Supporters Groups back call for full television coverage

[ClaretTony]

Statement from Burnley FC Supporters Groups this morning, supporting the proposal that all Premier League games should be shown live on television next season at a time when supporters won't be able to attend the games.

Statement at link:
https://www.uptheclarets.com/supporters ... n-coverage

Burnley FC Supporters Groups would like your views on our decision to support this and generally over the proposed television coverage.

And for once on this message board I've got my Burnley FC SG hat on.

[Rowls]

Quite right.

A football match that nobody sees is like that philosphical question about a tree falling in the woods.

[ClaretTony]

On a personal note, I think it is key but the clubs don't seem to think so right now. I got some info from Spurs last night and this morning it has extended beyond that. Burnley FC Supporters Groups has a media team so our was quickly approved by them and led to this article and as much publicity as we can get.

[Grumps]

It's a difficult decision for them to make

I agree all games should be shown live whilst nobody is allowed in

What happens though when say 30% of fans are allowed in? Do they continue showing all games, or back to normal because fans are back.

[ICL]

Completely agree.
Crazy situation when my mate in Greece can watch more Burnley home games, than I can as a season ticket holder.

[mikeS]

I’d be Happy for Burnley home games behind closed doors to be screened live So long as my season ticket I’ve paid for gives me access to watch it free. Once supporters are allowed back In the Turf then revert To normal.

[burnleytom]

Hugely in favour and wish you luck in pursuing this, effectively on our behalf.

Even though I don't have one, the issue for season ticket holders is hugely important. I do a large number of games each year, but can't imagine being a season ticket holder and having to go from seeing your team at least every other week, to not being able to do so at all. It's vastly different to if you are 'used to' missing some games.

From my (selfish) perspective, I also think an important angle to this is the experience of away fans too. Even if fans start to go back, if away fans are the last to come back (let's keep the debate to the thread specifically on this), then the lack of coverage is also going to deny all of those who travel the chance to see their team in games they could or would normally go to for potentially an even longer period.

[jrgbfc]

But on the flip side, why should SKY and BT pay a fortune for the rights and give them away for nothing?

[ClaretTony]

It's a difficult decision for them to make

I agree all games should be shown live whilst nobody is allowed in

What happens though when say 30% of fans are allowed in? Do they continue showing all games, or back to normal because fans are back.

Your last line is part two really - my view is that they should be showing them live until such time as we can fill the grounds again. As things stand, the average would be 22 games shown, 16 not shown, but we would have nothing like 22 of our games on.

[Chester Perry]

It is quite a simple, logical and financially correct decision for the Premier League - they have to maintain the overall value of the domestic rights long term, the value per game has already dropped dramatically in the last 2 cycles - continuing to give games away for free severely undermines that. I have made a few posts on the subject, detailing the reasoning and the issues, in the last couple of days on the MMT thread on this very subject and many more in the last couple of months.

[ClaretTony]

But on the flip side, why should SKY and BT pay a fortune for the rights and give them away for nothing?

Can I just say there is nothing in the statement that suggests the broadcasters should be giving them away for free, just that they should be showing all games.

[Tribesmen]

Now of course a different country but over here in Ireland well Galway lets just say , all season ticket holders get to see a live stream from the club for home games .
Sure this could work in Burnley ?

[JohnMac]

I would like to be able to watch our games on TV whilst supporters are unable to attend.

[Chester Perry]

Can I just say there is nothing in the statement that suggests the broadcasters should be giving them away for free, just that they should be showing all games.

It appears the existing broadcasters do not want to pay for them, offering them to another broadcaster for a fee, would lead to legal challenges from the existing broadcasters about the terms under which their deals were made (only 200 games per season sold) and the exclusivity value they incorporate. Which in turn would lead to rebates.

The motion, while well intentioned is particularly one sided in it's perspective and could actually lead to a longer term decline in revenues. the games will be watched live legally in many countries in the world - just not in the one they are played in. I realise that all seems counter-intuitive but the Premier League has been playing the long-game on media rights for a long time now and that gives them a huge advantage over the clubs competitor's across Europe (remembering that clubs compete for players as well as trophies)

[aggi]

It's a tricky one this. With a lot of areas to consider.

I imagine the EPL is wary about giving away a load of games to broadcasters because of the impact it may have on future negotiations with a severely devalued price per game and also the difficulty in putting that genie back in the bottle when things are back to normal.

For the broadcasters the risk if they don't show all games is that the market for illegal streams is going to get even bigger and that could have a severe impact on future revenue. If they do show them though then it again devalues their future product when they go back to showing half the games, people aren't going to want to pay the same for less content.

For clubs it could be bad news for teams such as Burnley. Personally I view it as inevitable that at some point we end up with clubs streaming their games themselves (or offering season tickets via Amazon or Disney or whoever) and the massive inequality in revenue that this will cause. Clubs like Liverpool have already been pushing for a bigger slice of the pie and I can only see that continuing.

Showing all games live will only hasten that step I reckon but on the other hand it's difficult for clubs such as Burnley to come out and say we don't want the fans to be able to see the games because of this future risk.

For what it's worth I reckon that we'll end up with all closed doors games being televised next season, although maybe more simultaneously than the end of last season.

[Duffer_]

I support the statement. As fans whose appetite the game depends on it is enough to state our wishes. I don't think we have to solve everyone's problems for them.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Statement from Burnley FC Supporters Groups this morning, supporting the proposal that all Premier League games should be shown live on television next season at a time when supporters won't be able to attend the games.

Statement at link:
https://www.uptheclarets.com/supporters ... n-coverage

Burnley FC Supporters Groups would like your views on our decision to support this and generally over the proposed television coverage.

And for once on this message board I've got my Burnley FC SG hat on.

100% there is a much bigger picture that the tv companies need to look at. And arguably if more people sign up they have a much larger potential long term customer base.

I dont see why they wouldn't do it. The alternative is people becoming disillusioned, not being arsed about football in the list of priorities and more pressure on the premier league to let fans in sooner than is safe.

[cricketfieldclarets]

But on the flip side, why should SKY and BT pay a fortune for the rights and give them away for nothing?

They shouldnt do it for free. But even if they did there is so much more with Advertising revenues. Longer term customers. Brand awareness. Etc

[NewClaret]

Barmy situation. The rise of the illegal stream is upon us.

Sure it’s a complex situation to navigate but I’d personally have used this as an opportunity to trial PPV via the broadcasters & seek to defer the broadcasting contracts until the environment is similar to what was anticipated when the contracts were signed.

[CrosspoolClarets]

This is a very simple situation - football is a spectator sport, it serves entirely as entertainment. Yes, one could argue that a few rich folk make money out of it, but that is a byproduct. One could also argue that the Premier League serves the whole world nowadays, but that is also a bit disingenuous, the whole atmosphere and appeal comes from mainly UK-based fans attending.

So it poses the question - a match with no fans, not even on TV, does it serve no purpose whatsoever? It has as much relevance as my golf 4-ball tomorrow, a bit of competitive spice between us, but nobody else watching.

The whole argument for TV games was that they couldn’t be too numerous, nor at 3pm on a Saturday, so as not to affect attendances.

I don’t think the Premier League and / or the broadcasters have yet realised this. Without the fans there is no Premier League, and they owe it to those fans to find a way for them to watch games from Sept 12th - it is the number one priority at a time where those fans are still unhappily experiencing all kinds of disruption to their wider lives.

EDIT - I’ll just add that I can see the argument that clubs want more £££ to offset ticket refunds, and broadcasters will be getting more subscribers due to more games being live, so they should pay more to clubs. But clubs have to be careful here, their fans are the ones most affected, not the clubs themselves.

[Chester Perry]

100% there is a much bigger picture that the tv companies need to look at. And arguably if more people sign up they have a much larger potential long term customer base.

I dont see why they wouldn't do it. The alternative is people becoming disillusioned, not being arsed about football in the list of priorities and more pressure on the premier league to let fans in sooner than is safe.

I think disillusioned is unlikely - you are more likely to see higher average viewing figures for the games that are broadcast and for Match of the Day (restart showed that in the pay for games) - the broadcasters gain in terms of subscribers (even if it is only retention in straightened economic times) and advertising revenues. The Premier League gains by steadying the values of it's rights

[Chester Perry]

This is a very simple situation - football is a spectator sport, it serves entirely as entertainment. Yes, one could argue that a few rich folk make money out of it, but that is a byproduct. One could also argue that the Premier League serves the whole world nowadays, but that is also a bit disingenuous, the whole atmosphere and appeal comes from mainly UK-based fans attending.

So it poses the question - a match with no fans, not even on TV, does it serve no purpose whatsoever? It has as much relevance as my golf 4-ball tomorrow, a bit of competitive spice between us, but nobody else watching.

The whole argument for TV games was that they couldn’t be too numerous, nor at 3pm on a Saturday, so as not to affect attendances.

I don’t think the Premier League and / or the broadcasters have yet realised this. Without the fans there is no Premier League, and they owe it to those fans to find a way for them to watch games from Sept 12th - it is the number one priority at a time where those fans are still unhappily experiencing all kinds of disruption to their wider lives.

And around 60% of all Premier League income comes from Media rights sales - for a club like ours it is 85% + - take your choice lose the media rights and go back to a £12m £15m turnover and the team, manager and facilities that offers

[clarethomer]

The problem they have is that the PL have sold rights to multiple domestic broadcasters. My view would be to protect those rights by allowing them to show the games for which they have paid for.

The next bit for me would be then to provide access to all home games for people that have paid to be a season ticket holder.

The next stage would be then to work out a commercial arrangement where you can buy match passes for people that want to pay to watch a game on a PPV basis. I.E for people that don't want to pay for ST games or want to access the away games.

In my position - I still subscribe to sky sports. I have Amazon Prime and I don't have BT. However, I could be convinced to pay for it if that is what was needed to wath all the games in the absence of paying my ST costs.

[wilks_bfc]

It doesn't seem right that I am currently paying for a season ticket but not able to watch a game that will be played 3miles away from my home, yet people around the world can.

I'm in full agreement that, in normal circumstances, Saturday 3pm kick offs should not be televised, in order to protect the attendance of those clubs lower down the pyramid, and I'm aware the supporters of those clubs can start to attend their games, but these are not normal circumstances.

There should be a way that if you have a season ticket, you can view the home games you would normally have attended.
Away fans & walk-ons would have the opportunity to PPV as they would have done if attending.

If the broadcasters/clubs cant figure out an arrangement, people will watch via streams. Gone are the days when they were jerky & unreliable, they may find that they can have an adequate product for a fraction of the cost and not return to the official broadcasters

[Dyched]

Sky/BT etc should just continue with what they normally do. Whilst the other games are available by a netflix/prime kind of service. A fee per game, say £10 and free for Season ticket holders. That’s the way it’ll go anyway eventually. Skysports won’t be around in 10 years. No sport organisation will need it to be.

[Darthlaw]

Taking away that some fans will go down the route of illegal streams (perish the thought), have they considered the potential that UK fans may find alternative entertainment during the period they may not be able to watch football? Certainly if I was in Cricket or the like, I'd be maximising the opportunity to gain consumers who wish to watch live sport.

For me, being able to watch games live where fans are not allowed to enter the stadium is a no brainer.

[FactualFrank]

But on the flip side, why should SKY and BT pay a fortune for the rights and give them away for nothing?

One would assume only subscribers will be able to watch them.

And they can sell more adverts to people knowing more people will be watching.

[Chester Perry]

The problem they have is that the PL have sold rights to multiple domestic broadcasters. My view would be to protect those rights by allowing them to show the games for which they have paid for.

The next bit for me would be then to provide access to all home games for people that have paid to be a season ticket holder.

The next stage would be then to work out a commercial arrangement where you can buy match passes for people that want to pay to watch a game on a PPV basis. I.E for people that don't want to pay for ST games or want to access the away games.

In my position - I still subscribe to sky sports. I have Amazon Prime and I don't have BT. However, I could be convinced to pay for it if that is what was needed to wath all the games in the absence of paying my ST costs.

points 2 and 3 would lead to calls from the biggest clubs for a "fair share" of the games they sold (like ifollow in the EPL) and that would destroy any competitiveness that is left in the game

[Duffer_]

I'd rather watch football than fetishize revenue. Bubbles burst, flabby wage bills will fall, football will continue.

[Chester Perry]

I'd rather watch football than fetishize revenue. Bubbles burst, flabby wage bills will fall, football will continue.

Not fetishizing just providing the counter argument and acknowledging that Premier League clubs are businesses (whether we like it or not) that employ hundreds of people in their localities.

Ours for instance employs around 250, and the income it generates is used in part to employ the services of many other local businesses.

Many on here took pride in the clubs stance in avoiding the furloughing of staff and paying match-day staff until the end of the season, that was enabled by TV revenues.

Also our club (like most) takes pride in supporting it's community, part of that is through BFCitC which also employs a large number of local people (paid for in part by Premier League grants funded by media rights) who provide a wide range of services to our community that local and central government agencies no longer do (for what ever reason you chose to attribute).

[Duffer_]

Do you support the statement CP?

[dushanbe]

Theres a Father Dougal level of stupidity if they don't screen all games. Everyone with a modicum of knowledge and / or a few pounds can work round it and no one in the Premier League benefits from that at all.

[CaptJohn]

For many years now I've been able to watch the Clarets from either the Middle East (Bein) or Africa (SuperSport) and I've hardly missed a game when away from the UK. In fact when I'm in the UK I actually see less of the Clarets despite having a season ticket because I rarely go to away matches. This move in my opinion will hasten the demise of spectators actually going to matches. When it's pi**ing down and blowing a gale why bother getting off your backside to actually go to a game when you can watch it from your armchair and believe me people will get used to that? Once the Genie is out of the bottle it will be tough to get it back in.
IMHO this is a bad move.

[Duffer_]

For many years now I've been able to watch the Clarets from either the Middle East (Bein) or Africa (SuperSport) and I've hardly missed a game when away from the UK. In fact when I'm in the UK I actually see less of the Clarets despite having a season ticket because I rarely go to away matches. This move in my opinion will hasten the demise of spectators actually going to matches. When it's pi**ing down and blowing a gale why bother getting off your backside to actually go to a game when you can watch it from your armchair and believe me people will get used to that? Once the Genie is out of the bottle it will be tough to get it back in.
IMHO this is a bad move.

So, you want to deny people from watching football because you think they will enjoy it more on TV than going to the match? Do you think people should be able to buy wine at the supermarket?

[Chester Perry]

Do you support the statement CP?

Duffer do you want our club to keep employing the people it does, buying the services from local and regional businesses that it does with all the economic benefits that offers the local community? Do you want BFCitC to employ the people it does and our community to receive the benefits of the services that they offer.

This is the flipside of the coin to the questions you ask as the existing broadcasters do not want to pay for the additional games

In those circumstances I would go for the local economy/community

[Zlatan]

I fear that without the fans being able to watch the need to go to the games will wane and the result of that will be fewer fans attending in future. I know that if I cant watch Burnley play, I'll probably cancel my season ticket for good and find something else to do as a leisure activity.

It will be the death of football without fans

[clarethomer]

points 2 and 3 would lead to calls from the biggest clubs for a "fair share" of the games they sold (like ifollow in the EPL) and that would destroy any competitiveness that is left in the game

I get where you are coming from but you are looking at long term implications on the basis that this would become a permanent solution which is not what is being suggested.

For example, take how a club would offer access to the games played at home.

A club can sell a season ticket at their own rates - which then allows the club to give access to their home games which gives supporters access to attend a game live if they can get back to the stadium following covid secure rules. Once some normality returns, you are free to take your seat again as a ST holder. These passes are limited by stadium capacity.

You could also offer a monthly digital ST which in essence gives you the right to watch all home games as you would as a ST holder but as soon as its deemed safer to return, this pass then expires or, you could offer a PPV digital ticket and you could sell a maximum no of these which again fits within the limits of your stadium capacity.

The PPV digital ticket approach could also be used for when we play away from home where you can purchase this to see your team away.

Again this is only in place until we can get back to normal but you could say - on the maximum away capacity for that stadium is revenue controlled in the same way that it would under normal times (I'm not sure how this works but assume the home club get a small % of the sale to cover their costs).

Any tickets the away club can sell, or a broadcaster can sell above this then goes into a different revenue stream.

So to use this as an example

If Burnley went to Leeds and our away allocation was say 4000.

The club (Burnley) could offer that away PPV ticket and if their sales don't exceed 4000 then the club are no better off than they would be in normal times. However, if the club were to sell say 10,000 then on the 6000 excess they enter into a different revenue agreement

If the broadcasters want to also offer the games then they could do this very easily like the do PPV events where they can retain and make revenue.

This leaves the situation as follows;

My ST costs doesn't need to be refunded by the club for missed games and I am guaranteed to see all the games at the turf as I would do normally.

If I want to watch an away game - I can pay the maximum £30 away ticket through the club (based on the maximum allocation you can have for that ground).

The broadcasters can also offer the PPV which can be bought via the broadcaster and then they do a revenue share with the clubs but this will obviously be less favourable to the clubs.

[leelad]

If I can't watch Burnley play, there is no way I'll cancel my season ticket. Back to the OP, if we have a situation whereby there is a closed doors game at Turf Moor then there should be access via the TV companies for fans to watch the game. The TV companies should do more to stop the illegal streaming of games, but I fear that the genie is aready out of the bottle on this one. Fully agree with the proposal that has been put forward by the supporters groups.

[Chester Perry]

I get where you are coming from but you are looking at long term implications on the basis that this would become a permanent solution which is not what is being suggested.

For example, take how a club would offer access to the games played at home.

A club can sell a season ticket at their own rates - which then allows the club to give access to their home games which gives supporters access to attend a game live if they can get back to the stadium following covid secure rules. Once some normality returns, you are free to take your seat again as a ST holder. These passes are limited by stadium capacity.

You could also offer a monthly digital ST which in essence gives you the right to watch all home games as you would as a ST holder but as soon as its deemed safer to return, this pass then expires or, you could offer a PPV digital ticket and you could sell a maximum no of these which again fits within the limits of your stadium capacity.

The PPV digital ticket approach could also be used for when we play away from home where you can purchase this to see your team away.

Again this is only in place until we can get back to normal but you could say - on the maximum away capacity for that stadium is revenue controlled in the same way that it would under normal times (I'm not sure how this works but assume the home club get a small % of the sale to cover their costs).

Any tickets the away club can sell, or a broadcaster can sell above this then goes into a different revenue stream.

So to use this as an example

If Burnley went to Leeds and our away allocation was say 4000.

The club (Burnley) could offer that away PPV ticket and if their sales don't exceed 4000 then the club are no better off than they would be in normal times. However, if the club were to sell say 10,000 then on the 6000 excess they enter into a different revenue agreement

If the broadcasters want to also offer the games then they could do this very easily like the do PPV events where they can retain and make revenue.

This leaves the situation as follows;

My ST costs doesn't need to be refunded by the club for missed games and I am guaranteed to see all the games at the turf as I would do normally.

If I want to watch an away game - I can pay the maximum £30 away ticket through the club (based on the maximum allocation you can have for that ground).

The broadcasters can also offer the PPV which can be bought via the broadcaster and then they do a revenue share with the clubs but this will obviously be less favourable to the clubs.

I am actually looking at what seasoned media analysts are saying - as for your examples matchday ticket volumes are governed by certified capcities at grounds - such restrictions on live streaming are false boundaries and may be subject to legal challenge, most likely from clubs themselves looking to make additional revenue. The structural (not technical delivery) complications are probably to great to resolve in the time remaining and as ever once something has been switched on, whatever the reason of shortness of period, it is very difficult to switch off - my evidence for that is in the OP

[ClaretTony]

Seems to have taken a strange turn does this thread but thanks to all those who have offered support to try and get games broadcast until such time as we can all go back.

[Duffer_]

Duffer do you want our club to keep employing the people it does, buying the services from local and regional businesses that it does with all the economic benefits that offers the local community? Do you want BFCitC to employ the people it does and our community to receive the benefits of the services that they offer.

This is the flipside of the coin to the questions you ask as the existing broadcasters do not want to pay for the additional games

In those circumstances I would go for the local economy/community

It is absurd to frame this in such a binary way: a choice between an additional 160 games being shown live on TV and all BFC economic activity and employment in the community. The impact would likely be marginal and impossible to isolate. Furthermore, PL football is not an effective employer in terms of revenue to employment created, not least because of the vast sums spent on player wages.

[Chester Perry]

Seems to have taken a strange turn does this thread but thanks to all those who have offered support to try and get games broadcast until such time as we can all go back.

I wouldn't say it was a strange turn Tony - like any part of life you can/should only make a reasoned decision/offer an opinion when you have assembled a picture of all the issues, whether you care for them or not. This is obviously an emotive issue for many, as would be the fallout from the negative consequence - I am just suggesting that people view this (as with all things) with their eyes wide open as to the potential consequences. Football is notorious for it's fans having a short term perspective (as you have witnessed countless times on this and the previous board) experience has taught me to take the long view, which I tend to see from you too.

[Chester Perry]

Furthermore, PL football is not an effective employer in terms of revenue to employment created, not least because of the vast sums spent on player wages.

There are plenty of studies that suggest that Premier League generates a strong amount of direct and indirect employment as result of it's economic impact compared to it's revenues - some of which have featured on the MMT thread over the years

[cricketfieldclarets]

I think disillusioned is unlikely - you are more likely to see higher average viewing figures for the games that are broadcast and for Match of the Day (restart showed that in the pay for games) - the broadcasters gain in terms of subscribers (even if it is only retention in straightened economic times) and advertising revenues. The Premier League gains by steadying the values of it's rights

I disagree.

If I cant see all Burnley games I will quickly lose interest in the ones I can see. Personally at least anyway.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Seems to have taken a strange turn does this thread but thanks to all those who have offered support to try and get games broadcast until such time as we can all go back.

Not a strange turn. Debate yes. And respectful on both sides. for once...

[clarethomer]

I disagree.

If I cant see all Burnley games I will quickly lose interest in the ones I can see. Personally at least anyway.

I will just rely on streams to watch, as I suspect many people will.

If I can't watch then I will find something else to do with my time and spend my money on doing something else instead.

[Duffer_]

From the Evening Standard

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standa ... html%3famp

"Fans across London have united to protest against the decision not to continue blanket TV coverage of the new Premier League season.

Representatives of fan groups for all six clubs in the capital told Standard Sport the situation needed urgent review and plan to lobby the Premier League, clubs and broadcasters, in conjunction with the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA).

The Premier League announced fixtures for the 2020-21 season on Thursday, with the campaign set to begin behind closed doors on September 12.

The Government hopes a limited number of fans could return from October 1, subject to successful test events.
During Project Restart, all 92 matches were broadcast live but going forward there are no plans to offer free-to-air games or virtual season-tickets, as in Scotland.

The Premier League's existing deals with broadcasters are worth £4.5billion from 2019-22 and it is thought clubs would want more money to screen the extra game, which TV companies are eager to show.

Of the 380 Premier League fixtures in the coming season, 220 will be broadcast live – up from 200 in last term's initial package – leaving supporters unable to watch 160 matches.

Katrina Law, co-chair of the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust, told Standard Sport: "Watching your team is fundamental to being a fan and we would hope that the Premier League, clubs and broadcasters are moving heaven and earth to make sure that fans can still watch their team next season.

"All matches are broadcast live somewhere in the world," added Law, who was part of a meeting between the top-flight and representatives of the FSA on Wednesday, when the issue was raised. "We can’t be in a situation where season ticket-holders and members in this country, prevented from attending games through no fault of their own, are unable to watch their matches live in their homes."

Laws believes fans could be forced to turn to illegal streams and said supporters would be happy to pay for access.

"A reasonable subscription charge wouldn’t be out of the question," she said. "And perhaps it's an opportunity for the clubs to offer access to their games in membership packages. If the Premier League and TV companies don’t move to make this happen, it will be picked up and offered illegally. The League has a duty to ensure fans are properly catered for and not forced to piracy."

Tom Greatrex, chair of Fulham Supporters' Trust who was also in Wednesday's meeting, said: "It is not acceptable to have a position where games are either behind closed doors or to such a restricted capacity that season ticket holders who would be inside the ground in normal times just are not able to watch those games, either because they can't get in or significantly there are numbers who could be shielding.

"These are still unprecedented times and the mindset of the Premier League that this is somehow back to normal is just fundamentally flawed."

Alan Palmer, chair of the Crystal Palace Supporters' Trust, said: "They need to look at this again, think carefully about it and take the supporters into account. They are the lifeblood of the game. Games on TV are all supporters have to hang onto at the moment with regards to seeing their team live, a few highlights on Match of the Day is not enough.

"We strongly support any moves to put pressure on the authorities to get these games covered, give the supporters something to hang on to for crying out loud."

Sue Watson, chair of West Ham United Independent Supporters Association, warned that the situation could deter supporters from eventually returning to grounds. "I think some people are thinking again for a host of reasons, and this is only going to underline it even further," Watson said.
"It's not just the money, it is the emotional tie and buy-in to your club. I understand it is all a big business nowadays but actually the football supporter also has the buy-in emotionally and it is almost like that has been completely forgotten."

A spokesperson for the Arsenal Supporters' Trust said it was "very concerned" by the situation and added: "These are unprecedented times and until we see the return of all fans we believe that Premier League games should be made available for season ticket holders and fans to watch.

"The AST will continue to make this case to both Arsenal and the Premier League and hope that by the time the season starts that a solution has been identified."

The Chelsea Supporters' Trust said it "stands in unity with the FSA and fellow supporters trusts’ regarding the issue" and warned: "Without the fans, there would be no football."

The Premier League declined to comment but discussions with fan groups are understood to be ongoing."

[MrTopTier]

Celtic v Motherwell next Sunday is to be used as a pilot for getting fans back in the stadium.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Celtic v Motherwell next Sunday is to be used as a pilot for getting fans back in the stadium.

fantastic news

[Bordeauxclaret]

Them Russians obviously speeded this up.