rbcuk Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Eluko is vile, her comments about people being on furlong being workshy, she ain’t got a clue, when someone bought up saying you work for sky she couldn’t defend herself just went on the personal attack against this one Hopefully no one buys these games so they know they have **** up and do like last season show all games for free on sky bt and bbc again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tomaszk Posted October 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, villa4europe said: Purslow voted for it so he's not in a position to criticise her opinion on it... I agree. It was like she was baiting people though. Very strange. You would never in a million years find Purslow putting his foot in it to this extent twice within three months. She needs to get off twitter if she's going to remain in a prominent position at Villa, she can't be trusted to not embarrass herself and the club. Or we could just sack her now and save face for the next time she asks why people less well off than her don't want to spend money on something they've already paid for. Edited October 10, 2020 by Tomaszk 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: I agree. It was like she was baiting people though. Very strange. You would never in a million years find Purslow putting his foot in it to this extent twice within three months. She needs to get off twitter if she's going to remain in a prominent position at Villa, she can't be trusted to not embarrass herself and the club. Or we could just sack her now and save face for the next time she asks why people less well off than her don't want to spend money on something they've already paid for. Christ, good luck with that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbcuk Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 She’s put her twitter as private again like last time she piped up with her comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: Or we could just sack her now and save face for the next time she asks why people less well off than her don't want to spend money on something they've already paid for. Which is the standpoint of the club Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them She asked what's wrong with it The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted October 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Which is the standpoint of the club Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them She asked what's wrong with it The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks Double question marks is antagonistic...was not posed as a sensible question And this isn't in response to a question someone has asked her, this is a tweet out of the blue. She represents the club. Implying that watching it on TV is the 'same product' as the one we pay 30 quid to see in person is insulting. If purslow had said the same they'd be similar outcry Edited October 10, 2020 by tomav84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Which is the standpoint of the club Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them She asked what's wrong with it The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks In my opinion it was poorly thought out but the question itself wasn't the problem no, it was her responses afterwards. It's like she was bored and decided to play devil's advocate poking those who were basically saying "I can't afford it". The gist I saw before she disappeared off twitter when people said they couldn't afford it or didn't want to pay was her saying well you don't have to go, you've got a choice. Yes, thanks Eni, great input, I think they know it's not essential. They want to go/watch games, and have been able to, now they're being asked to pay more. Edited October 10, 2020 by Tomaszk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Junxs said: No but the rights to show the games come up every few years, and no one company can buy all 6 packages. Hence Sky had to share it out when Offcom did the report all those years ago. This new non existing "PremFlix" of yours can't just show up out of the blue and buy all the broadcasting rights True, which is a shame, because it would benefit fans who would be able to watch games when they want and how they want to. But big boys need to share money's between themselves so opening up the market for a business that is cheaper and better than Sky or BT is clearly out of question at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Junxs said: What I think the most unfair thing about all of this is that glory hunting plastic fans are the ones that are benefitting the most, as Liverpool and Man Utd will be shown every week regardless of who they are playing. Their fans will have all games included in their Sky/BT subs without having to pay a penny more If they are going down this route then the fairest thing would have been to divide all the televised games equally, then all fans have to pay the same or similar amount to watch their teams games. I can't remember the last weekend when either of the 2 mentioned clubs above didn't have their match televised. I agree, but annoyingly it always has been the case that Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs, would be most frequently on Sky and BT. Their fans (including their many glory hunters), have always therefore had the better deal, when it comes to televised coverage. From our point of view, we will still get the games that Sky and BT choose to cover, as part of our normal subscriptions. The difference is that our club (along with all but one, of the other PL clubs) have decided that we will no longer get our other PL games free (as we had done since the restart, if we had Sky/BT/Amazon). Those games will still be provided to us by Sky and BT now, but at a charge. It is for each of us to decide whether or not, we are prepared to or are currently in a position to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted October 10, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 10, 2020 I think this has been blown way out of proportion due to the usual social media pile on. It is basically a *good idea* to have all matches available to stream for those that want to watch, given that it’s not posible to have fans in the ground. It is just the price point that sucks. If they had sold them for £10 like the Carabao cup games then I’m guessing that there wouldn’t have been much if any of a backlash. October is a test month after all so hopefully they learn from their mistakes and reduce the prices in November after some bad PR and poor uptake. I don’t believe that this will mean they will keep attractive fixtures stuck behind a paywall in the future. No casual or neutral fan I know would ever pay £15 to watch a football match that didn’t involve their own team, so it would be a terrible business model. I am only contemplating paying £15 because it’s villa and they are my team and I would pay a hell of a lot more to see them live if I was able. Even if it was the title decider or the champions league final I wouldn’t pay £15 and I doubt many others would either. The PL are not entirely stupid and they know they are walking a tight rope already with fans moving to piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Here is the big danger to Sky and BT. People find other options to watch these other games and then question why they are paying again to Sky and BT when their games are available at the same option....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfly Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 9 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said: I think this has been blown way out of proportion due to the usual social media pile on. It is basically a *good idea* to have all matches available to stream for those that want to watch, given that it’s not posible to have fans in the ground. It is just the price point that sucks. If they had sold them for £10 like the Carabao cup games then I’m guessing that there wouldn’t have been much if any of a backlash. October is a test month after all so hopefully they learn from their mistakes and reduce the prices in November after some bad PR and poor uptake. I don’t believe that this will mean they will keep attractive fixtures stuck behind a paywall in the future. No casual or neutral fan I know would ever pay £15 to watch a football match that didn’t involve their own team, so it would be a terrible business model. I am only contemplating paying £15 because it’s villa and they are my team and I would pay a hell of a lot more to see them live if I was able. Even if it was the title decider or the champions league final I wouldn’t pay £15 and I doubt many others would either. The PL are not entirely stupid and they know they are walking a tight rope already with fans moving to piracy. £10 is what I spent on a day pass to watch the Liverpool game (best tenner I've spent in my life, by the way). If they'd come up with that figure I wouldn't have batted an eye. I just don't get why they think we'd be ok paying £15 now when the price has always been £10 before. They should consider lowering even further to £5 though, because of the second bold bit here. £15, even £10 severely limits the audience they're going to get. I can see them regretting this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfly Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Another thought - the last two gameweeks have been classics in terms of goals scored, so there might be an influx of people paying for these passes in the hopes they'll see more of the same. If the next one has a more regular amount of goals then there will be a significant drop off in sales going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted October 11, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 11, 2020 What has Eluko said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadridVilla Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I don't suppose anyone knows but can you still buy these games without an existing Sky/BT subscription? Seems like you do, which would be an even bigger blunder than charging £15 in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-k Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, CottenM said: NBA League Pass is £25 a month and you can watch every game from every team No unfair bias for fans of smaller / bigger teams Even if the games are on network TV they're still available also* £25 is still reasonable money, but not extortionate imo Something like this would have been easy to copy, and they've got it wrong for me. (*sure BT and Sky wouldn't let this bit happen...) The broadcasting rights of the Premier League, the biggest league of any kind in the world, are ridiculous. Prior to this PPV scheme, how could someone who lives in England not have potential access to watch all matches? Like you said...want to watch any NBA match? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Want to watch NFL? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Live in Canada? Pay a monthly fee for DAZN and watch any Premier League, EFL, UEFA, Serie A, NFL, etc. match. I'm living abroad and for £30/month I can watch any Premier League, EFL, Bundesliga, Ligue 1/2, Golf, NHL, NFL, etc. "Problem" is that the Premier League games generally won't have English commentary. Sure, I can watch it as such, but how can the biggest league in the world not give me any other options to watch the matches in English? Prior to DAZN, there was a point in time when all Premier League games were broadcast in Canada on TV. Of course you needed a basic sports package to access the channels, but I always thought it was ridiculous that I could choose which game I wanted to watch while people in England have no choice on what games they can watch. Edited October 11, 2020 by a-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted October 11, 2020 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted October 11, 2020 I understand that the prem clubs chasing the lost match day revenue. They are still receiving the usual money from the collectively bargained TV deal. Although money from attendance is not as significant as it used to be, it's still important for trying to maintain spending power under the stupid FFP. So the question is how much money do clubs actually make from a match day? After deducting policing, stewarding, turnstile operators, cleaners, cooks, wait staff, shop staff, heating, lighting and product / consumable costs. That's what they are trying to recoup. Comparing what someone spends with what the PPV costs is largely not relevant. You aren't giving what you spend to the club, only a portion of it. I have two concerns If this is implemented per club (rather than collectively) then it will allow the "fashionable" clubs to increase their revenue disproportionately allowing for further abuse of FFP. Not really abuse as this is what it was intended to do. I'm worried that pricing it at £15 will encourage people to gather at someone's house and thereby promote the spread of the virus. Not really a concern, but if I'm paying £15 for a couple of hours fake fan noise entertainment, I expect to have the right to watch that at any time in the future like I would for a streamed film I'd bought at that price. I'd also expect multiple audio channels - some to not feature Liverpool and Man Utd apologists. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 37 minutes ago, a-k said: The broadcasting rights of the Premier League, the biggest league of any kind in the world, are ridiculous. Prior to this PPV scheme, how could someone who lives in England not have potential access to watch all matches? Like you said...want to watch any NBA match? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Want to watch NFL? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Live in Canada? Pay a monthly fee for DAZN and watch any Premier League, EFL, UEFA, Serie A, NFL, etc. match. I'm living abroad and for £30/month I can watch any Premier League, EFL, Bundesliga, Ligue 1/2, Golf, NHL, NFL, etc. "Problem" is that the Premier League games generally won't have English commentary. Sure, I can watch it as such, but how can the biggest league in the world not give me any other options to watch the matches in English? Prior to DAZN, there was a point in time when all Premier League games were broadcast in Canada on TV. Of course you needed a basic sports package to access the channels, but I always thought it was ridiculous that I could choose which game I wanted to watch while people in England have no choice on what games they can watch. Again it's against the law to show any football match from the UK or worldwide at 3 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. That's the reason why we can't currently see all our games, they'd either have to scrap 3pm kick offs in the Prem or change the law and screw over lower league teams whose fans may decide to just stay home and watch the Premier League on telly rather than turn up to their local team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 They'll have done their homework and decided that this is the price point that'll net them the most income. Like many others, I think it's too much and there's not anything they could add to or change about it to make me pay 15 quid for a single match. How much were the games when we were in the championship? I used to pay for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Fans will still pile into pubs given their exemption which is ridiculous giving the various levels and localised lockdowns. It’s rank stupidity and dangerous. It needs a rethink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts