|
Mickolution posted:UPC. They're a bit cheaper, but Sky's a much better service, I reckon. Can't put a dish up in my apartment block, unfortunately. Their internet's far and away the best deal in the country though, though it's not available everywhere. I definitely am yeah. I'm not sure if it comes bundled with sky sports on other services, but on sky, I have to pay for their sports channels and then extra again for ESPN, its pretty poo poo really.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
ESPN is only free for Irish subscribers
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
TwoDogs1Cup posted:ESPN is only free for Irish subscribers Ahh ok, thought it would be in the UK too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
In what can only be described as a "Brave" interpretation of European employment law, Rangers insist that players will be forced to join their new club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18417120
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Would that mean the new club have to pay them the same wages?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
As covered in the SPL thread, Green is talking absolute shite in order to pre-emptively pacify the support. The newco is obliged to offer the players exactly the same contracts they had at the oldco (pre-administration), but the players are not duty bound to accept the contract at the newco. They can, if they wish, refuse the transfer and effectively become free agents. TUPE exists, realistically, in order to protect workers' interests in the case of a takeover, it's not a mechanism or vehicle to protect employers. Green is suggesting that all players will be contracted to the newco and must stay there. And that simply isn't true - if the player reject the transfer, it's treated as if he terminated/resigned his contract at the oldco, he isn't in breach of contract with the oldco because it doesn't exist, and he can't breach any contract with a newco because he's never, legally speaking, entered one. In normal, every day situations, it actually benefits the worker just to accept terms with the company they're being transferred to, as the other options are usually limited to unemployment (without redundancy). In terms of footballers, free agency and an escape from a toxic environment probably outweighs the contracts. And the PFA in Scotland have just outlined this - http://pfascotland.co.uk/2012/news/pfa-scotland-explains-tupe-position/ Green is a charlatan. He is no better than those who have preceded him, and quite frankly may ensure no one follows him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:As covered in the SPL thread, Green is talking absolute shite in order to pre-emptively pacify the support. The newco is obliged to offer the players exactly the same contracts they had at the oldco (pre-administration), but the players are not duty bound to accept the contract at the newco. They can, if they wish, refuse the transfer and effectively become free agents. That was my understanding too, the point is what you said, it's a device to protect normal people working for normal companies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
GravityDaemon posted:Al Jazeera landed the English rights to Serie A and La Liga, at least in America. It's as if Al Jazeera didn't just put the cart before the horse, they don't even have a pony let alone a horse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 01:42
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:The fun part about that is that, if I remember correctly, Al Jazeera has yet to negotiate and deals with the major cable carriers, DirecTV, or Dish to carry their new sports network that would be carrying games from Serie A or La Liga. And reportedly all the would-be carriers are really skittish about having a third football-heavy channel. Yeah the Al Jazeera stuff is going to set soccer on TV in the states back 10 years. No carriers, buying up tons of rights for insane amounts of money, and it seems as if they are operating under the assumption that holding these rights will have networks banging their door down to carry their network, and so far, that's not panning out. And they aren't going to make any of their money back by sublicensing the games out to other networks because no one is going to pay anything near enough. So basically they hold the rights hostage and the fans suffer. Next season is only going to be the start (La Liga and Serie A). Some industry insiders believe they are going to be bidding huge amounts of money on the 2013-2016 English Premier League rights next. They certainly have the means to outbid anything ESPN and Fox can muster. Even if they do get on the major carriers you can bet money that it will only be available in standard definition on most of the providers that just don't have capacity for adding more HD (pretty much all of the terrestrial cable providers like Comcast or Verizon)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:So basically they hold the rights hostage and the fans suffer. Can't they afford to try the Chinese model and have the rights go cheap and just eat the losses for a while?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:Can't they afford to try the Chinese model and have the rights go cheap and just eat the losses for a while? Yeah I don't think Al Jazeera needs to make any money from these rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:don't have capacity for adding more HD (pretty much all of the terrestrial cable providers like Comcast or Verizon) They would if they stopped broadcasting in MPEG2 the fuckin Luddites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Yeah the Al Jazeera stuff is going to set soccer on TV in the states back 10 years. No carriers, buying up tons of rights for insane amounts of money, and it seems as if they are operating under the assumption that holding these rights will have networks banging their door down to carry their network, and so far, that's not panning out. And they aren't going to make any of their money back by sublicensing the games out to other networks because no one is going to pay anything near enough. That's a pity, al-Jazeera english is a freeview channel in the UK. It's also available free to stream online, but I'm not sure you can get that in HD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:Yeah I don't think Al Jazeera needs to make any money from these rights. But they certainly aren't buying them to give them away. My bet is that if the premier league rights do indeed go to them that the return of pay per view soccer in the united states will be in full effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Is there any reason Sky don't sell individual streams for a couple of quid for each match? Sky go can already be used by anyone with a username and password and it seems an easy way for them to get more money in from people without Sky Sports
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:But they certainly aren't buying them to give them away. My bet is that if the premier league rights do indeed go to them that the return of pay per view soccer in the united states will be in full effect. I can't see Fox outbidding Al Jazeera for US BPL rights; I doubt they have the financial muscle. We only watch soccer on the TV in our house - we stream all other media - so we'll probably be killing our cable television account and streaming soccer, too. Some of the HD feeds aren't too shabby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Scott Bakula posted:Is there any reason Sky don't sell individual streams for a couple of quid for each match? Sky go can already be used by anyone with a username and password and it seems an easy way for them to get more money in from people without Sky Sports They do that they can say goodbye to ever selling a pub license ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Scott Bakula posted:Is there any reason Sky don't sell individual streams for a couple of quid for each match? Sky go can already be used by anyone with a username and password and it seems an easy way for them to get more money in from people without Sky Sports It probably works out better for them to charge £25 per month or whatever it is than allowing people to pick and choose what matches they want. There would be people who would only get the streams when their team is playing or a few mates chipping in £1 each or so and watching it together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:Yeah I don't think Al Jazeera needs to make any money from these rights. If you know anything whatsoever about ESPN, its level of programming, and its clout in the cable industry, you will be laughing your rear end off by the time you finish reading this post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:But they're trying to. One of the hardball tactics they're trying with American cable and satellite carriers is that they want their new sports channel to be carried in the basic cable tier alongside ESPN instead of further up the dial in the specialized sports area with channels like NBC Sports, GOL TV, and Fox Soccer Channel. Al Jazeera could buy out Disney twice over and dump them again they'll probably get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:Al Jazeera could buy out Disney twice over and dump them again they'll probably get away with it. Unless they do something crazy like ask for zero money per subscriber in fees it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:But they're arguing with cable providers that the fact that they will be showing live football games from La Liga and Seria A means they should be put right next to ESPN. They literally could, that's the point. It's Al Jazeera. It's all one giant PR exercise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Al Jazeera is a poisoned brand name in the US, will their network carry that moniker?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:But they're arguing with cable providers that the fact that they will be showing live football games from La Liga and Seria A means they should be put right next to ESPN. Their news broadcasting is pretty good quality so hopefully their sports will be as well, and they will be showing some of the best football in the world. You're right though, I doubt that it'll work for them. Being called Al-Jazeera is a pretty big handicap for a sports channel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
please respond posted:Al Jazeera is a poisoned brand name in the US, will their network carry that moniker? They're going to be called be-IN1 and be-IN2 I think
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
They should just stream their. Hannels free and have ipad/phone apps with no restrictions and build market share that way
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
please respond posted:They should just stream their. Hannels free and have ipad/phone apps with no restrictions and build market share that way Hmm yes let's get our customer base used to getting something for free. They will certainly be eager to pay for it later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
please respond posted:Al Jazeera is a poisoned brand name in the US, will their network carry that moniker? Freedom Soccer
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Hmm yes let's get our customer base used to getting something for free. They will certainly be eager to pay for it later. The customer base won't be paying for it later. Cable and Satellite providers will. I suppose the customer base might technically be paying a few cents for it once it's added to packages, but that's not really a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:
8 dollars, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
please respond posted:They should just stream their. Hannels free and have ipad/phone apps with no restrictions and build market share that way I would love if they did this since it would be one giant gently caress you to the cable giants in this country but it would never happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Akileese posted:I would love if they did this since it would be one giant gently caress you to the cable giants in this country but it would never happen. AJE already streams live in HD from Doha, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility. Besides, AJE basically runs one commercial in its breaks that are maybe every twelve minutes. A really nice change for a news channel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Scott Bakula posted:Is there any reason Sky don't sell individual streams for a couple of quid for each match? Sky go can already be used by anyone with a username and password and it seems an easy way for them to get more money in from people without Sky Sports They did do it for a while. Of course by a couple of quid you do of course mean £14.99.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
Yeah, the one off games were very expensive, but the season ticket was decent value. I guess that's what they wanted people to buy. It was the lower profile games though, which was the package sold to Setanta and then one of the ones ESPN got. I think Scott Bakula meant every game they show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 12:10
|
|
|
I would pay 20 dollars a month for just the CBC, Al-Jazeera, and Al-Jazeera Sports. I would never watch anything else anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jun/23/rangers-scottish-premier-leaguequote:
This is getting all kinds of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
MrBling posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jun/23/rangers-scottish-premier-league Unless Charles Green knows something a lot of people don't, he really doesn't understand TUPE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 00:00
|
|
I am the law, but an easily bribed kind of law.
|
MattWPBS posted:Unless Charles Green knows something a lot of people don't, he really doesn't understand TUPE. Given that it explicitly states that employees can break transferred contracts at will, chances are he has never even come close to reading it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
I'm assuming they're thinking "we've got gently caress all to lose and can take a couple of seasons out of your career tying you up in court, so sue us"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
DickEmery posted:I'm assuming they're thinking "we've got gently caress all to lose and can take a couple of seasons out of your career tying you up in court, so sue us" There's no reason for the players to even show up in court. The contract is gone, all Green has is the requirement to offer them it again. If he doesn't understand that, it's his problem. No-one would contest immediate transfer of registration and new contracts at a new club, wherever they pleased. Besides, the last time a Scottish club sued a player over terminating his contract it didn't go very well for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 00:55
|
|