and won."I didn''t place any date on those events". Then what is the purpose of comparison if there is no accepted benchmark ? Or did you just get caught out again and are trying to weasel out of it ? As with -"so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN." Which then morphed into ESPN global subsidaries. The truth is neither Sky or even NewsCorp own anything of ESPN.  However even by your own figures owning almost 40% of something does not give you control."In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand

now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story.
" No it is not, it is absolute bo llox.  I suggest you look up ESPN''s sale of it''s share of ESPN Asia in 2012. And who it sold it to.In the mean ttime maybe you could get a grownup to explain to you the difference between cause and effect. Until then, as a grown up, I will briefly explain it.Broadcasters such as Sky and BT are able to sell subscriptions (the effect) in response to the demand by customers (the cause). As long as there is demand then there will be broadcasters seeking to have the rights. Much as with English cricket. As I should imagine what would be the same with Wimbledon.You seem to be disturbingly fixated with sky and this bizarre notion that on some strange whim they would suddenly stop broadcasting and it would all suddenly come to an end. Whereas all they and other broadcasters would do is respond according to demand. This is something they are well informed on as it is them who are selling the subscriptions.I don''t doubt either that most clubs will now have a built in mechanism to counter any sudden drop in TV income so the armageddon you predict is not going to happenNeither is another reply from me as you appear absolutely barking and will simply change the goalposts by telling me that I should not be replying to what you posted, but what you meant to post. Either way, on past record, it will still be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]dearie meare you mad, or simply completely deluded ?The US figures were not about how accurate your statement was in terms of amount, but in terms of comparison. You claimed "then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas". Whereas in reality NBC had bid THREE TIMES the amount previously bid and won."I didn''t place any date on those events". Then what is the purpose of comparison if there is no accepted benchmark ? Or did you just get caught out again and are trying to weasel out of it ? As with -"so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN." Which then morphed into ESPN global subsidaries. The truth is neither Sky or even NewsCorp own anything of ESPN.  However even by your own figures owning almost 40% of something does not give you control."In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand

now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story.
" No it is not, it is absolute bo llox.  I suggest you look up ESPN''s sale of it''s share of ESPN Asia in 2012. And who it sold it to.In the mean ttime maybe you could get a grownup to explain to you the difference between cause and effect. Until then, as a grown up, I will briefly explain it.Broadcasters such as Sky and BT are able to sell subscriptions (the effect) in response to the demand by customers (the cause). As long as there is demand then there will be broadcasters seeking to have the rights. Much as with English cricket. As I should imagine what would be the same with Wimbledon.You seem to be disturbingly fixated with sky and this bizarre notion that on some strange whim they would suddenly stop broadcasting and it would all suddenly come to an end. Whereas all they and other broadcasters would do is respond according to demand. This is something they are well informed on as it is them who are selling the subscriptions.I don''t doubt either that most clubs will now have a built in mechanism to counter any sudden drop in TV income so the armageddon you predict is not going to happenNeither is another reply from me as you appear absolutely barking and will simply change the goalposts by telling me that I should not be replying to what you posted, but what you meant to post. Either way, on past record, it will still be wrong.[/quote]
Oh bore off, can''t be bothered to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Sky suddenly come to the conclusion that the Premier Leauge isn''t worth it and pull out of the bidding process (which is done on blind bids rather than an auction style) someone else will step in. Al Jazeera are known to want to start showing Premier Leauge games and everyone expected them to make a bid on the last deal - due to BT jumping into the market with serious backing Al Jazeera either thought twice or didn''t bid at all. The worst thing for them would have been to win the right to one block of games meaning they would need to set-up a channel etc but only have 6 or so games to show.

 

Whilst of course a major player pulling out would probably result in a drop in the value of the deal, the contracts are over a 4 year period, meaning clubs would always have a certain amount of notification before the drop happened.

 

Current trends suggest that the value of the deal will only grow over the next decade or so, there is still a massive desire amoungst the British public to pay for coverage despite streaming being ubiquitous and you would expect the arrival of an internet provider (the only people who can really stop people having access to streams) coming into the market might affect that. I''m interested to see if people who have BT internet will be able to access streams so easily for Premier League games next year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="City1st"]dearie me

are you mad, or simply completely deluded ?

The US figures were not about how accurate your statement was in terms of amount, but in terms of comparison. You claimed "then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas". Whereas in reality NBC had bid THREE TIMES the amount previously bid and won.

"I didn''t place any date on those events"
. Then what is the purpose of comparison if there is no accepted benchmark ? Or did you just get caught out again and are trying to weasel out of it ? As with -

"so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN."
Which then morphed into ESPN global subsidaries. The truth is neither Sky or even NewsCorp own anything of ESPN.  However even by your own figures owning almost 40% of something does not give you control.

"In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story. " No it is not, it is absolute bo llox.  I suggest you look up ESPN''s sale of it''s share of ESPN Asia in 2012. And who it sold it to.

In the mean ttime maybe you could get a grownup to explain to you the difference between cause and effect. Until then, as a grown up, I will briefly explain it.

Broadcasters such as Sky and BT are able to sell subscriptions (the effect) in response to the demand by customers (the cause). As long as there is demand then there will be broadcasters seeking to have the rights. Much as with English cricket. As I should imagine what would be the same with Wimbledon.

You seem to be disturbingly fixated with sky and this bizarre notion that on some strange whim they would suddenly stop broadcasting and it would all suddenly come to an end. Whereas all they and other broadcasters would do is respond according to demand. This is something they are well informed on as it is them who are selling the subscriptions.

I don''t doubt either that most clubs will now have a built in mechanism to counter any sudden drop in TV income so the armageddon you predict is not going to happen

Neither is another reply from me as you appear absolutely barking and will simply change the goalposts by telling me that I should not be replying to what you posted, but what you meant to post. Either way, on past record, it will still be wrong.

[/quote]


Oh bore off, can''t be bothered to read that.

[/quote]

 

Charming. You waffle on forever and a day about very little and when someone dares to contest what you say, you "get bored and can''t be bothered". At least you''ll feel at home on here with that attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote]eh ?If sky dropped out at the next round of TV rights being sold then other providers would simply step in as BT has recently.It is the demand that drives sky, not the other way round.It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football."at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us ) ! ! !I think not. Their squad is composed of lower league hopefuls and freebies.a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England teammuch a s alot of music fans at Glastonbury are indifferent to the Eurovision Song contest

[/quote]
When you sell a house at auction the winning bid is reached following a process by which multiple bidders will increase the amount that they are willing to pay in a series of small increments. The last one to bid wins the house. 
You may start the bidding at £50,000 - also the reserve - and Mr Smith may win the house for £100,000. There is one other bidder, his name is Mr Jones. His highest bid was £99,500. 
No other parties were interested in the house. If Mr Smith had decided not to place any bids on the house, how much would Mr Jones have paid for it? Not £99,500. He would have paid £50,000.
This is not an attempt to patronise, but a clear and logical example of how football could lose a lot of money should a major party choose not to enter the bidding process. 
We already have a strong example of this happening in English football when Sentanta collapsed after having agreed a £150m deal to show FA Cup and England matches. They likely had to bid for that deal, but when it fell through the resulting deal saw the FA lose £60m.
Would the second highest bid have been £90m initially? Or would it have been more likely something in the region of £145m? 
[/quote]Your example here is very simplistic and not correct.In the scenario you mention, the seller has the option to set a reserve unknown by the buyer, which would be more realistic to what she would sell for. If the reserve is not met, the property would be passed in, which means the seller and buyer can negotiate a price separate to the auction.Which is exactly what would happen in selling the rights to the PL. Sure, if Sky we''re not around then it might make the price may be lower, as there would be less competition. However, without Sky there are still loads of companies that would like to use the Premier League to help build their brand and empire exactly the same way Sky already has, and the same way BT are trying to with their new TV venture, and The PL would set the price.For me, this is not a clear example of how football could lose a lot of money. It is a simplistic opinion based on a real estate example you dreamed up in your head, which would never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×