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

[1andrew1]

- Premier League considering reducing price of PPV matches to under £10
- One match got fewer than 1,000 views.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...ches-56ghptkwq (subscription)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

- Premier League considering reducing price of PPV matches to under £10
- One match got fewer than 1,000 views.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...ches-56ghptkwq (subscription)

They obviously have very much misread the mood of football supporters.

[jfman]

They need to come up with a way to make all the matches available. The average viewer isn’t likely to buy even one per week at £10. Probably closer to one per month, if even that.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

- Premier League considering reducing price of PPV matches to under £10
- One match got fewer than 1,000 views.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...ches-56ghptkwq (subscription)

Even at £10 I would still refuse to pay it. It's just not on on my opinion.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

It looks like football fans may get their way with PPV, although this might take away the ability to watch these matches altogether until the stadiums open up again.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2020...-cause-u-turn/

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It looks like football fans may get their way with PPV, although this might take away the ability to watch these matches altogether until the stadiums open up again.

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2020...-cause-u-turn/

Notably the article at no point states the games won’t be televised. It states PPV would be scrapped.

What we have actually learned is that they want/need approx 175,000 subscribers. £2.6m a week for the 28 or so for matchdays not already not fully covered by BT/Amazon.

So if Sky/BT can come up with an amicable split and £73m they are back in the game.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Notably the article at no point states the games won’t be televised. It states PPV would be scrapped.

I know. That’s why I said it ‘may’ take away the ability to watch these matches on TV.

However, whilst there are other solutions that we can both think of, it is quite possible that an alternative may not be provided.

[jfman]

For the loose change it is to Sky/BT I can’t see the league upsetting their customers.

[OLD BOY]

I think they already have!

[jfman]

They can reconcile the situation

[Raider999]

What is the point in posting a link to an article that wants me to subscribe to read it?

As bad as PPV itself!

Having read an alternative article, it appears Sky/BT are happy to see the fee reduced or scrapped altogether.

A meeting of EPL clubs (presumably by zoom) today is likely to discuss options.

Ashley (Newcastle) suggests £4.95 per game others £9.95 per game.

Apparently, when the £14.95 was set it was that or games not on TV.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

For the loose change it is to Sky/BT I can’t see the league upsetting their customers.

Why would Sky/BT pay more? Judging by what happened at end of 19/20 season they will be looking for refunds as the customer experience is not what they contracted for.

I would have thought the only way to avoid refunds would be to split the games between BT/Sky and have them free to the customer.

Of course, what clubs really want is fans back in stadia (even 30% capacity would be a start), many have already done planning how this can be achieved safely.

Perhaps EPL should say they won't entertain bailing out the other league clubs until they see progress in getting fans back.

[jfman]

I’m not sure Sky/BT can reasonably argue it’s not the customer experience they are paying for.

My thought process is that the £80m is tiny compared to the billions they are paying for the 220 ordinarily televised games. I definitely think it creates a better value offering all round to have all games televised.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Raider999

What is the point in posting a link to an article that wants me to subscribe to read it?

That was the only article at the time and people always want evidence when posting such information. I don't subscribe to The Times but the snippet told me enough.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That was the only article at the time and people always want evidence when posting such information. I don't subscribe to The Times but the snippet told me enough.

But you mentioned 1 game attracted less than 1000 purchases, but no mention of that in the snippet.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure Sky/BT can reasonably argue it’s not the customer experience they are paying for.

My thought process is that the £80m is tiny compared to the billions they are paying for the 220 ordinarily televised games. I definitely think it creates a better value offering all round to have all games televised.

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Raider999

But you mentioned 1 game attracted less than 1000 purchases, but no mention of that in the snippet.

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."