http://www.techradar.com/news/televisio ... ay-1128715

A good idea for them, seems well over-priced for the consumer though...

Who in their right mind would pay that?

Not me. I might be interested in a monthly pass for events like the Tour de France, but not at that price. There is also a massive missed market for fans of certain sports who don't mind it being delayed. Some football fans might prefer a cheaper option if they showed matches two or three days later. I quite like American Football but do not want to sign up for so many months for sports that I am not interested in. The NFL has a season pass for their app but the price is stupid.

To be honest, there's bery little sport I watch these days. I quite like Ski Sunday etc, but I don't have the time to watch things like that.

Sports fans, the same people would buy Spy Sports content normally. Amazing revelation, isn't it?

Look at this this way : a months' sub to Sky Sports costs £15 but the minimum subscription length is a year. If you're a rugby fan who wants to see an England 6 nations away game, or a football fan and your team are only on Sky sports onceevery few months (which, unless you're a fan of a 'big' team, is pretty much the norm), or a golf fan who wants to watch the ryder cup final day live which is better - £15 a month for a year for a channel that most of the time you won't actually look at or a tenner to watch what you actually want to see?

It's a bit more than a cinema ticket or about a quarter of the cost of a ticket to a top flight sporting event. If you don't want to watch the content, then yes, it's chuffing awful value. But if you don't want to watch the content then the deal isn't aimed at you anyway. if it's a case of 'I want to watch this live, it's a choice of driving to London, paying 40 quid for a ticket and taking a whole day to do it, paying 15 quid a month for a channel I don't really watch that often, or just paying a tenner and that's it' which one do you think most people are going to end up choosing? It's pay-as-you-go for sports content.

I spend a tenner on a round of drinks on a Friday night easily. And they last less than 24 hours.

The important thing is this is ahead of BT's entrance into sports broadcasting. There's a theory that BT are going to pinch a significant portion of the rights to sports and set themselves up as a genuine competitor to Sky Sports. Most people aren't going to bother subscribing to both, so Sky stand to lose a fair number of subs to BT. This is a way for Sky to get something out of those people who either move over or don't sub to Sky, leveraging whatever sports rights they have left.

It's a perfectly reasonable business move on their part and, frankly, it's nowhere near the ripoff you think it is - at least not in the context of how much sport costs to watch anyway.

£9.99 a day works out at an average of £303.86 per month. I doubt most sky sports subscribers wouldn't think twice about that.
There's bound to be a price tipping point where people just say "it isn't worth it".

But as Jon says, if you watched it every day then you'd subscribe. I might just pay the £10 once a year to watch a cup final or whatever with a few beers and a couple of mates.

I won't, but that's not the point.

I'd go to the pub and get £10 worth of beer

Valid point. Although, our local pub has closed. Again. I think it was only open 6 months this time!

And get the game for free if you have gone to the right pub.

That was my point.

I wasn't claiming it would be the only way to do it. It's just one viable alternative.

Sorry I missed that. Though it also makes it more social. Plus you could get a meal as well, and make a night of it.

My old local used to give out free chip butties at half time during world cup matches.

Sounds great! I could really go for one right now, but I'd have to make the chips from potato and bake the bread first