Have Sky Sports Just Finished Vince Off?

[d_henderson1810]

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

So, you think someone will pay $9.95 a month for something they could get for FREE previously!

If you think that, then you are the moron!

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

Taking this discussion in a different direction, if I were WWE's board of directors, if seriously consider selling time slots on the Network to other wrestling companies. Let's take TNA *as an example* and say WWE offers them the opportunity to rent a weekly spot to showcase Impact. TNA instantly get a potential lift in exposure, which may benefit their ppv sales and live events attendances, and WWE get more programming for their Network, money for it from the renting company, and opens up potential new strands of subscribers, as there's plenty who will happily pay $9.99 per month to see Impact weekly plus the big WWE ppvs or back catalogue.

I see WWE as the natural archivist for professional wrestling in North America anyway - they hold the majority of wrestling footage from the second half of the 20th century in the US and Canada - so this would be the logical extension of that.

The impasse between WWE and Sky may have pissed off the UK fans, but there's still a LONG way to go before Vince/WWE are finished

 

[stingray11214]

What people need to understand is that the WWE Network is little more than a vanity project for Vince. Though it was planned for years, its execution was as messed up as the XFL was. The XFL, of course, was another VKM vanity production. As I have said before, and I will say it again, you are basically paying $9.99 for the privilege of watching NXT and Superstars. Most of the other content can be gotten for the low, low price of FREE on YouTube. You want to watch matches from yesteryear that you care about? Youtube it! Total Divas are repeats. MNW are WWE's spin on events. You are paying $9.99 for the PPV's? That is why they are Sunday Night RAWs now. If you split the $9.99 between Superstars, NXT and the PPV's, it is $3.33 per product. Why go through all the nonsense just to hand Vince a latte a month when you can stream the PPV for free?

Now, why is the WWE persuing it? Answer: the Titan Towers Gang have SHAREHOLDERS to answer to. It is not like TNA, which is a private company. VKM has to fight the good fight with Sky and other providers just to keep the shareholders happy. To do that, I agree strongly with Wrestlinaholic that the Network NEEDS to lease time to other companies. Do they REALLY thnk people want to see old clips of Cody Rhodes' "Grooming Tips"? Saturday and Sunday could be all-day matches. NJPW, All Japan, Big Japan, even the female promotions like JD Star, World Wonder Ring Stardom, and little girls wrestling for Ice Ribbon (IR is notorious for kids wrestling). You could have the European promotions, as well as the US Indy promotions. And, guess what? The Network would pay for itself. Not to contradict d_henderson, but if you give a product that cannot be accessible easily anywhere else, people would have no problem paying for it. And, the wrestling fan base is bigger than you think. They just will not shell out hard earned cash when they see that they will get little for it.

 

[strangephish]

Read this from another site, doesn't sound so good for the UK fanbase...

A Rajah.com reader contacted Sky Sports customer service and was informed that WWE Network will be launching as a cable channel on Sky Sports (not an over the top digital network), similar to channel's availability in Canada via Rogers Communications. The Sky Sports customer service rep stated:

"Yes, we will launch it as a channel with Sky TV. Currently we don't have any details but it will be going to be soon... And you will will be notified by adv, email or call."

When asked directly if the WWE Network will be a cable channel and not available online as it is in the United States, the Sky Sports rep said, "Yes, that is correct."

WWE has yet to comment on the situation.​

Pulled this from another site so not sure how real it is but wanted to pass it along

 

[Dilligaf]

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.

Well then we have to wait 5 years for that, because it dont run out until 2019.

So, you think someone will pay $9.95 a month for something they could get for FREE previously!

If you think that, then you are the moron!

I used to have Sky Sports JUST, to watch WWE twice a week.

At the height of my subscription, I was paying £60 a month.

But when I had to tighten my belt, I had to re-vert back to basic+ which is currently £27, but to re-subscribe it will cost me nearly £70 as Sky are putting their prices up & along with the £14.95 for the PPV im would be paying £84 a month just to watch WWE.

Shoot me now for saying this......

So what did I do, I resorted to torrents & I have had a lot of flak from my so-called friends at work they say im robbing Sky TV & Vince McMahon of millions of pounds in lost revenue & it isMy Fault for Sky TV having to put prices up all the time, even though they illegally download themselves & download way more that I do.

They download the latest TV shows & Films free & Illegal using apps such as Showbot, but all I download is Raw, SD & the ppv, but its ok for them do do it illegally, but as I get 20p extra an hour for being a "Supervisor" its wrong & I should pay Sky's rip-off price.

I know.....I know, im just as bad as them & I hate the fact I have to resort to DL'ing WWE, but with all the piss-taking ive had off em this week, ive decided to wait on the results of Sky & WWE's talks & hopefully we will get the full network on streaming but we will have to pay what Sky will charge for the PPV (14.95) id rather pay Vince £14.95 than resorting to DL'ing, yes i'll be a month behind on Raw & SD on the network, but it saves having to illegally doing it anymore.

Ive heard about this VPN lark, but to set it up on my console, apparently according to Unlocator id have to buy a USA Xbox Live Sub, but I already have my UK Sub but I cannot afford to pay for 2 live subs, as this years sub was a christmas present.

Any advice about the VPN (as im not technically minded) would be gratefully received.

 

[Navi]

Read this from another site, doesn't sound so good for the UK fanbase...

A Rajah.com reader contacted Sky Sports customer service and was informed that WWE Network will be launching as a cable channel on Sky Sports (not an over the top digital network), similar to channel's availability in Canada via Rogers Communications. The Sky Sports customer service rep stated:

"Yes, we will launch it as a channel with Sky TV. Currently we don't have any details but it will be going to be soon... And you will will be notified by adv, email or call."

When asked directly if the WWE Network will be a cable channel and not available online as it is in the United States, the Sky Sports rep said, "Yes, that is correct."

WWE has yet to comment on the situation.​

Pulled this from another site so not sure how real it is but wanted to pass it along

I live in Toronto, and have the network through Rogers Cable. It's quite frankly not all that bad, so I don't see why everyone is saying it is.

No we don't yet have all the content that's available, but they are uploading new content to the on demand channel every month. With the live streaming channel and the on demand channel, we can watch a lot of wrestling, a lot of it.

I work full time and my son works part time, and he still hasn't gotten through all that's available yet, and we've had it since it launched in August. For PPV quality it can't be beat. We have no lag, no freezing and it doesn't effect our download limit which is 370GB a month.

We could have used a proxy and got the US version but quite happy with the two channels so I don't see the issue.

 

[rge2010]

1 - WWE agree a deal where Sky Sports PAY to carry their programming on a subscription basis and sell their PPV's

2 - WWE decide to launch a Network offering subscribers a price point of £6.66 a month that includes the above, bar Raw & Smackdown, plus other content.

3 - Sky step in citing this is unfair practise.

4 - Sky get their way, the OTT service is dismantled and the UK universe get a watered down version 'on demand' at a higher price point.

4th hasnt happened yet but I bet it will. Awful decision by WWE to allow Sky to sign the original deal. Didn't they inform them or did they think they could just pull a fast one?

The only person who suffers here is the UK viewer - especially in the pocket because if Sky are involved there is NO WAY that PPV's will be included in this package. That is the selling point and they will rip the heart out of the concept if they do this.

An utter fucking shambles.

 

[rge2010]

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.

Are you serious? Sky Sports does not need WWE at all. Their bread and butter is the Premier League. That accounts for around 80% of their subscriptions with other sports like Rugby, Cricket and Golf thrown in.

WWE needs Sky much much more. The terrestrial TV Channels wouldn't touch WWE with a barge pole at the prices WWE sell their programming at, nor do they do PPV TV.

WWE's only other alternative out there is the relatively new BT Sports. If WWE want to broadcast their programming to the UK public they need Sky Sports.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Are you serious? Sky Sports does not need WWE at all. Their bread and butter is the Premier League. That accounts for around 80% of their subscriptions with other sports like Rugby, Cricket and Golf thrown in.

WWE needs Sky much much more. The terrestrial TV Channels wouldn't touch WWE with a barge pole at the prices WWE sell their programming at, nor do they do PPV TV.

WWE's only other alternative out there is the relatively new BT Sports. If WWE want to broadcast their programming to the UK public they need Sky Sports.

Incorrect...

Sky ABSOLUTELY have to fight this because there is another spectre rearing it's head...and losing this battle to WWE would empower it.

The whole "rights" issue as a whole is starting to be looked at quite seriously by various agencies, especially related to the Premier League. The whole "price of football" study recently highlighted the inequity in how Sky's right's affect the game for consumers and there could soon be governmental moves to limit this or to force an opening of the issue for debate in Parliment to extend how the existing system, where some games must be available on "free TV" and one group not being allowed to own all Prem matches even further. Same for F1, some races have to be shown on BBC still.

Of course the Prem works differently to say how it works in Spain's La Liga, where each club negotiates it's own TV deals. The clubs want this, so they can make more money themselves...but Sky jealously defends the "package" system. It pays the Premier League a massive sum for those rights and wants full value for them.

While it didn't pay WWE as much, it paid for the rights on the same basis... It was for EVERYTHING and WWE didn't shirk from taking that large payment for those rights, indeed it trumpeted it from the rooftops.

If Sky don't fight for the WWE rights now, let the "Network" go so to speak, then very soon Chelsea, Man City and Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are gonna start demanding a change in the rules to allow them to make their own deals and with the public being far more in favour of choice... that is a very slippery slope for Sky to go down. They might have to eventually, but they're not going to contribute to their own downfall.

PPV in the UK is a dead horse but if anyone is gonna flog it it's Mr. Murdoch. Football failed on PPV here cos people wouldn't pay £6 for a Sunday tea time match. Who really is gonna pay £15 for a PPV at 1am when they have to work the next day or the same to watch a replay when spoilers are already rife? No one.

There is a simple and easy solution... they operate Now TV, which is basically the Network for movies, their sport. There is only why WWE Network couldn't still be "Over The Top" but part of that with a perhaps slightly higher subscription than planned of say £9.99 a month...with a revenue split between the two companies.

Problem is WWE needed this to be FULLY in their control to meet what they've already said to investors... if WWE allowed this, they've already lost the branding, the infrastructure would be through SKY and it's almost not worth doing...they may as well, if ceding that much control, go with the Channel idea and accept that the UK fans are not gonna like it. Perhaps when that fails and PPV buys decline, it then gives them the ammo to renegotiate with Sky. Sky could mitigate the whole thing by lowering the other PPV prices other than the traditional "big 4" or returning to the "free to subscribers" model it previously had. While WWE isn't the "biggest thing " on Sky, a lot of subscribers do predominantly get Sky for WWE... if they quit then Sky do take a hit.

Vince's apology probably was genuine, but it very much seems like a resigned to "screwing the UK people so apologise now" one than a "we're gonna make this up to you and you won't lose out" one.

If there is a WWE or Network by the time the deal expires with Sky then they can do as they like.

WWE failed on Channel 4 not because of the prices but cos it was the back end of the Attitude era and was not PG programming. There is no reason an ITV, Channel 5 or another Freeview channel wouldn't be interested in WWE in it's current PG format. The only ones out the running are the BBC.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

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.

That's 100% false.

A huge chunk of WWE's revenue comes from their TV deals. That's why it was so critical when they announced their new TV broadcasting deals with USA Network, Rogers in Canada and Sky in the UK. It's also why their stock plummeted when the value of these deals was far less than what their shareholders anticipated. RAW draws 4 million viewers on USA. The Network has less than 750K subscribers. WWE NEEDS these cable companies. They're in a vulnerable position since they now have no leverage when it comes to sacrificing their TV partner's PPV revenue.

Are you serious? Sky Sports does not need WWE at all. Their bread and butter is the Premier League. That accounts for around 80% of their subscriptions with other sports like Rugby, Cricket and Golf thrown in.

WWE needs Sky much much more. The terrestrial TV Channels wouldn't touch WWE with a barge pole at the prices WWE sell their programming at, nor do they do PPV TV.

WWE's only other alternative out there is the relatively new BT Sports. If WWE want to broadcast their programming to the UK public they need Sky Sports.

This guy gets it. It's the same thing in Canada. Rogers doesn't need WWE at all. Their bread and butter is the NHL from a cable perspective. WWE barely cracks what the NHL pulls in for them. Not to mention they're a triple play carrier who are also the leader in wireless and internet business in addition to being a cable monopoly. NOT to mention they OWN the Toronto Blue Jays and half of the Toronto Maple Leafs (who alone are worth just about as much as WWE). That's why WWE is bending over to not piss off their TV partners.

 

[Dilligaf]

When it comes to any sport, Sky has to get their greedy hands on it.

I remember that Bernie Ecclestone said in 2011 F1 would ALWAYS be on free-to-air TV in the UK (BBC), then Sky came in with the megabucks & in the 2012 season its on Sky & BBC only show half the races live, but still have the money to send the presenters to the races just to present highlights.

My wife cancelled our Sky Subscription, the operator asked why & she told them about the blocking of the WWE Network & the operator said your the 60th person today who's cancelled today because of the WWE Network.

We have gone to Virgin & because we already have our phone & broadband with them, we are now saving £20 a month by having all 3 services with Virgin.

Ive now got WWE Network via a VPN & a USA PS3 account, & im loving it.

VPN is $6.19 (£4) a month & with the network it'll cost me just under £11 a month all told, once the November free is up.

At the end of the day id rather pay Vince directly & the early indications are that Sky are going to offer the network like in Canada on Sky Sports, so the UK fans are going to go VPN crazy.

UP YOURS SKY!!!!!

 

[joey414]

When it comes to any sport, Sky has to get their greedy hands on it.

I remember that Bernie Ecclestone said in 2011 F1 would ALWAYS be on free-to-air TV in the UK (BBC), then Sky came in with the megabucks & in the 2012 season its on Sky & BBC only show half the races live, but still have the money to send the presenters to the races just to present highlights.

My wife cancelled our Sky Subscription, the operator asked why & she told them about the blocking of the WWE Network & the operator said your the 60th person today who's cancelled today because of the WWE Network.

We have gone to Virgin & because we already have our phone & broadband with them, we are now saving £20 a month by having all 3 services with Virgin.

Ive now got WWE Network via a VPN & a USA PS3 account, & im loving it.

VPN is $6.19 (£4) a month & with the network it'll cost me just under £11 a month all told, once the November free is up.

At the end of the day id rather pay Vince directly & the early indications are that Sky are going to offer the network like in Canada on Sky Sports, so the UK fans are going to go VPN crazy.

UP YOURS SKY!!!!!

that is genius, i was pissed that sky had knackered my chance to get network, if virgin media soloution works, you my friend deserve a medal

Sky can suck it

 

[Straightfromthehart]

Who in their rite mind would pay for sky sports just for wrestling? It's two shows a week pretty much. And with all the streaming sites around that's just madness, I have sky sports mainly for football, boxing and golf the wwe is a bonus I suppose, although can't remembered the last time I watched raw or smackdown on it coz of the time. So don't have any sympathy with anyone who pays for sky sports just for wwe, sorry.

In regards to people blaming sky for this scenario again are you out of your mind? Does no one see the total and utter arrogance of the wwe in what has taken place. This has nothing to do with the online streaming service or raw and smackdown for that matter. It's to do with the EXCLUSIVE deal they agreed with sky to broadcast their ppv's. It's a contract of law.

Clearly no deal had been done with sky in regards to the network, the raw and smackdown right aren't as important due to the fact that they are not live on the network and only available a few weeks after so there is no real conflict of interest with sky, but the ppv's this is a big one, down to one thing, costing. As has already been said the ppv cost in the uk is £15. But the network was willing to give you this for £6.99ish with all the on demand library too. It's a no brainer, and would truly damage the ppv income that sky received whatever the amount. And sky hold the exclusive rights over these ppv's.

So even though no deal had been agreed upon, the wwe still decided to announce a launch date. Arrogance beyond belief as it seems the wwe thought they could just keep the uk launch low key and sky wouldn't realise what they were doing, which was actually going to breaking the law by airing (ironically) their own product illegally. Did they really think sky would accept that.

No don't get me wrong I am no lover of sky, the monopoly hey have over the market is a disgrace and the price they charge especially for the sports channels is outrageous, But what company in the world would allow that to happen? You don't sell someone exclusive rights to something to then go and try and sell it cheaper yourself. Again illegal. WWE 100% at fault for this.

 

[rge2010]

Incorrect...

Sky ABSOLUTELY have to fight this because there is another spectre rearing it's head...and losing this battle to WWE would empower it.

The whole "rights" issue as a whole is starting to be looked at quite seriously by various agencies, especially related to the Premier League. The whole "price of football" study recently highlighted the inequity in how Sky's right's affect the game for consumers and there could soon be governmental moves to limit this or to force an opening of the issue for debate in Parliment to extend how the existing system, where some games must be available on "free TV" and one group not being allowed to own all Prem matches even further. Same for F1, some races have to be shown on BBC still.

Of course the Prem works differently to say how it works in Spain's La Liga, where each club negotiates it's own TV deals. The clubs want this, so they can make more money themselves...but Sky jealously defends the "package" system. It pays the Premier League a massive sum for those rights and wants full value for them.

While it didn't pay WWE as much, it paid for the rights on the same basis... It was for EVERYTHING and WWE didn't shirk from taking that large payment for those rights, indeed it trumpeted it from the rooftops.

If Sky don't fight for the WWE rights now, let the "Network" go so to speak, then very soon Chelsea, Man City and Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are gonna start demanding a change in the rules to allow them to make their own deals and with the public being far more in favour of choice... that is a very slippery slope for Sky to go down. They might have to eventually, but they're not going to contribute to their own downfall.

PPV in the UK is a dead horse but if anyone is gonna flog it it's Mr. Murdoch. Football failed on PPV here cos people wouldn't pay £6 for a Sunday tea time match. Who really is gonna pay £15 for a PPV at 1am when they have to work the next day or the same to watch a replay when spoilers are already rife? No one.

There is a simple and easy solution... they operate Now TV, which is basically the Network for movies, their sport. There is only why WWE Network couldn't still be "Over The Top" but part of that with a perhaps slightly higher subscription than planned of say £9.99 a month...with a revenue split between the two companies.

Problem is WWE needed this to be FULLY in their control to meet what they've already said to investors... if WWE allowed this, they've already lost the branding, the infrastructure would be through SKY and it's almost not worth doing...they may as well, if ceding that much control, go with the Channel idea and accept that the UK fans are not gonna like it. Perhaps when that fails and PPV buys decline, it then gives them the ammo to renegotiate with Sky. Sky could mitigate the whole thing by lowering the other PPV prices other than the traditional "big 4" or returning to the "free to subscribers" model it previously had. While WWE isn't the "biggest thing " on Sky, a lot of subscribers do predominantly get Sky for WWE... if they quit then Sky do take a hit.

Vince's apology probably was genuine, but it very much seems like a resigned to "screwing the UK people so apologise now" one than a "we're gonna make this up to you and you won't lose out" one.

If there is a WWE or Network by the time the deal expires with Sky then they can do as they like.

WWE failed on Channel 4 not because of the prices but cos it was the back end of the Attitude era and was not PG programming. There is no reason an ITV, Channel 5 or another Freeview channel wouldn't be interested in WWE in it's current PG format. The only ones out the running are the BBC.

You missed the point completely. SKY DOES NOT NEED WWE! The only reason they are fighting this is because of the deal/contract they made - I have no issue with that! If they fell out and Sky lost the rights - sky would continue on as they were no worse off really. WWE is not a reason people subscribe to Sky Sports, it is an added incentive.

WWE needs a broadcaster in the UK to carry their shows. The network simply is not enough because you are alienating non subscribers and none wrestling fans - on Sky Sports they capture a much broader audience.

BT Sports are the only broadcaster in the UK that would get close to the figures Sky pay for exclusive WWE programming in the UK. And that is subsidised through TV subscriptions. Channel 4, Channel 5 and the rest cannot charge a subscription fee to carry WWE.