"Under the new agreement, BT secured two of the seven packages on offer, showing 28 Saturday lunchtime games, including the opening game of the season, and 10 matches taking place on bank holidays or midweek evening."
So I guess this means that where sky usually broadcast championship games on Saturday evenings, they'll be moved to Saturday lunchtime, with the PL games at 5:30.
Not sure what i prefer, Burnley away at 12:45, or Burnley away at 5:30. Both equally inconvenient.
No matches on espn next season.The Premier League have secured a remarkable £1.25billion INCREASE on the current deal, which is shared between Sky and ESPN.
So much for the people who keep predicting the bubble would burst . . . I see Sky have actually increased the number of matches they will show by one under this formula. However, note that it is not next season. It starts in 2013/14.
It will also increase the market value of clubs reaching the PL in the next few years . . .
Remember when we got relegated it was so important we stayed up as a new tv deal was coming through the season after, we missed that one hopefully we can get in on this one.
Can see some lower end teams spending a fair bit this summer to try and guarantee survival this season now.
Will I be able to get the BT games through Sky over here in Portugal, that's all I care about?
How does the Sky thing work out there? Do you have to pay for a special 'watching sky abroad' package or just a normal 'pub' subscription and just plug in the box ?
So much for the people who keep predicting the bubble would burst . . . I see Sky have actually increased the number of matches they will show by one under this formula. However, note that it is not next season. It starts in 2013/14.
It will also increase the market value of clubs reaching the PL in the next few years . . .
I don't think the TV bubble will burst, but I think that demand for tickets to watch live Premier League football will decline if the prices keep rising.
I know that some of the massive clubs and/or those that are reaching new heights (Man City winning the league, Spurs qualifying for the CL, Swansea getting promoted to the Premier League) will have spare demand, but I just can't see the likes of Wigan, Stoke WBA et. al. selling tickets at £50 a pop to watch a relegation struggle or a mid table finish.
Keeping Sky Sports at c. £50 a month is the equivalent of going to one Premier League game (once you account for the travel etc.) a month, and not taking your children.
The biggest point about these TV deals is that as Sky have made money in recent years they are finding others willing to enter the market with cheaper infrastructure costs. BT, and I suspect ESPN will make money from football rights, but are ok if they don't get any. Sky, on the other hand, would probably go bust of they lost all the Premier League football. I don't think many would keep their box (with HD and Sky+) and pay £30 a month for no football. The movies are already cheaper elsewhere with internet streaming companies, where you get a better choice too.
So Sky need to keep the football, and the Premier League need to keep increasing their TV revenue. It is very unlikely we will ever see a race to the bottom in price for TV coverage, but we might well see it in the price of tickets, otherwise we will start to see more and more empty stadia.
I suspect that in due course the deals will change so that the top four (or five or six) sides will be on every week - it's almost like that now, but I think every team has to be on once or twice a season or something. I'm sure Sky would like to scrap that and only ever show the top sides, and then the TV deal will favour, even more, the big clubs. At that point, rather like Spain, the smaller clubs will have to set about increasing their gate revenues again.
I'm not sure how the deal will affect match day prices or attendances. However I suspect it could have an impact on what the monthly subscription for Sky is. Presumably they will be looking to recoup some of the extra from viewers!
But isn't part of the Prem's appeal to TV bosses all over the world that the games are often played in packed stadiums. If the ticket prices continue to rise and the grounds start to empty what happens then?
How can clubs possibly justify these tickets prices?
Let's look at the maths here. Clubs are getting a share of 3 billion over 3 years, so that's 1 billion a year, an average of 50 million per club per season.
So if a club has 30k seats, and is selling 75% of them at £40 a ticket, that's £17million a year. Now we know they earn extra through programmes and food, etc. but they lose more through concessions, freebies, season tickets, etc. So if we say ticket revenue (including catering and programmes, but not include boxes, etc.) is £15million, then revenues, excluding hospitality, are £65million, meaning tickets sales account for approximately 25% of income. So increasing ticket prices from £40 to £50 (25%), would only result in a 2-3% increase in overall revenues, i.e. not worth it for the bad will and potential attendance decreases it could cause.
When you factor in that clubs are seeing an increase of around £15m-£20m a year in the TV money compared to the old deal, then in essence they could give tickets away and still be making the same income (possibly more as fans might spend more on food and drink if they haven't forked out for a ticket). In the premiership there is certainly no need to charge more than £20 a ticket. Obviously clubs want to maximise income, but what we are seeing is pure greed, bordering on stupidity. Crowds will continue to fall until prices drop sharply. Fans aren't that stupid, they can see the club get an extra £20m from Sky/BT, and then they're asked to pay more for tickets, they will rightfully ask why they should pay more.
I doubt if the majority of PL clubs is getting anything like £40 a ticket from 75 per cent of their seats and in any case you don't allow for VAT. Ancillary income from matchdays wouldn't anywhere near offset concessionary ticket prices, never mind comps or season tickets. But I do agree that for most clubs it's all about TV money. That's why we could offer a free season ticket if promoted in 2007 and 2008.
Where grounds are not sold out, you'll usually find the prices are often much more reaslistic. Where they are, the clubs can do what they like until they're not, but it's not just greed. It's the need to compete for better players.
In America, if the game is not 95% sold out, the NFL do not allow the local markets to show the game live even if scheduled in order to encourage more fans to 'experience the product'
So a Villa v Wigan game which had poor ticket sales, would not be shown on the Sunday afternoon in the Midlands area.
Comments
So I guess this means that where sky usually broadcast championship games on Saturday evenings, they'll be moved to Saturday lunchtime, with the PL games at 5:30.
Not sure what i prefer, Burnley away at 12:45, or Burnley away at 5:30. Both equally inconvenient.
I was always more of a fan of the prem plus PPV where you could buy a season ticket for £50 or thereabouts.
Without PL football it's hard to see them staying in the UK market.
It will also increase the market value of clubs reaching the PL in the next few years . . .
Can see some lower end teams spending a fair bit this summer to try and guarantee survival this season now.
Spending time i reckon!
Do you have to pay for a special 'watching sky abroad' package or just a normal 'pub' subscription and just plug in the box ?
I know that some of the massive clubs and/or those that are reaching new heights (Man City winning the league, Spurs qualifying for the CL, Swansea getting promoted to the Premier League) will have spare demand, but I just can't see the likes of Wigan, Stoke WBA et. al. selling tickets at £50 a pop to watch a relegation struggle or a mid table finish.
Keeping Sky Sports at c. £50 a month is the equivalent of going to one Premier League game (once you account for the travel etc.) a month, and not taking your children.
The biggest point about these TV deals is that as Sky have made money in recent years they are finding others willing to enter the market with cheaper infrastructure costs. BT, and I suspect ESPN will make money from football rights, but are ok if they don't get any. Sky, on the other hand, would probably go bust of they lost all the Premier League football. I don't think many would keep their box (with HD and Sky+) and pay £30 a month for no football. The movies are already cheaper elsewhere with internet streaming companies, where you get a better choice too.
So Sky need to keep the football, and the Premier League need to keep increasing their TV revenue. It is very unlikely we will ever see a race to the bottom in price for TV coverage, but we might well see it in the price of tickets, otherwise we will start to see more and more empty stadia.
I suspect that in due course the deals will change so that the top four (or five or six) sides will be on every week - it's almost like that now, but I think every team has to be on once or twice a season or something. I'm sure Sky would like to scrap that and only ever show the top sides, and then the TV deal will favour, even more, the big clubs. At that point, rather like Spain, the smaller clubs will have to set about increasing their gate revenues again.
Let's look at the maths here. Clubs are getting a share of 3 billion over 3 years, so that's 1 billion a year, an average of 50 million per club per season.
So if a club has 30k seats, and is selling 75% of them at £40 a ticket, that's £17million a year. Now we know they earn extra through programmes and food, etc. but they lose more through concessions, freebies, season tickets, etc. So if we say ticket revenue (including catering and programmes, but not include boxes, etc.) is £15million, then revenues, excluding hospitality, are £65million, meaning tickets sales account for approximately 25% of income. So increasing ticket prices from £40 to £50 (25%), would only result in a 2-3% increase in overall revenues, i.e. not worth it for the bad will and potential attendance decreases it could cause.
When you factor in that clubs are seeing an increase of around £15m-£20m a year in the TV money compared to the old deal, then in essence they could give tickets away and still be making the same income (possibly more as fans might spend more on food and drink if they haven't forked out for a ticket). In the premiership there is certainly no need to charge more than £20 a ticket. Obviously clubs want to maximise income, but what we are seeing is pure greed, bordering on stupidity. Crowds will continue to fall until prices drop sharply. Fans aren't that stupid, they can see the club get an extra £20m from Sky/BT, and then they're asked to pay more for tickets, they will rightfully ask why they should pay more.
Where grounds are not sold out, you'll usually find the prices are often much more reaslistic. Where they are, the clubs can do what they like until they're not, but it's not just greed. It's the need to compete for better players.
So a Villa v Wigan game which had poor ticket sales, would not be shown on the Sunday afternoon in the Midlands area.