Jump to content

No to PPV - fundraiser


Recommended Posts

Some cross board chat.

The folks on Not606 have started a Gofundme to raise money for City Catering Southampton.

Just sharing the link in case any Saintswebbers are keen.

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/saynotoppv

Following the example of Newcastle in raising 20k for local food banks, this is a handy way of raising some cash for a worthy local charity, while showing the PL and associated broadcasters that there is a limit to what we are willing to be charged. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess to paying for the Chelsea game, on the grounds that I would have spent way more than than going to the game and the best part of £15 watching in the pub.

But, now there is growing momentum to direct money to charities, I'll not pay fur PPV again. This is also partly because Sky/BT are saying they are only covering costs and implying clubs may not get much or any of the OOV revenue. The threat is that they won't broadcast, but that's no different to all the 3pm Saturday games in the good old days. It's back to MOTD.

I'm sure no-one ever uses those illegal streams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah right........we as fans pay out enough to watch these millionaire football clubs to  provide entertainment for our viewing, its unfortunate

that a global pandemic has caused the clubs and the broadcasters to think enough free or so called free to air games are at an end. Why dont

we exploit the fans some more and see where we go. Newcastle did brilliantly in saying enough is enough. Im sure Mr.Rashford would have had an

inner smile to himself given the campaign hes championing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shroppie said:

I confess to paying for the Chelsea game, on the grounds that I would have spent way more than than going to the game and the best part of £15 watching in the pub.

But, now there is growing momentum to direct money to charities, I'll not pay fur PPV again. This is also partly because Sky/BT are saying they are only covering costs and implying clubs may not get much or any of the OOV revenue. The threat is that they won't broadcast, but that's no different to all the 3pm Saturday games in the good old days. It's back to MOTD.

I'm sure no-one ever uses those illegal streams.

I don’t get this argument.    There are camera crews and commentators at every PL game, and they have had picture sharing arrangements for several seasons.   So what extra costs need to be covered ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sinned said:

I don’t get this argument.    There are camera crews and commentators at every PL game, and they have had picture sharing arrangements for several seasons.   So what extra costs need to be covered ?

I think they mean the cost of what the Premier League are charging the broadcasters to carry the games.

The 14.99 thing is from the League as much as it is from the broadcasters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toussaint said:

Does any of the money get back to the clubs to offset absence of gate receipts? If so, what percentage? I am really unclear on this whole thing

Well if you believe what the club said at the fans forum last week then they voted for PPV without knowing how much it would cost their supporters and how much they would receive from each subscription.

Not quite sure how you can vote for something  without knowing exactly what you are voting for .

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That's how I feel. The current situation also flags p the inequity in the coverage of teams. 

That might change, as quite a few people allegedly paid for the NUFC Man #u game, whereas I doubt the figures for WBA Burnley would have broken a spreadsheet. 

It might be that more big 6 games enf up one PPV, once they have had their statutory minimum number of televised games.  

As it is, the pricing makes no sense. for 20 odd quid, you can get 16 games a month on SKY, so why should a PPV  game cost 10 times as much. The cameras and commentators are already there for overseas coverage, so you merely have to pay them a fee for the coverage, plus some admin costs for processing  the PPV fees,   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shroppie said:

I confess to paying for the Chelsea game, on the grounds that I would have spent way more than than going to the game and the best part of £15 watching in the pub.

But, now there is growing momentum to direct money to charities, I'll not pay fur PPV again. This is also partly because Sky/BT are saying they are only covering costs and implying clubs may not get much or any of the OOV revenue. The threat is that they won't broadcast, but that's no different to all the 3pm Saturday games in the good old days. It's back to MOTD.

I'm sure no-one ever uses those illegal streams.

Tell you what, there was something quite nice about only seeing the score and rewatching on MOTD like the old days. I would like access to slightly more highlights than what they show on there though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess to having paid BT the ransom money for the Chelsea game !

I can't be arsed with streams which may damage my computer and for home games it costs me at least £15 just to get to the stadium so I can live with it !

For sure, if it happens over a season, Saints fans will probably pay about £150 more than Man Utd and Liverpool plastics (they will have at least 10 more scheduled live matches than us) and that is definitely not fair 😂!

I am however, happy to give £15 to the charity in addition to watching on TV as it will ease my conscience somewhat !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky Switzerland (ie Sky Germany online) still showing most games incl. the Chelski game one last weekend and vs Everton on Sunday. 20 CHF per month (16GBP) for EPL, EFL, Bundesliga, La Liga,Serie A, Ligue 1... as well as a ton of other sports.

Only thing that I struggle with is that these Sky streams are delayed a bit and I can't quite get commentary from Adam and Dave synced up.

Seems like they have everything in place so do think they are taking the piss to price it for PPV in England... Sorry guys...

Donated as well.. good cause

Edited by ButtikonSaint
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is well worth listening to the Toby Steel (Saints MD) interview on the Total Saints Podcast. He gives some interesting insights into this, most surprisingly even he didn't know how the revenue was to be divided as it hasn't been decided yet. He did say Saints are losing £3 million per month at the moment, so, if I knew teams were benefitting say £10 per PPV it would probably change my attitude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t really get the fuss over this, to be honest. Either pay the £15 or don’t watch it (legally). Get rid of PPV and you won’t be able to watch the games anyway... if you’re a ST holder you’re refunded the cost of the ticket anyway. 

Im amazed the PL haven’t taken this opportunity to go for a subscription service. All the usually non televised games at £20 a month. They’d clean up. They could even run a deal with Netflix / Amazon if they didn’t want the hassle of creating a streaming service. 
 

£15 is steep to watch a game you wouldn’t usually watch, but for saints (or a club you support) I’d say it’s about right. Especially considering broadcasters aren’t going to run it at a loss. 

Edited by SKD
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's wrong that the standard package contains an imbalance of representation of teams. Whilst this may be acceptable when there is the option of watching your own team live it's wrong that the top clubs will get a higher representation in the basic TV package. Let me put it this way. Imagine the outcry if the 'smaller' clubs were to have every game  included within the annual package but the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd had to pay an extra £15 to watch their beloved darlings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think it's wrong that the standard package contains an imbalance of representation of teams. Whilst this may be acceptable when there is the option of watching your own team live it's wrong that the top clubs will get a higher representation in the basic TV package. Let me put it this way. Imagine the outcry if the 'smaller' clubs were to have every game  included within the annual package but the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd had to pay an extra £15 to watch their beloved darlings.

But that is no different to a time before PPV/Covid. When you look at it, what’s going to draw more customers Liverpool vs United or Burnley vs West Brom? 
 

Sky / BT are a business, they’re going to show what they deem best for their business, not what’s best for fans of smaller clubs. 
 

id actually argue there isn’t an imbalance at the moment. Sunday as an example, Arsenal Leicester would be the 4pm kick off 9/10. This week, that was PPV and wolves Newcastle was the 4pm game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SKD said:

But that is no different to a time before PPV/Covid. When you look at it, what’s going to draw more customers Liverpool vs United or Burnley vs West Brom? 
 

Sky / BT are a business, they’re going to show what they deem best for their business, not what’s best for fans of smaller clubs. 
 

id actually argue there isn’t an imbalance at the moment. Sunday as an example, Arsenal Leicester would be the 4pm kick off 9/10. This week, that was PPV and wolves Newcastle was the 4pm game. 

The difference is that there is not the alternative option of going to a live game yourself. The broadcasting agreement that determines the balance of representation was fixed in different circumstances.

From The Times this morning:

The Premier League has earned more than £5 million from the first two weekends of pay-per-view (PPV) matches but clubs have agreed to review the price after accepting that demanding £14.95 per game has been a PR crisis.

At a meeting today the 20 clubs decided to stick with the fee for the next two rounds of matches but agreed to review PPV pricing after the international break, with a decision due to be made on November 5.

It is highly likely that the PPV fee will be reduced to £9.95 to fall in line with the sum charged by clubs in the EFL, in the hope that the cut will persuade fans’ groups who have boycotted the games to drop their protests.

The clubs were told that the first nine PPV matches had brought in an average of 39,000 paid subscriptions, totalling £5.247 million, though some of that money will go to the broadcasters. Some matches attracted fewer than 10,000 subscriptions, and none more than 100,000.

The average was calculated before the Brighton & Hove Albion v West Bromwich Albion match on Monday evening, which is likely to have attracted fewer than 10,000 paid subscriptions.

 

Mike Ashley, the Newcastle United owner, has urged the Premier League to cut the price to £4.95 per match but, according to sources at the meeting, the clubs were told that would actually cost money to produce.

Some club chairmen also raised eyebrows at Ashley’s stance on the issue given that Newcastle were the only club to vote against a rescue package for clubs in League One and League Two.

The Premier League review will aim to find a price tag that will raise viewer numbers considerably and therefore increase income. Satisfying disenchanted supporters will also be essential. The Liverpool fans’ group Spirit of Shankly has already raised £81,000 from people donating the £14.95 fee they would have paid to Sky Sports Box Office for Saturday’s game against Sheffield United. Other groups have organised similar boycotts.

Premier League executives will also consider the fact that some clubs will feature on PPV more than others because the “big six” teams are selected more often for live Sky and BT Sport matches, so some fans will be asked to pay more than others. However, there appears to be little room for manoeuvre on that matter.

Some clubs proposed that the review considers making the matches available only via their websites, but that seems unlikely to be pursued either.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Mike Ashley, the Newcastle United owner, has urged the Premier League to cut the price to £4.95 per match but, according to sources at the meeting, the clubs were told that would actually cost money to produce.

Not sure how that works out financially. Surely if three supporters pay £5 to watch a game, it's the same as one supporter paying £15. So if a lower charge gets many more people paying – and I'd say that paying a fiver is probably a more attractive prospect than using a stream – then the clubs have a decent chance of making more money.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LordHester said:

Not sure how that works out financially. Surely if three supporters pay £5 to watch a game, it's the same as one supporter paying £15. So if a lower charge gets many more people paying – and I'd say that paying a fiver is probably a more attractive prospect than using a stream – then the clubs have a decent chance of making more money.

Yes, it’s called market price sensitivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marching Halos said:

Could the premier league do a tier system for prices(city vs Manu £15, Burnley vs Fulham £5), and after time would it not be in the PL best interest to keep the big games for ppv and give sky/bt average games. 

I have both Sky and BT Sports through my Virgin Media subscription so I can watch all the basic schedule of games yet I am not really interested in the teams from the top 6. Why therefore can’t I forego a match involving Liverpool, say, and have a free viewing of Saints instead? 
 

that should be straightforward to arrange.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})