GRcade

KK wrote:Competition (forced or otherwise) doesn't always work. Sport has been syphoned off all over the place, and now just costs the consumer more to watch it all, whereas before it was practically all under one roof.

Sky/BT with football isn’t really competition though is it? They bid on a package of rights and then they get the exclusive rights to show those games.

Proper competition would mean that the Premier League and Football League offering up games for a fixed price and any broadcaster can then show it as long as they are willing to pay the fee.

Saigon Slick wrote: oligolopoly

I would just like to point out that it appears that James Murdoch will continue as CEO of Sky PLC and is tipped as the next CEO of Disney.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

KK wrote:Competition (forced or otherwise) doesn't always work. Sport has been syphoned off all over the place, and now just costs the consumer more to watch it all, whereas before it was practically all under one roof.

Sky/BT with football isn’t really competition though is it? They bid on a package of rights and then they get the exclusive rights to show those games.

Proper competition would mean that the Premier League and Football League offering up games for a fixed price and any broadcaster can then show it as long as they are willing to pay the fee.

Yep. The problem is they've determined that the product is any premier league football. Whereas really it should be on a match basis like you say. If they did it like that then it would get all cheaper and better value for the consumer.

Tomous wrote:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

KK wrote:Competition (forced or otherwise) doesn't always work. Sport has been syphoned off all over the place, and now just costs the consumer more to watch it all, whereas before it was practically all under one roof.

Sky/BT with football isn’t really competition though is it? They bid on a package of rights and then they get the exclusive rights to show those games.

Proper competition would mean that the Premier League and Football League offering up games for a fixed price and any broadcaster can then show it as long as they are willing to pay the fee.

Yep. The problem is they've determined that the product is any premier league football. Whereas really it should be on a match basis like you say. If they did it like that then it would get all cheaper and better value for the consumer.

Indeed. All that's happened is that it's pushed up the price of football as it made it appealing for more companies to bid for the rights. The principle point of competition is to give the consumers a better choice and value for money. That's not what we get from the competition for football rights. The ones to benefit are those involved in football.

Tomous wrote:

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

KK wrote:Competition (forced or otherwise) doesn't always work. Sport has been syphoned off all over the place, and now just costs the consumer more to watch it all, whereas before it was practically all under one roof.

Sky/BT with football isn’t really competition though is it? They bid on a package of rights and then they get the exclusive rights to show those games.

Proper competition would mean that the Premier League and Football League offering up games for a fixed price and any broadcaster can then show it as long as they are willing to pay the fee.

Yep. The problem is they've determined that the product is any premier league football. Whereas really it should be on a match basis like you say. If they did it like that then it would get all cheaper and better value for the consumer.

It would be better if you could pay on a team by team basis but that would be bad for the small clubs as they wouldn't receive as much income.

Dual wrote:

Saigon Slick wrote: oligolopoly

OligLOLOLy

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I would just like to point out that it appears that James Murdoch will continue as CEO of Sky PLC and is tipped as the next CEO of Disney.

Them white dudes eh? Failing upwards every day

Snowcannon wrote:

Dual wrote:

Saigon Slick wrote: oligolopoly

OligLOLOLy

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I would just like to point out that it appears that James Murdoch will continue as CEO of Sky PLC and is tipped as the next CEO of Disney.

Now that is bad news.

twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/941325353666129920

The current CEO of Disney, Robert Iger, was asked on Bloomberg whether Sky News has a future under Disney and he said "absolutely".

So the majority of the end of the world ending, internet hyperbole is based on Disney's control over popular franchises?

Can we not forgo the hysteria until this looks like a bad thing? At the moment those franchises are as popular as they are because of Disney.

Having control over the majority of the worlds new outlets would obviously be cause for concern but thankfully that isn't the case.

Fox was a gooseberry fool company anyway. I'm just happy we could finally see Doctor Doom in a good film.

Hime wrote:Can we not forgo the hysteria until this looks like a bad thing? At the moment those franchises are as popular as they are because of Disney.

You think Star Wars and Marvel movies only became popular because of Disney?

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Lastpostamorph wrote:Discounts at Disneyworld

Why?

Laga's mum is going to buy Disney for him.

Advent7 wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Lastpostamorph wrote:Discounts at Disneyworld

Why?

Laga's mum is going to buy Disney for him.

Don't be silly, that would mean he would get in free not at a discount.

His mum is actually Rupert Murdoch, part of the deal to buy Fox involves discounts for family members.

Hime wrote:Can we not forgo the hysteria until this looks like a bad thing? At the moment those franchises are as popular as they are because of Disney. .

It's almost like...you didn't...read....the........thread?

Disney make great films, this is great.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:

Hime wrote:Can we not forgo the hysteria until this looks like a bad thing? At the moment those franchises are as popular as they are because of Disney.

You think Star Wars and Marvel movies only became popular because of Disney?

Both franchises are in their current position because of Disney yes. Star Wars was obviously massive but there was nothing much going on with the franchise. Marvel were on their arse.

Rudolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:Can we not forgo the hysteria until this looks like a bad thing? At the moment those franchises are as popular as they are because of Disney. .

It's almost like...you didn't...read....the........thread?

Oh I read your baseless actuations and scare mongering which is why I asked to forgo the hysteria for now. I know how you love hyperbole though.