Massive Sky deal

[Brockley_Jack]

I'm wrong but I'm also right.

That phrase pretty much sums up Tarquin. He should have been a ref!

[chiswickmart]

I'm wrong but I'm also right.


Brilliant.

You were wrong though Mart.

Fair enough. I thought at first I'd ****ed up with all the zeros, turned out I'd got that right just forgot it was a 3 year deal.

£10m for Burnley v Stoke though?

[chiswickmart]

I'm sure I'll be back Jack, if you ever have kids you'll realise it's not so easy to find the time for all the hobbies you'd like. Remember, I've been through all 4 divisions before, I'm not precious about the Prem. I had fun in all those divisions. Unlike you, we even won two of them...

[chief_wiggam]

Unlike you, we even won two of them...

I'm sure your Great Grandfather celebrated long and hard on Southsea Common.

[Pentridge]

I'm wrong but I'm also right.


Brilliant.

You were wrong though Mart.

Fair enough. I thought at first I'd ****ed up with all the zeros, turned out I'd got that right just forgot it was a 3 year deal.



£10m for Burnley v Stoke though?[/quote]

But £30m a game isn't even realistic, surely that should've sent alarm bells ringing?

Measure twice, cut once.

[chiswickmart]

But £30m a game isn't even realistic, surely that should've sent alarm bells ringing?

Where as £10m a game makes complete sense? At what point should alarm bells ring?

[chiswickmart]

Unlike you, we even won two of them...

I'm sure your Great Grandfather celebrated long and hard on Southsea Common. [/quote]

Oi you cheeky git, that happened on my watch, not my great grandfathers.

If you ever won anything ( ), where would your open top bus parade go????

[Pentridge]

But £30m a game isn't even realistic, surely that should've sent alarm bells ringing?

Where as £10m a game makes complete sense? At what point should alarm bells ring?[/quote]

I'll agree that it's ridiculous money but it must make sense to the money men at Sky and BT Sport otherwise they wouldn't have pushed ahead with the deal. If they are paying that much to get the contract then there must be some profit in it.

[PapaLazarou]

If they are paying that much to get the contract then there must be some profit in it.

They won't be running it at a loss, that's for sure - maybe they would have been at £30m a game, but thinking the cost was anywhere near that would just be plain daft.

Anyway, the global audience figures (and associated distribution rights) are quite staggering - wasn't the recent Chelsea v City game available in 650 million homes worldwide ?

Big numbers.

[chiswickmart]

I'm sure it makes sense to the money men, the question is whether they will have to increase the subscription charges to justify it. This does represent a 70% increase on the previous deal just 3 years ago.

I get my money's worth from Sky from the On Demand services (although most of their films are ****), plus the golf and cricket. But I wonder how their customers will react if faced with a price hike to fund this deal, especially as we all know exactly where the money ends up.

You have to start pondering your sanity at some point.