Crowds to return for opening round of Super Rugby Aotearoa

[L'irlandais]

:nz:

It means Super Rugby Aotearoa will become the first professional rugby competition in the world to have fans return live and en masse. "We're incredibly proud, and grateful, to be the first professional sports competition in the world to be in a position to have our teams play in front of their fans again," says New Zealand Rugby chief executive Mark Robinson.

Source

 

[didds]

is it available onlione anywhere (i dont have sky)

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

At the moment, in the UK and Ireland unless you have forked out over £400 a year to Sky, I don’t think so.
You could listen in on the radio.

There may well be ways around this. You could buy a VPN for example, perhaps you’ll find it being live streamed on some websites in NZ. But legally, your only option is to get ripped off by SKY.

 

[L'irlandais]

Highlight reels on here : Super Rugby (Aotearoa)

 

[Skids]

At the moment, in the UK and Ireland unless you have forked out over £400 a year to Sky, I don’t think so.
You could listen in on the radio.

There may well be ways around this. You could buy a VPN for example, perhaps you’ll find it being live streamed on some websites in NZ. But legally, your only option is to get ripped off by SKY.

In your opinion, of course.

Others might think that the costs of paying for Sky are more than offset against the amount of quality sports coverage alongside extensive other programming and an excellent user interface.

What is a waste of money to one is money well spent to another.

 

[L'irlandais]

I prefer to let my local pay for SKY and watch my matches there on the big screen.
Personally beyond Rugby I don’t watch other sports, apart from Sumo which I discovered at the RWC in Japan.

Sky have over 11 million subscribers in the UK. How do you figure out if £400 is value for money, or not?
You need to work out first how much it costs them to bring those images to your screen.

 

[didds]

How do you figure out if £400 is value for money, or not?

Im guessing that is a per household cost for a year for sky sports (that's on top of a basic sky sub maybe? I wouldn't know?)

On that basis that's £7.70 a week for the sport, which if you watched a game a week may seem "good value" depending on what your alternatives are. Youd maybe struggle to get a pint per half in a Sky pub for that possibly ... depending on what you drink, where in tyhe country you are etc.

But you'd have to factor in the basic sky sub if there is one as well if that is the case.

For those that wish to weatch several football matches plus some internatioonal cricket a bit of league and some union every week its probably a "bargain". For somebody that may only watch one match of <sport X> a week it may not appear so.

That's then also on top of a TV licence of course to watch live sport on sky even if you dont watch any other TV programs ever, even if its on a device and not a TV [ some caveat sthere about the device being plugged in to the mains and that's where it all falls apart and illustrates how ridulous the TV lcience rules have become! ]

didds



Th

 

[chbg]

How do you figure out if £400 is value for money, or not?
You need to work out first how much it costs them to bring those images to your screen.

Surely that is an individual's value judgement dependent on their personal circumstances? Why does the supplier's cost affect the value that you gain? Business is all about delivering goods at a price that people wish to pay above the fixed and variable costs.

 

[SimonSmith]

Sky have over 11 million subscribers in the UK. How do you figure out if £400 is value for money, or not?
You need to work out first how much it costs them to bring those images to your screen.

Not, generally, how value for money works.

 

[L'irlandais]

I’m no economist, but value for money is directly related to overall cost.

A couple of years ago, Samsung had a change of management. The new team started reducing the quality of production in all areas, yet continued to push up the prices. One projector was selling for €545, while it cost around 55€ overall. The MD said if customers are dumb enough to pay over the odds, why should he turn up the chance to increase profits. It seems courts of law didn’t agree with that approach. The two French engineers who denounced those practices lost their jobs.

Seven years ago a widescreen TV could have set you back $10k
Since then the cost of production has been drastically reduced, to the point where it was down to $3500 in 2017 and $2500 in 2018. Manufacturers, in that industry have sacrificed on quality to remain competitive, but some failed to pass on those savings to the customer. Shareholders may happy with bigger dividends in that case.
However value for money is very much related to cost price. Whether we are talking about value for money for the tax payer on construction costs of nuclear power stations, or to the shopper for any other commodity.

Source: Example

An individual can continue to fork out $10k for a wide screen telly, that doesn’t mean he’s getting value for money. It simple means he has more money than sense. Sky’s tarif may well represent value for money. But how can you decide, if you haven’t a foggiest, whether or not they are cutting corners, while continuing to increase the subscription prices.

 

[L'irlandais]

ANYhow, back on topic Super Rugby returns in NZ with fans, hugs and handshakes

About 20,000 supporters watched on in the near-capacity Forsyth Barr Stadium as the Highlanders beat the Chiefs 28-27 in a thrilling opener to the new Super Rugby Aotearoa tournament.

 

[timmad]

For me Sky money has separated the top end of the sport - showbiz rugby - from the game most of us know and love. Inflated salaries, inflated physiques, inflated importance of coaches plus other previously unnecessary roles. You probably gather that I am a Freeview type. Rant over.

 

[SimonSmith]

I’m no economist, but value for money is directly related to overall cost.

A couple of years ago, Samsung had a change of management. The new team started reducing the quality of production in all areas, yet continued to push up the prices. One projector was selling for €545, while it cost around 55€ overall. The MD said if customers are dumb enough to pay over the odds, why should he turn up the chance to increase profits. It seems courts of law didn’t agree with that approach. The two French engineers who denounced those practices lost their jobs.

Seven years ago a widescreen TV could have set you back $10k
Since then the cost of production has been drastically reduced, to the point where it was down to $3500 in 2017 and $2500 in 2018. Manufacturers, in that industry have sacrificed on quality to remain competitive, but some failed to pass on those savings to the customer. Shareholders may happy with bigger dividends in that case.
However value for money is very much related to cost price. Whether we are talking about value for money for the tax payer on construction costs of nuclear power stations, or to the shopper for any other commodity.

Source: Example

An individual can continue to fork out $10k for a wide screen telly, that doesn’t mean he’s getting value for money. It simple means he has more money than sense. Sky’s tarif may well represent value for money. But how can you decide, if you haven’t a foggiest, whether or not they are cutting corners, while continuing to increase the subscription prices.

Mate, you're talking about price.

Value for money is more than just a cost equation.

Let's take a book, for example. Let's say a first edition Dorothy Sayers.
Cost to produce? Let's say GBP1.00 for example.

Using your methodology, paying GBP100 would be ridiculous.
Anyone who is a Golden Age fan, or LPW fan, that GBP100 would be a steal.
How much would her signature add to the value? The cost of her signature is negligible, the value is huge.

Value isn't just cost of production. There's an emotional context, and market context that you seem to be ignoring.

 

[L'irlandais]

The collectibles market is entirely different and not without it’s swindlers. (Books don’t make the Top 10.)
[LAWS]Art forgeries, counterfeit coins, and suspect stamps frequently appear and are purchased by naive collectors.[/LAWS]
The same hold true for the naive consumer, a fool and his money are easily parted.
That’s why watchdogs exist, right?

Consumer organizations are advocacy groups that seek to protect people from corporate abuse like unsafe products, predatory lending, false advertising, astroturfing and pollution.

 

[crossref]

this might help
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/...ory of price is,between its supply and demand.

 

[L'irlandais]

Thanks. Their product is somewhat intangible.

The cost of producing a product has a direct impact on both the price of the product and the profit earned from its sale.

...Every company must determine the price customers will be willing to pay for their product or service, while also being mindful of the cost of bringing that product or service to market.

It’s not a question of price for me, it’s one of what services they provide. When companies start scaling back on the infrastructure while still claiming to provide quality service, I get suspicious.

I agree with didds’ idea that watching, say 5 live matches a week, could represent value for money. During lockdown, there were less sports available, yet Sky Sports continued to charge their customers the same fee. Source. If for the last 3 months they have aired 0 live matches, how’s that value for money?

They certainly have over charged for services in the past, not just a figment of my imagination. Following an Ofcom review of premium services Sky was found to have overcharged for its Sky Sports channels, and was ordered (by the UK comms watchdog) in 2010 to reduce its charges for these channels. This monopoly remained until the creation of BT Sports in 2015.

 

[mcroker]

Sky sports customers were able to freeze their payments (personally I think sky should have done this by default, but the process was very easy).

I would argue there is no correlation between cost and value.

in the case of a TV subscription I think value is an entirely subjective decision on the part of the consumer (FWIW I won’t be renewing sky as i don’t use it enough to justify the cost - Of course if they repackaged so I could get all the rugby without paying for football I might review that decision)

 

[crossref]

Sky sports customers were able to freeze their payments (personally I think sky should have done this by default, but the process was very easy).

I would argue there is no correlation between cost and value.

there is a correaltion, because the
- the supply curve is impacted by cost, if the price is below cost, supply ceases, if it's above cost supply increases
- the dmand cureve is impacted by perceived value

in

 

[L'irlandais]

Nice one crossref,
Correlation that’s the word I should have been using. Turns up dozens of scholarly articles on the subect;

The Difference Between Value and Cost — and How It Will Crush Your Sales if You Get It Wrong

The Relation of Cost to Value | Mises Institute

The relationship between target costing and value-based pricing and presenting an aggregate model based on customers’ expectations

 

[didds]

I still have to want to buy it at the price that is asked. Howsoever the supplier arrives at the cost they are asking.

didds