Murdoch's First Step-Make Fans Pay For Sports

[DCSholtis]

Interesting article.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/business/media/14CABL.html?dlbk=&pagewanted=print&position=top

[DChristmann]

In Britain, the only way to watch live games from the English Premier League is to get Sky Sports, Murdoch's pay-TV sports channel. And it's not part of basic cable or satellite service, like ESPN is over here. It costs you several dollars above the price of your basic programming package.

Imagine if all NFL games not only went to cable, but went to a premium cable channel, like HBO. That's pretty much what it's like in the UK with THEIR national passion.

[Dgenx321]

Great read.


Thanks

[Cyclone]

Its kinda been the same here. I need Comcast Sports net to see most of the Orioles, Captials, or Wizards games. You can't get that OTA.

At least in Nascar they went the other way. It was ESPN, TBS, or TNN before for Nascar with very few CBS/ABC exceptions. Now its FOX or NBC with some FX/TNT.

[Mark Holtz]

Please remind me again why Rupert is a better suiter now than Charlie was for DirecTV...

[DCSholtis]

With Charlie.....he would try to weasal out of sports contracts....well except those resembling cricket or some cheap crap.....Rupert is heading to have MORE exclusive sports deals for D* subs....which is great news to me.

[guest]

well that is if you want to PAY more

[invaliduser88]

Originally posted by DCSholtis
With Charlie.....he would try to weasal out of sports contracts....well except those resembling cricket or some cheap crap.....Rupert is heading to have MORE exclusive sports deals for D* subs....which is great news to me.

If Rupert had his way, no more NFL on the networks, no more NBA on the networks, no more MLB on the networks and no more NHL on the networks.

Yup, definitely in the consumers best interest! :nono:

[DCSholtis]

Hey its business.

[spanishannouncetable]

Originally posted by invaliduser88


If Rupert had his way, no more NFL on the networks, no more NBA on the networks, no more MLB on the networks and no more NHL on the networks.

Yup, definitely in the consumers best interest! :nono:

Depends on the consumer. Since I really wouldn't miss watching groups of pampered, overindulged millionaires play games, I wouldn't pay the exorbitant price for the programming and my bill would go down.

That certainly benefits THIS consumer :)

[johntoto11]

Ditto!!

[James_F]

The days of 2-3 NFL games on Network television should be over. Why the hell should I have to watch the Dallas Cowboys if I am a 49ers fan, just because my local Fox station thinks there are moy Cowboys fans in Phoenix?

[durl]

I don't like the way the "big 3" networks decide what teams I get to watch either. When you live in the southern US, you know that you're going to have to watch the Atlanta Braves every Saturday as the MLB "game of the week" even though the Braves are on every other night of the week on TBS or Turner South. For those of us that loathe the Braves, it's a crock.

But I guess I wonder why Murdoch would make sports programming LESS accessible to the bulk of customers? That's a lousy business decision for a very wealthy businessman to make. If he owns the provider, he's going to make money from the broadcasts even if they're not on one of his networks. I may be wrong but it just seems to me that he would be just leave things as they are.

[Mark Holtz]

If Murdoch wants to launch a channel, he has an instant 11 million eyeballs. He can play even hardball on some of the channels as he is also a content provider as well as multi-channel provider.

[SamC]

The NFL is paid MORE for its OTA rights from the networks than it makes back in ad revenue. Its a loss leader. The NFL knows that if you made people actually pay for the games, far less people would.

20 years from now, the NFL will still be exactly the same, on free OTA TV.

[Cyclone]

Also the NFL only plays 2 days a week, Sunday and Monday (yeah I know the exceptions). Point is that your team only plays once a week. Basketball, Baseball, Hockey all have soo many games that not many people catch them all. So it makes sense that the NFL is handled differently.

[BobMurdoch]

If I were Charlie I would try to sign some LONG term deals with Rupert now. Rupe has to be fair to prove to the Feds that he is NOT being anticompetitive, but once he gets the approval it's like the Feds lose interest and it is open season.

[markh]

This shoots down the Rupe pom pommers who said he'll give us more and charge us less for it.

You guys know who you are:)

[mnassour]

Originally posted by DCSholtis
Hey its business.

Hey, you asked for it, you got it.:rolleyes:

[BobMurdoch]

Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.........

OK, let's see how YOU D* folks like having an egocentric multibillionaire running the show on his daily whims.......

[James_F]

Oh I agree. This is a really bad deal for DirecTV folks.

[platinum]

I've read the article and nowhere does it say rates are raising, everyone needs to stop jumping to conclusions.

[DCSholtis]

Ive read the SAME articles platinum I totally agree with you, Dude.

[RandyAB]

I guess we will just have to wait and see.....for some reason though I think he has enough experience to not raise prices too much where it starts effecting their growth.

[MMF]

Our FCC at work. Michael is in a job over his head, but hey he's got the right Dad to get him the job! Rupe owns pieces of the whole spectrum and you can bet your a.... he will raise prices asap. Not to mention the control he has over content. The FCC has forgotten what it is supposed to do. Serve the public's best interest in communications.

[mnassour]

The FCC hasn't known what to do...or has ignored it's charge...ever since the Reaganism wave hit in the 1980s. Why do you think ClearChannel now controls more than 1000 radio stations...that all sound the same?

Microbroadcasting is the way to go. Get your Ramsey kits before the Murdoch-owned FCC makes them illegal.

[Jacob S]

I doubt you will EVER see your rates go down, they will just stuff it in their pockets instead.