West Brom v Burnley on Sky Box Office

jedi_master · Post by **jedi_master** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:02 pm

If nothing else, the key takeaway from all of this as that the very few of us that will be watching the games going forwards will need to be very, very careful deciding our player ratings.

The averaged out scores for each player will, conceivably, be determined by the 3-4 people who watch. That’s an awful lot of responsibility and I, for one, wish them people all the best with this task.

NewClaret · Post by **NewClaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:02 pm

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:01 am
I don’t see the point in comparing the costs to attending the game. Going to a live event has a totally different value (to me, anyway) than watching the same event on television.

£15 is a ludicrous amount of money to watch a single game. They have every right to charge that amount and we have every right to choose not to pay it.

I subscribe to Sky, and I’m quite happy to pay just shy of £80 for the full tv package and broadband. For me that represents decent value for money. I also have IPTV as I don’t see value in paying additionally for BT sports or box office boxing etc. I’ll be tuning into our games, but through my IPTV. Had the cost been £5 I would have happily paid to watch.

I tend to think about value for entertainment in relation to time. Last week I paid £20 to do an online escape room (1hr, or should’ve been, took me 90

). When I compare it to what I pay to take my family to the cinema (£30, 1.5hrs) or even to Costa, where I’m going shortly (£12ish, 30 mins), I think it’s okay to pay £14.95 for 2hours - maybe more of it includes pre/post match analysis.

You’re right though, the pricing will need to consider that you can watch for free elsewhere, or most will be doing the same as you. The quality of the service will need good.

Was there the same fuss about the Carabao pricing? I can’t remember there being? That is £10 to watch second string teams on my laptop with awful commentary and no pre/HT/post match analysis/interviews. If Sky/BT do a good job with it, it could make that look very overpriced!!!

clarethomer · Post by **clarethomer** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:13 pm

NewClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:02 pm
I tend to think about value for entertainment in relation to time. Last week I paid £20 to do an online escape room (1hr, or should’ve been, took me 90 ). When I compare it to what I pay to take my family to the cinema (£30, 1.5hrs) or even to Costa, where I’m going shortly (£12ish, 30 mins), I think it’s okay to pay £14.95 for 2hours - maybe more of it includes pre/post match analysis.

You’re right though, the pricing will need to consider that you can watch for free elsewhere, or most will be doing the same as you. The quality of the service will need good.

Was there the same fuss about the Carabao pricing? I can’t remember there being? That is £10 to watch second string teams on my laptop with awful commentary and no pre/HT/post match analysis/interviews. If Sky/BT do a good job with it, it could make that look very overpriced!!!

Agree New Claret but all of those things include spending time with others where I suspect many of the reasons people dont want to pay is because the experience is in the togetherness. I am sure people will either pay it or find a stream so will still watch the game. There will be a portion who can't afford to watch, or have the means to get a stream/want to get a stream due to their personal choice.

In terms of the cup games - I paid £30 for the 3 games and there were people watching streams.

As much as I could have watched it for free, or as part of a streaming site that I have access to for about another week before i have to renew, I do stand behind the fact that if you can officially get access from home, I would prefer to do it officially then save a few quid on trying to circumnavigate this.

Some may not feel the value being offered for the money they want to, or can, spend on this will force people to the unofficial way. If they remove the official way of doing it - I know I could access it in other ways. At least this way at least Burnley are getting my money.

DomBFC1882 · Post by **DomBFC1882** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:15 pm

The club can get stuffed for £15. Boring football, no atmosphere and no ambition showed by the board. I agree with other posters that football to me is about the day itself and the atmosphere with your mates, putting a few bets on etc. Can't even compare how different that is to paying £15 to watch it on tele.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:24 pm

That's fine homer, I thought there might have been some cross purposes between us, that explains it.
Yes, your right in pointing out I was responding to you on behalf of others less fortunate than me. Something I can't help doing.
I haven't gone on to see home matches before the pandemic for a long time due mainly to having had care duties. I get treated to the odd away trip by family, went to Spurs new stadium. Last time I regularly attended away matches was when we were starting to climb up the leagues again. Yes I was one of the many mistreated by police on horseback at games like Stockport and others.
Now, I get my enjoyment from watching others enjoy watching games they love, to the extent I let my son watch his beloved club before I watch Burnley, if times clashed. There is some equipment they use that shows matches on tele.
I have no love for PL football and would not be bothered if I never saw another game again. Although I might enjoy another treat to London, having enjoyed the Spurs ( and Arsenal) games.
I say this having been immensely proud when we first made it to the PL under Coyle, then again both times under Dyche.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:47 pm

Elizabeth wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:39 pm
I have just read your post timed 11.28 homer and had to come on to respond.
You responded to my original post this morning and I felt I gave you a reasonable response back. Please check and disagree if you think differently.
The poster you feel you should defend is a different matter. If you don't know his history of trying to hound me on this board then you should have butt out.
I not really bothered what you think but before interfering get your facts right.
I made a reasonable first post at 9.50 this morning, the first response was from the poster you are defending 2 mins later. Read it again if you've forgot. Tell me if it was a reasonable from this poster
Now that you know he trolls maybe you can understand my further responses and respect that I expressed I was backing off before he ruins another thread.
If you still feel the same way reluctantly I will have to accept that but I make no apologies.

So weird. All this talk of trolling and having threads deleted. You sound just like that creep who claimed his white, working-class kid was being held back by his school's racist and sexist policies. Perhaps you could compare your worries regarding the use of grammar with his fears about his lad's education.

He backed down in humiliation because, as you seem to tend to do, he picked arguments for no apparent reason and was shown up for being the useless yapping idiot he is. He tried the being trolled and getting threads shut down excuses too. Funny that.....

He didn't even have the nads to talk to his lad's school about it either and has gone very quiet lately. I hope you're made of sterner stuff.

My earlier "Er...

" post wasn't even aimed at you, fGs. As your track record shows, your posts are tedious and offer little interest to me.

Whatever your social and financial circumstances, good or bad, I hope you can appreciate we're not all in the same boat so please lay off me. I take neither pride nor guilt in being, touch wood, comfortably off and you'll just have to grow up and get used to that.

This is an interesting thread, don't let your obsession with me or your envy of me wreck it.

Anyway, I'll leave you with that but, more importantly and more relevantly, I still stick to my view that paid-up ST holders should get first dibs on any seats going for live matches and that I will not, on principle, be following the WBA game on Sky BO.

aclaretinstevenage · Post by **aclaretinstevenage** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:22 pm

I have a season ticket at Stevenage, I get a free match pass for the iFollow coverage of all home games in lieu of being able to go to games. If I wish to watch away games I can pay £10 which I won't.

I think it's scandalous that Burnley ST Holders are being ripped off for a further £15 per game to watch a training session in an empty, soulles Turf Moor.

No, thanks all the same BFC but i'll let this "offer" go.

clarethomer · Post by **clarethomer** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:30 pm

aclaretinstevenage wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:22 pm
I have a season ticket at Stevenage, I get a free match pass for the iFollow coverage of all home games in lieu of being able to go to games. If I wish to watch away games I can pay £10 which I won't.

I think it's scandalous that Burnley ST Holders are being ripped off for a further £15 per game to watch a training session in an empty, soulles Turf Moor.

No, thanks all the same BFC but i'll let this "offer" go.

Take the word further out of your sentence because they are not being charged a further £15. If you have already paid, you can get your money back and use to pay for this, or pay it and use your ST money for next year and pay in advance for your ST.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:10 pm

clarethomer wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:45 am

Charging £5, £7.50 means you need to get triple or double the audience to achieve the same money. Its a bit like the old discussions around increasing our capacity and then charging less. We are a professional and commercial club. We have strong ties to the community but this often gets confused and there will be occassions where the two are not always able to work mutually together.

Based on the views on this thread and what my friends and family are saying then you would double or triple the numbers subscribing if it was a more reasonable price.

I don’t think the cost of going to a game live is of any relevance whatsoever - completely different and infinitely better experience. I don’t know of one regular attending supporter who has ever said they preferred watching a game on TV than live.

So really the only comparison in terms of price should be the cost of watching TV.
Sky sports is how much ? £25 / £30 a month?
BT cheaper.
Let’s say £50 a month for both.
You are getting at least 10 premier league live games a week - probably nearer to 20.

Not sure how £15 can be justified based on what we are normally charged to watch live Premier league football - the product is the same...and at the moment it’s not very good.

Fortunately I can afford this - but I won’t be paying as to me watching football at the moment is nowhere near worth that kind of money. £5 and I would.

I believe a lot more Burnley fans will be taking the same stance as me than those paying for it.

There’s no right or wrong though - actually there is - £15 is just wrong !!!

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:01 pm

TVC15 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:10 pm
Based on the views on this thread and what my friends and family are saying then you would double or triple the numbers subscribing if it was a more reasonable price.

I don’t think the cost of going to a game live is of any relevance whatsoever - completely different and infinitely better experience. I don’t know of one regular attending supporter who has ever said they preferred watching a game on TV than live.

So really the only comparison in terms of price should be the cost of watching TV.
Sky sports is how much ? £25 / £30 a month?
BT cheaper.
Let’s say £50 a month for both.
You are getting at least 10 premier league live games a week - probably nearer to 20.

Not sure how £15 can be justified based on what we are normally charged to watch live Premier league football - the product is the same...and at the moment it’s not very good.

Fortunately I can afford this - but I won’t be paying as to me watching football at the moment is nowhere near worth that kind of money. £5 and I would.

I believe a lot more Burnley fans will be taking the same stance as me than those paying for it.

There’s no right or wrong though - actually there is - £15 is just wrong !!!

£15 isn’t wrong if the person paying it is happy, you can’t put any price on happiness, whatever the price you’ll realise that 1 day for yourself, £15 £115 £1115 whatever the sum it’s irrelevant, happiness is happiness.

NickBFC · Post by **NickBFC** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:42 pm

I won't be paying it. Becoming more disillusioned with the Premier Greedy League. I'd rather spend the £15 helping out a local non league club to be honest. The PL is in serious danger of burning its bridges with supporters in this country. Do they care? Probably not.

Blackburn_Claret · Post by **Blackburn_Claret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:09 pm

£15 absolute bargain in comparison to what I pay for a match day with the family. Would happily cancel my season ticket if it could be carried on in the future.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:19 pm

Poor bait.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:01 pm
£15 isn’t wrong if the person paying it is happy, you can’t put any price on happiness, whatever the price you’ll realise that 1 day for yourself, £15 £115 £1115 whatever the sum it’s irrelevant, happiness is happiness.

Cheers for the wise words Confucius !!
Btw I’m not 11 years old and I realised that many years ago but thanks for the condescending advice.

As we all know from your posting what makes some people happy does not make others. For example “some” people would be happy if they could take part in a public vote to decide whether someone gets the electric chair or stoned to death outside Buckingham Palace after being dragged through the streets in a coal sack.

Whatever floats your boat eh.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:38 pm

You'd have thought £9.99 per game, like it was for the League cup would have been the figure clubs would have agreed on as it's a marketable price.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:46 pm

There is a belief being shared in legal media for sports sector specialists that the pricing is positioned deliberately at a level that is just comfortable enough for the competition authorities for them not to investigate and/or pursue a reduction - posted a bit about it in the MMT thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&start=5484

Grumps · Post by **Grumps** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:46 pm

I've had 3 offers today to go and watch it at someone else's house, which I've declined, but it goes to show its encouraging people to watch it as a group, which is what the government are trying to avoid

Goody1975 · Post by **Goody1975** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:46 pm

Apologies if it's already been mentioned but the same type of thing happened with boxing.

Once subscription services got their hands on the sport they started by showing all boxing events on the main channels, then mega fights became pay-per-view and now 75% of events with title fights are behind this additional pay wall. The price has gone from about a tenner to twenty five quid and because the paying public are used to it it'll never change.

If this is successful in football (because enough people pay the money) then expect it to become the norm during this decade, think long and hard about this when you click that button that says 'Buy Now'.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:57 pm

If PL football became pay-per-view on Sky across the board I would simply cancel my Sky Sports subscription. Cannot see that happening, aside from some matches between the top 6, as viewers would be coughing up fortunes at the prices quoted just to see half a dozen games a month. I bet women's football will still be available though.

Aclaret · Post by **Aclaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:59 pm

£0.95 or £14.95, I won't be paying.

Flat Stanley · Post by **Flat Stanley** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:08 pm

I certainly won't be paying. Club is a disgrace for voting in favour of this.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:13 pm

Spijed wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:38 pm
You'd have thought £9.99 per game, like it was for the League cup would have been the figure clubs would have agreed on as it's a marketable price.

Got to also remember it's a nation wide pricing.

Some fans are used to paying £100 a ticket, and probably pay £15 to park on a daily basis for work etc.

£15 for a local Burnley fan, but I very much doubt £15 will hardly even be considered an outlay for an out of town Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool or Man Utd fan.

Only thing I hope they do is pot all the money and split it evenly across all 20 teams so there's no PPV bias, however I very much doubt it.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:20 pm

TVC15 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:22 pm
Cheers for the wise words Confucius !!
Btw I’m not 11 years old and I realised that many years ago but thanks for the condescending advice.

As we all know from your posting what makes some people happy does not make others. For example “some” people would be happy if they could take part in a public vote to decide whether someone gets the electric chair or stoned to death outside Buckingham Palace after being dragged through the streets in a coal sack.

Whatever floats your boat eh.

You’ll pay the £15 as many others will who say they won’t now, you’ll need the fix especially after the international break with a dram of dalwhinnie on a cold dark night with the fire roaring.

buzzclarets79 · Post by **buzzclarets79** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:38 pm

£15 on the back on the last two performances and a shocking transfer window.....No thank you.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:43 pm

MACCA wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:13 pm
Got to also remember it's a nation wide pricing.

Some fans are used to paying £100 a ticket, and probably pay £15 to park on a daily basis for work etc.

£15 for a local Burnley fan, but I very much doubt £15 will hardly even be considered an outlay for an out of town Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool or Man Utd fan.

Only thing I hope they do is pot all the money and split it evenly across all 20 teams so there's no PPV bias, however I very much doubt it.

A friend of mine pays over £800 for a season ticket at Spurs so they'll be used to paying far more per game. £15 won't seem as much to them.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:53 pm

Goody1975 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:46 pm
Apologies if it's already been mentioned but the same type of thing happened with boxing.

Once subscription services got their hands on the sport they started by showing all boxing events on the main channels, then mega fights became pay-per-view and now 75% of events with title fights are behind this additional pay wall. The price has gone from about a tenner to twenty five quid and because the paying public are used to it it'll never change.

If this is successful in football (because enough people pay the money) then expect it to become the norm during this decade, think long and hard about this when you click that button that says 'Buy Now'.

With boxing though you usually get a good four hours for that price with an undercard (which 9/10 is better than the main event) and more often than not have mates around to watch it.

£15 for 90mins of TV for somebody that lives alone (or that would watch alone) just doesn’t seem good value for money IMO

NewClaret · Post by **NewClaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:57 pm

MACCA wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:13 pm
Got to also remember it's a nation wide pricing.

Some fans are used to paying £100 a ticket, and probably pay £15 to park on a daily basis for work etc.

£15 for a local Burnley fan, but I very much doubt £15 will hardly even be considered an outlay for an out of town Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool or Man Utd fan.

Only thing I hope they do is pot all the money and split it evenly across all 20 teams so there's no PPV bias, however I very much doubt it.

Absolutely agree with all. One of my best mates is a Spurs ST holder. His ticket is £1000+ To those guys £15 is nothing. The PL could probably get away with charging a lot more to those fans so I think £15 is fine. Might’ve been nice to have a reduction for this season, all things considered.

I’ve been watching dodgy streams for years. Not out of choice but necessity. I don’t like it, so will certainly be paying.

Entirely agree the money should be pooled. Has there been no word on how the money will be divided? Hard to imagine it would get 19-1 support without it being evenly distributed.

There’s a massive opportunity to increase TV income for the PL via PPV, whilst giving fans more accessibility/choice (only a third of games screened currently), which is exactly why I want us to make some quality signings next week & ensure we stay here.

NewClaret · Post by **NewClaret** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:06 pm

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:53 pm
With boxing though you usually get a good four hours for that price with an undercard (which 9/10 is better than the main event) and more often than not have mates around to watch it.

£15 for 90mins of TV for somebody that lives alone (or that would watch alone) just doesn’t seem good value for money IMO

90 minutes is only if it doesn’t include any pre-match, HT or post match analysis/interviews. For me the value for money question rests a lot with that. But if the league cup set the price at £10 to watch the Carabao cup, PL has got to be worth a fiver more? I’m hoping SKY/BT do a better job of it than them though.

DomBFC1882 · Post by **DomBFC1882** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:07 pm

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:53 pm
With boxing though you usually get a good four hours for that price with an undercard (which 9/10 is better than the main event) and more often than not have mates around to watch it.

£15 for 90mins of TV for somebody that lives alone (or that would watch alone) just doesn’t seem good value for money IMO

Very true mate. I love my boxing but that ppv price of around £20 is worth every penny for true boxing fans as you get a terrific undercard generally and the programme starts at 6pm usually til midnight. PPV football however is a big no no ESPECIALLY without fans and any atmosphere

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:14 pm

buzzclarets79 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:38 pm
£15 on the back on the last two performances and a shocking transfer window.....No thank you.

As much as some wont want to admit it, I think that's more the problem for some to be honest.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:37 pm

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:20 pm
You’ll pay the £15 as many others will who say they won’t now, you’ll need the fix especially after the international break with a dram of dalwhinnie on a cold dark night with the fire roaring.

You seem very confident on that.
I’ve absolutely no interest at all in paying £15 to watch a game on TV in front of no fans.

How about a sizeable bet with the winnings donated to Burnley food bank that I don’t ?

Longsidelenny1882 · Post by **Longsidelenny1882** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:39 pm

When the ppv starts thinking off starting a twix round will drop twixers of at your house before the game 3pounnd A twix will start in the burnley area first see if it takes off your thoughts please utc

chipbutty · Post by **chipbutty** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:32 pm

I can`t get people comparing the cost of watching us on TV to watching the Clarets live...
There is no comparison

Dy1geo · Post by **Dy1geo** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:44 am

Why didn’t they explore charging a low price say £3-£5 first and gauge the take up, I know a few who have said they are now just going to try and get an illegal stream. If it was priced low enough people wouldn’t be bothered to search the internet and just pay for the official stream

jrgbfc · Post by **jrgbfc** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:15 am

chipbutty wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:32 pm
I can`t get people comparing the cost of watching us on TV to watching the Clarets live...
There is no comparison

Spot on. Going to the game is about the whole day out, the atmosphere, catching up with family, seeing your mates for a beer etc.
Paying 15 quid to watch what essentially feels like a glorified practise match on TV is no comparison. If some people think it is you have to question why they bother going on in the first place?

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:34 am

I would like to know what BFC gain from the PPV deal?

If lucrative enough, could be just the job to pull the club through this present financial crisis and, who knows give us a bit of confidence to bring in a player or two

Brucefanclaret · Post by **Brucefanclaret** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:47 am

We are on Sky broadband and have Sky Sports. If I try to get a streamed match, it just blocks me. How do I get round this, please? Any advice, other than ditch Sky which I am seriously considering...

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:58 am

I see that Brighton have said that their fans will not be left out of pocket, by laying for PPV games.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:58 am

Brucefanclaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:47 am
We are on Sky broadband and have Sky Sports. If I try to get a streamed match, it just blocks me. How do I get round this, please? Any advice, other than ditch Sky which I am seriously considering...

VPN?

clarethomer · Post by **clarethomer** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:07 am

chipbutty wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:32 pm
I can`t get people comparing the cost of watching us on TV to watching the Clarets live...
There is no comparison

The only comparison I have been making is the cost to those who pay non concessionary prices is less and when you include households who pay for multiple tickets to see them, even less cost.

This to me reflects that you don't get the same experience and given many more clubs charge more than we do to see the team play in the stadium, the value only becomes better.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with the experience being different.

What i can't get is why people:

- are reporting this is expensive and unaffordable though when they can clearly pay more when watching at the ground.

- are saying fans are getting charged double for this when they can get a refund of any money paid for the game. If they choose not to get a refund, their ST money is no longer paying for this season, so you haven't technically paid for this game any more, you have paid for next season.

- who don't normally pay to go and watch the team are bothered when the options available to them are still the same if they can't afford.

That's me not being unsympathetic to peoples circumstances, I too can't afford many things and if I can't, I don't expect the businesses that produce these things to give it to me for less money because it's unfair.

The club is losing millions per year by not having us in the ground, directly from Ticket sales, but equally merchandise, advertising and other commercial activity. They are trying to recoup some of this lost revenue with this.

Go and read 106 pages (last time I looked) of 1 transfer signing and go and read the MMT on how much money we have/don't have.

What is not fair is for people who wouldn't have paid anyway to go and watch and then complain that it's too expensive. Its too expensive for you anyway so nothing has really changed.

If they had charged less, I can see the benefits of this but the price probably wasn't just set by Burnley - it was set by 20 clubs many of who will have fans that are likely to pay a bit more then us as they do pay more for their matchdays also.

It is a commercial decision taken and approved by the majority of the 20 clubs not Sky/BT/Burnley.

How many people are really fully excluded these days from watching us via official or unoffical means?

How many fans on here refusing to pay will still not watch the games in some form?

Not many is my guess.

clarethomer · Post by **clarethomer** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:11 am

Brucefanclaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:47 am
We are on Sky broadband and have Sky Sports. If I try to get a streamed match, it just blocks me. How do I get round this, please? Any advice, other than ditch Sky which I am seriously considering...

Ensure you have broadband shield turned off on your settings (may need to google how to do this but memory serves me right you can do this from your Sky VIP app and/or your account settings on Sky.com).

If they are switched off, you are likely to need VPN as you are being located as being in the UK so a VPN can make you look like you are elsewhere. There are free VPNs but for a decent one you may need to pay for this. I think I read on the group I subscribe to, they were now getting people to put VPNs on which has never happened for the last 2-3 years I have been with them.

The streamers will find a way around it at some point but this is the fun and games you accept by doing this.

Brucefanclaret · Post by **Brucefanclaret** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:22 am

Thanks, DCWat and clarethomer

leelad · Post by **leelad** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:51 am

I won't be paying £14.95 to watch these games. Will watch the highlights and perhaps watch the match a couple of days later on Clarets Player and make the most of the monthly subscription which I pay to it. Looks like PPV is here to stay now in the Premier League and am not looking forward to it. The broadcast media landscape for watching Prem league games is so fragmented now. Sky, BT, Amazon and a myriad of illegal streams. Too much greed in the game. No hope anytime soon for a dedicated channel owned by the Prem League which screens all Prem games along with all related content. That would be my hope. A consolidated approach whereby you would go to only one broadcast channel to access everything you needed to know about your club and you would pay £x per month for the privilege of enjoying this service. But that doesn't work in the real world it seems. Sorry Burnley but I'll sit tight with my ST money being paid each month and wait for the day when we go back to Turf Moor. That's the only matchday experience for me, not sitting on my sofa in the front room paying £14.95 for the privilege of watching a game in an empty stadium.

jdrobbo · Post by **jdrobbo** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:52 am

I put a poll on Twitter 36 hours ago, to run for just two days, garnering opinion on this very subject.

Please feel free to contribute...

https://twitter.com/claretcrumpet/statu ... 96837?s=21

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:55 am

Based on early numbers, the club will earn about £149.50!

jdrobbo · Post by **jdrobbo** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:00 am

Makes you think how many people would have gone for an option at say, £7.50...

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:06 am

Does anyone have the numbers of people who paid for the League cup streams?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:26 am

clarethomer wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:07 am
The only comparison I have been making is the cost to those who pay non concessionary prices is less and when you include households who pay for multiple tickets to see them, even less cost.

This to me reflects that you don't get the same experience and given many more clubs charge more than we do to see the team play in the stadium, the value only becomes better.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with the experience being different.

What i can't get is why people:

- are reporting this is expensive and unaffordable though when they can clearly pay more when watching at the ground.

- are saying fans are getting charged double for this when they can get a refund of any money paid for the game. If they choose not to get a refund, their ST money is no longer paying for this season, so you haven't technically paid for this game any more, you have paid for next season.

- who don't normally pay to go and watch the team are bothered when the options available to them are still the same if they can't afford.

That's me not being unsympathetic to peoples circumstances, I too can't afford many things and if I can't, I don't expect the businesses that produce these things to give it to me for less money because it's unfair.

The club is losing millions per year by not having us in the ground, directly from Ticket sales, but equally merchandise, advertising and other commercial activity. They are trying to recoup some of this lost revenue with this.

Go and read 106 pages (last time I looked) of 1 transfer signing and go and read the MMT on how much money we have/don't have.

What is not fair is for people who wouldn't have paid anyway to go and watch and then complain that it's too expensive. Its too expensive for you anyway so nothing has really changed.

If they had charged less, I can see the benefits of this but the price probably wasn't just set by Burnley - it was set by 20 clubs many of who will have fans that are likely to pay a bit more then us as they do pay more for their matchdays also.

It is a commercial decision taken and approved by the majority of the 20 clubs not Sky/BT/Burnley.

How many people are really fully excluded these days from watching us via official or unoffical means?

How many fans on here refusing to pay will still not watch the games in some form?

Not many is my guess.

Think you are missing the point.

For many people in the country £15 could well no longer be affordable due to new circumstances, redundancy etc. Football for them like many was a respite in difficult times. If people were allowed to attend games again then there will be some people who cannot afford to attend now.

But the main point being made on this thread is not that many fans cannot afford £15 but that simply that the product (especially with no crowds) is simply not worth anywhere near that amount.

Clearly you feel it is worth £15 and that is fine. But the majority of our fans don’t seem to agree. I’m not sure why you seem to have such a big issue with this and are making so many posts trying to convince people otherwise.

For everybody I have spoken to on it (all of whom can very easily afford to pay it) it’s not even marginal. Without exception they all think the amount is way too much.

Tribesmen · Post by **Tribesmen** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:31 am

Don't have Sky so i would guess that rules me out .

Look i would not pay for it anyway

Jenny55 · Post by **Jenny55** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:48 am

I agree, afford it or not the amount is way too much. This is to watch nothing more than a behind closed doors training match, probably a poor one at that. People should vote with their wallets and not pay this, however as someone previously said £15 is nothing to some of these loaded Londoners so they will probably just stump up the cash.
The whole Premier League greed thing absolutely stinks. Clubs will think nothing of spending 40 million plus on a single player yet at the same time bleat about declining revenues because of Covid, and 19 of them vote for PPV games at £15 a pop. I won’t be too sympathetic if in a year or two the @rse drops out of the English Premier League. After all the 3 divisions below it will have been seriously decimated by then. Longer term it may be a good for the game, I certainly hope so.