Just read this and want to believe it.

Had it been £4.95, I'm sure there wouldn't have been a problem.

There’s been 3 or 4 games via PPV now.

Would be interesting to see the take up numbers for those games.

The price is absolutely ridiculous. Really good to see some clubs come out and speak against it. So disappointing to see what our CEO had to say.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:20 am

There’s been 3 or 4 games via PPV now.

Would be interesting to see the take up numbers for those games.

The broadcasting companies reported that they wouldn’t publicise those figures.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:25 am

The broadcasting companies reported that they wouldn’t publicise those figures.

So basically, they were very low.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:20 am

There’s been 3 or 4 games via PPV now.

Would be interesting to see the take up numbers for those games.

Sky and BT are refusing to release the numbers, it is surprising just how little of a furore that has caused - that story was posted on the MMT thread last week

The story in the OP first appeared late on Saturday night - it was posted on the MMT thread then - again it has been surprising just how little the story has been picked up in the wider media

Obviously the take up has not made enough dosh for the greedy TV companies so now they want to scrap it on grounds of their reputations being damaged. Wake up Sky & BT your reputations are in the gutter anyway!

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 am

So basically, they were very low.

I would suggest so.

I'd have probably gone for a few games had it been £4.95. I wonder if they'd have made more than 3x at that price.

CaptJohn wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 am

Obviously the take up has not made enough dosh for the greedy TV companies so now they want to scrap it on grounds of their reputations being damaged. Wake up Sky & BT your reputations are in the gutter anyway!

Can I repeat that it was the greedy Premier League clubs wanting to make the money out of this. The broadcasters had to confirm the price but it’s so high because of the demands from the Premier League clubs.

It is obviously damaging to Sky, uninformed people are blaming Sky not the clubs.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s a bit ironic fans whinging at the price of £15 whilst also wanting the club to spend millions on players and wages after the club lost millions due to covid and have no idea what income they’ll be receiving over the potential new signings contracts.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:28 am

So basically, they were very low.

There were lots of rumours that our game v West Brom didn't hit 3 figures. I think 94 buys was the number being suggested.

Caballo wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:43 am

There were lots of rumours that our game v West Brom didn't hit 3 figures. I think 94 buys was the number being suggested.

No viewing figures to be released by the broadcasters so any numbers you read are likely to be fiction.

Nobody knows but I read that 250 people donated to the foodbank in the protest which was about £4k which was counted at the following morning after the game.

Therefore I can only imagine that there was several thousand watching on a stream.

Would be really interested to see what replaces this... I hope it isn't nothing.

The anti vote in action. Two teams at bottom of the league, of little interest to the rest of the world.

A recipe for android boxes and Firesticks!

Am I right in thinking that the revenue from PPV was spread amongst all the PL teams, not those featured in the PPV game itself?

Darthlaw wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:01 pm

Am I right in thinking that the revenue from PPV was spread amongst all the PL teams, not those featured in the PPV game itself?

All that was to be decided in a meeting this week

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:25 am

The broadcasting companies reported that they wouldn’t publicise those figures.

Yes I know that is what they said.

I was just meaning that, if the discussions that have been on here/Twitter/FB etc are to go by, then the numbers wouldn't be very high (or at least at the levels clubs would be expecting)

I believe Leicester were the only team to be opposed to PPV, who were playing in yesterdays PPV game, so would have been interesting to see how many paid for it

I'm fortunate that I could afford the PPV. However on principal there's no way I'd pay. Do these people not realise we're in the middle of a pandemic and their for me just trying to exploit a situation. It just highlights the 'greed' that surrounds the PL. On top of that it's paying a high premium for an inferior product, given that there's no crowd. Irregardless whose at fault, at the end of my present contract with Sky I will seriously reconsider not renewing.

I'd love to see how many people paid £15 to watch WBA v Burnley - I bet it was less than 80 households.

In fact, I reckon it'll be less than that - given how easy it is to find a stream

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:05 pm

I'd love to see how many people paid £15 to watch WBA v Burnley - I bet it was less than 80 households.

In fact, I reckon it'll be less than that - given how easy it is to find a stream

The price is so high because of so many watching sport illegally and yes because of greed.
£15 is far too high for our fan base .

I rang Sky and they have a script of answers far too Well prepared.

They told me I had the complete package. I Told them obviously I do not if you are charging me extra. I said let’s get back to this Incomplete package I pay for ,What day is it?
Of course he agreed Monday so I said if I have MNF how can you justify charging me for football screened on Sky on Monday.
This was at the complaints phonline
He said the money goes into a pot for the clubs
I said some clubs are on more than Others not on pro rate. I said that’s discrimination! Discrimination clearly wasn’t part of his script

Spike wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:28 pm

The price is so high because of so many watching sport illegally and yes because of greed.
£15 is far too high for our fan base .

I rang Sky and they have a script of answers far too Well prepared.

They told me I had the complete package. I Told them obviously I do not if you are charging me extra. I said let’s get back to this Incomplete package I pay for ,What day is it?
Of course he agreed Monday so I said if I have MNF how can you justify charging me for football screened on Sky on Monday.
This was at the complaints phonline
He said the money goes into a pot for the clubs
I said some clubs are on more than Others not on pro rate. I said that’s discrimination! Discrimination clearly wasn’t part of his script

Don’t blame Sky or BT. You need to be complaining to the clubs and more so those clubs who think it’s fine such as ours.

Said this before but my mates, who all support the United’s, Spurs, Arsenals of the world all think the pricing is fine. They would because their ticket prices are markedly higher than ours.

I do however hope that that the money is distributed in a fair way as otherwise the gulf between us and those clubs will widen.

Would also love to know the economics around pricing to know if significant reductions would draw in more custom/people away from streams.

Ultimately though, anyone with an internet connection can watch any game they want for free.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:31 pm

Don’t blame Sky or BT. You need to be complaining to the clubs and more so those clubs who think it’s fine such as ours.

Surely though if Burnley (and other clubs) come out and say £5 that than gives the Top 6 even more incentive to try and demand much larger share of the tv deals. If that’s what Burnley only think their “product” is worth how can they then justify charging large amounts for ticket too? Now I know as well as you that we charge some of the lowest, if not the lowest in the PL. But charging fans 6/7/8 times more for the privileged of being at the Turf wouldn’t also make too much sense.

Dyched wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:40 pm

Surely though if Burnley (and other clubs) come out and say £5 that than gives the Top 6 even more incentive to try and demand much larger share of the tv deals. If that’s what Burnley only think their “product” is worth how can they then justify charging large amounts for ticket too? Now I know as well as you that we charge some of the lowest, if not the lowest in the PL. But charging fans 6/7/8 times more for the privileged of being at the Turf wouldn’t also make too much sense.

Costs me more to watch on PPV than it does to go on the Turf

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:39 pm

Said this before but my mates, who all support the United’s, Spurs, Arsenals of the world all think the pricing is fine. They would because their ticket prices are markedly higher than ours.

I do however hope that that the money is distributed in a fair way as otherwise the gulf between us and those clubs will widen.

Would also love to know the economics around pricing to know if significant reductions would draw in more custom/people away from streams.

Ultimately though, anyone with an internet connection can watch any game they want for free.

They would also think it’s fair as chances are they won’t need to pay (as much as everyone else) it as they will be scheduled to be shown a lot more than the “less popular” teams such as us/WBA/SheffUtd

I work for Sky and the abuse we have had as advisors is unreal...what we try to get customers to understand that these games would never have been shown anyway so they would not have been part of their complete sports package anyway. Also, the simple fact of the matter is that the PL are just utilising Sky's and BT's PPV capabilities to grab this revenue from customers, both sports and non-sports subscribers.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:58 pm

They would also think it’s fair as chances are they won’t need to pay (as much as everyone else) it as they will be scheduled to be shown a lot more than the “less popular” teams such as us/WBA/SheffUtd

True.

Not sure how that is handled with the TV scheduling? How big is the gap between clubs shown on Sky/BT?

Ultimately I think they’ll end up with variable pricing. No way you should pay the same to watch Burnley vs Brighton as you would two top six teams.

ClaretDiver wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:00 pm

I work for Sky and the abuse we have had as advisors is unreal...what we try to get customers to understand that these games would never have been shown anyway so they would not have been part of their complete sports package anyway. Also, the simple fact of the matter is that the PL are just utilising Sky's and BT's PPV capabilities to grab this revenue from customers, both sports and non-sports subscribers.

Feel sorry for you mate. No need for anyone to shout at people doing their jobs for a decision taken by the clubs/money men of the PL

To be honest, I don’t see the problem. As you say, these games were not part of what you pay for. If you want to watch them, pay it... or watch it on a readily-available free stream, or listen to it on the radio/online. Plenty of options to suit different preferences.

Could understand the outrage more if they weren’t so easy to watch online/IPTV for free.

ClaretDiver wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:00 pm

I work for Sky and the abuse we have had as advisors is unreal...what we try to get customers to understand that these games would never have been shown anyway so they would not have been part of their complete sports package anyway. Also, the simple fact of the matter is that the PL are just utilising Sky's and BT's PPV capabilities to grab this revenue from customers, both sports and non-sports subscribers.

I really feel for you and your colleagues ClaretDiver. When it comes down to it the supporters trusts are misrepresenting this situation. They want the games for all supporters when in fact the clubs are wanting to provide games for people who would normally pay more. I can see the dilemma.

However, for every fan on concessionary pricing such as Tony, (who pays less than a pound less than what he would on PPV) there are probably 90 more fans who are paying substantially less with this deal. For every fan like Tony and I who have a houshold of 1 person interested in watching; there are many families across the 20 clubs who have multiple season tickets who can drive even more value from this.

Yes there is a pandemic on and even though the supporters trusts are expecting to pay for access, they now want to dictate the price by the sounds of it and paint clubs and the league as terrible organisations. I really just hope their actions don't spoil it for the many and drive everyone to illegal streams.

As you quite rightly say - if they weren't in the ground anyway they wouldn't have seen it legitimately through BT/Sky but given the freebies we have had, people are now expecting this for pretty much free now going forward. I can't see this ending in a good place for fans. No doubt if we do end up getting it cheaper or free, I expect costs to see the team when we go back to have increased as they try and recoup lost revenue. We will all pay for this one way or another I am sure.

Maybe we should just get Burnley to show on their own platform for free to ST holders for the home games only and then provide the away games at £29.99... At least we have no one paying more than they would then.

£15 is way too much. I can happily live without watching Burnley on television though, I've done it for long enough. When I don't attend games I'd do either of the following

Go to work with the hope I can find a stable stream
Follow it on Gillette Soccer Saturday, Radio Lancs or ClaretsPlayer while following it on UpTheClarets
Keep busy until after the final whistle.

What has confused me though... Super Sunday - last week they showed 2 games and a box office game... I'm sure there was always three games? Even before Covid... or did I dream it?

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:24 pm

£15 is way too much. I can happily live without watching Burnley on television though, I've done it for long enough. When I don't attend games I'd do either of the following

Go to work with the hope I can find a stable stream
Follow it on Gillette Soccer Saturday, Radio Lancs or ClaretsPlayer while following it on UpTheClarets
Keep busy until after the final whistle.

What has confused me though... Super Sunday - last week they showed 2 games and a box office game... I'm sure there was always three games? Even before Covid... or did I dream it?

So you get paid to watch home games as you are at the ground?

When you are away games, you won't pay currently for this.

Not surprised you won't pay £15 to watch it.

clarethomer wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:31 pm

So you get paid to watch home games as you are at the ground?

When you are away games, you won't pay currently for this.

Not surprised you won't pay £15 to watch it.

Easy for someone who never pays and still gets to go to home games to comment

Dyched wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:40 pm

Surely though if Burnley (and other clubs) come out and say £5 that than gives the Top 6 even more incentive to try and demand much larger share of the tv deals. If that’s what Burnley only think their “product” is worth how can they then justify charging large amounts for ticket too? Now I know as well as you that we charge some of the lowest, if not the lowest in the PL. But charging fans 6/7/8 times more for the privileged of being at the Turf wouldn’t also make too much sense.

I really don't get this correlation people are making between watching the match on TV and watching it in the flesh. There is absolutely no comparison. If tickets for say, Glastonbury where £200, would it be logical that people would fork out £100 for PPV for the luxury of watching it in their living rooms? Absolutely not! They know football supporters are stupidly loyal, and exploit that to it's fullest.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:24 pm

£15 is way too much. I can happily live without watching Burnley on television though, I've done it for long enough. When I don't attend games I'd do either of the following

Go to work with the hope I can find a stable stream
Follow it on Gillette Soccer Saturday, Radio Lancs or ClaretsPlayer while following it on UpTheClarets
Keep busy until after the final whistle.

What has confused me though... Super Sunday - last week they showed 2 games and a box office game... I'm sure there was always three games? Even before Covid... or did I dream it?

BT sometimes show a 12 noon game on a Sunday, it's not every week though.

groove wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:51 pm

I really don't get this correlation people are making between watching the match on TV and watching it in the flesh. There is absolutely no comparison. If tickets for say, Glastonbury where £200, would it be logical that people would fork out £100 for PPV for the luxury of watching it in their living rooms? Absolutely not! They know football supporters are stupidly loyal, and exploit that to it's fullest.

I agree it’s not the same. I’m also unsure if the pricing would remain as current if it followed through in to future seasons when fans have the option to be able to attend in person for that reason.

But to compare it to Glastonbury - a several day, live music event - is also unfair. I pay £300 to go to Silverstone to watch the F1 each year and certainly wouldn’t pay £150 to watch it on TV - but attending live gives me 3 days of entertainment you can’t recreate on TV. This is a 90 minute football match.

This is basically about clubs recouping some of their losses from reduced match day revenue. Personally, I support that (and more generally the option to watch all games PPV in future vs a subscription service I feel I get less value from).

What shocks me in this whole debate is how little discussion there’s been about players/managers salaries. In my mind it’s their extortionate salaries that drive the need for this type of pricing/system - the root cause. If any player earning say >£10k pw agreed to take a 20-30% pay cut for one season, I doubt we’d need this at all. From what’s publicised though, I think only Arsenal players agreed to take a reduction & not sure that was for this season.

groove wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:51 pm

I really don't get this correlation people are making between watching the match on TV and watching it in the flesh. There is absolutely no comparison. If tickets for say, Glastonbury where £200, would it be logical that people would fork out £100 for PPV for the luxury of watching it in their living rooms? Absolutely not! They know football supporters are stupidly loyal, and exploit that to it's fullest.

Couldn't agree more. It is nothing like the same. When I heard our CEO telling us last week that it's cheaper than going to the game (and it's not cheaper for me by the way) it was clear he just doesn't understand at all, but then again he's not a football fan and doesn't relate to football fans.

I paid the extortionate £14.95 last week for West Brom but I won't be on Sunday. If that means I miss the game, I miss it, but I think it is a ridiculous price to pay and I was insulted by the comments from our club.

groove wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:51 pm

I really don't get this correlation people are making between watching the match on TV and watching it in the flesh. There is absolutely no comparison. If tickets for say, Glastonbury where £200, would it be logical that people would fork out £100 for PPV for the luxury of watching it in their living rooms? Absolutely not! They know football supporters are stupidly loyal, and exploit that to it's fullest.

That’s a different thing all together. We already pay for the BBC to broadcast Glastonbury to us. Like some people pay sky and bt sport to broadcast the scheduled tv games.

Phone up Bono or Paul McCartney or Jay Z and ask how much it’ll cost for them to broadcast untelevised live gigs to you. A bet it costs a hell of a lot more than 50% of a ticket.

My worry last week was that this issue may spread to other decisions because I felt I didn’t warm to the CEO due to a lack of empathy for struggling fans. I very much hope he just gave a bad interview and that wasn’t what he genuinely believes.

The £14.95 is great for foodbanks, I believe hundreds of thousands of pounds has been raised now by fans paying the charities instead. But there is no way I would pay that to watch a product with fake atmosphere and a lack of analysis.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:29 pm

Couldn't agree more. It is nothing like the same. When I heard our CEO telling us last week that it's cheaper than going to the game (and it's not cheaper for me by the way) it was clear he just doesn't understand at all, but then again he's not a football fan and doesn't relate to football fans.

I paid the extortionate £14.95 last week for West Brom but I won't be on Sunday. If that means I miss the game, I miss it, but I think it is a ridiculous price to pay and I was insulted by the comments from our club.

Tbf, I think he did start by saying “I won’t dress it up, it was the best of a bad set of options presented to the clubs”. He then dropped an almighty PR bollock by talking about how “he’d pay to watch with his family”... Well of course you would, you’re both a CEO and have not lost your job in this pandemic.

Was disappointed by the service last week - two commentators who covered the HT analysis and then no manager interviews after. Think that certainly needs some work. Bet a United PPV game gets better coverage!

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:37 pm

My worry last week was that this issue may spread to other decisions because I felt I didn’t warm to the CEO due to a lack of empathy for struggling fans. I very much hope he just gave a bad interview and that wasn’t what he genuinely believes.

The £14.95 is great for foodbanks, I believe hundreds of thousands of pounds has been raised now by fans paying the charities instead. But there is no way I would pay that to watch a product with fake atmosphere and a lack of analysis.

We've gone from a big football supporting CEO (albeit a Bradford City fan, although they do use Claret ) to a CEO who is not a football fan and doesn't appear, from my experience, to understand football fans. Dave always used to say he was a football fan first and a CEO second. That always came across. Undoubtedly, in my view, the best CEO we've ever had in terms of supporter engagement.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:40 pm

Easy for someone who never pays and still gets to go to home games to comment

I appreciate that. But I don't go to away games, tickets are sometimes sold out before I can commit going and scheduling around work. So away games are not really an option for me anymore.

So having a weekend not watching Burnley on television, is quite normal, I'm just making the point that I can't justify paying £15 to watch it live when there are decent alternatives (even without streaming)

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:31 am

Can I repeat that it was the greedy Premier League clubs wanting to make the money out of this. The broadcasters had to confirm the price but it’s so high because of the demands from the Premier League clubs.

Sky & BT could have said no couldn't they? I don't doubt the Prem League teams wanted top dollar but they're not the broadcasters and as such not in the direct firing line of the fans wrath.

We can argue all we like about whether it is good value or not, but ultimately market forces will decide. If there is enough take up then it will be deemed an acceptable price. If not, either because people won’t pay or are using alternative (cheaper) means to access the content, then the price will eventually come down or the scheme will be scrapped (as the headline to this thread suggests). The same applies to content in general ... if you overcharge then people won’t buy it, simple as.

Sky and BT pricing for a fiver potentially devalues their overall product where they expect people to pay a premium to get access to just a selection of Premier League games. The backlash has been so great however that them charging £15 is now damaging their reputation and equally problematic.

I wouldnt be surprised if Sky and BT just withdrew from showing the games but warned the Premier League they would expect compensating if the league compromised their exclusivity by allowing these additional games to be sold or shown for free by other providers.

Like it or not the Premier League is a multi million pound business and we have benefited massively from its riches in terms of the players and football we have been able to see. There's no easy answer and like most things in football one section of people will feel aggrieved and hard done by especially those whose football club is their world

Mike Ashley of all people has called this one. He's said: "Charging £14.95 for single televised matches in the current climate it is not acceptable to any football fan. Supporters have overwhelmingly rejected this offer and the Premier League must now act. Why not make it much more accessible at £4.95 per match until Christmas?"

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:49 pm

Mike Ashley of all people has called this one. He's said: "Charging £14.95 for single televised matches in the current climate it is not acceptable to any football fan. Supporters have overwhelmingly rejected this offer and the Premier League must now act. Why not make it much more accessible at £4.95 per match until Christmas?"

I think Mike, along with most people in the business who are not "actual fans" have totally misread the feelings of ordinary fans.
I will not pay a penny to watch players taking the knee, I will not pay a penny to watch players making a black power salute, I will not pay a penny to further the aims ( advertising) of VAR, I will not pay a penny to watch players spitting every 10 mins and being shown on my TV screen and I will not pay a penny piece to watch players screaming at the ref to show a card to an opponent.

Nonayforever wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:06 pm

I think Mike, along with most people in the business who are not "actual fans" have totally misread the feelings of ordinary fans.
I will not pay a penny to watch players taking the knee, I will not pay a penny to watch players making a black power salute, I will not pay a penny to further the aims ( advertising) of VAR, I will not pay a penny to watch players spitting every 10 mins and being shown on my TV screen and I will not pay a penny piece to watch players screaming at the ref to show a card to an opponent.

So you want it free then to make it bearable

Surely Ashley was part of the group who have got us what we have?

CaptJohn wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:20 pm

Sky & BT could have said no couldn't they? I don't doubt the Prem League teams wanted top dollar but they're not the broadcasters and as such not in the direct firing line of the fans wrath.

And can you believe the rhetoric that would come from that from the Premier League. They would twist it to try and say that Sky and BT are denying true fans the option of watching their teams even if it was on PPV....in this situation I think Sky and BT were beggared if they do and beggared if they don't!