General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ozsat

The actual football fan is getting a discount - £15 for a match they would have paid £40+ to go and see if the stadium was open.

The only people complaining are those who were never going to see the game in the first place - and now have a chance to at £15.

The real "bad guys" in this are those on the field taking massive wages for little more than three hours work a week - on a busy week.

Maybe it is them that should be giving something back to the fans?

No Premier League player works just three hours a week - they've a full week of training to be able to play at that level.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by ozsat

The actual football fan is getting a discount - £15 for a match they would have paid £40+ to go and see if the stadium was open.

The only people complaining are those who were never going to see the game in the first place - and now have a chance to at £15.

The real "bad guys" in this are those on the field taking massive wages for little more than three hours work a week - on a busy week.

Maybe it is them that should be giving something back to the fans?

If all actual football fans tried to get into games (covid permitted) the grounds would not be big enough in most cases.

Those complaining are not just people who don't go to games.

Agree that the players are overpaid.

One of the main complaints is that all of a sudden extra games (that wouldn't have been televised in UK) are made available for £14.95 a game when previously they had been FREE.

One of the big bargaining chips the EPL agreed to in order to get the season re-started was that all games would be broadcast as crowds were not permitted.

It is interesting that both Sky & BT are refusing to publish the number of subscriptions for each match - they should be made to do so!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Raider999

If all actual football fans tried to get into games (covid permitted) the grounds would not be big enough in most cases.

Those complaining are not just people who don't go to games.

Agree that the players are overpaid.

One of the main complaints is that all of a sudden extra games (that wouldn't have been televised in UK) are made available for £14.95 a game when previously they had been FREE.

One of the big bargaining chips the EPL agreed to in order to get the season re-started was that all games would be broadcast as crowds were not permitted.

It is interesting that both Sky & BT are refusing to publish the number of subscriptions for each match - they should be made to do so!

What would the acceptable alternative to PPV be? A fairer option - although imperfect - would have been to make them available via an additional pro-rata monthly fee to BT and Sky customers. But the Premier League just wants to test the public's appetite for PPV Premier League matches under the guise of Covid.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What would the acceptable alternative to PPV be? A fairer option - although imperfect - would have been to make them available via an additional pro-rata monthly fee to BT and Sky customers. But the Premier League just wants to test the public's appetite for PPV Premier League matches under the guise of Covid.

The concern for the most of us is that all the best games will go ppv in the future if this were to prove successful. The other thing is these extra games were previously being offered at no extra cost but are now being charged for.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

The concern for the most of us is that all the best games will go ppv in the future if this were to prove successful. The other thing is these extra games were previously being offered at no extra cost but are now being charged for.

Absolutely agree with you on the fear of having those games as PPV and why they should be boycotted. Would love for the extra games to be free but I can't see that happening in a month of Sundays. Just asking what an acceptable alternative to PPV is.

[ozsat]

I don't think they ever reveal subscription figures.

As the product belongs to EPL - only they could release viewing figures.

Originally Posted by Raider999

It is interesting that both Sky & BT are refusing to publish the number of subscriptions for each match - they should be made to do so!

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Absolutely agree with you on the fear of having those games as PPV and why they should be boycotted. Would love for the extra games to be free but I can't see that happening in a month of Sundays. Just asking what an acceptable alternative to PPV is.

I don't think there is a fair alternative to be honest. What I still can't work out though is as all Premier League games are recorded and Sky offer them via their match choice thing, why do Sky say the £14.95 fee is to cover their costs? What extra costs do they have? A commentator? Already have that. Recording the game? Already do that too! Not sure if the same can be said of BT though but still Sky shouldn't be charging anything.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

I don't think there is a fair alternative to be honest. What I still can't work out though is as all Premier League games are recorded and Sky offer them via their match choice thing, why do Sky say the £14.95 fee is to cover their costs? What extra costs do they have? A commentator? Already have that. Recording the game? Already do that too! Not sure if the same can be said of BT though but still Sky shouldn't be charging anything.

Presumably there's some kind of revenue-sharing deal on the PPV games between BT/Sky and the Premier League.
Maybe Sky have made some kind of arrangement with the Premier League to show these matches on delay and BT haven't done so yet, perhaps waiting to see how Sky gets on.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Presumably there's some kind of revenue-sharing deal on the PPV games between BT/Sky and the Premier League.
Maybe Sky have made some kind of arrangement with the Premier League to show these matches on delay and BT haven't done so yet, perhaps waiting to see how Sky gets on.

That would be my assumption but still wonder why Sky say the fee is to cover their costs?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

That would be my assumption but still wonder why Sky say the fee is to cover their costs?

Probably to emphasise that it's not all going into their pockets. Fans might assume that as there was no bidding for these extra matches, Sky are getting them free.

[jfman]

It's definitely in the interest of Sky/BT to downplay the amounts they are making from this given they know the unpopularity it will have among their subscribers - some of whom will already be forking out 4 figures a year for a range of services.

[telegramsam]

According to the Daily Mail Sky are reportedly saying they are very unhappy about PPV as it damages their reputation. My question to them then would be why are you doing them then?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

According to the Daily Mail Sky are reportedly saying they are very unhappy about PPV as it damages their reputation. My question to them then would be why are you doing them then?

Rock and a hard place. Government pressure on the league for every game to be available. The League under pressure from clubs to extract revenue in the absence of crowds.

Sky want to be in the tent when the ultimate solution is found, rather than have it slip to a third party who might see an opportunity to build a relationship for the next round of rights.

Sky can gain some useful data about the demand for PPV football without using any of it’s own rights to do so.

Essentially I think a solution has to be found that makes every game available but considers a) club season ticket holders, b) Sky Sports subscribers and the broadcasters position, c) BT Sports subscribers and the broadcasters position.

Something like £20 a month to Sky Sports or BT Sports subscribers for all the ‘additional’ games, £30 a month (half of the present ‘one game per week’ cost) for everyone else. Individual games £10 each. For those that point out that’s poor value for the individual match purchase that’s the point .

[Chad]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

According to the Daily Mail Sky are reportedly saying they are very unhappy about PPV as it damages their reputation. My question to them then would be why are you doing them then?

According to the Mirror neither BT or SKY are making any money from these games other than their production costs. Would explain why the presentation of these games are short and sweet without all the usual glitz and showmanship.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mir...e-22901105.amp

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

According to the Daily Mail Sky are reportedly saying they are very unhappy about PPV as it damages their reputation. My question to them then would be why are you doing them then?

Probably because they don't want the likes of Amazon Prime (other streamers are available) muscling in.