Kiam Siap, Channel 5 and CNA


Status
Not open for further replies.
the solution is actually very simple:

dont watch football lah! :D :bsmilie:
 

auron said:
guys, do u know that mediacorp is also a shareholder of starhub.
so u do the maths yourself on why channel 5 and CNA is showing only still photos instead of actual footage of goals.

Being shareholders doesn't mean they are showing or must show preferential treatment to their invested company over their own company...what would the shareholders of MCS say? Conspiracy theories aside, I just think MCS didn't manage to obtain the broadcast rights, or else ain't interested in bringing in the live broadcast of Euro 04.

But I think it's really a bit too cheapo to not even bother getting some live footages...

Shareholders get dividends, not net profits, from their invested companies! Economics rule!
 

Ah Pao said:
Being shareholders doesn't mean they are showing or must show preferential treatment to their invested company over their own company...what would the shareholders of MCS say? Conspiracy theories aside, I just think MCS didn't manage to obtain the broadcast rights, or else ain't interested in bringing in the live broadcast of Euro 04.

But I think it's really a bit too cheapo to not even bother getting some live footages...

Shareholders get dividends, not net profits, from their invested companies! Economics rule!
Dividends are declared out of net profit. If a investee co does not make a profit, where would dividends be declared from?
 

reachme2003 said:
Dividends are declared out of net profit. If a investee co does not make a profit, where would dividends be declared from?

Having a net profit doesn't guarantee dividends to shareholders.

My point being, if MCS can generate more revenue by bringing in the live matches, why would it hand the broadcast rights on a silver platter to Starhub?
 

Ah Pao said:
Having a net profit doesn't guarantee dividends to shareholders.

My point being, if MCS can generate more revenue by bringing in the live matches, why would it hand the broadcast rights on a silver platter to Starhub?

Para 1, you are right. However, one can almost be sure of no dividends when there is no profit.

Para 2, commercial decision, cannot comment.
 

well said guys.

i gave up complaining abt not having free to air channels. wrote to forum eons ago regarding issue that sg wants to go to worldcup2010 yet no free soccer on tv? WTF. of coz they did not publish nor i get any reply. my fav sport was formula1. there was sports city and i was estatic! now...LL just subscribed to it lor. 28bucks a mth shldnt' kill too many pple.

if u wanna avoid paying...there're other 'frenly' methods to watch at home, TV/PC...etc..(which i do NOT encourage)

just watched 10pm ch8 news..the footage also like ****...slow-mo here and there, and tackles instead of showing the goals properly....WTF...damn pity...garhmen trying to give more autonomy ....this is the price consumers are paying. it'll be the same for everything else!

most imptly, GO ENGLAND GO!!!
GO FRANCE GOOAALLLL!!!!!!!
 

Ah Pao said:
Being shareholders doesn't mean they are showing or must show preferential treatment to their invested company over their own company...what would the shareholders of MCS say? Conspiracy theories aside, I just think MCS didn't manage to obtain the broadcast rights, or else ain't interested in bringing in the live broadcast of Euro 04.

But I think it's really a bit too cheapo to not even bother getting some live footages...

Shareholders get dividends, not net profits, from their invested companies! Economics rule!

obviously you guys didn't hear of the huge amount of table pounding going on. no conspiracy.
 

Sorry, can't sympathise with all the belly-aching going on. TV content is not "free", it cost somebody intellectual and monetary capital to generate the news/entertainment/documentary etc. Professional sportsmen are effectively entertainers, the field is their stage, and they get paid whatever the market deems they are worth. So, if you don't mind paying a cinema admission ticket, buying music from a store, or selling your photos online, why are you complaining about paying to watch sports? The Portuguese government spent many millions to upgrade their stadia and infrastructure, they don't have the right to recover the cost from viewers?

Next issue, who should pay for it.....
Now part of the funding for free to air TV comes from license fees. Do you recall what you paid last year for TV license......do you? A real pittance wasn't it? So how are they supposed to compete with SCV to bring in Euro 2004, unless they raise license fees across the board, even for the majority of Singaporeans (like Clive ;) ) who don't watch soccer. Do you think that's fair?
Otherwise, they should perhaps take whatever money's in the pot and put it ALL on Euro 2004....children's programming, national education, documentaries and the arts be damned.
You forget TV5, 8 and CNA cater to a wide and diverse audience. What you deem to be a national priority in terms of "Goal 2004" is not necessarily shared by other stakeholders. So get off your high horse and do your sums. If you want sports, its all there, 3 full channels of it, together with CNN, BBC, National Geographic and Discovery Channel, all for a dollar a day. What a BARGAIN!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.