Setanta

[saintwarwick]

It'll be a couple of years yet, I'd have thought.

 

While they're still apparently about 400k subscribers short of breaking even this year, they've got enough cash coming in from their links to Virgin Media and BT Vision to keep themselves afloat for a while.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them try to wangle their way out of the England contract though, particularly if the Croatia game (quite clearly the biggest game in the group stage) fails to draw the required audiences.

 

Apparently they averaged about 1m viewers (not including pubs) on Saturday, although arguably that low figure was due to the poor quality of opposition, the day of the week (easy enough to watch it down the pub and combine it with a night out) and the pretty-much inevitability of a tedious but comfortable victory.

 

Tonight is quite possibly make-or-break time for Setanta's international football coverage.

 

 

Figures quoted in the Mail was 734,000, p1ss poor imo. Hardly surprising though.

[saint lard]

I just watch all the footie online,Justin Tv,free of charge and reasonably good streaming.

[RoswellSaint]

The Monopolies Commission and the Competition Commission at the EU ruled that Sky couldn't bid for all of the available live TV packages because it denied the opportunity for other broadcasters to enter the market. The idea of "competition" in the marketplace is that it improves the deal for the consumer.

 

Before the current TV deal, you got a load of games with Sky Sports, and if you wanted, you could pay £50 for the Prem Plus season ticket (or less if you got in early like most people), and that would be it for the season.

 

Under the current TV deal, you get a load of games with Sky Sports, but now if you want the other games, you have to pay £12.99 per month (£155.88). So despite competition increasing, it's had the opposite to the desired effect and actually INCREASED the cost to the consumer.

 

Funny how that happens when the government interferes in the market.

[manji]

£4.99 a month for ****loads of interesting football,IPL cricket,NASN network(especially the baseball),Aussie rules football.Bargain.

[LGTL]

I actually quite enjoyed the coverage last night. Made a nice welcome change from BBC and Sky.

[Scummer]

Apparently they averaged about 1m viewers (not including pubs) on Saturday

 

What sort of figures do Sky normally get for football? For Premiership games they only ever seem to get a couple of hundred thousand.

[Scudamore]

They do have a good sense of humour to be fair...

 

Putting Terry Venables in front of that orange background was genius...

[bridge too far]

Funny how that happens when the government interferes in the market.

 

 

It wasn't the British Government, however, it was the EU.

 

In today's Guardian, there's an interesting piece about the Government's Culture Minister and how he is encouraging the FA to look again at where football's going. He says that it's not government's role to dictate how the sport should be run - that should be done by the sports' governing bodies. But he does ask questions about TV rights, Fit for Purpose, Sky money (not) going to the lower leagues etc.

 

Very interesting. Oh and he set up Supporters Direct a few years ago too. Oh and he's got lovely eyes

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/11/1

[stevegrant]

What sort of figures do Sky normally get for football? For Premiership games they only ever seem to get a couple of hundred thousand.

No idea what Sky used to get for England away games, to be honest. They have a much larger subscriber base, though, so it stands to reason that their viewing figures for comparitive games would be higher.

 

However, I *think* viewing figures may be calculated based upon the number of people in a household, rather than simply the number of actual subscribers viewing.

 

So while Setanta averaged just over 700k (see Mail comment/quote above), it's highly likely that that figure is not 700k subscribers, but may even be only half that amount taking into account the average number of people in subscribers' households.

[stevegrant]

It wasn't the British Government, however, it was the EU.

 

In today's Guardian, there's an interesting piece about the Government's Culture Minister and how he is encouraging the FA to look again at where football's going. He says that it's not government's role to dictate how the sport should be run - that should be done by the sports' governing bodies. But he does ask questions about TV rights, Fit for Purpose, Sky money (not) going to the lower leagues etc.

 

Very interesting. Oh and he set up Supporters Direct a few years ago too. Oh and he's got lovely eyes

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/11/1

Nothing like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted...

 

These are issues supporters groups, trusts and other organisations have been raising with both football authorities and government for years. Nobody cared enough then, because it wasn't in their interests to care, and I don't really see how anything's changed since then.

[bridge too far]

Nothing like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted...

 

These are issues supporters groups, trusts and other organisations have been raising with both football authorities and government for years. Nobody cared enough then, because it wasn't in their interests to care, and I don't really see how anything's changed since then.

 

If you read the article, Steve, you'll see that he DID care way back, before he was involved at a ministerial level.

[stevegrant]

If you read the article, Steve, you'll see that he DID care way back, before he was involved at a ministerial level.

I read it (and the near-identical one that was on the BBC website earlier this morning), and while the sentiment is all well and good - and I appreciate that he was on the fans' side of the fence in the past - it's all a bit late now and fairly irrelevant.

 

Football at the highest club level will implode within 10 years, in my opinion. The economic climate is hitting your average Sky customer pretty hard at the moment (and is likely to continue for a fair amount of time yet), and one of the first things people will cut back on is Sky subscriptions. It's nearly £50 a month these days, money that could probably feed a family for a week.

 

Without the subscriber levels, Sky will struggle to pull in the advertising revenue, and as a result won't be in a position to offer anywhere near the level of investment into Premier League football when the next contract is up for renewal. It's already obvious that Setanta have paid way over the odds (much like ITV Digital did, but without the likelihood of them going bust due to their operations in other countries) for their share and won't make that mistake twice.

 

When the owners realise that there's not as much money to be milked from the English football fan anymore, they'll soon be walking away, leaving someone else to clear up the mess and to pay the £150k a week wages.

[equalizer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7610137.stm

[stevegrant]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7610137.stm

There isn't really anything anyone in this country can do about the game being broadcast live on Setanta, because the broadcasters deal directly with the home team's FA when negotiating live rights. It is when it comes to the highlights package where the other broadcasters then have to negotiate with whoever's showing the game live.

 

This is where Setanta have probably got it wrong. The 1.55m viewing figure isn't too bad considering their fairly low subscriber numbers, but for only 290,000 to watch highlights that were regularly watched by 2.5m in the past, that's pretty terrible.

[Scummer]

For only 290,000 to watch highlights that were regularly watched by 2.5m in the past, that's pretty terrible.

 

That's largely to do with the late decision regarding the highlights though. You could argue that 300,000 viewers for a programme that wasn't actually listed anywhere is not too bad.

 

If they decided to do the same next time, putting highlights on an unscrambled channel, and actually advertising the fact, they'd probably get a lot more viewers. In fact they might see it as a good way of enticing non-subscribers to watch their channel.

[RoswellSaint]

It wasn't the British Government, however, it was the EU.

 

In today's Guardian, there's an interesting piece about the Government's Culture Minister and how he is encouraging the FA to look again at where football's going. He says that it's not government's role to dictate how the sport should be run - that should be done by the sports' governing bodies. But he does ask questions about TV rights, Fit for Purpose, Sky money (not) going to the lower leagues etc.

 

Very interesting. Oh and he set up Supporters Direct a few years ago too. Oh and he's got lovely eyes

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/11/1

 

Figured I would get a response from you!

 

People have been predicting the collapse of football for many years, somehow it pulls out of every crisis. Back in the Eighties, clubs like Wolves and Bristol City fell through the divisions, almost went out of business but survived. There was the ITV Digital crisis - clubs survived, some in better shape than others.

 

It certainly looks like another crisis will happen, with the escalating costs of watching, the crazy fees being paid but somehow the game survives.

 

Regarding Setanta and Steve Grant's comment that their operations in other countries will help them survive. The Irish market is fairly small. I don't know how many people watch the US channel. I pay $15 a month and get international and club rugby from around the world, Premier League, Champions League, Championship games, even the occasional League 1 game. They also show Aussie Rules. Basically their market is expat Brits, Aussies and Kiwis.

 

There was a rumour that ESPN would buy them. Haven't heard anything about that in a while.

[Thedelldays]

just get Virgin Media..I get all the Setanta channels thrown in for as part of the package

[stevegrant]

If they decided to do the same next time, putting highlights on an unscrambled channel, and actually advertising the fact, they'd probably get a lot more viewers. In fact they might see it as a good way of enticing non-subscribers to watch their channel.

Yes, although it'll still be restricted to those who can actually receive Setanta, i.e. Sky Digital, Virgin Media and BT Vision subscribers as well as most of those with a Freeview box.

 

Arguably, they would get a better return by selling highlights to a terrestrial broadcaster as then a wider audience get to watch them, and then there's more potential subscribers...

[stevegrant]

Further to this...

 

Setanta eventually allowed ITV to show a highlights package last night in exchange for a payment of just £100,000 - 10% of what they were originally demanding.

 

Also, they're considering offering the highlights of the Belarus game next month for free to either the BBC or ITV because of the sheer weight of negative publicity they've received off the back of their perceived greediness.

 

Oops.

[pedg]

Setanta are obviously in tricky position as their current subscription income does not cover their costs. Three things they could obviously do.

 

First is cut back on their costs, but as a large proportion of that is their prem contract and if they lost that they would lose more customers and probably go into a downward spiral.

 

Second is to land grab more high profile events in an attempt to get in more subscribers, they can then reduce the number of these high profile events later on without losing too many subscribers?

 

Finally they could look for someone with bigger pockets to buy them out in the hope that subscriber figures will eventually get high enough to make a profit.

 

Obviously going for the second option at the moment but would not be surprised if they are not in talks with someone like espn in case it does not work.

 

I think the economic downturn may well not hurt them as much as sky and you could possibly see some people currently paying an arm and a leg for sky sports might downsize to only a small limb for setanta.

[bridge too far]

I think I heard on the News this morning that ESPN are looking to do more pay to view sports?

 

I wasn't really listening so I don't know the details.

[Bud Fox]

Setanta are obviously in tricky position as their current subscription income does not cover their costs. Three things they could obviously do.

 

First is cut back on their costs, but as a large proportion of that is their prem contract and if they lost that they would lose more customers and probably go into a downward spiral.

 

Second is to land grab more high profile events in an attempt to get in more subscribers, they can then reduce the number of these high profile events later on without losing too many subscribers?

 

Finally they could look for someone with bigger pockets to buy them out in the hope that subscriber figures will eventually get high enough to make a profit.

 

Obviously going for the second option at the moment but would not be surprised if they are not in talks with someone like espn in case it does not work.

 

I think the economic downturn may well not hurt them as much as sky and you could possibly see some people currently paying an arm and a leg for sky sports might downsize to only a small limb for setanta.

 

I have done some of the marketing for Setanta, and know that they have certainly had discussions about selling the UK arm, in fact the rumour they were set up over here just to make a quick buck!

[stevegrant]

I have done some of the marketing for Setanta, and know that they have certainly had discussions about selling the UK arm, in fact the rumour they were set up over here just to make a quick buck!

Well they've made a bit of a mess of that one then!

[70's Mike]

I read it (and the near-identical one that was on the BBC website earlier this morning), and while the sentiment is all well and good - and I appreciate that he was on the fans' side of the fence in the past - it's all a bit late now and fairly irrelevant.

 

Football at the highest club level will implode within 10 years, in my opinion. The economic climate is hitting your average Sky customer pretty hard at the moment (and is likely to continue for a fair amount of time yet), and one of the first things people will cut back on is Sky subscriptions. It's nearly £50 a month these days, money that could probably feed a family for a week.

 

Without the subscriber levels, Sky will struggle to pull in the advertising revenue, and as a result won't be in a position to offer anywhere near the level of investment into Premier League football when the next contract is up for renewal. It's already obvious that Setanta have paid way over the odds (much like ITV Digital did, but without the likelihood of them going bust due to their operations in other countries) for their share and won't make that mistake twice.

 

When the owners realise that there's not as much money to be milked from the English football fan anymore, they'll soon be walking away, leaving someone else to clear up the mess and to pay the £150k a week wages.

 

 

wish i could feed my family for £50 a week

[Give it to Ron]

You wait until you try and cancel the Setanta package like my parents are trying to do at the moment....they are not alone!

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1105281

 

Luckily I get mine via Virgin Media

[RoswellSaint]

I think I heard on the News this morning that ESPN are looking to do more pay to view sports?

 

I wasn't really listening so I don't know the details.

 

There was an article yesterday on the Telegraph's website (can't find it now to post a link) about ESPN being interested in Premier League rights in UK and US. Maybe they will invest in Setanta as was rumoured a year or two ago.