Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sky Sports to cover RDP12 for 4 seasons from 2014

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Please Sky, please don't hire Tremenjus.

    You know they will, sure they're giving him lots of screen time with the Lions.

    Looking forward to hearing Mark Robson's gems more often though (slight guilty pleasure) :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭[Jackass]


    I quite like Donal Lenihan I have to say. Think he's a good co-commentator. I'd take him over Flannery or worse, Sheehan any day of the week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    OldRio wrote: »
    I've been out of the country for a few days and this is awful news. The naivety of some on this thread is shocking. Yes, the money is good for the league and clubs.

    No FTA for the fans is terrible news. You cannot grow the game without the casual viewer. There will be no FTA coverage. IMHO sooner rather than later.

    Sky will move the times about. No kick off times will clash with the soccer. You can be sure of that.
    You may think its grand going into bed with Sky but in the morning you will feel very different. Most English soccer fans realise that now.

    I really don't see a move of games to Sky as being a threat to casual viewership. It'd be one thing if Pro12 viewing figures were miles ahead of Heineken Cup figures, but I'm pretty sure the reverse probably applies. At the moment, on FTA, there isn't a particularly big audience for all bar the biggest games - so we're unlikely to lose a huge amount in a move.

    And why is there such a desperate effort to draw parallels to English football? What happened with English football was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence; you're talking about the marquee product for the broadcaster. As far as most Sky subscribers are concerned, Sky Sports is the Premiership plus bonuses, and Sky is ferocious in maintaining that connection. The Pro12 should be compared to Premiership rugby, which hasn't done particularly badly.

    Last but not least; it's probably not financially worth it for Sky to try to outbid the domestic broadcasters for absolutely everything. Ulster will have a couple of games picked up, but it simply won't be worth as much to Sky to buy every Ulster game as it will to BBCNI to buy the rights to everything Sky don't take. Leinster will have a few games taken up, but again, Leinster v Connacht or Treviso v Dragons is going to be worth more to the domestic broadcaster than to Sky. What Sky are talking about looks like a selection of one marquee game a week and a few extras - the package being discussed simply doesn't look like a takeover. And who's going to be that badly hit? Thirty games means an average of five games a team over the course of the season - so we're talking about five games for someone who doesn't go to matches, or two or three for a season ticket holder.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Also (and apologies for this being a bit off-topic): it's beyond ridiculous that we have two state-funded broadcasters competing with each other to buy the same content. It works out well for Irish rugby funding, but it's a farce that a situation has been engineered that ensures that the taxpayer pays a higher amount for the same product.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭jamiedav2011


    OldRio wrote: »
    I've been out of the country for a few days and this is awful news. The naivety of some on this thread is shocking. Yes, the money is good for the league and clubs.

    No FTA for the fans is terrible news. You cannot grow the game without the casual viewer. There will be no FTA coverage. IMHO sooner rather than later.

    Sky will move the times about. No kick off times will clash with the soccer. You can be sure of that.
    You may think its grand going into bed with Sky but in the morning you will feel very different. Most English soccer fans realise that now.

    Don't agree with much of that, but can you further expand on the bolded part?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    Also (and apologies for this being a bit off-topic): it's beyond ridiculous that we have two state-funded broadcasters competing with each other to buy the same content. It works out well for Irish rugby funding, but it's a farce that a situation has been engineered that ensures that the taxpayer pays a higher amount for the same product.

    Firstly, I'd say the total amount paid is a pittance.

    Secondly, there's no way either channel alone could show as much as the two together do, so it's not the same product.

    Also, the fact that the big games are carved up equally between the two suggests cooperation rather than competition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    [Jackass] wrote: »
    I quite like Donal Lenihan I have to say. Think he's a good co-commentator. I'd take him over Flannery or worse, Sheehan any day of the week.
    That's a bit like saying you'd prefer a good dose of the squits to botulism or galloping knob rot. :eek:

    The fourth option is: 'none of the above please'.

    He's an outrageously bad commentator. Hilariously praising POM for winning the ball on a Munster lineout as a 'great steal' is just one of his many faux pas.

    'twas tremenjus :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭lologram


    Firstly, I'd say the total amount paid is a pittance.

    Secondly, there's no way either channel alone could show as much as the two together do, so it's not the same product.

    Also, the fact that the big games are carved up equally between the two suggests cooperation rather than competition.

    I'd say you're right on all counts. The amount a channel has to pay to win the Pro12 rights is only as much as a potential competitor would pay to outbid them. If there's no other bidder, you would pay almost nothing. It looks as though RTE and TG4 cooperated in bidding for the rights. With no other bidder (or perhaps just TV3 maybe) going for the rights to Lein, Mun and Conn, the price they would have paid is likely very low.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭jamiedav2011


    rrpc wrote: »
    That's a bit like saying you'd prefer a good dose of the squits to botulism or galloping knob rot. :eek:

    The fourth option is: 'none of the above please'.

    He's an outrageously bad commentator. Hilariously praising POM for winning the ball on a Munster lineout as a 'great steal' is just one of his many faux pas.

    'twas tremenjus :D

    Does anyone know if POM has ever played on the wing for Con btw? Don't think I've ever heard tremenjus mention it.

    He isn't nearly the worst, but was simply hilarious in the recent Thomond encounter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭mrpdap


    Sky were on the ball last Friday night


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    When would they clash with soccer anyway? Sky show Premiership games on Saturday @ noon, Sunday afternoons and Monday nights. When was the last Rabo game in any of those slots? RTE and TG4 are calling the shots on scheduling as it is, there won't be much change.

    You are correct about the scheduling of the soccer. I should have said the Rabo games will be held in the time slots Sky use for rugby. Which include early Saturday and Sunday afternoons. If Skys treatment of soccer is anything to go by there will be changes

    It's not at all clear if the FTA broadcasters will lose their rights. Sky's plan is to show 30 games per season - I can't believe that the league would have agreed that this will be the sum total of coverage. Maybe exclusivity will happen down the road, but not for several years.

    We will wait.

    If you asked most English soccer fans would they rather have the premiership as it is now, or be FTA and have all best players chasing higher salaries in Spain and Germany, I'd say you'd get a pretty unanimous response.

    IMHO I could not disagree more, I spent over 30 years working in England and many of my English friends love their soccer. Most would say that the influence of Sky has ruined the national soccer team.
    The money Sky spends on the sport has increased wages to an atmospheric level. 67% of a premierships clubs turnover is now spent on wages. Therefore ticket prices have rose and people on average wages are priced out of the market.



    The league needs more exposure than the likes of S4C and BBC Alba can provide. It needs an injection of cash to stem the flow of players to England and France. If the current broadcasters can't do it, then the league has to look elsewhere. There may be collateral damage and maybe Irish fans won't get to see three out of four provinces live every weekend, but that's the reality of modern sport.

    Wages will escalate. Ticket prices will increase. You do not get more exposure by locking your 'product' behind a paywall.
    Maybe I'm been an old cynical b@llox but I've seen this all before


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    I really don't think ticket prices will increase. Given the economic conditions it would be extremely difficult to justify for one.

    I doubt Sky offered an outlandish sum to secure the Pro12, it's only 30 games and competing offers wouldn't have been high so why should Sky's be? I don't think the unions are suddenly going to be able to pay Top14 wage levels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Don't agree with much of that, but can you further expand on the bolded part?

    Sorry jamiedav. Just read your post. See my reply above.

    The excitement of having Sky putting money into soccer is well over.
    You now have a complete separation of players from fans.
    The wages these guys are earning is mind numbing.
    The teams once owned by a local businessman are now owned by a foreign investor.
    The ticket prices have increased to silly levels.
    The premiership teams are full of foreign players which has resulted in limited opportunities for good young English players. This has a detrimental effect on the national team.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alvin Fat Squash


    Re: Ticket Prices

    Could increase as;
    People no longer able to watch the games on FTA and can't afford Sky start to go to games instead. This increase in demand reaches a point where the supply is unable to match it.

    Could negatively affect: Teams with close to capacity crowds on a regular basis
    Would Positively affect: All other teams' finances directly. (That's probably > 75% of the league).

    Could stay exactly the same as;
    The market that Sky affects is further reaching than the local supporters. Games still can only really be attended by those in a ~ 100m radius of the stadium, with the further you get from the stadium, the less likely you are to attend.
    The numbers within that radius that are 'forced' to attend due to Sky cherry picking the better games can only be a subset of 'People that watch games on FTA' && ' People that cannot afford/do not want / can't be arsed by / hate Sky' && 'People that will go to the games because of this'. This will likely be a very small percentage of team's fans (currently).

    Could Lower as
    Teams try to get more people through the gates for their Premium Games. A full stadium, with a big atmosphere increases the marketability of the game, and the potential worth of the tv deal.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alvin Fat Squash


    OldRio wrote: »
    Sorry jamiedav. Just read your post. See my reply above.

    The excitement of having Sky putting money into soccer is well over.
    You now have a complete separation of players from fans.
    The wages these guys are earning is mind numbing.
    The teams once owned by a local businessman are now owned by a foreign investor.
    The ticket prices have increased to silly levels.
    The premiership teams are full of foreign players which has resulted in limited opportunities for good young English players. This has a detrimental effect on the national team.

    comparing soccer to rugby is oranges and potatoes though.

    Sky/ESPN taking the AP hasn't caused any of the above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    If ticket prices do rise it will be nothing to do with Sky it will because the provinces realise they can make more money while still attracting capacity crowds. Given that very few Pro 12 games outside of maybe Ravenhill, the RDS and Inter Pro games in Limerick and Galway are sell-outs I don't see this being a problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    OldRio wrote: »
    Sorry jamiedav. Just read your post. See my reply above.

    The excitement of having Sky putting money into soccer is well over.
    You now have a complete separation of players from fans.
    The wages these guys are earning is mind numbing.
    The teams once owned by a local businessman are now owned by a foreign investor.
    The ticket prices have increased to silly levels.
    The premiership teams are full of foreign players which has resulted in limited opportunities for good young English players. This has a detrimental effect on the national team.

    All true but rugby will never reach the level of global popularity that football has (at least in my lifetime!).

    Will the Sky deal may help the IRFU offer better contracts to keep the internationals in Ireland, I don't think it will get us to a Toulon wage level where they can pay Bakkies Botha €800,000 per annum. How much will 30 Pro12 games cost for Sky anyway?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    comparing soccer to rugby is oranges and potatoes though.

    Sky/ESPN taking the AP hasn't caused any of the above.

    Emmet, jamiedav was asking me to expand on my post about English soccer fans and Sky.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alvin Fat Squash


    OldRio wrote: »
    Emmet, jamiedav was asking me to expand on my post about English soccer fans and Sky.

    ha, oops!

    I agree with the lot in soccer terms if that helps. Just don't think it's applicable to less-popular games whatsoever.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    All true but rugby will never reach the level of global popularity that football has (at least in my lifetime!).

    Will the Sky deal may help the IRFU offer better contracts to keep the internationals in Ireland, I don't think it will get us to a Toulon wage level where they can pay Bakkies Botha €800,000 per annum. How much will 30 Pro12 games cost for Sky anyway?

    Well someone mentioned the current deal is worth 20m over 4 years (not sure if that's Euros or Sterling), so if the increase of 50% is to be believed that would suggest 30m over 4 years. So an extra 2.5m into the pot each season. I don't know how that's broken down but crudely speaking it may roughly mean an extra 200k a year per province/club.

    The above is just mere speculation and may or may not be close to truth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,935 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Grimebox wrote: »
    On a personal level, I am not happy with this at all. I don't have Sky nor do I ever see myself paying for it. I prefer to avoid watching matches in the pub as it can easily degenerate into "ah sure I'll just the one pint" and end up the next morning with a headache, an empty wallet and a stamp for coppers. It means I will have to stream more matches like a filthy pirate

    The cost of Sky sports per month is less than the cost of one trip to a match.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    So expanding the Pro 12 means a new customer to sky will have to get a 12 month contract. Which means 744euro a year for something he gets for nothing now. Interesting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    OldRio wrote: »
    So expanding the Pro 12 means a new customer to sky will have to get a 12 month contract. Which means 744euro a year for something he gets for nothing now. Interesting.

    I'm pretty sure you can get Sky Sports for a lot less than €744 p.a.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,935 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    bilston wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you can get Sky Sports for a lot less than €744 p.a.

    The whole Sky package would be about that. I think I pay £77 a month for the Sky + HD t.v., land line and broadband so I think the t.v. element is 47.50 a month inc. the sports pack. That is about 600 Euro per year there or thereabouts but you get great t.v. and access on the net when away from home. As far as I'm concerned it's a good deal


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    bilston wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you can get Sky Sports for a lot less than €744 p.a.

    Not according to their website.
    Remember you cannot get Sky Sports as a stand alone package.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Rugby just need to make sure they don't make the same mistakes as football.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    For those of us who already have a Sky Sports TV pack I think it's a positive step.

    More analysis and build up to games hopefully and all in English rather than S4C/TG4/BBC Alba... not to mention all in HD as well.

    Nothing extra to pay but more value in my existing subscription.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,442 ✭✭✭its_phil


    OldRio wrote: »
    Not according to their website.
    Remember you cannot get Sky Sports as a stand alone package.

    You can get a 24 hour access pay as you go for £9.99.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    its_phil wrote: »
    You can get a 24 hour access pay as you go for £9.99.

    €11.82, wow. The only way that would be worth it is if you watched matches with friends and split the cost.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Defo worth it for big one off games etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Actually, can you get skygo with that 24 hour package?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    .ak wrote: »
    Defo worth it for big one off games etc.

    Something like €18 for Friday evening to Sunday evening maybe...


  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I really wish Sky would bring out an online only package for Sky Sports, so people can order Sports on their own to watch via Sky Go only.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,308 ✭✭✭✭.ak


    awec wrote: »
    I really wish Sky would bring out an online only package for Sky Sports, so people can order Sports on their own to watch via Sky Go only.

    Yeah, would be perfect, especially when over seas with nothing but an ipad or lappy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    its_phil wrote: »
    You can get a 24 hour access pay as you go for £9.99.

    Not available in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    OldRio wrote: »
    Not according to their website.
    Remember you cannot get Sky Sports as a stand alone package.

    You can get Sky TV (which has the standard Sky channels) and the Sports channels for €49.50 a month. Which is €594 a year. For that you'll get 4-5 games a month on average plus whatever other sport you're interested in. You'll get Super Rugby, the Rugby Club etc and ESPN which often has classic games on. Not to mention the other "regular" channels.

    You'd pay €50 for transport and a ticket for 1 game easily enough. Especially if you throw in the price of a pint or two.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    And you can even probably chuck in BT Sports for fairly cheap and get all the European action!

    *Runs away and hides again


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    OldRio wrote: »

    Just for the craic I went through the process and with Sky Sports and ESPN ended up with €49.50 a month. This also included a Sky+ box which cost me a once off €25 for installation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭jamiedav2011


    Old Rio has made my mind up, I'm never going to a game again with that value available from Sky!


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    rrpc wrote: »
    Just for the craic I went through the process and with Sky Sports and ESPN ended up with €49.50 a month. This also included a Sky+ box which cost me a once off €25 for installation.

    Pretty sure that's an offer price, and once the offer expires it'll rise to 74 euro a month.

    If you click on View Order Summary it shows you.

    Also doesn't include any HD channels.

    What it doesn't make clear is how long the offer lasts.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,333 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    awec wrote: »
    Pretty sure that's an offer price, and once the offer expires it'll rise to 74 euro a month.

    If you click on View Order Summary it shows you.

    Also doesn't include any HD channels.

    What it doesn't make clear is how long the offer lasts.

    I've had everything except movies for years and it's currently €66 a month. Pretty sure the €74 is the full package including movies.
    If you have the basic package already adding sports adds €35 a month. That's about the the cost of 1 trip to the pub to watch a game.
    It's worth it as far as I'm concerned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    And you can even probably chuck in BT Sports for fairly cheap and get all the European action!

    *Runs away and hides again

    £15 a month in the UK IBF (not sure what it will be in ROI but I'd say €20 sounds a good place to start), I don't call that cheap given their portfolio isn't all that big at the moment. If they get the rights to whatever the future European Rugby comp is then that might sway a few minds.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alvin Fat Squash


    £15 a month for Scottish Football, Guinness Premiership, Uefa Cup and UFC

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/10046320/BT-Sport-channel-broadband-takes-on-TV.html

    Nah, you're grand thanks IBF.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    £15 a month for Scottish Football, Guinness Premiership, Uefa Cup and UFC

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/10046320/BT-Sport-channel-broadband-takes-on-TV.html

    Nah, you're grand thanks IBF.

    You're forgetting the big one! That'll be the one that brings people across!

    According to that I'll get it free for the first year. That's nice!


  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I hate the way the football is divided up across multiple pay-to-view providers.

    They yap on about making it better for customers, but now people will have to have BT AND Sky if they want the same sort of choice.

    It's annoying enough at the moment to want to watch a game and find it's on bloody ESPN :mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    awec wrote: »
    I hate the way the football is divided up across multiple pay-to-view providers.

    They yap on about making it better for customers, but now people will have to have BT AND Sky if they want the same sort of choice.

    It's annoying enough at the moment to want to watch a game and find it's on bloody ESPN :mad:

    38 games means one game per weekend, that sucks for football fans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,407 ✭✭✭✭justsomebloke


    hmmm at only £15 a head they will need at least 5,000,000 odd subscribers just to break even and that is with just basic figures


  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    38 games means one game per weekend, that sucks for football fans.

    I'm not sure if ESPN are keeping their fixtures, but now it means if customers want to watch all the big games of the season they need to have Sky, ESPN and BT.

    Whereas before hand they just needed Sky.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Old Rio has made my mind up, I'm never going to a game again with that value available from Sky!

    Growing the game hiding under a pay wall is not the way to go.
    If you think paying over 700euro a year for something you had for nothing then grand so be it. Looks like the Celtic Tiger is still living and breathing in some parts of the country.


Advertisement