ESPN changes explained

Rizzo the Rat · 03-05-2013 10:47am #1

I just got this email from ESPN re next season and BT Sport. No mention of charges/price.

"Dear Sportsfan

If you have ESPN as part of your TV subscription package, your current subscription will end on 31 July 2013. You don't need to do anything now.
ESPN will continue on television next season (operated by BT) and ESPN will continue to own and operate all our digital properties, including ESPN.co.uk, ESPNcricinfo, ESPNFC and more.

What does this mean for you?

BT will continue to broadcast an ESPN-branded channel as part of BT Sport, so you won't miss any great sporting content.
Next season on BT Sport and ESPN enjoy 38 exclusively live Barclays Premier League matches, Aviva Premiership rugby, FA Cup with Budweiser, UEFA Europa League, German Bundesliga, WTA tennis and more.
We will keep you informed on developments. You can also find more on the ESPN agreement with BT, by visiting our ESPN FAQs.
Enjoy the rest of this season.

Marisa Brennan"

bjp1967 · 03-05-2013 12:23pm

Irish Subscribers to Sky Sports got ESPN included with their package, I presume this arrangement will end in July and BT channels will be offered as an extra stand alone charge like Setanta.

No thanks

NUTZZ · 03-05-2013 1:47pm

bjp1967 wrote: »

Irish Subscribers to Sky Sports got ESPN included with their package, I presume this arrangement will end in July and BT channels will be offered as an extra stand alone charge like Setanta.

No thanks

Unfortunately if you want the 38 live premier league games (16 of which are first picks), amongst other sports, then we're going to have to pay an extra subscription like Setanta.

mikeym · 03-05-2013 3:28pm

Just saw Bt Sport 1 and 2 formally known as the Sailing channel (ch445).

Cantona's Collars · 03-05-2013 3:55pm

BT will be handling their own subscriptions but using the Sky platform.
They are having a row with Sky atm due to Sky not showing adverts for BT Sports.

helimachoptor · 03-05-2013 4:43pm

zerks wrote: »

BT will be handling their own subscriptions but using the Sky platform.
They are having a row with Sky atm due to Sky not showing adverts for BT Sports.

Well you can hardly blame Sky for that

NUTZZ · 03-05-2013 5:25pm

zerks wrote: »

BT will be handling their own subscriptions but using the Sky platform.
They are having a row with Sky atm due to Sky not showing adverts for BT Sports.

helimachoptor wrote: »

Well you can hardly blame Sky for that

Sky are going to air the ads, just not on their Sky Sports channels.

icdg · 03-05-2013 6:44pm

bjp1967 wrote: »

Irish Subscribers to Sky Sports got ESPN included with their package, I presume this arrangement will end in July and BT channels will be offered as an extra stand alone charge like Setanta.

As I gather it will be exactly the same arrangement as Setanta, they will use Sky for the minimum required to manage subscriptions and run their own sales etc.

watty · 03-05-2013 7:44pm

Sky are on thin ice as Platform owner and Channel Content Provider. In fact they should be forbidden to be both or have the two businesses at arms length. BT is big enough to take them to the UK Competition Commission.

Sky needs to demonstrate a fair approach to carriage and adverts as they have a defacto monopoly on Satellite Pay TV. Virgin (now UPC) and UPC can only compete in cabled areas.

They have got away with daylight robbery for years on EPG and Encryption charges, either of which costs more than actual carriage from SES-Astra or Eutelsat and neither actually costs Sky much. Only actual Subscription / Card management has real per customer cost that is significant.

helimachoptor · 03-05-2013 9:12pm

Nothing stopping BT putting a satellite up in space watty :pac:

bjp1967 · 05-05-2013 11:28am

Setanta have announced they have rights for Saturday afternoon in EPL fixtures in Ireland for next three years.

BT have 38 games against Setanta having 33 per year.

If anyone is going to invest I think BT have the advantage by offering HD, Setanta need to step up by launching HD on SKY to compete.

_Kaiser_ · 05-05-2013 12:54pm

This might be unpopular but I miss the days when it was all on Sky. At least then you paid your sub and you got the lot - talking about EPL here.

Now you have Setanta/ESPN/BT showing different games and each with their own subscription model. It'd cost a fortune to have them all.

I'd happily consider a "EPL/Champions League Sub" that only covered those games but regardless of what channel it was on.
TBH the way it is now, this "competition" just makes it a lot more attractive to watch every (and I do mean every) game on "other" sources.

Kristopherus · 05-05-2013 1:03pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

This might be unpopular but I miss the days when it was all on Sky. At least then you paid your sub and you got the lot - talking about EPL here.

Now you have Setanta/ESPN/BT showing different games and each with their own subscription model. It'd cost a fortune to have them all.

I'd happily consider a "EPL/Champions League Sub" that only covered those games but regardless of what channel it was on.
TBH the way it is now, this "competition" just makes it a lot more attractive to watch every (and I do mean every) game on "other" sources.

Not unpopular at all. IMO a lot of people, myself included, will be thinking that way as well. With the telcos rolling out fttc & ftth, all that will be required is that the "other source" wiil come up with the needfull at their end;).

Widescreen · 06-05-2013 8:16pm

NUTZZ wrote: »

Unfortunately if you want the 38 live premier league games (16 of which are first picks), amongst other sports, then we're going to have to pay an extra subscription like Setanta.

ESPN ended up being included with the Skysports sub, can't see BT doing any better than ESPN- they are offering the same wine in a different bottle, that's all. If they try selling stand alone sub here, they won't get my business that's for sure, anyway those half five kick offs are a pain in the ass.Busy time in our house!

byte · 06-05-2013 10:26pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

This might be unpopular but I miss the days when it was all on Sky. At least then you paid your sub and you got the lot - talking about EPL here.

Aye, but back then, there were fair few less games being televised on Sky Sports.

And of course, lest we forget Premiership Plus, to get additional number of games as a seperate package where you paid Sky PPV or got the "Season Ticket".

Mind you, now that I've typed all that, Sky Sports and Prem+ was perhaps cheaper than Sky+BT (ignoring Setanta) will be now.:)

NUTZZ · 06-05-2013 10:38pm

Widescreen wrote: »

ESPN ended up being included with the Skysports sub, can't see BT doing any better than ESPN- they are offering the same wine in a different bottle, that's all. If they try selling stand alone sub here, they won't get my business that's for sure, anyway those half five kick offs are a pain in the ass.Busy time in our house!

The big difference with BT Sport is they have a much better match package than ESPN did, they have Saturday 12:45pm games and mid week fixtures too. Sky Sports will have the 5:30pm games.

I seriously can not see BT Sport having the same relationship with Sky as ESPN did

icdg · 06-05-2013 10:54pm

The other difference is that Sky and ESPN had a business relationship from the start, Sky actually produced ESPN's coverage of Premier League football in its first season, they had full charge of subscriber management for ESPN throughout the time it was on air, ran its sales operation etc. At one point they were even promoting ESPN games on Sky Sports News.

BT and Sky will have none of this relationship. Obviously BT will need to pay Sky for certain subscriber management services but they will have their own call centre and you will ring BT rather than Sky to sign up. As I said it is the exact same arrangement that Setanta presently have.

snaps · 07-05-2013 4:41am

NUTZZ wrote: »

The big difference with BT Sport is they have a much better match package than ESPN did, they have Saturday 12:45pm games and mid week fixtures too. Sky Sports will have the 5:30pm games.

I seriously can not see BT Sport having the same relationship with Sky as ESPN did

have to agree, out of all the matches I missed or didn't watch properly, where the 17.30 kick offs.

snaps · 07-05-2013 4:44am

byte wrote: »

Aye, but back then, there were fair few less games being televised on Sky Sports.

And of course, lest we forget Premiership Plus, to get additional number of games as a seperate package where you paid Sky PPV or got the "Season Ticket".

Mind you, now that I've typed all that, Sky Sports and Prem+ was perhaps cheaper than Sky+BT (ignoring Setanta) will be now.:)

if I remember rightly, the reason this was done was the first step of the consumer being out of pocket by introducing this stupid rule about 1 broadcaster/platform getting all the rights.

Sky got around it via introducing premierplus. If you brought it in the summer it only cost 75€ if I remember rightly. And this rule only applies to uk/ireland, which is totaly unfair, no other broadcaster in Europe is restricted this way.

I for one would rather see 1 broadcaster get all the rights or some setup where 2 broadcasters get mirrored rights, but biggest problem we have now is the money involved in rights and the bskyb monopoly on carriage (only satellite platform)

Most other European countries have multiple providers.........until sky have come in and brought them, then they merge to form sky (Germany, Italy).

greendom · 07-05-2013 9:58am

Widescreen wrote: »

ESPN ended up being included with the Skysports sub, can't see BT doing any better than ESPN- they are offering the same wine in a different bottle, that's all. If they try selling stand alone sub here, they won't get my business that's for sure, anyway those half five kick offs are a pain in the ass.Busy time in our house!

Perhaps in Ireland, but in the UK it will presumably be packaged with their broadband/telco/netflix type service - a real competitor to Sky

icdg · 07-05-2013 7:27pm

snaps wrote: »

Most other European countries have multiple providers.........until sky have come in and brought them, then they merge to form sky (Germany, Italy).

Sky did not buy their Germany and Italian namesakes. They were formed by rebrandings of existing operations that News Corporation had an involvement in. They are separate companies and have little operationally to do with BSkyB aside from all having a News Corporation involvement.

Both Germany and Italy have badly developed pay-TV scenes due to, in Germany's case, a well developed free-to-air broadcast market and, in Italy's case, extremely lax regulation of terrestrial TV that led to Mediaset gaining a virtual monopoly of private broadcasting. In Italy's case it is Mediaset that is the established private broadcaster and Sky is the young upstart. Sky Germany and Sky Italy TOGETHER have less subscribers than BSkyB. Contrast France where Canal+ is utterly dominant.

And Ireland does have mutliple pay-TV companies. People seem to have very short memories about the fact that Sky was utterly dwarfed by cable until the last five years or less.

None of this has anything to do with ESPN of course, but perhaps a bit of background. It seems in many jurisidictions that one satellite TV provider, competing against cable, is all that the market can sustain.

watty · 07-05-2013 7:59pm

About 1/2 the nation will never have UPC. Thus there is really only Sky for Pay TV.

But Pay TV watching of sport is killing it. Cancel your Sports Sub. Go Watch local sports. If enough people do this it will kill the excessive "Rights" and "Sport" will be back to being FTA where it was before Sky. Cable in Ireland was initially only about UK FTA TV distribution. Now with FTA Satellite. it's time to boycott rip off Pay TV. 82% of house holds subscribe in Ireland. That's 3x what is reasonable. Over 55% in Uk.

Pay TV is damaging quality Production and Sport. Cancel and spend the money on DVD box sets. Sky was the driver behind pay TV Sport in UK & Ireland. The Cable company is just an alternate distribution. It's in the power of TV viewers to put Sport back on BBC, ITV & RTE.

Cantona's Collars · 07-05-2013 8:25pm

watty wrote: »

About 1/2 the nation will never have UPC. Thus there is really only Sky for Pay TV.

But Pay TV watching of sport is killing it. Cancel your Sports Sub. Go Watch local sports. If enough people do this it will kill the excessive "Rights" and "Sport" will be back to being FTA where it was before Sky. Cable in Ireland was initially only about UK FTA TV distribution. Now with FTA Satellite. it's time to boycott rip off Pay TV. 82% of house holds subscribe in Ireland. That's 3x what is reasonable. Over 55% in Uk.

Pay TV is damaging quality Production and Sport. Cancel and spend the money on DVD box sets. Sky was the driver behind pay TV Sport in UK & Ireland. The Cable company is just an alternate distribution. It's in the power of TV viewers to put Sport back on BBC, ITV & RTE.

The flaw in your argument though is that clubs now need the money from pay tv to attract the top talent.This point was brought up before when a TD complained over the Heineken Cup being on Sky and not FTA.(Of anyone,he could well afford Sky but that's another argument) In an ideal world we'd have EPL,Rugby etc. for free but without the massive influx of money from the likes of Sky etc. we'd have the top players going elsewhere,as they say "money talks". The power of viewers has nothing to do with it anymore,so long as sport is available people will pay,be it Sky or a foreign sub,somebody will get the viewers cash.

snaps · 07-05-2013 8:47pm

watty wrote: »

82% of house holds subscribe in Ireland. That's 3x what is reasonable. Over 55% in Uk.

And 95% of TV watched here is actually available FTA/Free.

watty wrote: »

Pay TV is damaging quality Production and Sport. Cancel and spend the money on DVD box sets. Sky was the driver behind pay TV Sport in UK & Ireland. The Cable company is just an alternate distribution. It's in the power of TV viewers to put Sport back on BBC, ITV & RTE.

Nail on the head Watty, Totally agree with you. The sad thing too is that Soccer was far better in the pre EPL era. Players playing football on bad pitches, bad weather, No sportsmanship/Gamesmanship and no big wages. Rugby is better now than ever i feel on a positive.

Far too much reality crap on nowadays too.

Cantona's Collars · 08-05-2013 8:43am

snaps wrote: »

And 95% of TV watched here is actually available FTA/Free.

Nail on the head Watty, Totally agree with you. The sad thing too is that Soccer was far better in the pre EPL era. Players playing football on bad pitches, bad weather, No sportsmanship/Gamesmanship and no big wages. Rugby is better now than ever i feel on a positive.

Far too much reality crap on nowadays too.

Take off the rose tinted glasses Snaps,I played on those bad pitches,it was a nightmare.If the players from back in the day had a choice they'd gladly play on a pitch like a bowling green.

I agree on the reality tv though,it's the ruination of television.How many shows do they need about wanabee pop stars or people dancing.As for the likes of TOWIE,a big hole and a few gallons of petrol for whoever came up with that.

Back on topic,it was mentioned earlier about how difficult it's going to be for BT to attract paying customers in Ireland.Anyone with SkySports is now used to getting ESPN for free and I doubt many will suddenly decide to pay an extra €12 or whatever a month when BT are up and running.It's main attraction will be the EPL but for 38 games and only a percentage (United,Liverpool mainly) will be of real interest to Irish fans I just can't see folk rushing to subscribe.

OldRio · 08-05-2013 3:40pm

Looks like Pro12 rugby is going the same way as EPL.
Sad days for us who like FTA sport.

TCP/IP · 08-05-2013 7:59pm

Best thing to happen to sport was Sky the level of professional quality that they brought to coverage has been amazing. As usual Watty is spouting on that everything should be FTA, I wonder is he a closet communist. Change the record Watty and move with the times. If you want to watch you pay if not you don't.

watty · 09-05-2013 12:37am

The money is destroying the players and the clubs.

TCP/IP · 09-05-2013 7:43am

watty wrote: »

The money is destroying the players and the clubs.

I think if you took a poll of the professional players and the clubs you would find a very opposite opinion of what money has brought to the game we have a better support for clubs and players then ever before. Your point does not stack up to the fact of reality.

snaps · 09-05-2013 9:51am

TCP/IP wrote: »

I think if you took a poll of the professional players and the clubs you would find a very opposite opinion of what money has brought to the game we have a better support for clubs and players then ever before. Your point does not stack up to the fact of reality.

don't agree, players today that are getting paid multi millions are no better than 30 years ago. Infact if the truth is known, they are worse. Players of the 70s and 80s must be laughing at all this cheating and play acting that goes on. If that's what money buys, then no thank you.

greendom · 09-05-2013 9:58am

snaps wrote: »

don't agree, players today that are getting paid multi millions are no better than 30 years ago. Infact if the truth is known, they are worse. Players of the 70s and 80s must be laughing at all this cheating and play acting that goes on. If that's what money buys, then no thank you.

Don't agree at all - the game has changed no doubt, but for the better. Players plying their trade in the premier league are more skillful, not to mention faster, better athletes. The players with ability are also more able to express themselves as they get far more protection from refs than in the 70s/80s. If we have to put up with the odd dive for that then I'll take it.

ESPN changes explained

Comments