Five Alive Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Deal takes coverage through to 2019, report states all WWE pay per views will air on Sky Sports Box Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUFC Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 No WWE Network for us then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted January 30, 2014 Awards Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2014 No WWE Network for us then! There is no mention of exclusivity. Network only shows encore performances of the weekly shows. PPVs still an unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfMetal Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 No WWE Network for us then! Â They've already stated the the Network will be launching here. We probably will just get a blackout when its PPV-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigshowfan Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 No WWE Network for us then! Â They've already stated the the Network will be launching here. We probably will just get a blackout when its PPV-time. Â There is no way that they launch the network without the PPV's. Â I assume all PPV's moving to the pay channel is because they will be available ONLINE ONLY for subscribers through the network - which is the same system as they are using in the states. Â Edit: Â Actually, all PPV's now on Sky Box Office will drive people towards the network as it will in America - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigshowfan Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Just a quick addition to that point... From the Hollywood Reporter: Â WWE also recently announced that it would next month launch a subscription-based, online-only video network, the WWE Network, in the U.S. It will also expected to become available in select international markets, including the U.K., late in 2014 or early in 2015. Â Asked if the network caused BSkyB any concern that it could cannibalize the WWE audience, Meier said the company sees it as "extremely complimentary" to other WWE content offerings, such as its TV shows. "We have partners that see it similarly. They see it as a major boost to the brand, the fan engagement and to their own viewership." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted January 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'd genuinely like to know how many Sky Sports subs are wholly dependent on their WWE coverage. For example, in my house as I dip into WWE when I hear of something good, it wouldn't be the end of the world compared to if they lost the Premier League rights for example. Its strange as presumably the WWE rights fees have risen for every deal they make, but I can't imagine the ratings for the shows are what they were in the late 90's or even early 90's for that matter (granted, less people had Sky then). Compare this to Darts or Football which has maintained or even grown its audience. Having said that, one glance at the schedule and how many hours WWE occupies across the 3 sports channels should tell you how important Wrestling is to Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I am assuming that Sky won't be losing out on a lot of money then (depending on what the WWE/Sky share out is), when ppv buyrates in the U.K. inevitably fall due to the launch of the Network in the U.K. Â Sky & WWE seem relaxed about it, and I can't imagine they're dumb enough not to have considered these factors and discussed them with WWE. Â They seem cool with it, publicly, so I'd take that as a good sign. If they'd kicked up a fuss about it, that would have been a lot more problematic and may have delayed the Network further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windoesnot Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Does anyone know the sort of buy numbers the PPV's do on Sky Box Office in the UK? Outside Mania and perhaps the Rumble I can't see them being very high at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Its strange as presumably the WWE rights fees have risen for every deal they make, but I can't imagine the ratings for the shows are what they were in the late 90's or even early 90's for that matter (granted, less people had Sky then). Compare this to Darts or Football which has maintained or even grown its audience. Having said that, one glance at the schedule and how many hours WWE occupies across the 3 sports channels should tell you how important Wrestling is to Sky. Â Currently, the live RAW on a Monday night 1-4pm averages 130-160,000, at least it has over the past month. Â This is more than it did 5 years ago, but less than it did 10 years ago. Â The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks. Â The difference is, back then, there was only one showing of RAW a week on a Friday night and it wasn't repeated. There is far more WWE tv programming on Sky now, repeated multiple times throughout the week. Plus tv has changed, and then there's the internet. There's even some episodes of WWE on Sky-on-Demand now. Â So the numbers will always be down on what they were back in the heyday. Â The fact Sky donate so much of their schedule to the show, and the fact that it is usually one of the top rated shows of the week on Sky Sports channels, behind football and occasionally darts, and now that they've spent 3 times more on it than they did 5 years ago - all of that indicates it is a very valuable property to Sky. Â Plus they were never going to let BT Sport get it, not after losing the CL/Europa rights. It would have continued the idea that Sky was losing everything and BT was on the up acquiring everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Murtz Posted January 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted January 30, 2014 The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks. Has that got anything to do with Raw not being live early in the morning, so more people watched it at 9pm compared to watching it 1 to 4 today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 How much are the WWE getting for the new deal per year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted January 30, 2014 Moderators Share Posted January 30, 2014 How important is WWE in the ratings to Sky Sports? What beats it? Football does. Darts probably does. Rugby, both codes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted January 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted January 30, 2014 The Attitude era heyday, RAW was doing in the region of 280,000 to 300,000 some weeks. Has that got anything to do with Raw not being live early in the morning, so more people watched it at 9pm compared to watching it 1 to 4 today? Â Yeah, but its probably got more to do with it not being anywhere near as popular as it was. I'm amazed so many people watch it live tbh, unless that counts people who Sky+ it (fast forward, the way half the UKFF watches Raw i'd imagine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Up Chuck Posted January 30, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted January 30, 2014 How important is WWE in the ratings to Sky Sports? What beats it? Football does. Darts probably does. Rugby, both codes? Â I might be getting this horribly wrong, but I remember reading something about Union audiences being up 90% on BT from what they were on Sky, and I think that was around 1 million. Whatever they were, they've gone up huge on BT and were certainly not doing significantly less than WWE beforehand. It's common knowledge that League outdrew Union on Sky too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.