comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve wasted more than that on transfers recently
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 20 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52, Sky's company accounts are available online. It simply means that within one financial year, the company experienced an increase in costs that eroded its income. Sky has net assets over £20 billion, is cash rich, and maintains good terms with banks. It has a very strong balance sheet.
This means that despite the loss in one financial year, Sky is in a strong financial position overall. Their substantial net assets and cash in bank provide stability, allowing them to absorb short term losses without risking their long term future as a business. Good relationships with banks also suggest they have access to financing if they need it. Cash is king as they say!
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 20 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52, Sky's company accounts are available online. It simply means that within one financial year, the company experienced an increase in costs that eroded its income. Sky has net assets over £20 billion, is cash rich, and maintains good terms with banks. It has a very strong balance sheet.
This means that despite the loss in one financial year, Sky is in a strong financial position overall. Their substantial net assets and cash in bank provide stability, allowing them to absorb short term losses without risking their long term future as a business. Good relationships with banks also suggest they have access to financing if they need it. Cash is king as they say!
---------------------------------------------------------------
👍
comment by (K̇ash) - Welcome to Mo Trafford - Free Pales... (U1108)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
I'm trying to work out why the Qatar world cup is being blamed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Official line is this:
"Sky attributed its increase in 2023 programming costs to the impact of that summer’s World Cup on the 2022-2023 Premier League football season, which led to costlier football matches being pushed into 2023."
Source: https://uk.themedialeader.com/losses-mount-at-sky-ahead-of-wbd-showdown/
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
comment by Silver
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, it’s now a complex market to navigate, what was once a one-stop shop for entertainment via sky, for example, now requires spreading subscriptions across multiple platforms. A study found that if all terrestrial channels moved online, it would cost consumers an average of £218 per year to watch their favourite shows, factor in premium offerings and the cost mounts prohibitively high. With UK internet speeds now averaging over 73 Mbps, the infrastructure is finally in place to support mass migration to online streaming although it is open to debate if this factors in rural Britain which ranks no better than developing countries for access to adequate internet speeds. As the cost balloons for the average consumer to stream, they will resort to illegal means because of FOMO.
The outlook for Sky is challenging, with increasing competition, reduced exclusive content, and a heavy reliance on the Premier League to attract and retain customers. Their shift to full IPTV from satellite presents a massive gamble.
Source: https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-speed-statistics/#:~:text=in%20their%20products.-,Average%20UK%20broadband%20download%20speed%20statistics,in%20less%20than%20a%20year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2024/10/21/terrestrial-switch-off-would-require-4-3-million-households-to-spend-218-a-year
comment by Vengeance
posted 1 second ago
comment by Silver
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, it’s now a complex market to navigate, what was once a one-stop shop for entertainment via sky, for example, now requires spreading subscriptions across multiple platforms. A study found that if all terrestrial channels moved online, it would cost consumers an average of £218 per year to watch their favourite shows, factor in premium offerings and the cost mounts prohibitively high. With UK internet speeds now averaging over 73 Mbps, the infrastructure is finally in place to support mass migration to online streaming although it is open to debate if this factors in rural Britain which ranks no better than developing countries for access to adequate internet speeds. As the cost balloons for the average consumer to stream, they will resort to illegal means because of FOMO.
The outlook for Sky is challenging, with increasing competition, reduced exclusive content, and a heavy reliance on the Premier League to attract and retain customers. Their shift to full IPTV from satellite presents a massive gamble.
Source: https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-speed-statistics/#:~:text=in%20their%20products.-,Average%20UK%20broadband%20download%20speed%20statistics,in%20less%20than%20a%20year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2024/10/21/terrestrial-switch-off-would-require-4-3-million-households-to-spend-218-a-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, switching to IPTV is fine, but sports viewers on satellite are typically 1 to 2 minutes ahead of those streaming due to internet lag. This delay is caused by both the user’s connection and IPTV providers prioritising efficient delivery to large audiences, often at the cost of quality for network stability. Providers need to stop treating audiences like fools and start investing in better bandwidth and infrastructure!
Sign in if you want to comment
Sky report huge losses
Page 2 of 2
posted on 21/10/24
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve wasted more than that on transfers recently
posted on 21/10/24
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 20 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52, Sky's company accounts are available online. It simply means that within one financial year, the company experienced an increase in costs that eroded its income. Sky has net assets over £20 billion, is cash rich, and maintains good terms with banks. It has a very strong balance sheet.
This means that despite the loss in one financial year, Sky is in a strong financial position overall. Their substantial net assets and cash in bank provide stability, allowing them to absorb short term losses without risking their long term future as a business. Good relationships with banks also suggest they have access to financing if they need it. Cash is king as they say!
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 20 minutes ago
It's beyond me how any business can lose that and survive. Seven hundred and fifty million pounds, good grief it's unimaginable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
52, Sky's company accounts are available online. It simply means that within one financial year, the company experienced an increase in costs that eroded its income. Sky has net assets over £20 billion, is cash rich, and maintains good terms with banks. It has a very strong balance sheet.
This means that despite the loss in one financial year, Sky is in a strong financial position overall. Their substantial net assets and cash in bank provide stability, allowing them to absorb short term losses without risking their long term future as a business. Good relationships with banks also suggest they have access to financing if they need it. Cash is king as they say!
---------------------------------------------------------------
👍
posted on 21/10/24
comment by (K̇ash) - Welcome to Mo Trafford - Free Pales... (U1108)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
I'm trying to work out why the Qatar world cup is being blamed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Official line is this:
"Sky attributed its increase in 2023 programming costs to the impact of that summer’s World Cup on the 2022-2023 Premier League football season, which led to costlier football matches being pushed into 2023."
Source: https://uk.themedialeader.com/losses-mount-at-sky-ahead-of-wbd-showdown/
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Silver
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, it’s now a complex market to navigate, what was once a one-stop shop for entertainment via sky, for example, now requires spreading subscriptions across multiple platforms. A study found that if all terrestrial channels moved online, it would cost consumers an average of £218 per year to watch their favourite shows, factor in premium offerings and the cost mounts prohibitively high. With UK internet speeds now averaging over 73 Mbps, the infrastructure is finally in place to support mass migration to online streaming although it is open to debate if this factors in rural Britain which ranks no better than developing countries for access to adequate internet speeds. As the cost balloons for the average consumer to stream, they will resort to illegal means because of FOMO.
The outlook for Sky is challenging, with increasing competition, reduced exclusive content, and a heavy reliance on the Premier League to attract and retain customers. Their shift to full IPTV from satellite presents a massive gamble.
Source: https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-speed-statistics/#:~:text=in%20their%20products.-,Average%20UK%20broadband%20download%20speed%20statistics,in%20less%20than%20a%20year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2024/10/21/terrestrial-switch-off-would-require-4-3-million-households-to-spend-218-a-year
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Vengeance
posted 1 second ago
comment by Silver
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Winston
posted 3 minutes ago
Sky used to be a client of mine. Their business model is facked.
If and when Google enter the streaming auction for PL rights, they have a major issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HBO entering the UK market could deal a big blow to Sky, as Sky doesn’t produce enough high-quality content to keep subscribers hooked on its TV deals. I recently tried a 6-month deal with NOW TV, and the selection felt pretty thin, with much of the content relying heavily on HBO-produced shows. It seems like Sky is barely holding on, with football rights being its main lifeline to keep subscribers engaged.
As many have pointed out, major TV networks don’t value the Premier League quite the same way Sky does. If they did, Sky’s dominance would’ve been seriously challenged by now. Sky has only lost ground due to competition laws, which forced them to share some of their Premier League coverage with smaller players. Without these regulations, Sky’s grip on football broadcasting might still be unshaken. But it's a dangerous bubble that will inevitably burst with dire consequences for football clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to this intelligent guy. Knows it could go under very quickly. Smart clubs will have contract clauses with players.
Heard Sky singled a new satellite contract to 2029 but yeah whole world moving to internet delivery and that fast satellite transmission (still slower than virgin right enough) remains somewhat a usp since they can’t control fekless Joe public’s useless internet speeds and fixing that for everyone is £££.
1bn people ain’t subscribing at £10pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, it’s now a complex market to navigate, what was once a one-stop shop for entertainment via sky, for example, now requires spreading subscriptions across multiple platforms. A study found that if all terrestrial channels moved online, it would cost consumers an average of £218 per year to watch their favourite shows, factor in premium offerings and the cost mounts prohibitively high. With UK internet speeds now averaging over 73 Mbps, the infrastructure is finally in place to support mass migration to online streaming although it is open to debate if this factors in rural Britain which ranks no better than developing countries for access to adequate internet speeds. As the cost balloons for the average consumer to stream, they will resort to illegal means because of FOMO.
The outlook for Sky is challenging, with increasing competition, reduced exclusive content, and a heavy reliance on the Premier League to attract and retain customers. Their shift to full IPTV from satellite presents a massive gamble.
Source: https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-speed-statistics/#:~:text=in%20their%20products.-,Average%20UK%20broadband%20download%20speed%20statistics,in%20less%20than%20a%20year.
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2024/10/21/terrestrial-switch-off-would-require-4-3-million-households-to-spend-218-a-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, switching to IPTV is fine, but sports viewers on satellite are typically 1 to 2 minutes ahead of those streaming due to internet lag. This delay is caused by both the user’s connection and IPTV providers prioritising efficient delivery to large audiences, often at the cost of quality for network stability. Providers need to stop treating audiences like fools and start investing in better bandwidth and infrastructure!
Page 2 of 2