Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999
But you mentioned 1 game attracted less than 1000 purchases, but no mention of that in the snippet.
Of course they can, that is exactly what they did for the end of last season and received refunds.
They contracted to show games with crowds not empty cavernous stadia which is what they argued.
I agree it is not EPL fault but they gave refunds nonetheless.
|
Did they get refunds because of no crowds or because about 30 games ended up free to air, the compressed schedule and games not fitting into their natural timeslots?
Sky/BT ultimately pay billions to extract revenue from games over a nine to ten month period, not have to suspend subscriptions for four months and squeeze the rest of the season into five weeks.
I’d be surprised if crowds were even mentioned in the contracts.
I agree that the viewing spectacle has dropped I just doubt it’s a contractual obligation. The get out would be force majeure but Sky/BT wouldn’t take that risk in my view. The League would probably go to Amazon.
---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
The article has been updated since I quoted the free part, presumably pushing that crucial bit about the viewing figures behind the pay wall.
The update includes "A meeting of the 20 clubs today decided to stick with £14.95 for the next two rounds of matches but agreed to review the PPV price for games after the international break, with a decision to be taken on November 5."
|
£20 a month for every additional game easily gets the 500k subscribers to beat the numbers they proposed for £14.95 a game.