Kablovska TV

[nenad]

58 minutes ago, Mario Kempes said:

da neko promaši 500 miliona eura a kradu jedni drugima stenogram sa sastanaka .Ja sam ubedjen da su obe strane ovde znali ponude .I SBB I TELEKOM .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока
 

 

nije ovo prvi put, tako su i telekom srpske preplatili za nekoliko stotina miliona evra. samo su motivi tada bili drugaciji.

[Frank Pembleton]

Ne isključujem mogućnost da je npr. Telekom saznao koliko je ponudio SBB.
Ali ne od PL nego od nekoga iz SBB.
A moguće je da su "ložači" bili i iz PL oko cifre.
SK je dugo imao "svog čoveka" u firmi posredniku kod kupovine prava, i dooobro ga plaćao.







... Shiit has hit the fan

[radisa]

49 minutes ago, Facundo Orellana said:

Možda ih je neko ložio da je SBB ponudio 90 miliona evra godišnje, pa su svoju ponudu podebljali. Sve ostalo je istorija.

Pa moguce da su pogresno razumeli nekog isajdera da je 90m bila ponuda po godini, a ne ukupna, pa su se zajebali... Ili su ih namestili da je po godini, jer tih 600m moze biti bas gadan kamen oko vrata, pre svega politički...

[Mario Kempes]

Ne isključujem mogućnost da je npr. Telekom saznao koliko je ponudio SBB.
Ali ne od PL nego od nekoga iz SBB.
A moguće je da su "ložači" bili i iz PL oko cifre.
SK je dugo imao "svog čoveka" u firmi posredniku kod kupovine prava, i dooobro ga plaćao.







... Shiit has hit the fan

Pa na to sam i mislio .Pa tamo gde je licitacija vise desetina miliona eura drzavna firma nije saznala ponudu SBB i ponudila 7 puta vecu cenu .I sve to u Srbiji .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока

[renne]

pa nije to licitacija

[nenad]

nema nikakve logike da su saznali sbb ponudu, pa ponudili za red velicine vise.

[Frank Pembleton]

Pa na to sam i mislio .Pa tamo gde je licitacija vise desetina miliona eura drzavna firma nije saznala ponudu SBB i ponudila 7 puta vecu cenu .I sve to u Srbiji .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока

Malo si preskočio drugi deo.
Dakle SK se bavio "sličnom rabotom" ali je za ovu yuru izbačen posrednik i jbga...







... Shiit has hit the fan

[Mario Kempes]

nema nikakve logike da su saznali sbb ponudu, pa ponudili za red velicine vise.

Nema logike da posle stenograma sa sastanku telenora i mts o kojoj je pisala NOVA i N1 i koji su izneti drzava ne provali ponudu SBB u poslu od vise desetina eura nego da to plati 600 miliona .Odbijam da poverujem glupo je strasno .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока

[jorma shparga]

3 minutes ago, Mario Kempes said:

Nema logike da posle stenograma sa sastanku telenora i mts o kojoj je pisala NOVA i N1 i koji su izneti drzava ne provali ponudu SBB u poslu od vise desetina eura nego da to plati 600 miliona .Odbijam da poverujem glupo je strasno .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока
 

i sta je zakljucak - znali su sbb-ovu cifru i ponudili n puta vise da bi :

a) pokazali kakve su baje ?

b) na taj nacin dali pare danilu koji je u stvari vlasnik EPL ?

c ) ?

 

 

[msv]

8 minutes ago, jorma shparga said:

i sta je zakljucak - znali su sbb-ovu cifru i ponudili n puta vise da bi :

a) pokazali kakve su baje ?

b) na taj nacin dali pare danilu koji je u stvari vlasnik EPL ?

c ) ?

 

 

 

Ne, lik ubeđuje ljude po forumima da je priča o 600 miliona za PL laž.

[nenad]

14 minutes ago, Mario Kempes said:

Nema logike da posle stenograma sa sastanku telenora i mts o kojoj je pisala NOVA i N1 i koji su izneti drzava ne provali ponudu SBB u poslu od vise desetina eura nego da to plati 600 miliona .Odbijam da poverujem glupo je strasno .

Послато са SM-G610F помоћу Тапатока
 

 

kako da je provali? 

[jorma shparga]

6 minutes ago, msv said:

 

Ne, lik ubeđuje ljude po forumima da je priča o 600 miliona za PL laž.

pa kako mu ide  ? 

[msv]

Just now, jorma shparga said:

pa kako mu ide  ? 

 

[radisa]

40 minutes ago, jorma shparga said:

pa kako mu ide  ? 

Jebu ga zvanični podaci EPL-a, inače odlično...Samo da nema te sitnice...

[Frank Pembleton]

Ne znam da li sam kačio, ovo je iz jula tekst o pravima za PL

When BSkyB boss Rupert Murdoch slapped £304 million on the table in 1992 and asked the 22 clubs in English football’s First Division to ditch the rest of the pyramid, join him behind a paywall and rebrand as the super, soaraway Premier League, nobody stopped to ask how much Canal+ would be coughing up to broadcast the competition on French TV.

This is hardly surprising when you consider the fact the Football League was selling its international rights through a company called World Wide Soccer and somehow managing to lose money.

English club football had an audience in Scandinavia but it was a very secondary concern while the Football Association and Football League were kicking lumps out of each other and ITV was at the High Court trying to stop Murdoch from using football as a “battering ram” for his infant pay-TV offering.

In fact, his offer for the first five years of Premier League action included £40 million for the international rights. However, the breakaway competition was reluctant to put all of its eggs in his satellite dish, so it gave those rights to an agency for the same price — £8 million a year, a nice-to-have bonus when you had been sharing a loss.

Fast forward to February 2020 — nearly 30 years after the big clubs decided they were happy to share international revenues equally, as they were unlikely to be worth fighting over — and the Premier League announces its first deal for the next rights cycle: £2 billion over six years from 2022 from Nordic Entertainment Group (NENT) for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. It is double the amount the Premier League will extract from those same four markets between 2019 and 2022, and more than the leagues in those countries earn for their domestic rights.

It is easy to see why, in 2018, the big English clubs reconsidered their unwittingly generous decision to split the overseas TV cash evenly. The £1.3 billion the league currently makes annually from its international deals is now split on the same basis as the domestic revenues, with only half shared equally and the rest dished out according to how often you are on TV and where you finish in the table.

Manchester City, Premier League
As champions, Manchester City received more TV revenue than most other Premier League clubs (Photo: Michael Regan/Getty Images)
February 2020 already seems like a long time ago.

The question then was whether the Premier League would become the first sports league anywhere (unless we are going to classify the National Hockey League as Canadian) to earn more from overseas broadcasters than domestic ones. After all, the 2019-22 cycle had seen the value of the domestic deals with Amazon, BT and Sky dip by nearly 10 per cent, while the international agreements were up 35 per cent. Another 20 per cent or so increase after 2022 and global revenues would beat British ones.

But then the world caught COVID-19, shutting down sport for several months and sending advertising revenues through the floor. The UK had barely entered the first lockdown before the Premier League’s broadcast partner in China, PPTV, was withholding a £150 million payment and asking to renegotiate its three-year deal.

A new partner was eventually found in September to keep English football on Chinese screens but it was for a fraction of what PPTV had promised. When French football’s €1 billion domestic deal with Mediapro collapsed within a month of the season starting, it looked like that much-predicted pin was finally being applied to European football’s rights bubble.

It was an impression that would harden during last season as first Germany’s Bundesliga and then Italy’s Serie A struggled to get their rights away at good prices. At least their haircuts were not too severe. French clubs will start the coming season looking like newly-sheared sheep.

But will Premier League clubs end up looking like the lion on their league’s logo?

While most football fans have been enjoying Euro 2020, the Premier League’s media sales team have been totting up the bids from almost 40 different territories. The first round of the European rights auction closed the day after the group stage finished at the Euros, with bids from 23 territories due on Thursday, June 24.

What these bidders were bidding for, how their bids must be presented and what obligations they would have to meet before getting any rights is all explained in the league’s 73-page invitation to tender. This is the manual for the Premier League’s business model, and it tells you where the league believes its business is heading.

For the first time, the league has asked all bidders to submit two bids for the packages in their territories, one for the customary three-year cycle and another covering six years.

Most incumbent broadcasters have wanted longer deals for years, as they believe they can build audiences more effectively if they are given the time and security to do so. For them, that cycle is similar to the lifespan of a US president: you get six months to do things and then you have to start campaigning again.

The three-year cycle was brought in after pressure from the European Union’s competition watchdogs, which wanted to ensure that new entrants were not locked out, depriving customers of choice. But what if there are no new entrants?

Like every other sports competition, the Premier League has bent itself into some remarkably advanced yoga positions to bring Amazon to the table but the e-commerce giant has played it cool, opportunistically picking up bargains. DAZN is another streaming service that football hopes will breathe life into the auctions but its promise has so far been more exciting than the reality.

Premier League, TV rights
Amazon has only dipped a toe into Premier League TV rights so far (Photo: Adam Davy – Pool/Getty Images)
A shortage of competitive tension has already persuaded the Premier League to ditch its usual domestic rights auction, deciding instead to take advantage of its current partners’ willingness to roll over their deals until 2025. Standing still is forging ahead if your rivals are falling back, particularly when your shareholders (ie, the clubs) are so desperate for cash and some certainty.

In the past, however, those shareholders have usually pushed the Premier League to avoid long-term commitment and to keep playing the field.

“Six-year terms are a defensive move against a cooling international market,” explains Brussels-based media rights expert Pierre Maes. “In the current cycle, international rights compensated for a 10 per cent domestic decline but the decrease of the international rights will be significant in 2022-25.

“Half of the 35 per cent increase in international rights this cycle was due to sterling’s fall after Brexit and the growth was dependent on just five markets: China, with PPTV paying £161 million per season; sub-Saharan Africa, with SuperSport at £168 million a season; the US, with NBC at £144 million; MENA (the Middle East and North Africa), with beIN at £112 million a season; and France, with Canal+ at about £79 million a season.

“Well, China has exploded and the rest of Asia does not deliver anymore, the big agencies are dead or cautious and Europe is cold. It is true NENT delivered a spectacular increase and the Premier League can expect growth in the US — La Liga just signed an eight-year deal at £126 million a season — but that’s it.

“Rollovers (abroad) will be a good result but the Premier League would have expected growth before. The strategy is, ‘Let’s go first where the money is’ — a big spender like NENT or a market with competition — then go to big markets where they can stay at the same level — MENA and sub-Saharan Africa — and then, eventually, do the more difficult markets with a classic tender process.”

As Maes notes, the European tender document makes it clear the league is moving away from the type of deal it did with IMG in 2018, when it sold the agency the rights in 26 eastern and central European countries. This time, agencies have been told they cannot bid, as the league believes it can manage relationships with broadcasters just as well as they can, and without paying their commission fees.

“Locking in partners for a longer period provides much-needed certainty for all stakeholders,” says Paolo Pescatore, a media, technology and telecoms analyst based in London.

“But it will result in the slow and painful death of agencies, as the league wants to work with partners who have a direct billing relationship with fans around the world. Furthermore, by removing another layer it should, in theory, increase their own margins on the deals.”

It is telling that while some of the big beasts of the agency world, such as MP & Silva and Lagardere Sports, have either gone bust or pulled back, the Premier League has been hiring more staff for its in-house media team.

Benteke Palace new contract
The Premier League wants to maximise its margins on TV deals by cutting out middlemen where possible (Photo: Justin Setterfield/Getty Images)
Pescatore is more bullish than Maes on the Premier League’s prospects of finding enough value in the international market to continue its streak of ever-rising broadcast income. But this will depend on the league striking the right balance between “maximising value” with more deals based on smaller territories while guarding against “cannibalisation”, the danger of chopping the product up too finely and feeding it to the digital pirates.

But like Maes, Pescatore believes six-year deals are fundamentally defensive and there are risks to being tied down at a time when everyone knows what is on the horizon.

“All eyes are on going direct to consumer and jumping on the streaming bandwagon by launching a standalone video service,” he says. “Another approach is to sell rights on a club-and-fan basis which can be segmented, home and away. Most, if not all, clubs now have their own platforms. Selling rights on a market-by-market basis mitigates any moves by the Premier League to go direct themselves.

“Fragmentation is a big issue. There are too many players and too many billing relationships. The Premier League, along with other sporting bodies, needs to be wary not to force users to watch events illegally. Piracy is an ongoing problem that is showing no signs of easing up and will only continue to proliferate with further fragmentation or price rises.”

The Premier League’s stance on piracy is one of the reasons its rights have held up better than most. BeIN, for example, has pulled out of other markets, most notably Italy, when it felt it was not being supported against the sophisticated, Saudi Arabia-based operation that stole its rights for more than three years. But no rightsholder is immune from this very modern form of theft.

That said, the rollovers the Premier League has already struck — a deal for Germany, Austria and Switzerland with Sky Deutschland, sub-Saharan Africa with SuperSport, MENA with beIN and the British deals — suggest broadcasters do still see English football as a premium product.

“The Premier League is the most popular league outside its own domestic market,” says Jack Genovese, a senior analyst at Ampere Analysis.

“On average, it is about 1.5 times as popular as La Liga and twice as popular as Serie A in European markets other than Spain and Italy, respectively. It still heavily features in sports broadcasters’ marketing campaigns and is, despite its out-of-market nature, a significant component of their overall content offering.

“Sky Italia and Canal+, both of which have just lost the bulk of the rights to their respective domestic leagues, have both pointed to their Premier League rights as an indication of their continued commitment to football.

“But the hyper-inflation in rights witnessed in the second half of the past decade has largely come to an end. Traditional pay-TV businesses must contain their content costs. The sports-rights market is experiencing a period of stagnation, which may turn into deflation should current trends accelerate.

“So, it makes sense for the Premier League to seek to enter into long-term deals at this stage, thus meeting demand when high, and at the same time securing stability in its international media revenue stream.”

Genovese agrees with Maes and Pescatore that the Premier League does not need middlemen anymore.

“Many of the broadcasters the Premier League deals with will be close to its head offices in London. Some will even have an office in the UK themselves. This reduces the need for third parties to help with the marketing of their own rights,” he explains.

But Genovese does not believe this will be the cycle when the international rights top the domestic ones.

“There are strong indications the Premier League can continue to grow internationally, as the strategic value of its rights increases in many markets,” he says.

“But to surpass the value of domestic rights, they would have to grow by more than 20 per cent per season. Two markets, in particular, will be decisive to understand whether that milestone will be reached: the US, where the rights are currently held by NBC, and China, where the previous licensee returned the rights after facing financial difficulties.

“The Premier League is indicating it could be willing to trade off some of the short-term value by going for the stability of long-term deals. Therefore, we think it’s likely that the revenue generated through international rights will increase over the next cycle but it may still not generate enough to overtake the revenues generated from UK broadcasters.”

Much depends, then, on just how much CBS or ESPN want to take those US rights off NBC, and whether China’s burgeoning middle class still think Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester United are cool brands, and the Chinese Communist Party agrees.

In the meantime, the Premier League will be hoping Telekom Srbija’s recent spending spree on football rights continues, or the four packages on offer in territory six — France and Monaco — spark a bidding war. After all, you also get the non-exclusive rights in Andorra, Luxembourg and French-speaking Switzerland for your investment there, not to mention the right to broadcast to Guadeloupe in the Caribbean, Madagascar and New Caledonia in the Pacific.

Perhaps that’s the best international rights bargain since those 22 clubs flogged the lot for £8 million in 1992.

(Top photo: Frank Augstein – Pool/Getty Images)

... Shiit has hit the fan