Setanta....

[Reece]

Of course competition to Sky is good, but Setanta provided a terrible service in honesty.

But then having competition to Sky is only good if it doesn't cost the consumer more. Before Setanta got some of the Premier League games, I'd pay my subscription to Sky, and then I had the choice to purchase a season ticket to view the PPV games, or pay for them on a one of basis if I wanted to - I went with the latter.
With Setanta, you had to pay an extra subscription per month, and I found I tended to only watch the Liverpool games on it, so wasn't getting value for money.
I just don't really see how that has benefited the consumer which was the intention when the European Commission demanded it to happen.

[fah-q]

Tony, actually the terrible part was supposedly offering customers "choice" by opening up the packages to other companies when in effect all it is doing is adding another subscription onto what people were paying.

Also not only was Setanta's coverage pretty piss poor (lost signal twice in two of LFC's games last season), their customer service was ****ing abysmal and their contract verging on the fraudulent.

So no **** them, I'm glad they've gone under. Im sorry for the people who have lost their jobs though.

[Reece]

Tony, actually the terrible part was supposedly offering customers "choice" by opening up the packages to other companies when in effect all it is doing is adding another subscription onto what people were paying.

Also not only was Setanta's coverage pretty piss poor (lost signal twice in two of LFC's games last season), their customer service was ****ing abysmal and their contract verging on the fraudulent.

So no **** them, I'm glad they've gone under. Im sorry for the people who have lost their jobs though.

[TheStig]

I don't see why some people are happy about this? I know Setanta's customer service was crap, they weren't prepared for the way it took off initially but surely competition to Sky is a bonus for all of us? Sky is an absolute rip off.

I remember when I cancelled my Sky account a couple of years ago and the retention adviser was asking why, I told him that two years ago (before I cancelled) I was paying £32 a month for the full package, within 24 months it had shot up to £40. His argument was that they had to do it because they had to spend £500m or whatever it was for the EPL...he could not understand the difference between "had" to and "chose" too.

Sky just continue to pay over the odds for everything just to get the monopoly, up and coming ventures like Setanta have no chance, which is a real shame. It wasn't that long ago it was just ovver £30 for the whole lot but now I know mates paying £70 a month with HD, Multiroom etc.

How is anyone going to compete when the majority of the shows that sell the packages are owned by Murdoch anyway, Sky will always bid higher than anyone else will be able too for other packages such as Discovery, Nat Geo and MTV etc. Its a farce and needs to be looked at right away.

This is terrible news in my opinion.

Not only do you pay vastly over the odds for Sky, you also still get a **** load of ads.

I don't subscribe (and probably never will) to any pay TV stuff.

Sounds like Setanta were awful, so maybe they deserved to go bust...

[FatTony]

Tony, actually the terrible part was supposedly offering customers "choice" by opening up the packages to other companies when in effect all it is doing is adding another subscription onto what people were paying.

Also not only was Setanta's coverage pretty piss poor (lost signal twice in two of LFC's games last season), their customer service was ****ing abysmal and their contract verging on the fraudulent.

So no **** them, I'm glad they've gone under. Im sorry for the people who have lost their jobs though.

Not sure I agree with that, it was only an extra subscription if you already had Sky. If you didn't have Sky but wanted to watch some football, rugby, boxing, UFC etc, you could do so for £12.99 instead of the £35 it would costs to watch sports with Sky. Some people don't even have dishes, so at least Setanta offered these people the chance to watch some decent sport for a change, for a great deal less than Sky offered. Sky even have the cheek to offer events like the Khan fights as PPV as well. They really do take the p*ss, but at least the customer service is good...

Sky cannot show everything on their 3 or 4 channels, so the amount of sports being offered (not just the EPL) is now going to be reduced.

I watched all the broadcasted LFC games on Setanta, can't remember losing signal at, but then I have a larger dish (I know there was a problem for some with the mini dish, but this was more to do with alignment).

The customer service was abysmal, I sent them a letter myself after being charged twice on the first month and they sorted it out. I take all that as teething problems and the initial large take up.

Whilst not great, it was a cheap alternative for some people to catch a bit of decent sport.

[Craig_H]

Tony, actually the terrible part was supposedly offering customers "choice" by opening up the packages to other companies when in effect all it is doing is adding another subscription onto what people were paying.

Also not only was Setanta's coverage pretty piss poor (lost signal twice in two of LFC's games last season), their customer service was ****ing abysmal and their contract verging on the fraudulent.

So no **** them, I'm glad they've gone under. Im sorry for the people who have lost their jobs though.

Aye, the problem was that while the coverage was split into six packages, the price wasnt. What should've happened was that, for argument's sake, if Sky have 4 out of 6 packages, their Sky Sports subscription charge should be two thirds of the full amount. And then the consumer could use the money they were saving, to subscribe to whichever broadcaster had the other two packages (priced at one third of the full package rate).

That didnt happen though, Sky were charging the same (or even more) for effectively only 66% of what they were offering for the same price previously. And the consumer had to then pay even more for the remaining 34% of the coverage.

[Reece]

Is that right though because wasn't it only the PPV package that Sky lost, therefore the base subscription (or what you would pay for the standard games) didn't actually change?

[Craig_H]

Is that right though because wasn't it only the PPV package that Sky lost, therefore the base subscription (or what you would pay for the standard games) didn't actually change?

That's a fair point actually.

When you put it that way, it seems not much changed then. Before Setanta, Sky had their games plus the option to subscribe to extra games.

Then Setata came along. Sky had their games and the viewer still had the option to subscribe to extra games, only this time, it was through setanta.

The option used to be £50 for all the extra games (around 50) or about £7 (was it?) on a game-by-game basis. Setanta had 46 games and it was £9.99 a month.

So you were better off with Sky PPV at £50 for the whole year if you bought that package. If you were buying them game by game, you'd probably spend about £30 on it overall (if you only went for LFC games) whereas with Setanta you'd spend £100 to have it all season.

[FatTony]

That's a fair point actually.

When you put it that way, it seems not much changed then. Before Setanta, Sky had their games plus the option to subscribe to extra games.

Then Setata came along. Sky had their games and the viewer still had the option to subscribe to extra games, only this time, it was through setanta.

The option used to be £50 for all the extra games (around 50) or about £7 (was it?) on a game-by-game basis. Setanta had 46 games and it was £9.99 a month.

So you were better off with Sky PPV at £50 for the whole year if you bought that package. If you were buying them game by game, you'd probably spend about £30 on it overall (if you only went for LFC games) whereas with Setanta you'd spend £100 to have it all season.

But Setanta wasn't just about the football was it, there were loads of other sports and the point is still being missed that people who could not afford £35a month and didn't have Sky, had an alternatve complete sports package for £12.

If you wanted PPV you still had to subscribe to Sky for a basic package, this was not the case with Setanta. So saying it would cost £50 for all the additional games when it was £100 for Setanta is not accurate. You need to add the £18 odd a month for the basic Sky sub which then allowed you to have the PPV (£266 in total).

[fah-q]

But with PPV I could choose which games I wanted to watch and not be forced to have a monthly subscription.

The bull**** about an easy in and easy out subscription was a bunch of arse too as they snuck in a connection fee and then changed their notice period to 2 months. They also put their subscription fee up to £12.99 a month without telling me.

They were cunts who had no clue and I'm glad they've gone.

[donpisci]

Should I still cancel my subscription with Setanta now they have stopped trading? I've cancelled the direct debit my end, but not sure if that's enough.

[Dr Evil]

Should I still cancel my subscription with Setanta now they have stopped trading? I've cancelled the direct debit my end, but not sure if that's enough.

The administrators have said no more payments will be taken from any subscribers.....so your money is safe

[johnly]

Righty, here's the deal with ESPN channel then. From Sky News

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/ESPN-To-Launch-New-Channel-On-3-August-To-Show-Premier-League-Games-It-Bought-After-Setanta-Collapse/Article/200907115331308?f=rss

ESPN has announced it will launch a new channel next month to show the Premier League matches whose rights it bought following the collapse of pay-TV firm Setanta.

The US company purchased the rights for 46 live games when the British arm of Setanta went into administration a month ago.

From 3 August, the new channel will offer top-flight football alongside international sports and a wide-range of premium US sports previously provided on ESPN America, which will be integrated in the UK into the new channel.

It will be made available in both standard (SD) and high definition, making the UK-based channel the firm's first HD offering in Europe.

As part of the new arrangement, Sky News owner BSkyB will retail ESPN to both its residential and commercial customers.

ESPN will be available on a premium subscription basis to all Sky homes, which means all live Barclays Premier League matches will be available in HD to Sky homes.


Sky has confirmed that Sky Sports subscribers will be able to get ESPN for £9 per month while other Sky customers will be able to subscribe from £12 per month.

Sky Sports will produce its football games, but the coverage will use dedicated ESPN graphics and analysis.

The US broadcaster also plans to create original studio shows to support football and other sports coverage.

Lynne Frank of ESPN Europe said: "We hope football and sports fans will enjoy ESPN's compelling mix of Barclays Premier League football, international sports and the best of the US sports in both SD and HD."

Mike Darcey, Sky's chief operating officer, added: "Our agreement with ESPN to retail its portfolio of sports channels ensures that we have certainty of distribution of all live Premier League matches to Sky homes, and further adds to the high-quality sports content our customers can enjoy, both in standard- and high-definition.

"We are also delighted to provide support in the form of production, advertising sales and commercial retailing."

[PTP]

right so - I currently have the full sky plus package, every channel, and will need to pay another £9 a month for ESPN

[johnly]

right so - I currently have the full sky plus package, every channel, and will need to pay another £9 a month for ESPN

That's how it sounds to me mate. Scandalous ain't it? At least they're trying to do something a bit different by making some original programming to go along with the games, but still another £9, nah!

Full subs is what £42 ish? add say HD on (£9.99) multiroom, (£9.99) and then this, wow, £72+ a month, I think not