[Albion] £14.95 to watch Albion

[drew]

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.

If they said to you that you currently have £250 credit in your season ticket account but that for each match you watch online, they are going deduct £10 then for next season you'd only have £60 credit towards next season's renewal would that be acceptable?

I suspect not because you think it should be given free to STH which then means that there will be virtually no revenue going to the club (bearing in mind that current ST payments aren't revenue as they are being held on account). So, on that basis we either stop signing players and/or paying the wages we pay and probably get relegate or we rely on Tony's deep pockets!

 

[WilburySeagull]

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.

You are missing the main point. The PL are acting like those travel firms who got so much flak earlier by trying to aviod any refunds by promising jam tomorrow. It is absurd for PL to claim to be hard up while spending £billion on transfer fees and agents commissions and making no serious attempt to reduce costs such as player wages.

Thrre is no way that games with spectators will happen anytime soon with the virus numbers spiralling out of control so assumptions about promissing games made earlier are no longer valid.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

If Brighton are away and get selected for tv, then I pay £9.95 to Now TV, which isn’t one match but a full 24 hours of different sports.
All matches are filmed anyway so where is the exorbitant cost coming from?

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

It’d certainly be interesting to see what would happen if legal action was taken against the club for the current situation. Any idea under consumer law who is ‘right’ with regards to the season ticket situation?

This is basic consumer contract law.
Buyer / consumer pays a fee to the supplier in return for a product or service.
So a ST pays BHA to attend games as a spectator, that's the service.
There is a clear contract [with terms & conditions] laid out which stipulates things like where your seat is, not valid for cup games, not transferable, use for U21s, etc.

So, in effect, the club are in part-breach of contract and I'd be confident that if you asked for your money back, you would get it.
However, like in many customer / supplier arrangements, a deal can often be struck rather than going down the money back / breach pathway.

The way I understand it is BHA have now ceased taking further DD payments and have promised [in writing] to honour their side of the contract to provide their product [attend & watch live footie at the Amex] once temporary government legislation [laws] are relaxed aka a postponement of service.
This is deemed as a change to the contract terms - it is the buyers choice to accept or decline this change.
If you accept, you are now contracted under the revised Ts&Cs.
If you decline, then you should get your money back.

Where this could get interesting is adding damages for the breach.
Covid-19 would be deemed Force Majeure [act of God] and so if, for example, all the players caught it and couldn't then perform, there would be no case for damages.
There would be a weak case for damages in any case - but as an example: what if someone who had been given a year to live bought a ST as their dying wish. In this event, the consumer has been denied the benefit of their ST and postponing the service [until they let folk in] is no use as the consumer will have passed way.
What would be interesting is that I think it won't be BHA who would meet damages as they were acting within the [temp] law. But could a case be bought against HM Government in a case like this?
Probably not, but a test case would be very interesting if it ever came to be.

 

[happypig]

If they get away with this (and they will, because armchair fans outnumber match goers) then the next step will be matches played abroad like the NFL does.

 

[London Irish]

Time for a poll? Be interesting to see if these days NSC will swallow literally any old shit from the club

 

[Guinness Boy]

Time for a poll? Be interesting to see if these days NSC will swallow literally any old shit from the club

From the club? It's a Premier League proposal that we voted in favour of along with 18 other clubs. We haven't proposed it unilaterally.

It is a shit idea though. If it was just £15 then you could argue people would spend much more than that on a match ticket plus refreshments on a match day, although for a much better experience. But many people will have paid some or all of a season ticket already and taken out a Sky/BT subcription to see the restart games and the first set this season. Now they're being asked to dip into their pockets again. As El Pres said to the BBC why wouldn't you just go and get a DAZN or IPTV subscription instead or even take your luck with online streams?

It's an own goal but it's one scored by the Premier League. We've merely provided an assist.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

That's insane. Not sure what add-ons you have but I pay £70 a month for Sky broadband with Sky and BT Sports.

When you are out of contract make sure you take a good look around.

Virgin were offering my package at £65 a month recently.

Sorry, should have been a bit more detailed, it's the full VIP package from Virgin which comes with:
Every Sky channel bar Atlantic = all sports inc HD & all Cinema & the Eurosport channels too
plus all BT sport
plus 2 x TiVo boxes
plus 200 MBs broadband
plus landline with free calls
plus 2 WiFi extenders

However, since my contracted ended back in April, I think it's time to call them up and say I'm leaving and see what they say / offer.

What are my options?
I'd be happy with FreeSat [Sky dish already in situ but idle at present] - I'd have to buy a FreeSat box, okay. I'd probably just use FreeView for the other TVs in the house.
I'd need to source my BB from somewhere else [BT cabling all in place and Fibre available at the green cabinet] and would need phone line rental to sustain my landline [need to keep for old relatives to contact]

But for sport, I only really want: every BHA game, some cricket, F1 & motorbike racing - what would the NSC wise-techs suggest to achieve this? With indicative costs would be appreciated too.

 

[DJ NOBO]

You think it should be free? If so, why?

I pay about £70 for Sky Sports and BT already so watching football is not free for me.
Pre-pandemic, some games were shown live , some weren’t.
If the technology is there to watch all games I don’t see why that can’t be part of the package for a nominal price increase.

 

[e77]

Wha? That’s not true. My mate sent a copy of his Gov shielding letter into the club. Only option given was a deferral of the money to next season. No refund offered.
Result? Albion lose a fan and season ticket holder due to resentment.

I stand corrected. I was only going on what was said in the Zoom Q&A we had when it looked like we were going to get back into the ground.

 

[e77]

I thought it was clear I was talking about the games from 2019/20 season that we didn't get to go to. Think there were three options, refund, donate to AITC or offset against this years season.

Still means all of the ST money (if you pay up front) or half of it (if you pay by DD) are still with the club.

 

[neilbard]

I pay about £70 for Sky Sports and BT already so watching football is not free for me.
Pre-pandemic, some games were shown live , some weren’t.
If the technology is there to watch all games I don’t see why that can’t be part of the package for a nominal price increase.

Sky have had cameras at Premier League games for eons, they beam it all over the world live, hence that is why you can get decent streams for free.

Let us not worry ourselves about the PPV and just stream it.

A quote from Paul Barber: "We have a right to charge for our product. We are a business".

Well Paul me old mucker we have a right to equip ourselves with a VPN and stream our chosen games for free, so stick that in your pipe and have a good old puff.

 

[Eeyore]

Sorry, should have been a bit more detailed, it's the full VIP package from Virgin which comes with:
Every Sky channel bar Atlantic = all sports inc HD & all Cinema & the Eurosport channels too
plus all BT sport
plus 2 x TiVo boxes
plus 200 MBs broadband
plus landline with free calls
plus 2 WiFi extenders

However, since my contracted ended back in April, I think it's time to call them up and say I'm leaving and see what they say / offer.

What are my options?
I'd be happy with FreeSat [Sky dish already in situ but idle at present] - I'd have to buy a FreeSat box, okay. I'd probably just use FreeView for the other TVs in the house.
I'd need to source my BB from somewhere else [BT cabling all in place and Fibre available at the green cabinet] and would need phone line rental to sustain my landline [need to keep for old relatives to contact]

But for sport, I only really want: every BHA game, some cricket, F1 & motorbike racing - what would the NSC wise-techs suggest to achieve this? With indicative costs would be appreciated too.

Sky does sound like your best option.

Maybe this:

https://www.skyoffersnewcustomers.co.uk/bt-sport-with-sky-sports-deal/

Works out £77 a month with broadband added. You have Sky Go for other computers in the house in there but speak to them anyway.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The two of are reluctantly saving £40 per home match and who-knows-what on any away ones so of course we'd pay. Least TB deserves.

 

[ManOnTheRun]

https://www.brightonandhovealbion.com/news/1859764/pay-per-view-qa-with-paul-barber


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neilbard]

https://www.brightonandhovealbion.com/news/1859764/pay-per-view-qa-with-paul-barber


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

If they said to you that you currently have £250 credit in your season ticket account but that for each match you watch online, they are going deduct £10 then for next season you'd only have £60 credit towards next season's renewal would that be acceptable?

I suspect not because you think it should be given free to STH which then means that there will be virtually no revenue going to the club (bearing in mind that current ST payments aren't revenue as they are being held on account). So, on that basis we either stop signing players and/or paying the wages we pay and probably get relegate or we rely on Tony's deep pockets!

Yep, that would be acceptable - tenner a game deducted from my ‘credit balance’ would be ok with me.

Barber’s responses (in the link above) make sense, apart from the ‘technology not available’ one.....didn’t we get personal links to one-off Sky subs for a couple of games at one point a few months back ?

 

[Icy Gull]

Time for a poll? Be interesting to see if these days NSC will swallow literally any old shit from the club

Well Barber seems to think most fans are behind what the club are doing, so yes, it would be interesting to have a poll on this to see if the small number of total fans who post on here agree.

 

[gripper stebson]

It should not be free obviously... it should just not be £15.

At £4.99 a game this would have passed off with no problem.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

This is basic consumer contract law.
Buyer / consumer pays a fee to the supplier in return for a product or service.
So a ST pays BHA to attend games as a spectator, that's the service.
There is a clear contract [with terms & conditions] laid out which stipulates things like where your seat is, not valid for cup games, not transferable, use for U21s, etc.

So, in effect, the club are in part-breach of contract and I'd be confident that if you asked for your money back, you would get it.
However, like in many customer / supplier arrangements, a deal can often be struck rather than going down the money back / breach pathway.

The way I understand it is BHA have now ceased taking further DD payments and have promised [in writing] to honour their side of the contract to provide their product [attend & watch live footie at the Amex] once temporary government legislation [laws] are relaxed aka a postponement of service.
This is deemed as a change to the contract terms - it is the buyers choice to accept or decline this change.
If you accept, you are now contracted under the revised Ts&Cs.
If you decline, then you should get your money back.

Where this could get interesting is adding damages for the breach.
Covid-19 would be deemed Force Majeure [act of God] and so if, for example, all the players caught it and couldn't then perform, there would be no case for damages.
There would be a weak case for damages in any case - but as an example: what if someone who had been given a year to live bought a ST as their dying wish. In this event, the consumer has been denied the benefit of their ST and postponing the service [until they let folk in] is no use as the consumer will have passed way.
What would be interesting is that I think it won't be BHA who would meet damages as they were acting within the [temp] law. But could a case be bought against HM Government in a case like this?
Probably not, but a test case would be very interesting if it ever came to be.

Jolly good show - bored now