Top 20 Transfer Fees of All Time - The Game Has Gone Mad.

[TractorBoys]

Not all from the Premier league, but predominantly. Is the game ahead for a crash, surely the constant inflation isn't sustainable in the coming 5-10 years?

Source: Best Betting Websites

 

[HarvSFC]

Fees paid isn't predominantly from the Premier League. Blame Barca and Real.

 

[epic73]

I see 4 City transfers. But only 3 Barca transfers. I say blame City.

 

[MJA]

The fact that the top 19 are all since 2009 shows how football is getting worse and worse with regards to the money in the game

 

[MJA]

Will transfer/salary caps become a thing again in the future or will things just carry on until the sport implodes?

 

[St. Juste]

The list is a little misleading, granted the actual figures are rising but as a % of revenue the amount paid for Pogba is dwarfed by the £200k or so Man Utd paid for Dennis Law in the 60s.

You are completely correct that it will implode (and fairly soon) but it won't be due to transfer fees. It will rather be down to the structural issue that English football is almost solely reliant on TV money and that consumers voluntarily pay for this - but they don't have to and can easily watch it for free.

As soon as people discover / act on this, the bubble will burst.

 

[TractorBoys]

It will rather be down to the structural issue that English football is almost solely reliant on TV money and that consumers voluntarily pay for this - but they don't have to and can easily watch it for free.

As soon as people discover / act on this, the bubble will burst.

I doubt this almost to the extent of calling is BS. Whether they decide to pay on a moral basis or QUALITY AND RELIABILITY basis, they will not seek the free and often less 'enjoyable' options. There's little doubt here.

 

[Skinner]

What about bargains of the last decade or so?

Demba Ba > Newcastle
Michu > Swansea
Cech > Chelsea & Arsenal
Cahill > Everton
Bale > Spurs
Clyne > Southampton
Campbell > Arsenal
Toure > Arsenal

 

[AFCB_Mark]

There's every chance the TV rights model may have hit it's peak with the current deal (although people have said that for many years). It's fair to say there are other options than paying Sky, it's hard to see how it's value can increase further.

However I don't think there's much chance of a bubble burst, with the money disappearing into thin air leaving clubs f**ked ITV Digital style. As a Bournemouth fan I saw that collapse first hand. No, the popularity and demand is ingrained, it's not going anywhere fast. If the delivery of the content shifts a little, there's enough very wealthy and clever bastards around Scudamore to come up with ways to monetise that if required.

We've seen how the transfer market has inflated by maybe 25-30% or so this summer, previously £10m players becoming 15m players etc. There is loads of slack in the transfer market, so that should the TV deal deflate next time round, the transfer market should cool and deflate by a similar amount without impacting club's too hard. And I think that would be a welcome development for many, should it happen.

 

[St. Juste]

I doubt this almost to the extent of calling is BS. Whether they decide to pay on a moral basis or QUALITY AND RELIABILITY basis, they will not seek the free and often less 'enjoyable' options. There's little doubt here.

Even if there is a quality and reliability gap (not quite sure why it's capitalised) this is not only currently overblown but the technology is only going one way. The streams will only get better and more reliable. Currently you can pay a small amount per month for a reliable HD stream and all you require is a decent broadband connection. This is the future, pay nothing or pay a little bit for better quality.

The current method of paying, what, £60 a month for Sky Sports and BT? More? It's insanity, I've never done it, and never will. It's throwing money down the drain. Indeed, I'd argue the internet has made the whole concept of pay / satellite TV redundant. Is it less enjoyable? Well that depends whyyou're watching it. To see every crinkle and fake hair on Rooneys forehead or for the actual game itself?

With most businesses it's something rather unexpected and sudden that brings them down. The EPL, however, it's as clear as digital taking down Kodak and Netflix taking down blockbuster.

The business case has been surpassed by technology, it's only a matter of time.

As for the morality argument, well if you are utterly opposed to footballers earning 10k p/w rather than 100k then by all means fork out hundreds a month whilst everyone else watches for free.

Finally, watching online actually gives you access to far more games and, often, far better punditry.

There's every chance the TV rights model may have hit it's peak with the current deal (although people have said that for many years). It's fair to say there are other options than paying Sky, it's hard to see how it's value can increase further.

However I don't think there's much chance of a bubble burst, with the money disappearing into thin air leaving clubs f**ked ITV Digital style. As a Bournemouth fan I saw that collapse first hand. No, the popularity and demand is ingrained, it's not going anywhere fast. If the delivery of the content shifts a little, there's enough very wealthy and clever bastards around Scudamore to come up with ways to monetise that if required.

We've seen how the transfer market has inflated by maybe 25-30% or so this summer, previously £10m players becoming 15m players etc. There is loads of slack in the transfer market, so that should the TV deal deflate next time round, the transfer market should cool and deflate by a similar amount without impacting club's too hard. And I think that would be a welcome development for many, should it happen.

Doesn't matter how smart anyone is, if people can easily watch your content for free you won't be able to charge them £60 a month for it.

In this case the demand is irrelevant, it's the delivery that's the issue. And maybe they can monetise it, but it will be to a far lesser extent and the free option will forever exist.

People are always going to watch movies, but it doesn't Blockbuster is always going to be a viable business.

 

[TractorBoys]

While I see your point of view coming from people with your trail of thought, you're quite misguided if you feel that's going to be the opinion of the future majority.

Furthermore, with the advancement of encryption methods such as FTA boxes with 'gifts' will no longer be able to access Sky once all SD boxes are replaced within 2-3 years - HD is already blocked.. similar happened in the US 3/4 years ago and remains unbroken to this day). I have first hand experience on this and can say with complete certainty that this is the case. Virgin will also follow suit, whether that be before or after.

With regards to streaming sites, when hosted offshore their longevity is somewhat protected despite tightening international laws and cooperation- but the idea that this kind of method will become the dominant is absolutely ludicrous, make no mistake.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Doesn't matter how smart anyone is, if people can easily watch your content for free you won't be able to charge them £60 a month for it.

In this case the demand is irrelevant, it's the delivery that's the issue. And maybe they can monetise it, but it will be to a far lesser extent and the free option will forever exist.

People are always going to watch movies, but it doesn't Blockbuster is always going to be a viable business.

I think there is a fair bit of merit in the ease of use argument. Your view of this seems based on that of somebody living a basement with a PC and knowledge of the best streaming sites. I used to be that guy. I found all sorts of ways to watch whatever I wanted free of charge. It was brilliant.

But families gather around TV(s), they have TV packages that cover a whole host of content for all the family. And a family doesn't necessarily have time to explore the internet for which site is showing the big game this weekend or which website you can get a decent copy of a recent film. Sure there's other ways, you pay a bit for Kodi or to hook your TV up to Netflix these days. But as in many areas of life, people do pay a premium for time and convenience of having everything delivered to them on a plate.

And whilst alternative services like Kodi are advancing and becoming more user friendly for the mainstream, so are the big TV companies advancing with ways of protecting their content or monetising it in other ways if they can't.

That said I do fully expect there to be pressure mounting on Sky and BT to reduce the cost of their subscriptions for the valid reasons you've given. And that will surely reduce the value of the rights contract. Where it has inflated, seems possible it will deflate.

As I've already explained I do not think that has to cause a catastrophic issue unless it's a huge dramatic drop off. Which I would be highly skeptical of. I do not see it as black or white, boom or bust. I do not see a deflation of the TV deal over the next couple of cycles to necessarily be a bad thing, I'd argue it'd be a positive.

 

[St. Juste]

While I see your point of view coming from people with your trail of thought, you're quite misguided if you feel that's going to be the opinion of the future majority.

Furthermore, with the advancement of encryption methods such as FTA boxes with 'gifts' will no longer be able to access Sky once all SD boxes are replaced within 2-3 years - HD is already blocked.. similar happened in the US 3/4 years ago and remains unbroken to this day). I have first hand experience on this and can say with complete certainty that this is the case. Virgin will also follow suit, whether that be before or after.

With regards to streaming sites, when hosted offshore their longevity is somewhat protected despite tightening international laws and cooperation- but the idea that this kind of method will become the dominant is absolutely ludicrous, make no mistake.

Right, so you work in the industry and can't see the obvious threat that is making it obsolete? The owners sure can, and fund proxy research detailing the viruses you get from streaming sites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35434765.

I'm surprised it remains unbroken given you can quite easily watch NFL, or any major sporting event, online for free.

Again, it smacks of blockbuster rejecting buying Netflix for a $1 million. Streaming online, for all content not just sports, absolutely will become the dominant method within the next 10 years, maybe even much sooner. I wonder how Netflix has affected 'Sky movies".

I wouldn't put my money anywhere near Sky or Virgin, as a customer or investor.

I think there is a fair bit of merit in the ease of use argument. Your view of this seems based on that of somebody living a basement with a PC and knowledge of the best streaming sites. I used to be that guy. I found all sorts of ways to watch whatever I wanted free of charge. It was brilliant.

But families gather around TV(s), they have TV packages that cover a whole host of content for all the family. And a family doesn't necessarily have time to explore the internet for which site is showing the big game this weekend or which website you can get a decent copy of a recent film. Sure there's other ways, you pay a bit for Kodi or to hook your TV up to Netflix these days. But as in many areas of life, people do pay a premium for time and convenience of having everything delivered to them on a plate.

And whilst alternative services like Kodi are advancing and becoming more user friendly for the mainstream, so are the big TV companies advancing with ways of protecting their content or monetising it in other ways if they can't.

That said I do fully expect there to be pressure mounting on Sky and BT to reduce the cost of their subscriptions for the valid reasons you've given. And that will surely reduce the value of the rights contract. Where it has inflated, seems possible it will deflate.

As I've already explained I do not think that has to cause a catastrophic issue unless it's a huge dramatic drop off. Which I would be highly skeptical of. I do not see it as black or white, boom or bust. I do not see a deflation of the TV deal over the next couple of cycles to necessarily be a bad thing, I'd argue it'd be a positive.

Not at all, I have a TV and could easily afford Sky or BT, or both. If I wanted I could transmit the picture on an HDMI cable but I usually don't bother.

I don't know what your fixation on family is, children are far more tech savvy that adults these days. And there's nothing difficult about knowing two or three of the best sites. Crucially, this is enhanced choice, watch what you want, when you want, with no ads. It's a far better service than the command and control that has dominated TV for decades. Rather than watching the absolute nonsense that dominates freeview on Saturday nights you can watch new content from the US far before it reaches the UK on television.

Families will gather round their iPads and watch what they want. With an ad blocker and no interest in watching ads for dishwater liquid every 15 minutes.

If people are really paying £60 a month for convenience, watching only what is available at that time, and constant ads then, well, more fool them. But relying on peoples stupidity is not a viable long term business plan. Ask time share sharks.

 

[TractorBoys]

I'm surprised it remains unbroken given you can quite easily watch NFL, or any major sporting event, online for free.

Again, it smacks of blockbuster rejecting buying Netflix for a $1 million. Streaming online, for all content not just sports, absolutely will become the dominant method within the next 10 years, maybe even much sooner.

Again, your misjudgement on advances in encryption and the challenges US streaming sites have faced as a result speaks volumes. A brief period of time on Google researching Dishnet and Beverley in the US and you'll quickly begin to understand how, so far, they've made their encryption unbreakable to everyday end users. FYI - it's similar to the encryption major banks use- if it was ever broken, it would lead to chaos worldwide.

I fully accept that in the coming years streaming will become the dominant- via Smart TV's, Laptops, iPads et all, but not in the "free for all, bypass paying" way you currently utilise. That's pretty much all I'm sure of. Any methods that remain available for your trail of thought will still, pale in comparison with the consumer product offered legitimately.

 

[St. Juste]

Again, your misjudgement on advances in encryption and the challenges US streaming sites have faced as a result speaks volumes. A brief period of time on Google researching Dishnet and Beverley in the US and you'll quickly begin to understand how, so far, they've made their encryption unbreakable to everyday end users. FYI - it's similar to the encryption major banks use- if it was ever broken, it would lead to chaos worldwide.

I fully accept that in the coming years streaming will become the dominant- via Smart TV's, Laptops, iPads et all, but not in the "free for all, bypass paying" way you currently utilise. That's pretty much all I'm sure of. Any methods that remain available for your trail of thought will still, pale in comparison with the consumer product offered legitimately.

The majority of streams I watch are from the US, even if the website is not hosted in the US.

And when in the US I have never faced any issue accessing streaming sites.

Am I knowledgeable as to advances in encryption for satellite television? No, it'd be a rather strange hobby to have, I've never needed to know about it because it has clearly never affected me in the slightest.

Technology and streaming has already completely revolutionised television, music and films - live sports is next. And is this is all legitimate? Has it had no negative affect on the margins of the music industry? Hmmmmm

 

[TractorBoys]

I've agreed with you that streaming will become ingrained for all as natural progression, there's no argument there- just not in the way you think. Illegal streams have never and will never become the dominant force for reasons aforementioned, and it's only going to get harder and less enjoyable for the likes of yourself as time goes on. Period.

Your attempted comparison to the music industry falls flat on it's face when you understand that the difference between your average artist being able to finance & effectively protect their content- compared to the billion dollar companies like Sky,Virgin,DN,Beverely. Laws exist sure, but enforcing them is still largely down to the content owner. Completely different kettle of fish.

To avoid the risk of going round in circles, we'll leave it there.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Right, so you work in the industry and can't see the obvious threat that is making it obsolete? The owners sure can, and fund proxy research detailing the viruses you get from streaming sites - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35434765.

I'm surprised it remains unbroken given you can quite easily watch NFL, or any major sporting event, online for free.

Again, it smacks of blockbuster rejecting buying Netflix for a $1 million. Streaming online, for all content not just sports, absolutely will become the dominant method within the next 10 years, maybe even much sooner. I wonder how Netflix has affected 'Sky movies".

I wouldn't put my money anywhere near Sky or Virgin, as a customer or investor.



Not at all, I have a TV and could easily afford Sky or BT, or both. If I wanted I could transmit the picture on an HDMI cable but I usually don't bother.

I don't know what your fixation on family is, children are far more tech savvy that adults these days. And there's nothing difficult about knowing two or three of the best sites. Crucially, this is enhanced choice, watch what you want, when you want, with no ads. It's a far better service than the command and control that has dominated TV for decades. Rather than watching the absolute nonsense that dominates freeview on Saturday nights you can watch new content from the US far before it reaches the UK on television.

Families will gather round their iPads and watch what they want. With an ad blocker and no interest in watching ads for dishwater liquid every 15 minutes.

If people are really paying £60 a month for convenience, watching only what is available at that time, and constant ads then, well, more fool them. But relying on peoples stupidity is not a viable long term business plan. Ask time share sharks.

Almost all mainstream TV companies have got excellent on demand "watch what you want, when you want" services, in response to these pressures. Also, all paid for and otherwise commercial streaming services have adverts far as I'm aware.

If you've managed to find free streaming sites that either do not bombard you with ads around the page, and/or stream content that itself contains ads (foreign ads on football streams for eg), then I heartily commend you. Far from my experience using those sites, which was putting up with that for the sake of it being free. I feel your ad free utopia is a fantasy.

Ad blockers - Websites are already running code that blocks content if it detects you using an ad blocker in your browser. It's a coding arms race that will continue back and forth of course. There will be no silver bullet there.

Getting back to Football - You continue to ignore my main point, that yes there are a myriad of pressures on TV companies, I agree there is downward pressure on the TV subscription model, and as a result I expect they will need to reduce prices and thus reduce the value of the TV contract over time. But I do not think that'll cause an implosion to football.

As last I checked, the biggest music artists are still very wealthy and very successful. even if the way people access their work has changed. As an analogy for your predicted demise of the biggest football clubs, I'm not sure it works very well.

 

[Abertawe]

"You can't run a business on convenience"

Just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Almost every service & product that has become popular is nearly exclusively down to convenience.

 

[Pagnell]

I can see both sides of the argument, a few months back I actually created a thread about the feasibility of the service the likes of Sky provide long term. I don't fancy its chances to be frank. Hugh has a point when he talks about technology overtaking the business model. However, I certainly see the argument for convenience, especially when it's combined with a picture quality that you would struggle to ever find on a stream at the moment. It's far better to be able to watch a football match after pressing three buttons on a remote than to dig around on Kodi or Mobdro. However, is that convenience worth the price you have to pay for it? Depends on the deal you can get I suppose.

 

[Stevencc]

Tell us about the deal you got, Pagnell.

 

[PDS]

Sky are no mugs, they are future-proofing their business with things like NOW TV; that looks like the future of this market, content that can be opted in and out as you please rather than a solid, monthly subscription.

If they run something like Now TV properly, then commercially it could make Sky a lot more money than their current models; but it relies a lot on having the right content; hence the inflated battles them and BT are having now; they need the content to secure their futures (And of course as a means of getting into homes where they can bundle together TV, phone and broadband).

 

[St. Juste]

I've agreed with you that streaming will become ingrained for all as natural progression, there's no argument there- just not in the way you think. Illegal streams have never and will never become the dominant force for reasons aforementioned, and it's only going to get harder and less enjoyable for the likes of yourself as time goes on. Period.

Your attempted comparison to the music industry falls flat on it's face when you understand that the difference between your average artist being able to finance & effectively protect their content- compared to the billion dollar companies like Sky,Virgin,DN,Beverely. Laws exist sure, but enforcing them is still largely down to the content owner. Completely different kettle of fish.

To avoid the risk of going round in circles, we'll leave it there.

Well, quite, you putting period as a one word sentence has removed all doubt.

I fundamentally disagree it will get harder and less enjoyable, quite to the contrary, in recent years it has got easier and more enjoyable. You get access to almost every game that is played worldwide, far more than if you were paying, and get the added bonus of missing awful punditry.

Your second point is quite extraordinary, the music was filled with huge companies for over a century. Record labels wielded huge influence and were very profitable, they tried everything they go to stop illegal downloading and have comprehensively failed. Their margins are pitiful now compared to what they were. The movie industry saw this and tried even harder (who could forget, "streaming is stealing") but they have failed too. Who buys DVDs these days? People that don't understand the internet? It was not individual artists trying to stop illegal downloads (er, obviously) it was the big companies behind these artists. And they failed.

Fundamentally we aren't going to agree, but time will tell. I'm putting my money on technology disrupting this industry like it has done every other similar industry. Football and sports packages are overpriced and there is an easy and free alternative available. A strategy consultant would look at this and diagnose "dog".

Almost all mainstream TV companies have got excellent on demand "watch what you want, when you want" services, in response to these pressures. Also, all paid for and otherwise commercial streaming services have adverts far as I'm aware.

If you've managed to find free streaming sites that either do not bombard you with ads around the page, and/or stream content that itself contains ads (foreign ads on football streams for eg), then I heartily commend you. Far from my experience using those sites, which was putting up with that for the sake of it being free. I feel your ad free utopia is a fantasy.

Ad blockers - Websites are already running code that blocks content if it detects you using an ad blocker in your browser. It's a coding arms race that will continue back and forth of course. There will be no silver bullet there.

Getting back to Football - You continue to ignore my main point, that yes there are a myriad of pressures on TV companies, I agree there is downward pressure on the TV subscription model, and as a result I expect they will need to reduce prices and thus reduce the value of the TV contract over time. But I do not think that'll cause an implosion to football.

As last I checked, the biggest music artists are still very wealthy and very successful. even if the way people access their work has changed. As an analogy for your predicted demise of the biggest football clubs, I'm not sure it works very well.

Except it's not what you want, content is limited to what they have paid for. As for a commercial streaming service without ads - how about the most famous one, Netflix? I don't know if Amazon have ads either as I've never used it but I really hope not. For many free ones ad blocker deals with whatever nonsense they are trying to peddle.

Ad blocker isn't a silver bullet, but it's working excellently for me so far. Kudos to the inventors (I also got it for free).

There are a myriad of pressures on them, this being by far the most serious. I think their product is vastly overpriced too, this is hardly a controversial viewpoint. Any drop in TV revenue, big or even relatively small, will cause a damaging ripple effect given the footballers wages will be enshrined in long contracts. And once the balloon is pricked twice it will not stop deflating.

Unless you start a moral campaign to save Sterlings yacht.

The top artists still make good money through concerts and promotional material, that won't change. Across the industry those at the bottom, session musicians, have suffered the most. And, of course, the most famous and richest artists actually didn't make their money from Music at all, step forward Dr. Dre and Jay-Z. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles made their money from music, for the current generation music is merely the conduit. Actors actually make far less and their contracts are getting worse, no more big paycheck before finding out if the movie has made money. Even if the TV deal collapses completely footballers would still make good money on admissions alone, as I've said, 10 grand a week is a good wage for a Premier League footballer and entirely sustainable. £250k a week for a plodder to Rooney? Absolutely not, and I'll welcome the end of these obscenities.

"You can't run a business on convenience"

Just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Almost every service & product that has become popular is nearly exclusively down to convenience.

Where did you read that quote?

I said you can't run a business on stupidity and that technology had made SKYs current business plan obsolete. Both completely true statements.

I also don't agree that it's any more convenient using a TV remote as opposed to a keyboard and mouse. I only ever use one site for streaming football anywhere, so don't have to bother searching the web. It's remarkably easy and convenient.

 

[Abertawe]

You ain't getting HD on a consistent basis or UHD whatsoever. Sky isn't just sitting infront of the TV anymore either. If you're talking about streaming 3pm games then thats a different matter entirely.

 

[Pagnell]

Tell us about the deal you got, Pagnell.

Nah, I don't like to talk about such things.

 

[TractorBoys]

St. Juste with the greatest of respect... you're talking out your arse.

 

[Stevencc]

He's quite fond of doing that.

 

[TractorBoys]

Maybe the bigwigs at Sky et all should considering hiring him freelance to see where they're going wrong, thus avoiding their inevitable demise?

 

[silkyman]

Everyone denied the reports that Tevez was £47m. It was announced as £25.5 at the time, then some random report came from nowhere (having had a quick google, the only place it's attributed to is having come from United themselves) to throw £47m around.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/anger-over-tevez-47m-fee-929735

It's wages rather than transfer fees that will make everything come crashing down. You sign a player on a five year deal and you're stuck paying them. If club X asks for £90m and club Y doesn't want to pay that, then the transfer doesn't happen. When City signed KDB, that money is still 'in football', same as with any transfer. It's wages and agents fees (I remember being shocked at the idea of an agent being paid by the club and player when Willie Donaghie demanded £100k 'negotiation fee' for Joey Barton's contract, and was told to fuck off, and now no one baulks at £20m fee to a guy who is being paid by the player to negotiate against you!) because this is money that's actually leaving the sport.

 

[JimJams]

Keep it on topic Silks, we're talking about the future of Sky television here.

 

[St. Juste]

You ain't getting HD on a consistent basis or UHD whatsoever. Sky isn't just sitting infront of the TV anymore either. If you're talking about streaming 3pm games then thats a different matter entirely.

Well, at least you've abandoned your previous quote.


I'm talking about the whole package, it's incredibly easy to get it for free (including 3pm games). Maybe some people will pay £60 for ultra HD, but the majority? People aren't that stupid.

St. Juste with the greatest of respect... you're talking out your arse.

Right, so after trying to leave last time, you've returned but posted a complete surrender of a post

Maybe the bigwigs at Sky et all should considering hiring him freelance to see where they're going wrong, thus avoiding their inevitable demise?

You seem perplexed by the idea that big businesses, you seem to consider them omnipotent and above technological pressures.


If you look at the Fortune 500 from 1955 compared to 2014 88% of them are gone - https://www.aei.org/publication/for...because-of-that-dynamic-creative-destruction/


Big companies fail all the time. This is before we get onto the fact that quite a few sports broadcasters have also failed - Setanta and ITV Digital in this country alone.


Or the fact that Sky and Satellite Television is a relatively recent invention and whose tenure is much smaller than many more established companies that also failed. Could you imagine Nokia phones collapsing as spectacularly as they did? Or Blackberry? It happens all the time, with technology being it a key enabler. Yahoo, Bebo, Friends Reunited are at various stages of this cycle too. Indeed, other parts of the Murdoch empire are deeply unprofitable, the Times loses vast swathes of money as with all Newspapers failing soon. A dying media. Like Satellite TV.


But no, Sky don't adhere to normal business rules, they'll be just fine despite this giant structural hole in their business plan


Or BT, a state monopoly over reliant on Openzone, which should have already been de-merged and will certainly be within the next few years.


Both companies will be fully aware of this, and they will have certainly employed McKinsey / BCG to try and prepare a response to these threats. The proxy research has their finger prints all over it.


Advising companies of the viability of various strategies and business plans used to be my job, now I just analyse it for fun. Satellite TV, like Newspapers, like Publishing, like Record Labels, like Faxes are areas I would avoid with a barge pole.


I fully expect a three word response and a stubborn insistence that the TV deal will continue to constantly expand, and gullible viewers will continue to pay over the odds for a product they can easily get for free. If that's the case, if Sky share their customers list for me, I'd happily see buckets of ice for £1000 a pot and split the profit.