SW
Well, certainly some of the comments seemed a bit odd, but I would disagree in part with the bit about sticking with what you've got, because it sometimes seems that the Football League were so spooked with the ITV Digital disaster that they started to cling to Sky for dear life, regardless of the opportunities that might exist elsewhere. Certainly the BBC deal with ten live first choice matches and the League Cup Final was a brilliant deal, it gave them amazing exposure, and they were mad to give it up to go back all excusively on Sky. And similarly, in the previous highlights deal, the story was they ended up dishing them out to the Beeb for free because the deal was so heavily weighted in Sky's favour - letting them show all the goals before everyone else and so on - that it wasn't considered worth anyone's bother to bid for them.
I'm not saying that they don't get good exposure on Sky and they don't do good coverage. But maybe there are advantages of looking elsewhere.
That'll teach that delusional loudgob chairman of Derby County a lesson in sticking with what you've got for the benefit of the game, and other clubs in other divisions with less money than his club.
Well, certainly some of the comments seemed a bit odd, but I would disagree in part with the bit about sticking with what you've got, because it sometimes seems that the Football League were so spooked with the ITV Digital disaster that they started to cling to Sky for dear life, regardless of the opportunities that might exist elsewhere. Certainly the BBC deal with ten live first choice matches and the League Cup Final was a brilliant deal, it gave them amazing exposure, and they were mad to give it up to go back all excusively on Sky. And similarly, in the previous highlights deal, the story was they ended up dishing them out to the Beeb for free because the deal was so heavily weighted in Sky's favour - letting them show all the goals before everyone else and so on - that it wasn't considered worth anyone's bother to bid for them.
I'm not saying that they don't get good exposure on Sky and they don't do good coverage. But maybe there are advantages of looking elsewhere.
MA
But the FL reasonably think that it is better to take the rights package to tender, rather than do a deal behind closed doors with Sky. Given BT's presence in the market, I don't think that this is an unrealistic ambition.
Just about every other sports rights package goes to tender like this every few years. Why do you think this particular case is so controversial?
Really hope Sky don't bid - and no-one else does either.
That'll teach that delusional loudgob chairman of Derby County a lesson in sticking with what you've got for the benefit of the game, and other clubs in other divisions with less money than his club.
There will be no multi-billion pound bidding war (as he thinks) and with illegal internet streaming, neither will going into a internet subscription model get a quarter of the money that a collective deal with Sky Sports would either.
That'll teach that delusional loudgob chairman of Derby County a lesson in sticking with what you've got for the benefit of the game, and other clubs in other divisions with less money than his club.
There will be no multi-billion pound bidding war (as he thinks) and with illegal internet streaming, neither will going into a internet subscription model get a quarter of the money that a collective deal with Sky Sports would either.
But the FL reasonably think that it is better to take the rights package to tender, rather than do a deal behind closed doors with Sky. Given BT's presence in the market, I don't think that this is an unrealistic ambition.
Just about every other sports rights package goes to tender like this every few years. Why do you think this particular case is so controversial?
JB
Nothing to stop any broadcaster bidding if they've got the cash, schedule and can see a return.
Football now is so over exposed, especially the Premier League. News, action and results are available everywhere.
You'd have to be a hard core football addict to watch, say, a League One game as a neutral.
That sort of game would be on ITV4 - would that get an audience?
If the Football League (sorry hate the term EFL) want exposure least they get that through being on in Sky pubs.
The value and the audience is in the highlights, look at the audience figures for Match of the Day compared with a live match.
What's to then stop ITV bidding, getting them domestic football back on their channels. Or even Channel 5 bidding, increasing their live sports output.
Nothing to stop any broadcaster bidding if they've got the cash, schedule and can see a return.
Football now is so over exposed, especially the Premier League. News, action and results are available everywhere.
You'd have to be a hard core football addict to watch, say, a League One game as a neutral.
That sort of game would be on ITV4 - would that get an audience?
If the Football League (sorry hate the term EFL) want exposure least they get that through being on in Sky pubs.
The value and the audience is in the highlights, look at the audience figures for Match of the Day compared with a live match.
BK
RTÉ had announced details of Irish coverage for the Confederations Cup Matches taking place in the summer on Tuesday.
They are showing all 16 games live for this years tournament including the Final on the 2nd July.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017/0606/880597-rte-unveils-confederations-cup-coverage/
They are showing all 16 games live for this years tournament including the Final on the 2nd July.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017/0606/880597-rte-unveils-confederations-cup-coverage/
HC
But the FL reasonably think that it is better to take the rights package to tender, rather than do a deal behind closed doors with Sky. Given BT's presence in the market, I don't think that this is an unrealistic ambition.
Just about every other sports rights package goes to tender like this every few years. Why do you think this particular case is so controversial?
1 - The current rights that Sky pay, seem to be the limit of what they are worth.
2 - Sorry to be blunt, but it's the 2nd, 3rd and 4th divisions were are talking about here.
In a straight fight between Manchester City - Tottenham on Sky Sports 1 or Port Vale v Walsall on Sky Sports 2 for viewers, which one do you think will win out - and be shown the pubs and bars up and down the country, with only one tv?
3 - The popular consensus within sport and broadcasting, is that the UK market is at saturation point with paying for rights. So it seems very odd, to throw the rights onto the open market in an attempt to drive up the price massively - when it probably will be lucky to get even a moderatly small increase. Even more so, as the Premiership UK/Ire pay tv rights are looming on the horizon again.
4- All this seems to be driven by one or two chairmen of clubs in the Championship, and the other 90 odd who are probably very happy with the exposure (and money) from being on Sky Sports are having to trail along in the ego wake.
5 - I can't see a huge percentage increase (no matter how many games or packages are offered for bids) in the amount paid - no matter how many extra games are thrown in that the current deal.
Plus, if (as been reported) there is an increase in the number of live Tuesday evening games next time around, with BT distracted by Champions League as he main draw on that night - are they going to be bothered breathlessly promoting Fulham Vs Wolves, when over on BT Sport 3 you have Barcelona Vs Real Madrid?
No.
Really hope Sky don't bid - and no-one else does either.
That'll teach that delusional loudgob chairman of Derby County a lesson in sticking with what you've got for the benefit of the game, and other clubs in other divisions with less money than his club.
There will be no multi-billion pound bidding war (as he thinks) and with illegal internet streaming, neither will going into a internet subscription model get a quarter of the money that a collective deal with Sky Sports would either.
That'll teach that delusional loudgob chairman of Derby County a lesson in sticking with what you've got for the benefit of the game, and other clubs in other divisions with less money than his club.
There will be no multi-billion pound bidding war (as he thinks) and with illegal internet streaming, neither will going into a internet subscription model get a quarter of the money that a collective deal with Sky Sports would either.
But the FL reasonably think that it is better to take the rights package to tender, rather than do a deal behind closed doors with Sky. Given BT's presence in the market, I don't think that this is an unrealistic ambition.
Just about every other sports rights package goes to tender like this every few years. Why do you think this particular case is so controversial?
1 - The current rights that Sky pay, seem to be the limit of what they are worth.
2 - Sorry to be blunt, but it's the 2nd, 3rd and 4th divisions were are talking about here.
In a straight fight between Manchester City - Tottenham on Sky Sports 1 or Port Vale v Walsall on Sky Sports 2 for viewers, which one do you think will win out - and be shown the pubs and bars up and down the country, with only one tv?
3 - The popular consensus within sport and broadcasting, is that the UK market is at saturation point with paying for rights. So it seems very odd, to throw the rights onto the open market in an attempt to drive up the price massively - when it probably will be lucky to get even a moderatly small increase. Even more so, as the Premiership UK/Ire pay tv rights are looming on the horizon again.
4- All this seems to be driven by one or two chairmen of clubs in the Championship, and the other 90 odd who are probably very happy with the exposure (and money) from being on Sky Sports are having to trail along in the ego wake.
5 - I can't see a huge percentage increase (no matter how many games or packages are offered for bids) in the amount paid - no matter how many extra games are thrown in that the current deal.
Plus, if (as been reported) there is an increase in the number of live Tuesday evening games next time around, with BT distracted by Champions League as he main draw on that night - are they going to be bothered breathlessly promoting Fulham Vs Wolves, when over on BT Sport 3 you have Barcelona Vs Real Madrid?
No.
MY
Hmm... the Football League and ITV... what could possibly go wrong....
What's to then stop ITV bidding, getting them domestic football back on their channels. Or even Channel 5 bidding, increasing their live sports output.
Hmm... the Football League and ITV... what could possibly go wrong....
RO
Hmm... the Football League and ITV... what could possibly go wrong....
Yeah well, I forgot about that! I've suggested Channel 5 or ITV, what about Channel 4? After losing racing, and uncertainty about whether they'll try and get F1 highlights from 2019, they have a few pounds to spend!
What's to then stop ITV bidding, getting them domestic football back on their channels. Or even Channel 5 bidding, increasing their live sports output.
Hmm... the Football League and ITV... what could possibly go wrong....
Yeah well, I forgot about that! I've suggested Channel 5 or ITV, what about Channel 4? After losing racing, and uncertainty about whether they'll try and get F1 highlights from 2019, they have a few pounds to spend!
BR
Kind of have to ask where they would air. They moved a few to Friday night for the latest expansion but Sky dropped the slot as often as it could. Guess triple headers on a Sunday might become a regular thing.
Meanwhile an article in the Times this morning is indicating that the Premier League, who are seemingly currently discussing their strategy for the next TV rights deal, will be looking at increasing the U.K. televised fixtures by at least 22 to 190.
Kind of have to ask where they would air. They moved a few to Friday night for the latest expansion but Sky dropped the slot as often as it could. Guess triple headers on a Sunday might become a regular thing.
DV
The idea of Sunday Evening fixtures was mentioned three years ago in connection with the award then. If the number is to be 'at least' 190 the possibility of head to head simultaneous matches being televised has to be considered, no matter how complex this might be and the potential fracturus pub debates as to which is shown.
DV
BBC TWO .....
Hearing a bit of a scramble in progress to try and nab FTA rights to the FIFA U20 World Cup final on Sunday, being covered for Pay audiences by Eurosport. England and Venezuela qualified earlier today.
Wouldn't surprise to see it pop up on Quest at least if not others.
Wouldn't surprise to see it pop up on Quest at least if not others.
BBC TWO .....
England are in their first World Cup final since 1966.
— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) June 9, 2017
It's live on BBC Two & online on Sunday! From 10:50 BSThttps://t.co/3dzaRqJ6V8 pic.twitter.com/P6NpIsten2