The Official Sky HD Thread and FAQ

[Stevie G]

Originally Posted by douglasb

The reason Netflix is a tenner or whatever is because they didn't pay a gazillion pounds to show the football. Sky Sports ain't gonna get cheaper any time soon - they have bills to pay.

I know Sky Sports isn't going to be a tenner, but aren't they losing a lot of customers and at the same time the number of people accessing football through illegal streams hugely increasing, and younger people more likely to get them for free than pay? Surely it's about getting the right balance to encourage a lot more to pay whilst remaining profitable?

Personally I don't mind paying a bit more if I could get all the games I want, but what I find annoying is having to pay for the bundles I don't want or need to be able to then get Sports, and it's still only for a handful of games a week.

[douglasb]

I think Sky's model is being shown up as the out-dated product it is. They had a monopoly but have been overtaken by technology. I don't imagine many 20 somethings see the logic of paying for monthly subscriptions that includes a lot of material they're not going to watch. It's like the movie rental side on all the platforms - they would actually make more from me in the long run if they were just all 99p. But in Sky's case they can tinker a little bit but it all comes back to the huge - clearly mistaken - amount they bid for the football rights, which even non-Sports subscribers are having to subsidise.

[Q]

While ever the price goes up, people will look for other "means" to view content..

[Stevie G]

Does anyone know how BT will be pricing Sky Sports? They only currently have a few channels don't they?

[malcy]

Originally Posted by Stevie G

Does anyone know how BT will be pricing Sky Sports? They only currently have a few channels don't they?

BT TV currently only resells SS1 and SS2 either individually or combined. This was legally required by OFCOM.

Sky are allowed to refuse the other SS channels which they do because BT are their main competitor for sports rights.

They allow Talk Talk and Virgin to offer the complete SS channels package but neither compete against Sky in buying sports rights and target different customer demographics with their pay TV offers. Both stay sane post change only offering complete SS.

For BT TV they will only get SS Main Event as a 24/7 channel. This is the new bonus channel in the Sky Sports package which simulcasts the "best" line event and any point in time from one of the SS channels. However to stop BT complaining to OFCOM they will also offer SS Extra a channel exclusive to BT TV which will screen any Premier League football game not selected by Sky for SS Main Event. This is because OFCOM consider it essential all pay TV platforms have access to all these games. No need for SS Extra to be on Sky itself as you have SSPL offering all games.

In terms of price it is rumoured it will be closer to the current SS1+2 price on BT TV so £22 + £5 if you want HD. They can justify this as SS Main Event will lots more live sport than either SS 1 or 2 had, as all live sport with limited filler to pad out the schedule.

[Stevie G]

That sounds very complicated. I phoned BT earlier today about my broadband renewal and the guy said they didn't know yet, I guess it's best to wait a few more weeks to see how it plays out.

[jockosjungle]

Sounds like the BT deal might work out better if you're not desperate to see all sports channels, if its just offering a best of.

[HenryKrinkle]

Are there ANY legal means of watching ALL top flight football games (PL, FA Cup, CL etc... including 3pm KO's) in the UK? I appreciate you have to pay so I'm not looking at the 'Kodi' option, but there are many countries that show the games as stream so why can't we access them? ...obviously a VPN would take care of the regional locks but if you do sign up to a 'foreign' site is it legal?

[The Bear]

No. Only if you live abroad.

[Stevie G]

Foreign dish and genuine sub maybe, but that'll be a grey area on legality I guess?

[AdamBrunt]

Originally Posted by The Bear

No. Only if you live abroad.

This is correct as far as I know.

The companies that have such rights eg NBC and broadcasters in the Far East should only be selling subscriptions to residents in those particular countries.

You are then into the legalities of using a VPN to trick such companies into thinking you are a domestic resident

[HenryKrinkle]

I s'pose to be able to see all United games next season I shall have to venture into the 'grey area'. I already have Sky Sports on a 'deal' and there's no way I'm stumping up for BT as well...does anyone here actually pay for both?

Blimey, 2017 and we still have to abide by the old 3pm antiquated ruling...bizarre!

[The Bear]

It's a terribly outdated rule that the FA are still clinging to. They've shown every game in the Bundesliga in Germany for donkeys years now, and their attendances are some of if not the best in Europe. Though they are a lot cheaper and have much more fan friendly benefits in with their tickets. Something the FA and the PL clubs need to look at.

Filling grounds and showing every game can be done if they really wanted to. Especially now that ticket income is such a small drop in the ocean for PL teams.

Plenty of fans would pay the £110 that iFollow now charge to Football League fans to stream every game live if you live outside of the UK.

[AndyWilson]

Last season I'd have been happy with just the "Football Channel" - I'm only really interested in Leeds and Brighton games - but bloody Seagulls had to go and get promoted to the bloody Premier League so I'll have to get both channels.

At least for Brighton fans Away games will be cheaper now, but us casual matchgoers are going to find it harder to get Amex tickets and I won't be able to go to see Leeds lose at the Amex anymore.

[AdamBrunt]

Originally Posted by HenryKrinkle

I s'pose to be able to see all United games next season I shall have to venture into the 'grey area'. I already have Sky Sports on a 'deal' and there's no way I'm stumping up for BT as well...does anyone here actually pay for both?

Blimey, 2017 and we still have to abide by the old 3pm antiquated ruling...bizarre!

I used to get BT for free ( due to being a BT broadband customer ) but that is now £6pm. Never had Sky Sports and even with the re-branding I still won't pay for it. Long gone are the days of OnDigital and its season passed.

The 3pm rule is a joke and even stops Sky showing the whole of El Classico games live.

[malcy]

Originally Posted by AdamBrunt

The 3pm rule is a joke and even stops Sky showing the whole of El Classico games live.

It seems arcane and only England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and I think one Eastern European country still ask UEFA to enforce the 3pm blackout rule.

Mainly because we have a much too deep professional football structure in England. We have paid players down to even the 4th tier of non league. The son of a friend who is 18 gets £100 per match usually 2 a week playing at that level. He is one of three in team being paid that much. All get at least expenses for travel and petrol. Now most other countries are semi-professional / amateur at as high as level 3. So this means in England the lower level clubs think if Premier League on TV then people won't pay to watch them instead.

I had read that the Premier League had looked at all TV so outside Saturday 3pm but lots of squeals from fans who want to watch live. One suggestion I had read was
Thurs 8pm
Fri 8pm
Sat 12:30pm, 5:30pm, 8pm
Sun 12pm 2pm, 4pm, evening (if they did both 6pm and 8pm wouldn't need Thursday)
Mon 8pm

The next slot they will probably use as it's a rumour for the next rights deal is Sat night so something to watch as an alternative to the reality crap on ITV. However Friday 8pm has been a failure and I think Sky were allowed to flex some of those slots to other times. Main problem is on European weeks the more attractive teams for TV as playing in Europe couldn't play then.

[AdamBrunt]

The reduced income/attendance for lower league clubs is a nonsense excuse.

Showing Stoke v WBA ( or even a Top 4 game ) live at 3pm isn't going to stop a local going to see Woking, say.

Woking charging PL prices is what stops people going to see Woking. My father-in-law was saying the other day what a bargain Woking's £100 season ticket was ... I then pointed out that was the same price as a Huddersfield one.

[douglasb]

Well, that's more to do with the financial imbalance in the game. Supporting bigger clubs would be much more expensive if they didn't have telly money coming in. Clubs lower down the league get their money on the gate. But it's definitely true the 'professional' game is much too big in the UK.

[The Bear]

Agreed. The TV money imbalance is what's killing lower league clubs. For Prem teams gate receipts are a tiny drop in the ocean, but for lower league clubs it's the difference between staying afloat and going under.

[jockosjungle]

Any hard evidence that it'll effect gate receipts? Not sure I'd miss a live game of my team just to watch a match on the telly