Football and the Coronavirus

the wopster · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:29

BaZ87 said:
What did you tell us?

How courpt the PL was for blocking our takeover, now they have shafted the rest of the fans in the PL.

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:32

How is it corrupt to expect supporters to pay for extra content? I'm not sure how they're corrupt in not allowing the Saudi state to purchase Newcastle unchallenge either.

Shamikebab · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:35

Anyone remember when Woppy said he was done with football, like multiple times.

omnomnom · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:42

My issues with this is that this government made a big song and dance about how getting football back was good for the countries morale and mental health etc...now as we go into another lockdown, albeit a smaller one, its behind a paywall.

Yes i know this isnt a government decision but clubs, the PL etc all talk about mental health then hide behind a paywall when millions of people are being made redundant.

I just think its too expensive. Maybe £20 a month for an FA deal split between the clubs would have been a better idea.

It certainly isnt currupt...that argument is just laughable.

the wopster · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:46

BaZ87 said:
How is it corrupt to expect supporters to pay for extra content?.

Get to **** man the PL are showing complete contempt for the fan's, they are exploiting the fans when people are suffering the financial impact of Covid-19(all to replace the money lost from China), for content that they have provided for the last 6 months which had no extra cost because all games are broadcast all over the world anyway, most fans are still paying for season tickets without refunds yet, so clubs are not losing those sales, clubs have just spent a fortune on transfers and now they are crying ******* poverty, get to ****

the wopster · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:47

Shamikebab said:
Anyone remember when Woppy said he was done with football, like multiple times.

And this shows why I was ******* right, I take my hat off to Leicester city though they were the only club to vote against it

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:56

Any supporter that's had their season ticket money taken and isn't being refunded for games played behind closed doors should really be looking at the club in question, not the League. The League do not dictate what each club should do regarding ticket sales. I know that Liverpool, for example, didn't even sell any season tickets this season because of the issues with games being played behind closed doors and will instead sell tickets on a match by match basis when supporters are allowed to return.

This has nothing to do with the Chinese TV contract either. It's simply designed to replace some of the lost match day revenue.

And why do people keep saying this was offered to them for free for 6 months? Football didn't return until mid June and the season finished at the end of July + less than one month at the start of this season. I make that 2 and a half months.

omnomnom said:
I just think its too expensive. Maybe £20 a month for an FA deal split between the clubs would have been a better idea.

A flat monthly subscription probably would have been fairer (and possibly more lucrative for the League as more people would have paid it) however I think it could have ended up being perceived in an even worse way than this. The whole point of this set-up is that it's meant to be a cheaper alternative for match going supporters - instead of paying £40 for your match ticket, you can watch it on tv for an average of £5 per perso. That was the message they wanted to send. In theory it shouldnt be a negative for any non match goer - they weren't able to watch these games in the UK before so aren't missing out and match goers have got the next best thing at a much lower cost. This hasn't been communicated properly though and you're getting ott reactions as if the League are looking to make money out of the situation when all they're doing is trying to recoup a small amount of the revenue they're losing and provide supporters with an option.

robfosters · 9 Oct 2020 at 21:59

The argument that gets me is the one about how we should get to watch it as there’s no fans and you can’t go to the stadium to watch. What percentage of a premier league clubs fan base actually goes to games regularly? It’s bloody minuscule. Probably less than 1% if I’m honest.

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:05

robfosters said:
The argument that gets me is the one about how we should get to watch it as there’s no fans and you can’t go to the stadium to watch. What percentage of a premier league clubs fan base actually goes to games regularly? It’s bloody minuscule. Probably less than 1% if I’m honest.

Yep and when you consider that over 50% of matches are televised anyway, that tiny percentage is cut even further. It would have been easier for the League and less hassle if they held their ground and not shown these extra games at all.

omnomnom · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:10

I mean lets have it right. This should have been sorted bloody months ago not a week before the first PPV game. Its an absolute shambles.

the wopster · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:13

BaZ87 said:
The whole point of this set-up is that it's meant to be a cheaper alternative for match going supporters - instead of paying £40 for your match ticket, you can watch it on tv for an average of £5 per perso. That was the message they wanted to send. In theory it shouldnt be a negative for any non match goer - they weren't able to watch these games in the UK before so aren't missing out and match goers have got the next best thing at a much lower cost. This hasn't been communicated properly though and you're getting ott reactions as if the League are looking to make money out of the situation when all they're doing is trying to recoup a small amount of the revenue they're losing and provide supporters with an option.

That’s fair enough if the broadcast was done fairly but it won’t be, so you will get for example West Brom fans having to likely pay for 4/5 out of 6 games between now and the end of November but Liverpool/Manchester United fans will likely only have to pay for 1/2 out of 6. It’s fair enough the big 6 being broadcast more to the world market but not to the domestic market

Purdy · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:14

So if you wanted to watch all the football per week now it’ll cost you what, bear 100GBP?

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:16

omnomnom said:
I mean lets have it right. This should have been sorted bloody months ago not a week before the first PPV game. Its an absolute shambles.

At the start of the season the PL weren't going to show these extra games at all. It was only after fan groups put them under pressure that they backed down at the last minute and agreed to show games up until October, when supporters were then due to return to stadiums. It's only recently that plans for supporters to return changed.

woppy101 said:
That’s fair enough if the broadcast was done fairly but it won’t be, so you will get for example West Brom fans having to likely pay for 4/5 out of 6 games between now and the end of November but Liverpool/Manchester United fans will likely only have to pay for 1/2 out of 6.

There's no easy answer to this. Sky and BT have paid for their games and they pick which games they want to show. The flip side to this argument is that these supporters are getting opportunities to watch their side that they wouldn't have had before. Does taking the opportunity away altogether help anybody?

robfosters · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:17

woppy101 said:
That’s fair enough if the broadcast was done fairly but it won’t be, so you will get for example West Brom fans having to likely pay for 4/5 out of 6 games between now and the end of November but Liverpool/Manchester United fans will likely only have to pay for 1/2 out of 6. It’s fair enough the big 6 being broadcast more to the world market but not to the domestic market

That’s why I suggested categorising the games. They do it for tickets, why not for the ‘virtual’ tickets?

Stumble Bum · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:20

Games should be available for £5 each and not a penny more. I'm very confident the clubs would make far more money charging £5 rather than £15, very few people will pay that amount, but at £5 a lot of people will be ok to pay that, thus generating more income for the clubs overall. They've missed a trick here through pure greed. I hope no-one pays the £15, it would be foolish to do so.

omnomnom · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:26

BaZ87 said:
At the start of the season the PL weren't going to show these extra games at all. It was only after fan groups put them under pressure that they backed down at the last minute and agreed to show games up until October, when supporters were then due to return to stadiums. It's only recently that plans for supporters to return changed.

There's no easy answer to this. Sky and BT have paid for their games and they pick which games they want to show. The flip side to this argument is that these supporters are getting opportunities to watch their side that they wouldn't have had before. Does taking the opportunity away altogether help anybody?

Yes i know but even October was going to be limited capacity. Youd have to living under a rock to think no fans for the while season might be a possiblity.

Sorry but £15 for a stream is a disgrace. To move us vs Sheffield United from 3pm to 8pm is also questionable if they follow Scotlands route re pubs aswell.

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:27

As I said, at the start of the season they had no plans to allow these games to be shown at all, even with no fans in the stadium. The plan was for these games to no longer be shown as soon as any supporters returned.

Stumble Bum said:
Games should be available for £5 each and not a penny more. I'm very confident the clubs would make far more money charging £5 rather than £15, very few people will pay that amount, but at £5 a lot of people will be ok to pay that, thus generating more income for the clubs overall. They've missed a trick here through pure greed. I hope no-one pays the £15, it would be foolish to do so.

I don't think they would have made any more money that way. The majority of people that are willing to pay for these extra games for their own side will still pay for them whether it's £5 or £15 and very few will pay even £5 to watch another side, not when there's another 5 games included in their sub already being shown. A better solution might have been the £20 flat fee that omnom suggested. It makes it fairer for supporters of all sides, so a Burnley supporter is paying no more than a Liverpool supporter. An extra £5 from all the Liverpool and Utd supporters that currently will only pay £15 will more than make up for the £15 per game that a Burnley supporter will have to pay too.

the wopster · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:31

BaZ87 said:
At the start of the season the PL weren't going to show these extra games at all. It was only after fan groups put them under pressure that they backed down at the last minute and agreed to show games up until October, when supporters were then due to return to stadiums. It's only recently that plans for supporters to return changed.

There's no easy answer to this. Sky and BT have paid for their games and they pick which games they want to show. The flip side to this argument is that these supporters are getting opportunities to watch their side that they wouldn't have had before. Does taking the opportunity away altogether help anybody?

TBH people probably would have taken it better if sky/bt raised the sports sub by say £10 per month and continued to broadcast all games until fans returned to stadiums, that way all fans will pay the same

BaZ87 · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:33

I'm not sure raising the current subscriptions would have worked. As above, a separate single payment for these extra games might have been the best way. That way somebody that doesn't want to pay for the extra games doesn't have to and no one club is being penalised.

I'm sure had the message been communicated better that there wouldn't have been such a hysterical reaction to the current plan though.

The £15 per match price hasn't gone down well but I'm sure they calculated that as the most profitable for them, rightly or wrongly.

robfosters · 9 Oct 2020 at 22:36

BaZ87 said:
As I said, at the start of the season they had no plans to allow these games to be shown at all, even with no fans in the stadium. The plan was for these games to no longer be shown as soon as any supporters returned.

I don't think they would have made any more money that way. The majority of people that are willing to pay for these extra games for their own side will still pay for them whether it's £5 or £15 and very few will pay even £5 to watch another side, not when there's another 5 games included in their sub already being shown. A better solution might have been the £20 flat fee that omnom suggested. It makes it fairer for supporters of all sides, so a Burnley supporter is paying no more than a Liverpool supporter. An extra £5 from all the Liverpool and Utd supporters that currently will only pay £15 will more than make up for the £15 per game that a Burnley supporter will have to pay too.

You have to admit though, cheaper games could well have prevented people all putting in and watching it at the same house. Would have made far more just watch it at their own home, which is surely beneficial to preventing the spread of Covid, which is the point of no fans in the first place.