SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 funeral march http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8109954.stm Setanta loses Premier TV rights Setanta will lose its two packages of games for 2009/10 season Troubled sports broadcaster Setanta has failed to pay the latest chunk of the £30m it owes the English Premier League, and will now lose the rights. The League has threatened to sell the rights to the 46 live matches Setanta has for the 2009/2010 season if the broadcaster failed to make the payment. It will now put the rights out to auction, with offers needed by Monday. A potential rescue deal, led by a US investor who had proposed buying 51% of Setanta, fell through. 'Regret' The Premier League said it had "been working with Setanta for some time to help them continue as the broadcaster of 46 English live matches for the 2009/10 season". SETANTA'S SPORTS DEALS English Premier League Scottish Premier League Blue Square Premier IPL cricket US PGA Tour golf Guinness Premiership rugby union (from 2010) Magners rugby Boxing Why is Setanta in trouble The Premier League, in agreement with Setanta, stipulated that certain contractual requirements had to be met on or before Friday, 19 June, "to allow the preparations for the 2009/10 season to continue unaffected". The league added: "It is with considerable regret that we announce that Setanta has been unable to meet their obligations. As such the existing licence agreement between us has been terminated with immediate effect." The Premier League will now go ahead and auction the 46 UK live matches for the 2009/10 season. 'Issues' Late last week, Access Industries, controlled by the US investor Len Blavatnik, tabled a £20m bid for a 51% share in Setanta. It had been hoped Access could lead a consortium of investors to provide fresh funding for Setanta. Mr Blavatnik had been studying Setanta's books However Access has now said it was unable to proceed with a deal with Setanta. It is understood that the deal faltered after it was revealed that there is a question mark over a reported £50m that Setanta is said to owe UK tax authorities. "Access believed that this proposal could potentially have secured the future of the broadcaster for its customers, employees and for football, provided certain conditions required to put the business on a long-term viable footing were met," it said. "Regrettably, despite intensive efforts on all sides over the past few days, and despite significant progress in a number of areas, there remain a number of issues which we have been unable to resolve within the time available. "We are disappointed not to have been able to make this deal happen. Access remains committed to sports programming and will continue to explore opportunities in this area." One of those which may be interest in acquiring Setanta's 46 games is Disney-owned sports channel ESPN. 'Bad news' ESPN would not comment directly on the new situation but said it continued "to be interested in rights where they are available and where they make business sense". Meanwhile James Pickles, editor of industry newsletter TV Sports Markets, said that until Thursday there were expectations that Setanta would pull though. "It's bad news for everyone - no one is a winner," he said, adding: "It's a disaster for rights holders." He said it was bad news for Sky because having a competitor such as Setanta was beneficial to it from an EU regulatory perspective, which prevents one broadcaster owning all Premier League rights. However Sky would be legally free to bid for one of Setanta's two packages of 23 games. Subscriber targets Last week Setanta reopened its website to new subscribers - having closed it for several days. Setanta is running at an estimated loss of £100m a year, after missing subscriber targets. The broadcaster has 1.2 million subscribers, 700,000 short of the 1.9million that industry experts believe they need to break even. Attention will now shift onto Setanta's other contracts - such as those with the FA for England and FA Cup matches, the Scottish Premier League (SPL), and the Blue Square conference. It recently missed a £3m payment due to the SPL - part of a four year deal worth £54m over four years from 2006 to 2010. The company also owns rights to the PGA golf tour, as well as cricket and rugby union deals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Bye bye SATANta Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley17 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I hope somebody really random gets it. Somebody really random with a freeview channel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. They have had all of them before Setanta so why not now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 However, I'm SURE Setanta only won 1 package this year and would've only had 23 games, rather than 46. God damn sure of it. That article is blataz wrong. Edit: further research says that this is from 2010 season onwards. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7875478.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. They have had all of them before Setanta so why not now? The entire reason Setanta got games was because they changed the law. It is seen as a Monopoly. It is to be fairer to US I know, its fucking dogshit, but thats tha law! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. They have had all of them before Setanta so why not now? Competition rules. That's why Setanta got them in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. Love the fact you've just used the word nope where it clearly isn't applicable. I was either going to go with Setanta alone as I have now, or Sky and Setanta on account of the latter having the boxing Sky and Setanta it is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. Love the fact you've just used the word nope where it clearly isn't applicable. I was either going to go with Setanta alone as I have now, or Sky and Setanta on account of the latter having the boxing Sky and Setanta it is I didn't detect the sarcasm is all. I assumed you were actually happy as rather than getting sky sports AND setanta, you just needed the sky sports package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It was to open up competition, but what it also did was made it more expensive for Joe Public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 "Monopoly" article shite - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4352160.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 "Monopoly" article shite - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4352160.stm I'll play if I can be the racing car Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Can Setanta pick up the Championship now, or are they completely fucked over? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 It was to open up competition, but what it also did was made it more expensive for Joe Public. Like always. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Can Setanta pick up the Championship now, or are they completely fucked over? Stick a fork in Setanta, they're fucked. imotbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Great, full sky sports package next year it is Nope. They are not allowed to have all the games. Someone else will have to bid. LivingTV are front runners. Love the fact you've just used the word nope where it clearly isn't applicable. I was either going to go with Setanta alone as I have now, or Sky and Setanta on account of the latter having the boxing Sky and Setanta it is I didn't detect the sarcasm is all. I assumed you were actually happy as rather than getting sky sports AND setanta, you just needed the sky sports package. I see what you mean, my apologies for not being clearer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Irrespective of how shit Santana coverage is, or was, no-one who appreciates value for money should really be happy about this. Sultana was a competitior of Sky and, even if ever so slightly, made Sky look over their shoulder from time to time and consider their prices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Irrespective of how shit Santana coverage is, or was, no-one who appreciates value for money should really be happy about this. Sultana was a competitior of Sky and, even if ever so slightly, made Sky look over their shoulder from time to time and consider their prices. How do you work that out like? I pay more for Setanta than I ever did for Prem Plus and Sky have increased their prices on a regular basis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Irrespective of how shit Santana coverage is, or was, no-one who appreciates value for money should really be happy about this. Sultana was a competitior of Sky and, even if ever so slightly, made Sky look over their shoulder from time to time and consider their prices. How do you work that out like? I pay more for Setanta than I ever did for Prem Plus and Sky have increased their prices on a regular basis. That's why we got rid of it. Don't know the exact details because I'm not the bill payer but I think they essentially just kept hiking the price up by a quid or so every other month-ish. Was a disgrace really. I'd guess the actual Sky Sports package on its own to be just as much as the rest of the entire Sky TV package, perhaps minus movies. Something like £20 a month for SS, I'd guesstimate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Irrespective of how s*** Santana coverage is, or was, no-one who appreciates value for money should really be happy about this. Sultana was a competitior of Sky and, even if ever so slightly, made Sky look over their shoulder from time to time and consider their prices. How do you work that out like? I pay more for Setanta than I ever did for Prem Plus and Sky have increased their prices on a regular basis. Setanta is a channel and Prem Plus wasn't, essentially Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Irrespective of how s*** Santana coverage is, or was, no-one who appreciates value for money should really be happy about this. Sultana was a competitior of Sky and, even if ever so slightly, made Sky look over their shoulder from time to time and consider their prices. How do you work that out like? I pay more for Setanta than I ever did for Prem Plus and Sky have increased their prices on a regular basis. Setanta is a channel and Prem Plus wasn't, essentially So what? Fact is I pay more to see what I want than I used to before the ruling. How that is helping the consumer I've no idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hope it goes to a freeview channel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hope it goes to a freeview channel. How on earth would they afford it though, if their only income is through advertising? It surely will go to a new subscription-only channel or someone huge enough to buy it just to increase their profile, like ESPN. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now