[Albion] £14.95 to watch Albion
- Thread starter drofnud
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I’ve said this a couple of times - but really it’ll be interesting when the viewing figures for games are ‘leaked’ and the bigger clubs realise how much of a pull they have, what future deals are negotiated. You can guarantee the equal distribution thing won’t last and Brighton will be bottom 3 in terms of revenue from this.
Club wouldn’t be so happy then I am sure
Club wouldn’t be so happy then I am sure
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,401
This. Completely out of touch with the tough times most folks are facing. Good luck with finding punters willing to fork out £14.95 - or anything at all - for West Brom v Burnley
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Yes, so have I but that money is for future games not for the PPV games so not paying twice
Future games are not guaranteed. The season has already started and I’ve already paid for something I haven’t received.
The idea of PPV isn’t all that bad. Gives people a choice to pay for the game they can’t watch otherwise. However, as a STH, is it really fair that to watch Brighton play I may have to spend £15 - the same as someone who has never been to watch us play. What is the point in having a ST? For 21 years I’ve paid my ST in which time has no doubt contributed to the survival of the club like man of the fan contributions have. It’s just another way of fleecing us for more cash. At the moment, there are people who could really do with a refund. Luckily I can survive by keeping my ST funds in trust for when we can return.
In comparison, I bought a concert ticket for October, it’s been moved to April. Option of refund given (great) but I said no. If the event was to suddenly be broadcast on PPV and I (a ticket holder) had to pay extra, I’d be livid.
Whether it’s seen as a lack of loyalty to paying supporters or just business I completely get why this has not landed well.
(For someone who couldn’t ever get to games and now has the option of PPV, it’s quite good.. I am not one of those)
In comparison, I bought a concert ticket for October, it’s been moved to April. Option of refund given (great) but I said no. If the event was to suddenly be broadcast on PPV and I (a ticket holder) had to pay extra, I’d be livid.
Whether it’s seen as a lack of loyalty to paying supporters or just business I completely get why this has not landed well.
(For someone who couldn’t ever get to games and now has the option of PPV, it’s quite good.. I am not one of those)
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Nobody has the slightest idea of when we will get back to the Amex.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Yes because that is the law - its not the clubs fault fans cannot currently attend games. Between April and August every season you pay for something you haven't received but at some point will receive it, maybe it'll end up being a payment on account for the 2021/22 season, who knows. It still doesn't mean paying to watch a match by PPV you will pay twice for the same match, you won't have.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Duplicate
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Its probably also been covered on this thread but it is completely unfair for smaller clubs who will rarely be picked for matches whose fans might have to fork out almost every week compared to the TV darlings links Liverpool, Manchesterx2 and Leeds who are on TV every week.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
You've missed the point. It is NOT the same as a normal season as we cannot go to ANY games at all. That is why, in the current circumstances, the PPV policy and price discriminates more against some supporters than others. [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] did a helpful comparison earlier guessing the cost for a BHA fan as opposed to that incurred by a Liverpool fan for instance. It meant we would end up paying jundreds of pounds extra for the ability to see our team. Just for the first three games on PPV, we would have to shelve out £30 to watch the Albion whilst poor WBA and another team which escapes me (probably Fulham) would shelve out £45. At the other end of the scale, Man City, Everton and West Ham fans are sitting there will full pockets as they had no extra cost whatsoever.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The club is sitting on my money. I won’t be paying twice because I won’t be PPV.
Not a penny more.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
My attitude has changed to this as well, quite surprised the club voted for this given they are well aware they have taken money up front for no end product.
I am not really 100% against it. Neither am I 100% in favour.
At the moment it it fine. There isn't that many other forms of entertainment to attend. The pubs are shit because everyone is forced to sit at tables. Pool Tables in many places have been removed and Juke boxes etc often switched off.
Live music venues are for the most part still closed.
Thus £14.95 is optional and it is to pay for entertainment we would perhaps have spent elsewhere in a " Non Covid Life " - So for now I don't see a problem.
The issue comes when Sky or BT move to make a larger percentage of games pay per view.
Fans become creatures of habit and it could lead to less fans going back to the grounds after we get back to normal.
There will always be fans wanting to to attend live football. But will fans then want to travel in numbers to away matches. Or will cold December Tuesday night matches be so appealing to fans in the future if you can get the match at the end of a remote control button.
Clubs should be careful what they wish for.
blockhseagull
Well-known member
I’m not paying it on the grounds it’s too expensive.
I have no issue against the idea though.
I have no issue against the idea though.
Djmiles
Barndoor Holroyd
To put the charge into perspective, if 2 MILLION people paid £15, that still wouldn’t even cover 1% of the entire PL wage bill for the entire year.
Mind boggling.
Mind boggling.
What a ****ing mess.....
-complete PR disaster for the PL, and noise is getting louder (and don't claim poverty when you're still spunking millions on transfer fees)
-loads on SM blaming the club directly (misunderstanding it's a PL initiative, although we did vote in favour)
-expect to see calls for fans to boycott this, given it's a trial for a month
-if the deal had been for STHs to get this for free or significantly reduced cost for home games it might have perhaps landed a bit better than it has. Charging for away games isn't unreasonable in principle (but 14.95 is still too much IMO)
I'm not overly bothered about what I've paid in DDs to the club so far - it's been made clear that will all be sorted at some point so whether that is used as credit for future games or refunded at some point I'm ambivalent.
-complete PR disaster for the PL, and noise is getting louder (and don't claim poverty when you're still spunking millions on transfer fees)
-loads on SM blaming the club directly (misunderstanding it's a PL initiative, although we did vote in favour)
-expect to see calls for fans to boycott this, given it's a trial for a month
-if the deal had been for STHs to get this for free or significantly reduced cost for home games it might have perhaps landed a bit better than it has. Charging for away games isn't unreasonable in principle (but 14.95 is still too much IMO)
I'm not overly bothered about what I've paid in DDs to the club so far - it's been made clear that will all be sorted at some point so whether that is used as credit for future games or refunded at some point I'm ambivalent.
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
I can't imagine I'm bringing anything new to the debate but £15 for less than 2 hours on TV, at home, is awful value. Yes a ticket is £40 but the experience you get is completely incomparable.
As an STH who goes to about half the away games each season, I would be looking at about £300 to see the same about of games I normally would (on the basis that there'll probably be about 19-20 games I'd normally attend that WON'T be televised), but without any of the socialising or memorable experiences. All the while I've lost count of exactly what money of mine the club is holding.
In the Withdean years I'd be queuing up to hand over this money, and to our fellow L1 clubs. But it's different now.
Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk
As an STH who goes to about half the away games each season, I would be looking at about £300 to see the same about of games I normally would (on the basis that there'll probably be about 19-20 games I'd normally attend that WON'T be televised), but without any of the socialising or memorable experiences. All the while I've lost count of exactly what money of mine the club is holding.
In the Withdean years I'd be queuing up to hand over this money, and to our fellow L1 clubs. But it's different now.
Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
I don't understand why having paid for our season tickets in advance has anything to do with the PPV debate. Season ticket holders have paid for a raft of live events involving their own team. When we are allowed to do so, we will draw down the value of our season tickets in live match tickets.
Those who are fortunate enough to have subscription channels will return to the opportunity to see a limited number of matches within their package as before. Nothing wrong with that.
Or is there?
The alternative to paying for a subscription Sports Channel used to be a) Stay at home and listen to Warren and Johnny b) Go to the game if you had enough points c) watch it in the pub if it's on d) watch a dodgy stream if you are comfortable with that.
But we smell unfairness in the PPV scheme. Top 6 fans will rarely pay, and same probably for Leeds. I pay for Sky Sports and PPV means I will have to pay to watch Albion more than a Liverpool fan to watch Liverpool with the same subscription to Sky. Match selection is going to cause massive fan unrest because some fans will be unfairly treated. It's bad enough when Albion are on BT Shite and I have to pay extra to watch.
Then we see Chelsea spend £230m on players and 'hard up Arsenal' find £45m for one player on deadline day. Man U offered £90m for one player alone.
These are unique times where a unique solution was required. The solution was the all games live on TV solution, not let's charge the fans of teams in the less attractive games. For me an attractive game involves Brighton first and foremost. The least watchable are the borefests between the Top Six - if only all those were dumped on PPV.
Those who are fortunate enough to have subscription channels will return to the opportunity to see a limited number of matches within their package as before. Nothing wrong with that.
Or is there?
The alternative to paying for a subscription Sports Channel used to be a) Stay at home and listen to Warren and Johnny b) Go to the game if you had enough points c) watch it in the pub if it's on d) watch a dodgy stream if you are comfortable with that.
But we smell unfairness in the PPV scheme. Top 6 fans will rarely pay, and same probably for Leeds. I pay for Sky Sports and PPV means I will have to pay to watch Albion more than a Liverpool fan to watch Liverpool with the same subscription to Sky. Match selection is going to cause massive fan unrest because some fans will be unfairly treated. It's bad enough when Albion are on BT Shite and I have to pay extra to watch.
Then we see Chelsea spend £230m on players and 'hard up Arsenal' find £45m for one player on deadline day. Man U offered £90m for one player alone.
These are unique times where a unique solution was required. The solution was the all games live on TV solution, not let's charge the fans of teams in the less attractive games. For me an attractive game involves Brighton first and foremost. The least watchable are the borefests between the Top Six - if only all those were dumped on PPV.
