2 hours ago, ForeverCarefree said:

It's mainly unfair on clubs like Burnley whose games are shown about half as often as the likes of Chelsea, Liverpool etc. So their fans are going to be asked to shell out the £15 twice as often as the fans of bigger clubs. 

It's immediately an unfair system. 

They really need to look into the idea of a streaming season ticket. You pay a set fee at the start of the season that gives you access to all of the games of your chosen team(s).

Mean while in the office of the PL CEO. 

2 hours ago, ForeverCarefree said:

It's mainly unfair on clubs like Burnley whose games are shown about half as often as the likes of Chelsea, Liverpool etc. So their fans are going to be asked to shell out the £15 twice as often as the fans of bigger clubs. 

It's immediately an unfair system. 

They really need to look into the idea of a streaming season ticket. You pay a set fee at the start of the season that gives you access to all of the games of your chosen team(s).

Have to say it seems bizarre that doesn't exist in the UK. We pay 15 a month here for all PL games and the CL and EL. 

PPV seems a shameless money grab. 

6 hours ago, coco said:

Don't you feel slightly uncomfortable not paying the clubs anything to watch their football ? 

I watch illegal streams, but i also subscribe to BY and Sky, i have no problems with people streaming illegally if they cant afford to subscribe, but if we all did that the bottom would fall out of the sport a bit sharpish.

We all have a budget, and watching football on tv is priced so ridiculously that I just can't fit it into mine. Other forms of entertainment have found a way to become affordable without forcing the consumer to break the bank, but when it comes to football, the prices are only going up, and they don't just go up by a couple of quid, they ask you sign up to a whole new service that costs hundreds of pounds a year. So no, I don't feel guilty, not in the slightest.

Actually this is a form of accountability. But unlike the coke cans and the shirts it's a big one. If they suck people will just stop paying and this will hit them. There will be no guarantees and most importantly the players won't be feeling that secured as it now. Which is a good thing. 

Edited October 10, 20205 yr by Droopy

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

We all have a budget, and watching football on tv is priced so ridiculously that I just can't fit it into mine. Other forms of entertainment have found a way to become affordable without forcing the consumer to break the bank, but when it comes to football, the prices are only going up, and they don't just go up by a couple of quid, they ask you sign up to a whole new service that costs hundreds of pounds a year. So no, I don't feel guilty, not in the slightest.

I wasn't trying to shame you, cheapskate 

Ideally each PL club would have their own TV station or use their website to host each of their respective games as PPV so they could recoup some of the money lost because fans cannot pay for tickets to attend games.

Clubs can only go on for so long like this before most go bust.

The problem is that there is too much money in football in terms of salaries and transfer fees, if every top club are going through what Barca are going through and cutting their wage bills then there would be a reset of sorts.

This is all just relatively short term anyway, when covid is no longer as much of an issue everything will just bounce back to normal.
Imagine paying £15 to watch your team get whacked 4-0 btw, oof.

As I mentioned on Friday I attended an online meeting of the Chelsea Supporters Trust yesterday afternoon. It was the Annual General Meeting so a number of topics were discussed.

PPV was discussed in the meeting - indeed it was the main topic - and before I mention what was said I should say that I pay £10 a month for BT Sport and I've never subscribed to Sky Sports. I'm also a ST holder so before lockdown if I wanted to watch an away game which was on Sky I'd go to the pub. If an away match on BT sport I'd watch the game at home.

There was a lot of unhappiness at the payment of £15 a month and if there is to be a charge it should be less e.g. £5. One of the CST board is a member of the Football Supporters Association and that group is to meet today do discuss a plan of action and possibly get the press on board. The Times journalist, Henry Winter has already made some comments on the PPV setup.

During the meeting the comment was made that some clubs in the PL have already asked supporters to pay for their Season Tickets or in some cases part of it. So if you are a ST holder at one of those clubs you are effectively paying twice to watch a game and that is on top of subscriptions to BT Sport, Sky if you pay those organisations. Chelsea is one of the clubs where ST holders haven't paid for this season so would be paying less to watch a game. That assumes they don't subscribe to BT Sport, Sky etc. 

As has been mentioned there will be an increase in illegal streaming. @yorkleyblue and @ForeverCarefree as you have alluded to perhaps PPV and a ST streaming service are the way ahead. Perhaps TV - not just sports coverage - should be seen as another utility e.g. like gas, electricity and water and you only pay for what you use i.e. watch. In these difficult economic times individuals and families could save a fortune. Of course, there is a downside to that with clubs losing out on revenue which can be used to buy players. Some clubs  are more reliant on others for TV revenues. Is port like any other entertainment "service" where organisations are vying for customers' money. I  should add that with a few exceptions I tend to watch only Chelsea and Rangers (some of you will know that I follow Rangers).

As a slight aside, also at the meeting was discussed about fans being allowed back into grounds. The CST has had  discussions with the club and if fans are allowed back into Stamford Bridge it is likely that the maximum capacity would be 7,000 and some parts of the ground would be closed off. A ticket with the purchaser's name on it would be issued so as to ensure that they are not given to someone else. You would also have to turn up at a fixed time. If you didn't, you wouldn't be allowed in.  Fulham Broadway station would be closed so fans would have to walk to West Brompton, Parsons Green, Earl's Court etc. A number of fans do that anyway.

Concern was expressed that when fans are allowed back into grounds that some (and this applies to ST holders) would be reluctant to attend for health reasons and may wish to take a sabbatical. The club has been approached about that with a view to them not missing out when they feel safe to return to the Bridge. It was pointed out that some people who were regular attendees at the Bridge may not return as they have got used to the new norm and the club should be engaged in encouraging them to return.

The issue of away fans was discussed and it was felt that this should be allowed. Away fans add to the atmosphere and their presence at games will be discussed with the powers that be.

Finally, the future of the ground was mentioned and there has been little communication from the club to the CST and Chelsea Pitch Owners. Planning permission did expire in March of this year but due to Covid-19 it has been extended for a year ie. until March 2021. The next CPO AGM is due in January 2021 so hopefully more news then.

 

Hope the above makes sense.

KTBFFH

18 hours ago, Munkworth said:

Straw that broke the camels back. Especially after switching from Pepsi to Coca Cola. They made a powerful enemy that day. 

Who?! Tell us!!

Cheers Boyne, good information and I'm glad the fan associations are fighting the ppv thing. The worry is this is the big clubs testing the water for their own subscription methods. 

On 09/10/2020 at 18:00, turnyitb said:

Not going to be popular here I guess but: 

Can’t see the problem myself. If you already subscribe to Sky/BT you get the games etc you pay your subscription for.

These are bonus games that you have a choice to watch or not, not a rip off to me you have a choice. 

Agree that £15 might be a bit over the top (£10 would be fair imo) 

people have been so spoilt in lockdown with all games free to air, it wasn’t going to last forever! 
I will certainly be getting our games and if you get 5 mates round it’s £2-50 each hardly going to break anyone.

You claim to not see the problem with a PPV price of £15 per match. Then 3 lines later £10 would be a fair price. I think that the latter line puts you firmly into the can see the problem camp mate.

I wouldn't object to a tenner a match, it's what I've paid for previous games, either that or pay for a week/month Sky sub depending on how many Chelsea games will be on: got BT Sport as part of my tablet package, so I've no issue with paying a fair price, but £15 is too much, good news for the streamers though.

On 09/10/2020 at 21:30, coco said:

You can't just delete Sky and BT from the game, they are the major payers, they've put billions into the game via their subscribers, how do you think the EPL clubs became so rich ? Streaming the games doesn't compare to the experience you get down a sat dish, unless you pay for premium services. Nothing beats actually going to the game, but 2nd best is watching it on SKY/BT on the big TV at home or in the pub. Straming it on Amazon or netflix on Ipads and laptops just isnt the same.

" Nothing beats actually going to the game, but 2nd best is watching it on SKY/BT on the big TV at home or in the pub. Straming it on Amazon or netflix on Ipads and laptops just isnt the same."

Have to disagree there, the quality of streams nowadays is such that a very clear, HD picture can be found quite easily, along with all the build ups and chat etc.

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Cheers Boyne, good information and I'm glad the fan associations are fighting the ppv thing. The worry is this is the big clubs testing the water for their own subscription methods. 

Thank you. I wonder if down the line and after the current contracts with BT Sport, Sky etc expire if clubs rather than leagues will broker deals with broadcasters. Could Chelsea use Chelsea TCV to broadcast their home PL games. That may require sponsorship and advertising. If there is that approach what impact on broadcasting rights in the U.K. and overseas. Disputes over kick-off times? There is also the issue of domestic and European cup competitions. Could be a nightmare when it comes to the legal and economic implications..

Clubs going out of business?

1 hour ago, MKBlue said:

" Nothing beats actually going to the game, but 2nd best is watching it on SKY/BT on the big TV at home or in the pub. Straming it on Amazon or netflix on Ipads and laptops just isnt the same."

Have to disagree there, the quality of streams nowadays is such that a very clear, HD picture can be found quite easily, along with all the build ups and chat etc.

Cheers for the advice. I'll cancel all my subs pronto. I'll just bung the club a fiver a month and hope they can manage.

7 hours ago, Valerie said:

Who?! Tell us!!

This might start to see wages in the game drop to make the game sustainable. Arsenal have had Ozil on a self imposed furlough scheme costing them 10.8 million!!! Without kicking a ball

 

11 hours ago, Boyne said:

As I mentioned on Friday I attended an online meeting of the Chelsea Supporters Trust yesterday afternoon. It was the Annual General Meeting so a number of topics were discussed.

PPV was discussed in the meeting - indeed it was the main topic - and before I mention what was said I should say that I pay £10 a month for BT Sport and I've never subscribed to Sky Sports. I'm also a ST holder so before lockdown if I wanted to watch an away game which was on Sky I'd go to the pub. If an away match on BT sport I'd watch the game at home.

There was a lot of unhappiness at the payment of £15 a month and if there is to be a charge it should be less e.g. £5. One of the CST board is a member of the Football Supporters Association and that group is to meet today do discuss a plan of action and possibly get the press on board. The Times journalist, Henry Winter has already made some comments on the PPV setup.

During the meeting the comment was made that some clubs in the PL have already asked supporters to pay for their Season Tickets or in some cases part of it. So if you are a ST holder at one of those clubs you are effectively paying twice to watch a game and that is on top of subscriptions to BT Sport, Sky if you pay those organisations. Chelsea is one of the clubs where ST holders haven't paid for this season so would be paying less to watch a game. That assumes they don't subscribe to BT Sport, Sky etc. 

As has been mentioned there will be an increase in illegal streaming. @yorkleyblue and @ForeverCarefree as you have alluded to perhaps PPV and a ST streaming service are the way ahead. Perhaps TV - not just sports coverage - should be seen as another utility e.g. like gas, electricity and water and you only pay for what you use i.e. watch. In these difficult economic times individuals and families could save a fortune. Of course, there is a downside to that with clubs losing out on revenue which can be used to buy players. Some clubs  are more reliant on others for TV revenues. Is port like any other entertainment "service" where organisations are vying for customers' money. I  should add that with a few exceptions I tend to watch only Chelsea and Rangers (some of you will know that I follow Rangers).

As a slight aside, also at the meeting was discussed about fans being allowed back into grounds. The CST has had  discussions with the club and if fans are allowed back into Stamford Bridge it is likely that the maximum capacity would be 7,000 and some parts of the ground would be closed off. A ticket with the purchaser's name on it would be issued so as to ensure that they are not given to someone else. You would also have to turn up at a fixed time. If you didn't, you wouldn't be allowed in.  Fulham Broadway station would be closed so fans would have to walk to West Brompton, Parsons Green, Earl's Court etc. A number of fans do that anyway.

Concern was expressed that when fans are allowed back into grounds that some (and this applies to ST holders) would be reluctant to attend for health reasons and may wish to take a sabbatical. The club has been approached about that with a view to them not missing out when they feel safe to return to the Bridge. It was pointed out that some people who were regular attendees at the Bridge may not return as they have got used to the new norm and the club should be engaged in encouraging them to return.

The issue of away fans was discussed and it was felt that this should be allowed. Away fans add to the atmosphere and their presence at games will be discussed with the powers that be.

Finally, the future of the ground was mentioned and there has been little communication from the club to the CST and Chelsea Pitch Owners. Planning permission did expire in March of this year but due to Covid-19 it has been extended for a year ie. until March 2021. The next CPO AGM is due in January 2021 so hopefully more news then.

 

Hope the above makes sense.

KTBFFH

Excellent feedback and summary mate, I like several others no doubt,  appreciate the clarity of your words. UTC

 

On 11/10/2020 at 07:42, Spiller86 said:

We pay 15 a month here for all PL games and the CL and EL. 

It's also free if you can endure the awfulness that is Optus mobile reception

I’m struggling to see the issue. Perhaps broadcasting is just different in USA. £15 seems a bargain to see your team play for games that weren’t previously scheduled to be on tv. The subscription already paid covers the base amount of games, no?

Pay it and enjoy! I’d be more concerned with the obligation to pay for a tv license for content you do not want. At least with this you have a choice. 

So as expected this is now leading to a land grab by the top clubs lead by Man Utd and Liverpool. This is going to f**k the game up.

11 hours ago, The Swan said:

Excellent feedback and summary mate, I like several others no doubt,  appreciate the clarity of your words. UTC

 

Thanks mate. Much appreciated.

40 minutes ago, dkw said:

So as expected this is now leading to a land grab by the top clubs lead by Man Utd and Liverpool. This is going to f**k the game up.

Yes, I can see PPV and the land grab being linked together. I wonder if the grab is a step to the European Super League which has been suggested on and off for many years now.

Multiple TV contracts, even more inconvenient kick-off times and could there be down the line no relegation from the Premier League. I hope I'm wrong about the latter as that would lead to lack of motivation among Championship teams. Perhaps I'm becoming more and more cynical in my old age.

8 hours ago, PhilH930 said:

I’m struggling to see the issue. Perhaps broadcasting is just different in USA. £15 seems a bargain to see your team play for games that weren’t previously scheduled to be on tv. The subscription already paid covers the base amount of games, no?

Pay it and enjoy! I’d be more concerned with the obligation to pay for a tv license for content you do not want. At least with this you have a choice. 

It's just the price for a lot of people. 

No one in the EFL is complaining about the £10 charge. If they'd introduced £10 here I doubt people would squabble.

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's just the price for a lot of people. 

No one in the EFL is complaining about the £10 charge. If they'd introduced £10 here I doubt people would squabble.

That seems fair.  We'll never know, but more transparency on the £15 would help (i.e. what is the cost to broadcast, how much do the clubs and league receive, what is left for broadcaster).

I have no idea how many would pay, but assume Chelsea got 100K for PPV, that is £1.5M to the broadcaster.  Seems a lot but probably doesn't go that far.  This close in I wonder how much flexibility they have to increase ad revenue also. 

 

39 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

That seems fair.  We'll never know, but more transparency on the £15 would help (i.e. what is the cost to broadcast, how much do the clubs and league receive, what is left for broadcaster).

I have no idea how many would pay, but assume Chelsea got 100K for PPV, that is £1.5M to the broadcaster.  Seems a lot but probably doesn't go that far.  This close in I wonder how much flexibility they have to increase ad revenue also. 

 

I read something last week along the lines of the club keeping all profits once production costs have been covered.