And don’t forget, if Sky really is just ripping them off they can always cancel their sub…
I may be wrong on this, but I don’t believe that Sky have a gun to their head…
Printable View
Clubs NZ 2021 annual report:
https://www.clubsnz.org.nz/assets/Ab...ual-Report.pdf
https://i.imgur.com/PnVLCEr.jpg
- 200% increase in surplus year on year
- $11,639 in commission from Sky TV
- Claims government wage subsidy
Page 16: "The main expense items under budget were board and staff expenses"Quote:
The Sky TV increase at the end of 2019 is an example of how a single thing can hugely challenge our members financial viability. I am aware there are clubs who will consider their future pay TV options and there are a few who will just give up their TAB systems altogether. Our CEO is working alongside Hospitality New Zealand and the TAB to work through several solutions including live streaming options. This will continue to be a work in progress. There are new developments in the pipeline which will be presented at the 2021 AGM.
Sky Television’s bullying tactics are unacceptable. If there was one issue that has created a sense of mistrust and anger among clubs, it is this company’s attitude to pricing and unjustifiable and inconsistent measurement of charges. We have tried to discuss this with them, however they continue to talk about increased services and more programming content available, which clubs have no interest in. The remaining option is a mass membership exodus, and this will require coordinated member support. Government at this stage say they will not get involved because it is “commercial”. While the last resort solution remains with our group’s total membership, maybe it is time to flexour 300,000-membership muscle don’t bite the hand that feeds you, Mr Sky and Spark
$863,765 in board and staff fees
https://i.imgur.com/lrxwFQW.gif
The first thing that caught my eye was the 5% nz rugby hold the mentioned. Being almost a year since nz rugby was diluted down to less than 2%. If they got such a simple thing wrong that's been know for a year what else is factually incorrect?
Takeovers generally only results in higher prices as the company that buys it trys to get ima returns back quicker
https://i.imgur.com/sHIEMx6.jpg
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/comcom...rger-th-199887
“We’re generally supportive of market consolidation where it leads to better outcomes for consumers.” Said Spark’s general manager regulatory affairs John Wesley-Smith.
What actually ended up happening:
-Sky declined consolidation with Vodafone
-Spark enters sports market
-Customers end up getting billed for both Cricket and Rugby
-Sky's costs are fixed so it pasts on increased cost to compensate
-Club NZ ends up paying more
-Whingey old man from Club NZ ends up complaining to ComCom about price increases
https://i.imgur.com/lrxwFQW.gif
NZ Rugby takes $16m impairment on Sky TV investment, reveals extent of Sky clawback on broadcast rights
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12441015
NZ rugby's sgare in sky 1.7%. Not 5% stipulated by clubs nz
The more I see news releases like this from NZX listed property companies, the more I am convinced that Skys property is being pitched at these large entities first and won't be advertised publicly unless they have all done their due diligence and all passed on an acquisition.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/371892
Let's watch this space, hard to know what is going on.
But I don't see why early interest from large entities after the NZX announcement would stop Colliers from listing the property. They should be generating maximum interest for the property to get the best possible price - and you need to advertise it to do that.
It is very strange that in March they announced that it would be listed in April, now we are a third of the way through May and still nothing.
Maybe we will see a listing materialise in the next week or so, but it is a very strange situation.
I'm almost exoecting some form of revenue guidence thus week from sky