Family & Relationships1 min ago
Pub landlady takes on Sky TV.
36 Answers
A landlady who thought that Sky TV was too expensive thought she’d use a Greek satellite TV company in order to show Premiership football in her pub. She was subsequently taken to court and fined almost £8k for breaching Sky’s UK monopoly to show the footy.
Today the European Court of Justice has declared that what she did was legal in the EU free market. The official rubber stamp on the decision hasn’t been given yet but it’s likely that it will be.
A good or bad thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12355022
Today the European Court of Justice has declared that what she did was legal in the EU free market. The official rubber stamp on the decision hasn’t been given yet but it’s likely that it will be.
A good or bad thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12355022
Answers
Karen Murphy was supplied with the foreign satellite decoding equipment by David Richardson of Durhan based QC Leisure. He (being the company) acquired* domestic subscription
02:55 Fri 04th Feb 2011
Douglas one club caught cheating you mean. Not only that the fact that so many were in conspiracy and the fact they had the capsules means, in my opinion, they had done it before and if they did.
The perception of rugby players and what they are allowed to get away with in comparison to footballers varies a bit.
Also the fact the game continues whilst injuries are being treated in rugby, helps that.
The perception of rugby players and what they are allowed to get away with in comparison to footballers varies a bit.
Also the fact the game continues whilst injuries are being treated in rugby, helps that.
yes dave they do. I was secretary of a club and I called sky to cancel as we could no longer afford their fees and they explained the situation. They said they would like to be able to negotiate but their fees are dictated by the Government.
http://business.sky.c...ulator/calculator.htm
http://business.sky.c...ulator/calculator.htm
Sky base their business subscription prices on Rateable Value but that is not because they are dictated to do so by the Government; that is the model they have chosen. Sky enters into a commercial contract with publicans and as such can set their charges at what they think the market will pay. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) has no control over the fact that they base their charges on Rateable Values which were not designed for that purpose.
>The landlady hasn't stolen anything:
Yes she has. Premiership soccer (in fact all soccer) is sold to TV on a country by country basis.
A country will pay a certain amount based on the size of the country, and the number of people they expect to pay to watch it. So the UK, Spain, Germany etc will pay more for footbal than Luxemburg, Norway etc
By taking the Greek football she is using a service that was priced for the Greek market, therefore depriving Sky of their money.
That is stealing.
Of course the EU judges often take the side of the criminals, which is why so many criminals are allowed to stay in the UK when we want to throw them out.
Yes she has. Premiership soccer (in fact all soccer) is sold to TV on a country by country basis.
A country will pay a certain amount based on the size of the country, and the number of people they expect to pay to watch it. So the UK, Spain, Germany etc will pay more for footbal than Luxemburg, Norway etc
By taking the Greek football she is using a service that was priced for the Greek market, therefore depriving Sky of their money.
That is stealing.
Of course the EU judges often take the side of the criminals, which is why so many criminals are allowed to stay in the UK when we want to throw them out.
I think VHG has a very peculiar idea of what is and what is not stealing!
Of course the alternative I guess would be that he'd have to applaud the EU for once again standing up for the individual consumer against restrictive practices of big businesses in trying to manipulate and subvert free markets.
And that would be unthinkable
Of course the alternative I guess would be that he'd have to applaud the EU for once again standing up for the individual consumer against restrictive practices of big businesses in trying to manipulate and subvert free markets.
And that would be unthinkable
-- answer removed --
I would suggest that SKY need to take it up with the Greek company or the Football association.
If the contract the FA signed with the Greeks didn't specifically limit their territory it would appear to be their foulat if it did it would be the Greeks.
Sky's action seems rather like a book publisher trying to sue me for buying a book from a retailer who offered it for sale at less than the price agree with the shop.
Can't wait to see how the murdoch press reports this one!
If the contract the FA signed with the Greeks didn't specifically limit their territory it would appear to be their foulat if it did it would be the Greeks.
Sky's action seems rather like a book publisher trying to sue me for buying a book from a retailer who offered it for sale at less than the price agree with the shop.
Can't wait to see how the murdoch press reports this one!
Just to pick up on something which JTH wrote (which has been mirrored in other posts here):
>>>>"I can't see the broadcasters rolling over and accepting this"<<<<<
It's not the broadcasters who won't like it; it's the Premier League.
It was the Premier League who brought the legal action because they stated that they'd sold the sole UK broadcasting rights to BSkyB. If the legal decision goes the way that it looks as if it will, BSkyB will then go to the Premier League and say 'Since we can no longer buy the SOLE rights from you, what you're offering us is of LESS value. Hence we're only prepared to offer a lower figure for the (non-exclusive) broadcasting rights'.
So it won't be Sky who'll lose money (unless they lose a lot of subscribers), it will be the Premier League that does.
Chris
>>>>"I can't see the broadcasters rolling over and accepting this"<<<<<
It's not the broadcasters who won't like it; it's the Premier League.
It was the Premier League who brought the legal action because they stated that they'd sold the sole UK broadcasting rights to BSkyB. If the legal decision goes the way that it looks as if it will, BSkyB will then go to the Premier League and say 'Since we can no longer buy the SOLE rights from you, what you're offering us is of LESS value. Hence we're only prepared to offer a lower figure for the (non-exclusive) broadcasting rights'.
So it won't be Sky who'll lose money (unless they lose a lot of subscribers), it will be the Premier League that does.
Chris
VHG - “A country will pay a certain amount based on the size of the country, and the number of people they expect to pay to watch it. So the UK, Spain, Germany etc will pay more for football than Luxemburg, Norway etc.”
Apart from the fact that we're talking about private companies and not countries as you state, I fail to see the validity of your point. It is utterly irrelevant what private companies have paid for the rights to broadcast football matches.
Put simply, they have bought a ludicrously expensive product and hope to make money on that investment by re-selling that product to a captive audience in order to make an equally ludicrous profit. Unfortunately for Sky and the Premier League, the European Court of Justice has seen the inequity of this cosy arrangement.
We all now live in the EU. If I want to purchase goods and services from any other EU country, then I am perfectly entitled to do so. I fail to see why the provision of satellite TV is different from any other commodity.
Apart from the fact that we're talking about private companies and not countries as you state, I fail to see the validity of your point. It is utterly irrelevant what private companies have paid for the rights to broadcast football matches.
Put simply, they have bought a ludicrously expensive product and hope to make money on that investment by re-selling that product to a captive audience in order to make an equally ludicrous profit. Unfortunately for Sky and the Premier League, the European Court of Justice has seen the inequity of this cosy arrangement.
We all now live in the EU. If I want to purchase goods and services from any other EU country, then I am perfectly entitled to do so. I fail to see why the provision of satellite TV is different from any other commodity.
Karen Murphy was supplied with the foreign satellite decoding equipment by David Richardson of Durhan based QC Leisure. He (being the company) acquired* domestic subscriptions from NOVA and sold them to businesses and individuals alike...
http://www.thepublica...y.asp?storyCode=59520
*Acquisition of domestic subscription requires a residential address in Greece; the NOVA cards were procured and activated by Richardson using false names and addresses and sold in the UK in a manner not authorised by NOVA, as attested within
the 2008 judgement...
http://dbmsolutions.c...udgment24June2008.pdf
http://www.thepublica...y.asp?storyCode=59520
*Acquisition of domestic subscription requires a residential address in Greece; the NOVA cards were procured and activated by Richardson using false names and addresses and sold in the UK in a manner not authorised by NOVA, as attested within
the 2008 judgement...
http://dbmsolutions.c...udgment24June2008.pdf
Another conclusion could be that with territorial exclusivity being deemed unjust FAPL will be obliged to offer European broadcast rights. SKY (and Eurosport) will retain their PL exclusivity Europe wide (with very little reason to think that costs will change dramatically) yet only broadcast to the UK and the losers will be football fan subscribers of Greek broadcaster NOVA.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.