|
|
|
|
On top of a hill, far far away, in deepest darkest Eastern Europe - let's say, Transylvania - there lies a castle, a building tall and sinister standing menacingly amidst it's surrounding area.
If you get inside said building, the first thing that grabs you is the decor. Gothic paintings of overpaid prima donnas adorn the walls, posturing whilst idiots scream behind them. Secondly, one hears a distant cackling coming from a room a few stories up. A piercing, cocky laughter usually reserved for Apprentice contestants serves to suggest that this is the laugh of a business magnate. Your worst suspicions are confirmed as you make your way to the door from which the laughter emanates, the sign on the door reads:
Rupert Murdoch CEO.
Of course Rupert, like the rest of us, has been reading of the sad demise of Setanta Sports over the past few days. Unlike the rest of us, or this lonely scribe at least, Rupert is very happy about it.
“I'm well known to have a medium-sized crush on Rebecca Lowe and a massive man-crush on James Richardson.”
But what I probably liked the most was the fact that, here I was, watching good football on the telly (and Liverpool TV. HONK!), safe in the knowledge that my subscription had not lined Rupert's pocket, and had financed a competitor to Sky Sports, a station so smug and self-important Simon Cowell would find it overbearing.
But, therein lied the problem. A competitor to Sky Sports was never going to have an easy ride, even with the minimum 23 Premiership matches guaranteed by the European commission.
In this country, Sky have benefitted enormously from the Premier League and the monopoly they hold with it, able to charge a massive amount for their product. When Setanta joined the competition, Sky were not prepared to give up their powerful position. If anything, their position strengthened: rescheduling dictated that despite losing 46 games to Setanta, they were able to show 92 games with the new deal, 4 more than they showed the previous season.
These 92 matches - 46 more matches than their rival - included first dibs on games with the lucrative 'A' game package and meant that, along with much brand loyalty, Sky were undoubtedly still wearing the Premier League trousers, and as such were able to price their rival out.
Sky customers had, essentially, the same package as the season before, only this time, consumers had an optional channel to subscribe to: Setanta, offering 46 Premiership games for 12.99 a month. Over £50 pounds a month for football on telly? Unsurprisingly, consumers voted with their feet, and Setanta have been unable to get past 1.1 million subscribers, whilst needing 1.9 to break even.
So Rupert's happy then. And Nick Woolnough, it seems. Sky see off a serious competitor, and re-establish their position as 'the home of football', a common claim made by their shameless marketing department, whilst the consumer continues to pay through the nose for-the-most-exciting-league-in-the-world-with-four-teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Mark, Stevenage
wrote...
|
|
I also have a rather healthy obsession with Rebecca Lowe. I didn't mind Setanta at all, an especially good deal for those on Freeview. |
|
|
|
|
2. Keith Rowe, Sunderland
wrote...
|
|
Sky - why dont we all just pay for a UK wide IPTV network + eradicate out of date satellite techn'gy.SKY have too much bearing on our national game.The fans pay both ways in added costs for non Sat'day 3pm re-arrangd games aswell as silly money ea. month in subscriptions.FA-introduce a salary cap for p'ship players then it all wont spiral upwards on both sides with fans paying for both Sky + the players crazy pay packets.Us normal people cant pay which is why another bolt-on TV has gone bust.. |
|
|
|
|
3. Nick, Ipswich
wrote...
|
You are certainly right about Sky's arrogance and complacency Phil, their saturation can be unbearable at times.
But, I simply feel that Setanta weren't ready, and the UK market wasn't ready for another pay-to-view channel.
It cost the fans little over two years, but for the clubs who will be left short it's a different story. It is them that have truly been let down as whoever picks up Setanta's licences will negotiate a significantly lower fee. |
|
|
|
|
4. Phil, Plymouth
wrote...
|
Yeah that's true, this has helped no-one in the long run except for, of course, Sky.
I just dont think Setanta was very bad at all (though it definitely had it's faults), it just couldn't prosper cos of the strangelhold sky has on football in this country. |
|
|
|
|
5. Nick, Ipswich
wrote...
|
Setanta probably wasn't as bad as I or others made out but you are right, they were never going to break the monopoly and my main point really was that they were a tad foolish to try.
Really good article, it's good to have the balance of opinions. |
|
|
|
|
6. Noel, London
wrote...
|
I would choose sky over setanta anyday.
One of the things that infuriated me was Setanta's rights to England away games. They are our National Team and everyone in the country should be able to support them by being allowed to view all games on one of the terrestrial channels.
With the ever more popular Live Streaming on match days who would want to pay extra to watch mediocre games and all that use to come free with your sky subscription (UFC mainly), when you can view them free? |
|
|
|
|
|
Add Comment
|
All fields are required *.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Back To Top
|
|