The Artful Dodger Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, ScoRoss said: So what are clubs supposed to do? Not show these games and somehow make up 40% of their income elsewhere? Scottish clubs are more reliant on matchday income than almost anywhere else in Europe. PPV is at least reducing these losses. If it’s Covid only then fine. It won’t be though and then kids will be getting subscriptions to Liverpool, Manchester United etc rather than bother with Preston, Blackpool, Hull city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Burning Gold said: How many people are going to pay for that vs this PPV idea? If my slightly bevved maths are correct, there are 6 games a week not normally televised, which makes 24 a month. So you'd need 24 times as many who'd pay for that as will pay for a single game a month. I can probably tell you why they're doing it this way I'm not trying to have a pop at anyone but this idea comes up every now and then, and it ultimately boils down to "why don't they show us more games for significantly less money than they currently do?". The answer is extremely obvious Worth noting that the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. subscriptions come with blackouts for teams in your local area and games shown on your local networks, so you have to pay for those TV packages on top. The £15 fee per game fee is obviously ridiculous though to start with. £15 a month was a figure I plucked out of thin air that was user friendly with what you normally pay these days for subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. I think in retrospect, I would probably be prepared to pay £20-25 if it meant getting 24 games a month. That is just me though. I am more thinking about a father of three who loves his football, may not be in the best paid job and certainly cannot afford £15 a game. Why should the Premier League alienate those fans? The point here is that times are tough that the Premier League should seriously consider making it more accessible to a wider audience than just those that can afford it, at least as an initial trial during Covid times just to see what kind of response they get. And I honestly think a subscription service would get snapped up by many as opposed to selling per game at £15. There are a lot of games they will struggle to sell based on the teams involved. And they will only lose viewers anyway who will turn to illegal streams if available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Don’t get the faux outrage when thousands illegally stream anyway. That’ll continue regardless of a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlr Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Always amuses me how people get so angry when this happens. You don't become a league or club worth hundreds of millions of pounds by acting like Mother Teresa. Of course it's no longer the passtime of the working classes, of course there's no football family, of course Man City don't give a fuck if anyone or anything except themselves lives or dies. It's an uber-capitalist, morally bereft behemoth. Anyone who didn't see that coming at any point since the early 90s needs their head checking. And yet there'll be all the outrage, hashtags and general bedwetting but the road goes on. Everyone shells out for Sky and BT every month so we can listen to Jamie Redknapp attempt to construct a coherent sentence and pretend Burnley v. Brighton isn't the visual equivalent of catching Ebola. Until there is a genuine, sustained rebellion against it it will continue at ever increasing speed and ever increasing distance from what football in England was 30 years ago. That opposition starts with not paying for Sky, BT or this shite. Starving them of the very thing the crave is the only thing they'll notice. The sad part is that the global brand is so powerful that the actions of the very towns and supporters that host these teams - the Burnleys, Southamptons and Wolverhamptons if this world - won't make an ounce of fucking difference. My honest hope for Rovers is that we get promoted to barnstorm the funds for a year to write off our debt and start anew. I would hate for us to be a part of it for any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Gold Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, Lucas said: The £15 fee per game fee is obviously ridiculous though to start with. £15 a month was a figure I plucked out of thin air that was user friendly with what you normally pay these days for subscription services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. I think in retrospect, I would probably be prepared to pay £20-25 if it meant getting 24 games a month. That is just me though. I am more thinking about a father of three who loves his football, may not be in the best paid job and certainly cannot afford £15 a game. Why should the Premier League alienate those fans? The point here is that times are tough that the Premier League should seriously consider making it more accessible to a wider audience than just those that can afford it, at least as an initial trial during Covid times just to see what kind of response they get. And I honestly think a subscription service would get snapped up by many as opposed to selling per game at £15. There are a lot of games they will struggle to sell based on the teams involved. And they will only lose viewers anyway who will turn to illegal streams if available. I agree it is high, but then isn't it £10 for that iFollow for football league clubs? I thought that was high too, but if you start from that as a base, £15 doesn't look too extortionate. I also agree with you on what the nice thing for the PL to do would be, in terms of making football more accessible, but you lose me when you start painting it as the sensible thing to do. People want to watch football, especially their team, and they don't seem to be particularly sensitive to price. We've seen that over and over again as the price of everything related to football has skyrocketed. Some people may be priced out, but enough people just suck it up that it's worth doing. @The Artful Dodger is right. The only way to fight back is to stop paying it, but as we stand, that's not happening. The other thing to remember is that yes PL clubs as a whole have spent a lot of money, but some may genuinely be struggling and getting this extra income could go a long way to help them. It's no coincidence that those clubs are the same ones who'll have the most games on this service as they won't be selected for the main TV packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Yeah, it’s £10 for a match outside the Premier League on that iFollow thing. Which, really, isn’t bad. If you actually wanted to go to the game, you’re probably going to pay double as a minimum that to go to the stadium, even at League Two level. Are Premier League STH getting free access to all games like they do outside of the Premier League? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted October 10, 2020 Author Administrator Share Posted October 10, 2020 32 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said: Yeah, it’s £10 for a match outside the Premier League on that iFollow thing. Which, really, isn’t bad. If you actually wanted to go to the game, you’re probably going to pay double as a minimum that to go to the stadium, even at League Two level. Are Premier League STH getting free access to all games like they do outside of the Premier League? Nope. Only the games they made free to air at end of last season and last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Stan said: Nope. Only the games they made free to air at end of last season and last month. So...what the fuck are you paying for then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 How long before it’s the ‘EPL live from Las Vegas, Coca Cola Chelsea v Amazon Arsenal’? Why can’t people see what’s happening, we are being culturally asset stripped. I said this virus would be used as a cloak to take the game further away from match going working class people who made each and every single football club in this country what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted October 10, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 10, 2020 33 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said: So...what the fuck are you paying for then? A lot of season ticket holders have paid in good faith to support their clubs because as much as the narrative in this thread seems to be "duh what do you expect the Premier League is soulless and corrupt", a lot of actual people actually feel connected to their club and their community which is why this move from 19 out of 20 Premier League clubs leaves a really bad taste in the mouth. "Faux outrage" is a poor shout. People are more than happy to support their football clubs, not so much Sky, BT and the Premier League as an entity. This is why given the choice, most fans would still rather pay £50 to their club to be in the stadium than £15 to ??? to watch on TV. Where is the £15 actually going? There is plenty of context that needs to be taken into account. Bottom line is why do football clubs have to vote for this and take football another step further away from your ordinary people when any profit they, Sky, BT or the Premier League see is going to be chicken feed to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewolf Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 46 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said: How long before it’s the ‘EPL live from Las Vegas, Coca Cola Chelsea v Amazon Arsenal’? We might be a little way off that yet but amusing all the same... nothing would surprise me though Regarding the cost aspect I wouldn't consider myself outraged at what they are asking regarding cost per match just more disappointed that they have not put much thought into it given the current situation, rather than use the opportunity to bring the cost down to a reasonable level so that more people are inclined to want to sign up they go the opposite way and alienate a lot of fans then take umbrage at the fact people are streaming games illegally.. This situation has put a lot of people either out of work altogether or on reduced hours so the vast majority through no fault of their own will be finding it hard on the pocket right now.. and sure you would be paying far more if you actually went to the games but we can't can we?? Again for me it's always profit over good service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoRoss Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Smiley Culture said: Yeah, it’s £10 for a match outside the Premier League on that iFollow thing. Which, really, isn’t bad. If you actually wanted to go to the game, you’re probably going to pay double as a minimum that to go to the stadium, even at League Two level. Are Premier League STH getting free access to all games like they do outside of the Premier League? I'm just surprised that people actually bought season tickets for EPL clubs! I get why people did it for lower League clubs and clubs in Scotland, clubs that actually need that money to survive (and even then had players take wage cuts and deferrals). In Scotland, season ticket holders get access to every home match with variations regarding whether that's all they get for their season ticket or the money is put towards further purchases etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted October 10, 2020 Author Administrator Share Posted October 10, 2020 49 minutes ago, ScoRoss said: I'm just surprised that people actually bought season tickets for EPL clubs! I get why people did it for lower League clubs and clubs in Scotland, clubs that actually need that money to survive (and even then had players take wage cuts and deferrals). Some fans were given the ultimatum that if they didn't pay this season, they'd lose their season ticket for the season after (21/22). Years of loyalty down the drain for one season missed if choosing not to pay this season. Not a nice position to be put in but at the time, no one really knew what the situation would be and when fans would be allowed. Plus if you did commit this season to paying a cost, you'd get the chance (if permitted) to attend matches if you preferred to even though full attendance was unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewolf Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Broadcasting Premier League matches on a pay-per-view basis will lead to fans watching on illegal streams, says a football finance expert. Games not already picked to be shown live will be available on BT Sport Box Office or Sky Sports Box Office. The Premier League clubs see the "interim solution" as a way for people to still watch their teams, but some fans have criticised the £14.95 charge. "It is going to drive people towards piracy," said Kieran Maguire. Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, the Price Of Football author described the Premier League's pricing scheme as a "public relations disaster", adding: "It discriminates against the clubs that don't tend to be on Sky Sports or BT that often." Spectators have been unable to attend Premier League games since football was halted in March because of the coronavirus pandemic. When the 2019-20 top-flight season resumed in June, the remaining 92 matches were shown live via the Premier League's broadcast partners, and that has been the case so far this term. Some fans have criticised the planned price - a similar scheme for English Football League clubs costs £10 per game, others are already paying subscription fees to BT Sport and Sky Sports, and season ticket holders at some clubs are paying for tickets despite not being allowed into the stadiums. "The Premier League's argument, which is EFL clubs are charging £10 so we should be charging more because we have more cameras, is also flawed," said Maguire. "The cameras were already going to be there because the matches would have been shown on Match of the Day anyway, so the set-up costs would be minimal." Top-flight clubs voted 19-1 in favour of the pay-per-view scheme on Friday - with Leicester City the only one to vote against it - but Maguire says it "goes against the grain" of government advice. "Families and friends are going to gather together, which completely goes against what we are trying to achieve by discouraging people from going into other people's houses," he added. "If they got the pricing right it might have been fine, but nobody actually knows what is happening with the money. "Is it going into a central pot? Is it being used to bail out lower league clubs? Or is it going to be kept by the individual clubs who are playing these particular matches? "It all seems to be a bit ill-thought through." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 16 hours ago, Bluewolf said: We might be a little way off that yet but amusing all the same... nothing would surprise me though Regarding the cost aspect I wouldn't consider myself outraged at what they are asking regarding cost per match just more disappointed that they have not put much thought into it given the current situation, rather than use the opportunity to bring the cost down to a reasonable level so that more people are inclined to want to sign up they go the opposite way and alienate a lot of fans then take umbrage at the fact people are streaming games illegally.. This situation has put a lot of people either out of work altogether or on reduced hours so the vast majority through no fault of their own will be finding it hard on the pocket right now.. and sure you would be paying far more if you actually went to the games but we can't can we?? Again for me it's always profit over good service... I’m sure you’ve heard the housemartins song build? Pretty much sums up football at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebird Hewitt Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 20 hours ago, Stan said: Some fans were given the ultimatum that if they didn't pay this season, they'd lose their season ticket for the season after (21/22). Years of loyalty down the drain for one season missed if choosing not to pay this season. Not a nice position to be put in but at the time, no one really knew what the situation would be and when fans would be allowed. Plus if you did commit this season to paying a cost, you'd get the chance (if permitted) to attend matches if you preferred to even though full attendance was unlikely. Pretty much this for us as well in regards to the season tickets, but as we're in the Championship and have the iFollow thingy, we get 'home' games for free but have to pay £10 for the away games. I assume that's similar for season ticket holders of other clubs in the Football League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Culture Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 On 10/10/2020 at 11:46, RandoEFC said: A lot of season ticket holders have paid in good faith to support their clubs because as much as the narrative in this thread seems to be "duh what do you expect the Premier League is soulless and corrupt", a lot of actual people actually feel connected to their club and their community which is why this move from 19 out of 20 Premier League clubs leaves a really bad taste in the mouth. "Faux outrage" is a poor shout. People are more than happy to support their football clubs, not so much Sky, BT and the Premier League as an entity. This is why given the choice, most fans would still rather pay £50 to their club to be in the stadium than £15 to ??? to watch on TV. Where is the £15 actually going? There is plenty of context that needs to be taken into account. Bottom line is why do football clubs have to vote for this and take football another step further away from your ordinary people when any profit they, Sky, BT or the Premier League see is going to be chicken feed to them? So, they take your money and you get nothing back then? They’ve effectively got you by the balls because of supply and demand and they know people won’t want to lose their seats if fans are ever let back in. Whereas lower league clubs, who plead poverty (correctly) are giving season ticket holders links to games for free as way of getting some sort of “use” of their ticket. Granted, the sentimental stuff but it’s a terrible return from Premier League teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted October 11, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 11, 2020 2 hours ago, Smiley Culture said: So, they take your money and you get nothing back then? They’ve effectively got you by the balls because of supply and demand and they know people won’t want to lose their seats if fans are ever let back in. Whereas lower league clubs, who plead poverty (correctly) are giving season ticket holders links to games for free as way of getting some sort of “use” of their ticket. Granted, the sentimental stuff but it’s a terrible return from Premier League teams. I agree. I imagine most Premier League clubs will save face by announcing soon that they'll make sure season ticket holders will be able to stream the games instead of paying more for them but the fact that the clubs have voted for this when their fans have already forked out to support them in good faith means that the outrage is fair enough in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 Listening to The Price of Football, Kieron Maguire has delved deeper and it appears the clubs were given an ultimatum by broadcasters who have stated they are not going to show the additional games for free any more. They've justified the £14.95 price (which was non negotiable) because of the number of cameras. Which is doesnt make sense as the majority of additional cameras are used to support MOTD/highlights as opposed to live football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted October 12, 2020 Author Administrator Share Posted October 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said: Listening to The Price of Football, Kieron Maguire has delved deeper and it appears the clubs were given an ultimatum by broadcasters who have stated they are not going to show the additional games for free any more. They've justified the £14.95 price (which was non negotiable) because of the number of cameras. Which is doesnt make sense as the majority of additional cameras are used to support MOTD/highlights as opposed to live football. Are they not used to support VAR and having numerous angles of incidents to aid those decisions? Even so, given how much income the PL gets, and how much clubs have just spent on transfer fees, I still think that price is vastly extortionate. That camera-justification doesn't wash with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted October 12, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 12, 2020 On 10/10/2020 at 10:27, Smiley Culture said: Yeah, it’s £10 for a match outside the Premier League on that iFollow thing. Which, really, isn’t bad. If you actually wanted to go to the game, you’re probably going to pay double as a minimum that to go to the stadium, even at League Two level. Are Premier League STH getting free access to all games like they do outside of the Premier League? £15 isn't bad when you consider the £10 match pass fee across all clubs in the three leagues of the EFL. And yes, you're right, it's about £22 for a Grimsby game so £10 is a steal. I think a lot of people are crying over the fact they won't get these matches as part of their existing subscriptions but at least the option is there to pay if you want to watch. The argument that the price is too high is ridiculous. The Premier League is one of the best leagues in the world. You wouldn't moan about the price to go see a new blockbuster film at the box office just because those film companies make millions of pounds and spend big on their production budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 On 12/10/2020 at 13:43, Pyfish said: £15 isn't bad when you consider the £10 match pass fee across all clubs in the three leagues of the EFL. And yes, you're right, it's about £22 for a Grimsby game so £10 is a steal. I think a lot of people are crying over the fact they won't get these matches as part of their existing subscriptions but at least the option is there to pay if you want to watch. The argument that the price is too high is ridiculous. The Premier League is one of the best leagues in the world. You wouldn't moan about the price to go see a new blockbuster film at the box office just because those film companies make millions of pounds and spend big on their production budgets. The difference is an AJ PPV fight or a big movie in the cinema is an experience you're willing to pay as a one off with friends. Palace vs Burnley? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted October 13, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, The Palace Fan said: The difference is an AJ PPV fight or a big movie in the cinema is an experience you're willing to pay as a one off with friends. Palace vs Burnley? Not so much. True but if you’re a Palace or Burnley fan, and you really want to watch your team, you’d be happy to pay surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 I dont stream illegally. But only because i dont know how to most of the time. Why should I care if I dont pay for something and it affects the profits of someone who has a private jet and has done a lot of bad things to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 On 12/10/2020 at 11:10, The Palace Fan said: Listening to The Price of Football, Kieron Maguire has delved deeper and it appears the clubs were given an ultimatum by broadcasters who have stated they are not going to show the additional games for free any more. They've justified the £14.95 price (which was non negotiable) because of the number of cameras. Which is doesnt make sense as the majority of additional cameras are used to support MOTD/highlights as opposed to live football. The real truth is probably Sky's profit has dropped half a billion to $1.3bn. The hedge funds who own the parent company don't like that. Hedge funds are aggressive pursuers of profit, the greater good isn't a thing to them. Sky don't need this extra income from PPV. We're over a barrel this weekend. I look forward to a middle east stream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.