Have Sky Sports Just Finished Vince Off?

[THTRobtaylor]

By now the dust is settling on a hugely embarrassing and potentially damaging day for WWE.

For those living in a bubble, the Network was due to go live, FREE as per the rest of the world but just 20 minutes before launch time...bang, it's gone via a tweet. No apology or reason given, no statement on it since... just an eerie uneasy silence from WWE.

Speculation was rife immediately and is somewhat being borne out that Sky, who hold the UK TV and PPV rights are to blame, perhaps going so far as to threaten to pull RAW from the air or get a legal injunction to prevent the launch.

On the surface it's "just another Network let down" but the reality could be far more damaging for both companies.

WWE made a BIG point of signing a deal with Sky earlier this year, the common misconception is that there were 4 free PPV''s included to Sky subscribers... that CHANGED this deal to all PPV being on a pay basis. So WWE were basically looking to give something free that Sky have paid for the rights to sell at $30ish. Sky are gonna have an issue. Their issue could also be related to the price point WWE set which was surprisingly kept at the US rate of £9.95 or £6.25 at present. That's actually lower than a new Netflix subscriber would pay and Sky's own NOW TV operates on a piecemeal package, the basic movies costing £8.99 a month and Sport and TV shows being on top. Sky don't do cheap...they do heavy monthly commitment in terms of pound notes.

WWE were unusually generous in the free move... it genuinely seemed their plan was to give the UK exactly what the US had, which NEVER happens.

With the UK tour next week it would have created a great feelgood factor at the arenas, particularly tapings, where fans know that even if they don't have Sky they could see themselves on TV for free. Of course next weeks shows will now probably have a very different air.

The damage to both companies is pretty bad reputation wise, Sky can only come across as the "money grabbing scum" of the situation and many who subscribe for WWE or pay for their PPV's may well boycott or cancel. When RAW can be easily streamed for free via Hulu or the network gained by VPN use for cheaper than Sky would want to charge then it's far more likely people will take that route than cough up the £15 for something they were already offered cheaper/free by the provider themselves. Sky could actually have damaged their own interests here, while not their top ratings winner due to the time of the show (the other issue with UK PPV, it's a day off work as well, making the cost more in line with the US in real terms) but there is a lot of fan recognition and goodwill that could now be lost, not to mention relations between the two companies.

It's obvious what Sky want... the Network to be either a full time Channel as in Canada or part of their NOWTV bundle. WWE of course need and require the Network to be sole owned as it's proven to be a failure with Rogers and any watered down version not including PPV's in the UK with full price at current rates is suicidal.

This is gonna affect the share price, it's going to fall cos it's another, on the surface fail on the part of WWE. Details of what went down will not be able to be kept out of the public domain as they are traded, their shareholders will have to be told...hence the uneasy silence... legal positions are being checked, double checked and remember Sky is Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox etc... so it's potentially a real "battle of the billionaires", but RM has FAR more than Vince.

"The Buck Stops" with Vince, this was his card to help save the Network concept, the UK fans, the most loyal and rabid fans outside their core business could have saved the Network, they were being given the "sweetheart" deal to do so...till the evil empire stepped in. While fans will clearly heel Sky in this, Vince also deserves a lot of the blame.. under promise, over deliver is always the best way... The UK would have griped had it been £8.99 a month and no free PPV or not this one, perhaps a later month for a lesser PPV but now they've been offered something and can't have it...they won't take anything less. Vince is very much against the "bait and switch" and regularly offers refunds to a live show if a major name doesn't appear. He probably feels awful for the UK fans and will be desperately looking for a "make up" option. The negotiations obviously went to the wire, WWE played "chicken" and lost...the damage is done and from a business perspective, Vince McMahon just lost his biggest battle yet, this was the one that had to work... the WWE network now probably cannot go global as promised... if that's the case, how long can it, or he last...

Of course there is the other option... the one that being a wrestling fan we are familiar with... Vince, like the Doctor and Steven Moffatt over at Dr. Who...lies.

The business is based on work and there have been suspicions they have worked Wall Street and investors...so are they above working the UK fans? Knowing they can't do what was intended they announce it anyway? so the climbdown seems forced and Sky the villains? Sky screwed the UK Fans is a better line than Vince screwed the UK fans or the UK fans screwed themselves. I've even seem some speculate this could all be to lower the price so Shane and his venture can sweep in and buy the company.

Whichever way you look at it, heads will roll at WWE and this time Vince might not be able to save his...especially if Sky do either rip up, force renegotiation of their deal or even sue to enforce it with damages for the attempt... Vince has already lost one round in a UK court that cost them the WWF name.

Have fun on the UK tour next week Vince... you better have something VERY good up your sleeve for RAW...

What do you all think? Are you mad, happy or indifferent? Should us "whiny Brits" be grateful we get WWE at all or be given our rightful due as their 2nd largest market?

 

[Navi]

I think both are at fault here. The reaction I'm getting from friends who live in the UK is screw the WWE and screw Sky sports. They are putting the blame squarely on the heads of the two of them.

All I know is that when the Network does launch in the UK, a lot of them who would have signed up have said fuck it. Those that really wanted it already have it through proxy servers, since it's been geolocked to them. Those that waited will either go that route or just watch it on using other means.

Neither Sky or the WWE looks too good right now, and I hear the launch there is indefinite now. Couldn't have happened at a worse time with the UK tour coming up. Expect to see irate fans at the RAW and SD tapings.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

If I understand what you wrote, it seems to me like the WWE tried to offer something that it probably couldn't have truly delivered on given its deal with Sky Sports, which you said Sky paid for the rights for. I don't see how Sky is the bad guy in that scenario. Any other company would've done the same. Sky seems to be analogous to ESPN for the most part, and so I have a feeling Sky can give a rat's ass about the damage: it's very tough on this board for folks to remember that professional wrestling is still a niche compared to other sports and entertainment businesses that it fancies itself a competitor of. Whether that is deliberate maneuvering by McMahon and company, or a fundamental lack of understanding what was feasible from a business standpoint is a matter of debate, though I tend towards the latter. I'm not dazzled by McMahon and his management as business people; they just happened to be the best of a weak lot, and people conflate wrestling acumen with business acumen FAR too easily.

Whatever happened, it sucks to be a UK WWE fan today.

 

[Luten]

I'm in the UK and since April this year I have had the Network via VPN...You have to pay about $5(about £2.50) a month - but I also get U.S netflix as a result.. Bonus.

It's the equivilant of buying a dvd player that plays any region dvd. WWE are getting my money and Sky are getting my money for Live Raws.

I recommend every fan in UK do the same if you really want it that bad.

 

[Winds-Of-Change]

Im in England and EVERY single person I know who wanted the WWE Network has said, Fuck it.

British fans are the most loyal fans you can have. Majority of us support WWE till the end of the earth through all their faults, but continue to get shafted time and time again. Being a fan in England is the most frustrating thing ever.

They have damaged SKY's reputation through no fault of SKY apparently, as they have since explained this is all WWE. Personally I have the WWE through a proxy, but there are people who illegally stream wrestling who WANT TO PAY WWE for their Network. They have WANTED TO PAY WWE for the Network since it was first announced!

The fact WWE havent even had the courtesy for offer an apology is a complete joke and this has tarnished their reputation over here big-time.

Plus the fact they rubbed salt in the wound by shoving the Network down our throat with Rusev and Sheamus is unbelievable treatment.

WWE have some making up to do to their 2nd biggest fan-base.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm thinking, though I might be wrong, that this is just a delay. I think some people are going to be understandably pissed, but I also think that a good number of them will subscribe to the network once they've had time to simmer down.

I'm also guessing that Wall Street doesn't consider this any sort of a major setback at this point. As of about 15 minutes ago, WWE stock is up roughly 9% to $13.43 per share.

 

[d_henderson1810]

By now the dust is settling on a hugely embarrassing and potentially damaging day for WWE.

For those living in a bubble, the Network was due to go live, FREE as per the rest of the world but just 20 minutes before launch time...bang, it's gone via a tweet. No apology or reason given, no statement on it since... just an eerie uneasy silence from WWE.

Speculation was rife immediately and is somewhat being borne out that Sky, who hold the UK TV and PPV rights are to blame, perhaps going so far as to threaten to pull RAW from the air or get a legal injunction to prevent the launch.

On the surface it's "just another Network let down" but the reality could be far more damaging for both companies.

WWE made a BIG point of signing a deal with Sky earlier this year, the common misconception is that there were 4 free PPV''s included to Sky subscribers... that CHANGED this deal to all PPV being on a pay basis. So WWE were basically looking to give something free that Sky have paid for the rights to sell at $30ish. Sky are gonna have an issue. Their issue could also be related to the price point WWE set which was surprisingly kept at the US rate of £9.95 or £6.25 at present. That's actually lower than a new Netflix subscriber would pay and Sky's own NOW TV operates on a piecemeal package, the basic movies costing £8.99 a month and Sport and TV shows being on top. Sky don't do cheap...they do heavy monthly commitment in terms of pound notes.

WWE were unusually generous in the free move... it genuinely seemed their plan was to give the UK exactly what the US had, which NEVER happens.

With the UK tour next week it would have created a great feelgood factor at the arenas, particularly tapings, where fans know that even if they don't have Sky they could see themselves on TV for free. Of course next weeks shows will now probably have a very different air.

The damage to both companies is pretty bad reputation wise, Sky can only come across as the "money grabbing scum" of the situation and many who subscribe for WWE or pay for their PPV's may well boycott or cancel. When RAW can be easily streamed for free via Hulu or the network gained by VPN use for cheaper than Sky would want to charge then it's far more likely people will take that route than cough up the £15 for something they were already offered cheaper/free by the provider themselves. Sky could actually have damaged their own interests here, while not their top ratings winner due to the time of the show (the other issue with UK PPV, it's a day off work as well, making the cost more in line with the US in real terms) but there is a lot of fan recognition and goodwill that could now be lost, not to mention relations between the two companies.

It's obvious what Sky want... the Network to be either a full time Channel as in Canada or part of their NOWTV bundle. WWE of course need and require the Network to be sole owned as it's proven to be a failure with Rogers and any watered down version not including PPV's in the UK with full price at current rates is suicidal.

This is gonna affect the share price, it's going to fall cos it's another, on the surface fail on the part of WWE. Details of what went down will not be able to be kept out of the public domain as they are traded, their shareholders will have to be told...hence the uneasy silence... legal positions are being checked, double checked and remember Sky is Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox etc... so it's potentially a real "battle of the billionaires", but RM has FAR more than Vince.

"The Buck Stops" with Vince, this was his card to help save the Network concept, the UK fans, the most loyal and rabid fans outside their core business could have saved the Network, they were being given the "sweetheart" deal to do so...till the evil empire stepped in. While fans will clearly heel Sky in this, Vince also deserves a lot of the blame.. under promise, over deliver is always the best way... The UK would have griped had it been £8.99 a month and no free PPV or not this one, perhaps a later month for a lesser PPV but now they've been offered something and can't have it...they won't take anything less. Vince is very much against the "bait and switch" and regularly offers refunds to a live show if a major name doesn't appear. He probably feels awful for the UK fans and will be desperately looking for a "make up" option. The negotiations obviously went to the wire, WWE played "chicken" and lost...the damage is done and from a business perspective, Vince McMahon just lost his biggest battle yet, this was the one that had to work... the WWE network now probably cannot go global as promised... if that's the case, how long can it, or he last...

Of course there is the other option... the one that being a wrestling fan we are familiar with... Vince, like the Doctor and Steven Moffatt over at Dr. Who...lies.

The business is based on work and there have been suspicions they have worked Wall Street and investors...so are they above working the UK fans? Knowing they can't do what was intended they announce it anyway? so the climbdown seems forced and Sky the villains? Sky screwed the UK Fans is a better line than Vince screwed the UK fans or the UK fans screwed themselves. I've even seem some speculate this could all be to lower the price so Shane and his venture can sweep in and buy the company.

Whichever way you look at it, heads will roll at WWE and this time Vince might not be able to save his...especially if Sky do either rip up, force renegotiation of their deal or even sue to enforce it with damages for the attempt... Vince has already lost one round in a UK court that cost them the WWF name.

Have fun on the UK tour next week Vince... you better have something VERY good up your sleeve for RAW...

What do you all think? Are you mad, happy or indifferent? Should us "whiny Brits" be grateful we get WWE at all or be given our rightful due as their 2nd largest market?

All Vince has to do is wait out Sky's contract with WWE to show WWE contract. After that date, WWE can refuse to allow Sky to show any more footage, which they can do, because WWE holds copyright on all footage.

So, Vince can threaten Sky to comply, or miss out on any WWE whatsoever down the track.

I think WWE's plan is to eventually have WWE footage ONLY on the Network. You want to watch Raw, SD, PPVs etc, then subscribe or miss out.

Ultimately, WWE hold all the cards. Cable companies will only have WWE footage if WWE wants them to. These cable companies might be throwing their weight around now (and they have every right to protect their interests) but they don't want to cut off their nose to spite their face, so Sky and others need to keep in good with WWE.

 

[d_henderson1810]

If I understand what you wrote, it seems to me like the WWE tried to offer something that it probably couldn't have truly delivered on given its deal with Sky Sports, which you said Sky paid for the rights for. I don't see how Sky is the bad guy in that scenario. Any other company would've done the same. Sky seems to be analogous to ESPN for the most part, and so I have a feeling Sky can give a rat's ass about the damage: it's very tough on this board for folks to remember that professional wrestling is still a niche compared to other sports and entertainment businesses that it fancies itself a competitor of. Whether that is deliberate maneuvering by McMahon and company, or a fundamental lack of understanding what was feasible from a business standpoint is a matter of debate, though I tend towards the latter. I'm not dazzled by McMahon and his management as business people; they just happened to be the best of a weak lot, and people conflate wrestling acumen with business acumen FAR too easily
Whatever happened, it sucks to be a UK WWE fan today.

Then I wonder if Sky will give a rat's, once the contract is up, and WWE removes all WWE content from Sky, and Sky can do nothing about it.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Im in England and EVERY single person I know who wanted the WWE Network has said, Fuck it.

British fans are the most loyal fans you can have. Majority of us support WWE till the end of the earth through all their faults, but continue to get shafted time and time again. Being a fan in England is the most frustrating thing ever.

They have damaged SKY's reputation through no fault of SKY apparently, as they have since explained this is all WWE. Personally I have the WWE through a proxy, but there are people who illegally stream wrestling who WANT TO PAY WWE for their Network. They have WANTED TO PAY WWE for the Network since it was first announced!

The fact WWE havent even had the courtesy for offer an apology is a complete joke and this has tarnished their reputation over here big-time.

Plus the fact they rubbed salt in the wound by shoving the Network down our throat with Rusev and Sheamus is unbelievable treatment.

WWE have some making up to do to their 2nd biggest fan-base.

If they WANTED to pay WWE for the Network, then why steal for free WWE content.

If you could access it for free before, why would you stop to pay money to see the same thing. Conscience obviously doesn't come into it.

How dare WWE shove the Network down your throats. I mean, what company doesn't promote itself at any opportunity. Have you ever seen sponsorship signs at wrestling events? Aren't those companies shoving their brand down your throat as well.

If people want the Network, they will buy the Network regardless. If they don't based on one hiccup, they probably wouldn't stick to it long-term anyway, as they would quit as soon as they find something they don't like about the Network.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Then I wonder if Sky will give a rat's, once the contract is up, and WWE removes all WWE content from Sky, and Sky can do nothing about it.

I sincerely doubt that Sky lives or dies by the WWE's content. However, the WWE entered into an agreement with them, so tough titties.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I sincerely doubt that Sky lives or dies by the WWE's content. However, the WWE entered into an agreement with them, so tough titties.

No-one enters into a contract unless they get something out of it. So, Sky must WANT WWE content, or they never would have agreed to air Raw, SD etc.

Sure, Sky will live without WWE content, but they wouldn't show it, or put up such a fight with WWE, if they didn't think WWE rated. Raw and SD must rate on Sky, or else they would off-load it to WWE, and go on without it. So, they are invested in WWE, so they will take a hit if Vince played hard-ball.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

No-one enters into a contract unless they get something out of it. So, Sky must WANT WWE content, or they never would have agreed to air Raw, SD etc.

Sure, Sky will live without WWE content, but they wouldn't show it, or put up such a fight with WWE, if they didn't think WWE rated. Raw and SD must rate on Sky, or else they would off-load it to WWE, and go on without it. So, they are invested in WWE, so they will take a hit if Vince played hard-ball.

I'm sure there's a net positive for them but if the WWE Network were to undercut them and hurt their profit, why the heck would they sit still for it? I'm pretty sure Sky isn't drooling like a puppy dog for their content.

Again, wrestling fans thinking the WWE is some big fish in the entertainment industry.

 

[Crispin Noir]

I think WWE's plan is to eventually have WWE footage ONLY on the Network. You want to watch Raw, SD, PPVs etc, then subscribe or miss out.

in no way will WWE ever want to exclusively show Raw and Smackdown on the Network. How on earth do you maintain a fanbase and have a constant flow of new fans buying into your product by showing it exclusively to current fans. If WWE ever does this they're dead in the water and deservedly so. They could offer a free tv showing every now and then but that still limits a business that has sucha desperate need for casual fans too much.

 

[Navi]

I'm sure there's a net positive for them but if the WWE Network were to undercut them and hurt their profit, why the heck would they sit still for it? I'm pretty sure Sky isn't drooling like a puppy dog for their content.

Again, wrestling fans thinking the WWE is some big fish in the entertainment industry.

The UK wrestling fan base is enormous, not as big as the US, but it is number 2 in the world. They have followed this product since the beginning and have supported it through thick and thin. I feel sorry for them that they have waited so long been given nothing in return.

As I said before most already have the Network through proxy servers, and I wonder just how much of the numbers that are already in are UK proxies in action.

The big problem here is Sky Box Office. If you subscribe to that then you get 4 free PPV's out of the 12 each year. Sky would lose a lot of money if fans subscribed to the Network and not Box Office. Like others have suggested though all McMahon has to do is wait out the contract and then he's in the drivers seat.

We here in Canada have the network through two cable channels, and while we don't get all the content offered yet, it is coming and we're patient to wait. RAW and SD however, we watch on Sportsnet 360 and only see old reruns on the network.

I really hope this can be resolved, but you have two powerhouses going at it, and the losers here are the fans. I would love to be in the UK next week it will be crazy.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

I'd like to address a few misnomers.

Firstly the idea that several have mentioned that if you subscribe to Sky Box Office you get 4/12 ppv events free. But they aren't free, they are on Sky Sports, which is a premium channel. Basically the way it works per here is there is a basic Sky package for £x amount per month; to get Sky Movies and/or Sky Sports there is a premium surcharge per month (not sure what it is now but in the Attitude Era days it was nearly £50, or US$80, per month.) on top of that, the 8 ppvs on Sky Box Office are another £15-20 ($24-32) per show - so to what the full year of WWE programming on Sky costs approximately £725, or US$1,153! (That's assuming Sky Sports' price has remained static.)

That's an insane amount of money to spend for your wrestling fix.

For a couple of years, Channel 4, one of the free-to-watch UK terrestrial channels, carried four ppvs per year, starting with the 2000 Royal Rumble. The problem was though, they also only aired Sunday Night Heat, so couldn't adequately promote or draw for these ppvs.

Hence, Sky have largely held a monopoly on WWE wrestling programming in the UK. Monopolies are actually illegal in European Union law, a fact which Sky are well aware of, as Sky got big on the back of televising the English Premier League football (soccer) matches, yet a few years back, judges ruled that they had to share the tv rights so as to break up their monopoly, first with Setanta, then ESPN and now BT Sport. This is the precedent that WWE can follow, irrespective of wording of their contract with Sky - if the Sky-WWE contract implies a monopoly, it could effectively be rendered null and void in a court of law.

Also, I'd like to think that a business as savy as Sky would have been aware of the WWE Network during the contract negotiations for their latest contract, as I'm pretty sure (though stand to be corrected) that the contract was signed AFTER the US launch. As others have said on this thread, Sky simply wouldn't buy the rights for WWE, and certainly not bother with the ppvs, if they didn't get any viewers/buyers, and it is public knowledge that the UK fan base is the largest outside of North America. Sky HAD to be aware that WWE eventually planned an international expansion programme for it's Network, and should have addressed this on the negotiating stage.

Overall I've no sympathy for Sky here, and every sympathy for WWE.

I hope that insight has helped a few people understand the way WWE programming is aired over here.

 

[FromGlasgow]

They need to put the WWE shows on free TV, When TNA has a much higher rating than the WWE in this country because TNA is on free TV proves it, Being a long term WWE fan I have been unable to afford the expensive sky sports package to watch the WWE and instead stuck with the crappy one hour highlight morning show WWE Experiance.

 

[Un-Bo-Lievable Jeff]

Everything you have said is completely your own opinion and pure speculation at this point

Is there any evidence at all to back up anything you have said about Sky or the WWE in regards to the UK launch?

 

[Sheamus' Suntan]

As a paying sky sports customer, I'm actually quite happy with this. I don't mind that the Network hasn't launched yet. The quality of the PPV's lately (minusing THAT hell in a cell match) have been lacking and I've not wanted to buy entire PPV's to feel like I've been let down by another lackluster show. £15 a show is quite a lot when it's failing to provide more than a head shake and a tut and sigh.

Saying that, the deal for the Network IS amazing and I likely would pay the £6 or so, but Sky have rights due to the contract they have. I'd actually imagine it's more to do with the PPV shows than RAW. Keeping RAW on TV makes sense (Though make no mistake, it's NOT free. Sky sports as a package is very expensive. I have Sky sports, solely for football/soccer and WWE.)

I can imagine a LOT of wrestling fans will drop Sky sports in favour of the Network. That would piss Sky off. That's revenue that's being dropped because the WWE are undercutting them. When you're paying £6 a month for the WHOLE package, you're paying for the PPV's. RAW and other content comes across as free in my eyes. You're paying next to nothing in comparison to a very very high amount (Sky sports as a package plus £15 a ppv. A sky package with sky sports registers at about £38.)

No wonder, if Sky have put the brakes on WWE for the Network, as to why. WWE offer it at £6. Sky - £53 per PPV. Sky WILL be losing money. Not a massive amount, but it's already been noted. The UK are WWE's (and Wrestling's) 2nd biggest fanbase.


I'ma take Wrestlemania 30 now...
Buying figures suggest 690,000 buys worldwide for the PPV.
US markets (North America) made up 424,000 of these. That leaves 266,000.

(http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/wwe-2006-2013-ppv-numbers-and-lengthy.html)

Remaining viable markets for WWE after NA would be: UK, Japan, Mexico, Europe and Canada. Being realistic...that's it. There's no other MAJOR markets. But just in case...I'll call a rough 5% on any "other" viewers, like armed forces. That leaves 252,700 buys. Now here's where it gets sketchy. I can't distinguish the markets and how big each one is, so I'm going to divide by 5. This is assuming Japan, Mexico, UK and Europe make up 20% each of WWE's market. They likely DON'T. UK and Canada likely take a lot more than the others.

That's a solid 50,540 buys. At £53 (the price of Sky sports plus the price of the PPV), That's £2,678,620.

WWE will stand, from £6 a month to make £320,240 from the same amount of buys. That makes Sky's net profit from the Sky sports package and the PPV, at over £2,000,000. Now, I know people don't buy Sky sports JUST for WWE. But if they have Sky sports, and they are a wrestling fan, they likely WILL buy Wrestlemania. So they'll be paying top whack for it.

If Sky HAVE put the dampeners on the Network, I think it's clear as to why. Very clear.

 

[Winds-Of-Change]

If they WANTED to pay WWE for the Network, then why steal for free WWE content.

Think about it. They stream it illegally because they have no other choice, moron.

 

[sMark]

If they WANTED to pay WWE for the Network, then why steal for free WWE content.

If you could access it for free before, why would you stop to pay money to see the same thing. Conscience obviously doesn't come into it.

You really miss the pont here - there are fans who don't want/can't pay 60$ for every single PPV, but 10$ a month is fine with them.
There are people who understand that if you like some content, you should pay for it, so the guy behind it will get your money and make of this content , but they think the price (60$) is way too high.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

You really miss the pont here - there are fans who don't want/can't pay 60$ for every single PPV, but 10$ a month is fine with them.
There are people who understand that if you like some content, you should pay for it, so the guy behind it will get your money and make of this content , but they think the price (60$) is way too high.

You've just accurately described me - I am not in a position, and also simply not willing, to pay £40 per month to Sky Sports. Hence I have no legitimate access to WWE programming in the UK until it is released on DVD. So I mainly watch via YouTube or Daily Motion, having what seems like a race, monthly, against WWE before they get it pulled for breach of copyright.

If and when the Network is finally available here, I will 100% sign up, $10 a month I can more than justify, and as you say, goes straight to WWE, not Sky. It also means I can watch the ppvs either live or a replay without struggling to find a decent illegal copy on YouTube (for example several are cropped wrong, some are in parts, and the only watchable version of Extreme Rules i found was with Spanish commentary, and I speak English!)

Roll on the arrival of the Network to the UK!

 

[makaay07]

Anyone who doesn't blame wwe here is completely delusional. Sky just signedan eexclusive contract to show wwe contact in the uk and Ireland in the last 6 weeks.

Wwe surely knew then they wanted to launch the network over here at the time. Yet they still signed the contract for an awful lot more money than the previous deal. Then tried to launch the network which would give away for free the same content sky has already bought. Think about this for a second you go into a shop buy something but as your collecting it the person in the shop gives it away to someone else free. You kick off show your receipt and take the item. Who is to blame? You? For standing up for what was agreed? I don't think so. Wwe promised us something they could not provide, something they had already sold. Then when they couldn't fulfill their unrealistic promise we blame sky?

I get there is a lot of sky haters. They blame sky for everything. But time to wake up folks. Vinny mac has f@cked us right over.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

When the PPV providers are the same company as the cable network which air RAW, you're always going to have this problem. WWE pissed off a lot of the US PPV providers by essentially doing it themselves with the WWE Network over the top model.

Well Rogers wouldn't let them do that in Canada, since they own Sportsnet, which airs RAW. Securing those new TV deals was huge for WWE, and gives these cable companies a ton of leverage since they own both the sports networks AND are the PPV provider. SO instead theres no over the top model in Canada. It's a channel just like any other speciality channel they own, which also gives you access to a limited on-demand library. Not the same breadth of content as in the USA, but for a HIGHER monthly price. Obviously Rogers is getting a cut of this since they own all of the WWE licensing rights in Canada.

Also it's not necessarily available for non-Rogers customers. Rogers said they'd license it out to any other cable carrier who wants to pay Rogers to carry WWE. But obviously a lot of competitor carriers are hesitant to do this, especially if there is only minimal demand. Meaning WWE is only reaching a fraction of the population in Canada.

Sky is doing exactly what Rogers did. From their standpoint, it's the right move financially. It really hurts WWE and their ability to grow their subscriber base, but they backed themselves into this corner with the RAW and SD deal.

 

[d_henderson1810]

WWE don't need these cable companies any more. They now have a new outlet to show their stuff- WWE Network.

Vince now holds all the cards- comply or else, when it is time to renegotiate a contract, there won't be one on offer.

Sky Sports needs WWE more than WWE needs it.

 

[d_henderson1810]

in no way will WWE ever want to exclusively show Raw and Smackdown on the Network. How on earth do you maintain a fanbase and have a constant flow of new fans buying into your product by showing it exclusively to current fans. If WWE ever does this they're dead in the water and deservedly so. They could offer a free tv showing every now and then but that still limits a business that has sucha desperate need for casual fans too much.

Only wrestling fans will buy Network anyway. I doubt many new converts will.

Besides, I think that the wrestling fanbase has probably expanded as far as it will go. New fans coming on board, with everything else on offer, is likely to be limited. WWE's been around over 30 years. If you are not on board now, it is unlikely you will ever be,

Secondly, what a better way to force people into buying the Network then making all WWE content exclusive to it. It is like a druglord who controls all the supplies of drugs to junkies. If you want your WWE "fix", you will have to buy the Network. WWE is only still on TV because there are contracts in place.

Even if new TV contracts are renegotiated,WWE holds the whip hand. If a cable company gets too demanding, WWE can just forgo them and focus on all the other stations who do want it.