Setanta on the verge of going bust

[Gethin]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6445881.ece

 

Sky monopoly on the way again...

[CarraLegend]

Hold on for a week, pleeeeasse!!

 

[Sion]

you'd think they'd do the logical thing and implement a pay per view thing for PL and Eng games. say £5 one off fee to watch one game like prem plus did a few years back.

[Red Lecter]

It was cheaper to watch Prem Plus with their £50 "Season Ticket" offer. f***ing European rules on monopolies, etc mean we nd up paying more. Sorry, I'll make my way to the Rant Room.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Sanj77

[Rimbeux]

Potential for an american firm like Disney or Time warner to pick them up and get involved in the PL

[Gethin]

The only reason I have Setanta is because ESPN America which carries Ice Hockey, Baseball, College Football etc is part of the package.

 

It was previously "NASN" - which was half owned by Setanta but got bought out by ESPN and renamed. ESPN is owned by Disney so there's already some kind of business relationship there

 

Was paying £12 per month when NASN was a standalone - now paying the same for the whole Setanta package. No way I'd be paying for the whole thing otherwise - don't watch enough of the other stuff.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Gethin

[Billy Dane]

At least we will have the benefit of not having to listen to Tim Sherwood and Craig Burley talking s**** incessantly.

[Maldini]

We get £2.5m a year off them for LFCTV so it's bad news for us if it happens.

[Gomez]

We get £2.5m a year off them for LFCTV so it's bad news for us if it happens.

It was a ridiculous deal to tie the club channel into them. Will be glad if they go t*ts up, they are a p*ss poor company and their practices are appalling.

 

Will be glad when I can get LFC TV again, because currently I wouldn't give setanta a penny.

[Hassony]

It was a ridiculous deal to tie the club channel into them. Will be glad if they go t*ts up, they are a p*ss poor company and their practices are appalling.

 

Will be glad when I can get LFC TV again, because currently I wouldn't give setanta a penny.

 

I like LFCtv, I hope its there next season

[Tones]

Yeah we need Setanta for the TV channel. Apart from the money its gives the club, its great for watching reserve games on.

 

the only problem i have with Setanta is Craig f***ing Burley, Steve f***ing McManaman and Tim f***ing Sherwood.

Edited June 8, 2009 by t1971

[Gomez]

I like LFCtv, I hope its there next season

 

 

Yeah we need Setanta for the TV channel. Apart from the money its gives the club, its great for watching reserve games on.

 

the only problem i have with Setanta is Craig f***ing Burley, Steve f***ing McManaman and Tim f***ing Sherwood.

 

LFC TV would still exist without Setanta, you'd just have to subscribe directly like most other club channels.

[Hassony]

LFC TV would still exist without Setanta, you'd just have to subscribe directly like most other club channels.

 

Arsenal, Celtic and rangers tv are all attached to setanta

 

I think only united and chelsea aren't

[Rimbeux]

Arsenal, Celtic and rangers tv are all attached to setanta

 

I think only united and chelsea aren't

 

Am I right in thinking that sky can only have two clubs channels are part of some agreements or other. Probably way off the mark but I'm sure i heard something like that

[Sion]

We get £2.5m a year off them for LFCTV so it's bad news for us if it happens.

 

is that our share of their subscription fee? because I reckon we'd get more if we set it up more independently like MUTV and charge a fee for the channel alone.

50000 people at £50 a year is £2.5m there.

[Tones]

is that our share of their subscription fee? because I reckon we'd get more if we set it up more independently like MUTV and charge a fee for the channel alone.

50000 people at £50 a year is £2.5m there.

 

Dont think Utd have made a penny on their channel? Pretty sure i read that somewhere.

Edited June 8, 2009 by t1971

[Anfield Fox]

is that our share of their subscription fee? because I reckon we'd get more if we set it up more independently like MUTV and charge a fee for the channel alone.

50000 people at £50 a year is £2.5m there.

 

I think they also pay the costs of running it as well.

[Gomez]

Am I right in thinking that sky can only have two clubs channels are part of some agreements or other. Probably way off the mark but I'm sure i heard something like that

I remember that, don't think it was Sky, think it was an Aussie n/w

 

Dont think Utd have made a penny on their channel? Pretty sure i read that somewhere.

 

That's what Parry used to say, not sure I believe it though. I haven't watched theirs, but from ours, the programmes are not exactly expensive. People are making those kind of shows in their garages now, albeit with cheaper cameras and sound. They have access to players and management as part of their contracts and the best content is the matches, reserves and kids etc. Even the rights to show first team matches delayed will not cost them anything.

 

I guess it costs to be on Sky / Virgin, but it can't be that much considering the limited appeal of some of the channels on there.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

I guess it costs to be on Sky / Virgin, but it can't be that much considering the limited appeal of some of the channels on there.

 

depends which section of the EPG you're on. Being in the sports section will likely cost quite a bit.

[Gomez]

depends which section of the EPG you're on. Being in the sports section will likely cost quite a bit.

 

They'll charge what they think they can get away with, therefore by definition it won't be prohibitive

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

They'll charge what they think they can get away with, therefore by definition it won't be prohibitive

 

I'm sure the general thrust of your argument about LFCtv is correct, but the above statement isn't quite.

[Gomez]

I'm sure the general thrust of your argument about LFCtv is correct, but the above statement isn't quite.

 

 

You've just said they will charge different amounts depending upon where the channel is listed, which makes sense.

 

The cost to them is the same and they have a finite amount of channels to sell, but not a finite number of sports channels, a finite number of shopping channels, a finite number of minority channels etc.

 

Therefore, they will charge the club the maximum amount they can, with it still being worthwhile to the club

 

If the max the club can pay, is lower then the operating cost (+ minimum acceptable profit) to Sky it will not happen and if the least that Sky can charge is more than the maximum profit the club can make (assuming it is not a loss leader) then it won't happen.

 

As other clubs of comparable size have proven this model, I think we can assume it is not prohibitive

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

You've just said they will charge different amounts depending upon where the channel is listed, which makes sense.

 

The cost to them is the same and they have a finite amount of channels to sell, but not a finite number of sports channels, a finite number of shopping channels, a finite number of minority channels etc.

 

Therefore, they will charge the club the maximum amount they can, with it still being worthwhile to the club

 

If the max the club can pay, is lower then the operating cost (+ minimum acceptable profit) to Sky it will not happen and if the least that Sky can charge is more than the maximum profit the club can make (assuming it is not a loss leader) then it won't happen.

 

As other clubs of comparable size have proven this model, I think we can assume it is not prohibitive

 

as I say, in the case of LFC tv you are probably right. But your general point wasn't quite right, as Sky as an extremely aggressive commercial beast, not known for being prepared to drop prices and negotiate, and would sometimes rather let a slot go unsold than drop their price for it.

 

That said, to get yourself a Sky channel further up the EPG is incredibly cheap.

[Montse]

Setanta 'is on brink of collapse'

 

 

Report - Setanta future in doubt

 

Setanta faces administration "within days" unless backers provide more funds to pay £30m it owes to the English Premier League, reports have suggested.

The broadcaster has already failed to pay the Scottish Premier League £3m it owes in television rights money.

Setanta, which also shows cricket, golf and rugby union, has about 1.2 million subscribers but is losing up to £100m a year, analysts say.

Deloitte is set to step in to run the firm if it goes into administration.

Would-be customers who attempted to subscribe to Setanta through its website were on Tuesday told that it was not possible because of "routine maintenance". Meanwhile anybody trying to subscribe by phone receives a recorded message saying that "The service is temporarily out of order".

A spokesman for Setanta declined to comment on the firm's situation.

'Weaker' matches

The rights to show the English Premier League - and the subscribers that this pulls in - lie at the heart of Setanta's business model.

But the firm had only about 60% of the subscribers it needed to break even, said Professor Chris Brady of the BPP Business School.

 

SETANTA'S SPORTS

Premier League

Scottish Premier League

Blue Square Premier

IPL cricket

US PGA Tour golf

Boxing

 

Q&A: The future for Setanta

Why Setanta Sports is in trouble

"They have predicated the whole thing on getting those subscribers. The problem is they are taking on Goliath in BSkyB," he told the BBC.

Not only did Setanta have only a small percentage of televised Premier League games but they tended to be "weaker" matches, he added.

There had also been problems with customer service, Professor Brady told the BBC.

Setanta's viability was cast into doubt earlier this year when it lost the rights to show 46 live Premier League matches from 2010/2011.

In future, it will show only 23 games per season, compared with BSkyB's 115, with industry observers saying that thousands of customers would give up their subscriptions.

Falling values?

It is expected that a rival broadcaster - perhaps ESPN - would buy up its Premier League football rights.

But the worsening economy has led observers to suggest that the rights to 46 games that Setanta holds for next season, the final year of its current contract, would not be worth as much as they had been.

 

Setanta has too few of the "big" Premier League games, say observers

There are also doubts about whether the Premier League could match the £159m Setanta paid for the right to screen 23 Premier League games each season from 2010-11.

A shared deal with ITV saw them secure rights for England and FA Cup matches for £425m - and it is likely another firm would buy up these rights.

One SPL club has told BBC Scotland that income from Setanta alone accounts for 33% of their income, while another said it was 20% for his club.

"With cuts already being made for next season, the loss of revenue of 20% would undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on and off the pitch," said a source.

It is feared that the loss of cash from Setanta could force as many as three SPL clubs into administration.

Beeb

 

Doesnt look good at all!

[MFletcher]

This is excellent news.