-
05-09-2017, 07:14 PM
#881
Fair enough - clearly I think they are worth more than $1 by the way I don't hold the stock.
Originally Posted by Baa_Baa
"Probably"? That's flawed logic, how much over $1 in dividends? When is death occurring? How long to pay $1 and hope to get $1+ back in dividends? All hypothetical, just don't invest in disrupted companies unwilling or unable to reinvent themselves and going down the toilet. Get your money out before it's a complete disaster, if you have any money in it. One can't rationalise a plausible reason for investing in a business model set on a pathway of capital destruction.
-
06-09-2017, 05:05 AM
#882
I would quite happily pay a single somebody a monthly fee to act as an portal or content aggregator for me.
I don't want to have to mess about with 23 separate accounts with various providers for the content I want.
But I also don't want to be forced to buy access to 143 junk channels that I will never watch.
Am I a market of one, crying in the wilderness?
-
06-09-2017, 07:13 AM
#883
disruption..when you are talking about it it usually is too late
-
06-09-2017, 07:47 AM
#884
No GMT, you're not alone, I don't want to be paying 10 different providers either and/or as you say for another 60+ channels I don't want.
Some years ago, now 20+ I was talking to a guy from Canada and they had something like 80+ "general" channels and could not find a single thing to watch, thought at the time, we won't get to that, may not have 80+ but a fair few on the basic package, of which I watch maybe 3-4 on a regular basis and the majority never seen.
It seems that anyone can start up a TV channel on anything and get it on the platform, do Sky own all these, surely not, Sky may pay something to the providers??, but I'm sure the only a small number who watch any of these outside the main ones, why don't they stream those and reduce the basic package as has been suggested before. Maybe the demographic that watch these are not tech savy, must have children or grandchildren that could soon sort it out for them
Unless they are confident of keeping the rugby, they have to change or go out of business I would have thought, then there will be a lot of people looking for alternatives.
Last edited by Jay; 06-09-2017 at 08:05 AM.
Reason: speeling
-
07-09-2017, 08:58 AM
#885
Member
Originally Posted by Jay
No GMT, you're not alone, I don't want to be paying 10 different providers either and/or as you say for another 60+ channels I don't want.
Some years ago, now 20+ I was talking to a guy from Canada and they had something like 80+ "general" channels and could not find a single thing to watch, thought at the time, we won't get to that, may not have 80+ but a fair few on the basic package, of which I watch maybe 3-4 on a regular basis and the majority never seen.
It seems that anyone can start up a TV channel on anything and get it on the platform, do Sky own all these, surely not, Sky may pay something to the providers??, but I'm sure the only a small number who watch any of these outside the main ones, why don't they stream those and reduce the basic package as has been suggested before. Maybe the demographic that watch these are not tech savy, must have children or grandchildren that could soon sort it out for them
Unless they are confident of keeping the rugby, they have to change or go out of business I would have thought, then there will be a lot of people looking for alternatives.
To stay alive Sky TV has to remarket it's self, in short offer what the punters actually want, like others paying I am paying for channels that I have no interest or any desire to watch.
Select and pay for the channels you actually want on a monthly sub.
-
07-09-2017, 11:46 AM
#886
Agree waikare
What I was saying if they get to keep the rugby and cricket, it may give them a bit more time
Don't know when the rugby will be decided, but could be a good punt if you think they will keep it this time round ... if you are brave enough... I'm not!
-
07-09-2017, 03:24 PM
#887
Member
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/ind...tial-nzx-float
Vodafone's proposed NZX float and recent upswing of SKT....any connections?
-
08-09-2017, 04:14 PM
#888
Is this a real possibility or take it one step further and they take over Sky
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news...ectid=11919649
Basically a partnership between the two, Sky keeping the rights and Amazon streaming it in other countries such as US, UK, Japan, France for a fee paid to Sky .
Must admit Sky do a better job of showing the games here than some other feeds we get - especially South Africa and even Aussie
Though still only a matter of time, maybe a slight reprieve in the meantime ????
-
09-09-2017, 09:22 PM
#889
At least they have a Retention team now - I renegotiated my deal recently with some success including Soho which has some brilliant TV. .
Originally Posted by waikare
To stay alive Sky TV has to remarket it's self, in short offer what the punters actually want, like others paying I am paying for channels that I have no interest or any desire to watch.
Select and pay for the channels you actually want on a monthly sub.
-
10-09-2017, 08:20 AM
#890
Originally Posted by tim23
At least they have a Retention team now - I renegotiated my deal recently with some success including Soho which has some brilliant TV. .
Hi Tim, can you explain more? I am about to say goodbye to SKY as the tennis is over and cricket does not start for a while. What deal did you negotiate and do you have to initiate the negotiation or do SKY do it themselves?
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks