[Albion] £14.95 to watch Albion

[drew]

I'm starting to think I'm being thick about something here.

Having continued all d/d payments this year, I'm "in credit" for the next 9 games at the Amex, but will in all likelihood be unable to attend them - I've paid, but I will have to wait to get a refund at some undefined point in the future. In the meantime, if I want to watch the game(s) that I've paid to go and see, that aren't being covered by Sky or whoever, then I'd have to cough up another £15 each time.

Unless I've arsed this up completely, and that is indeed the case, then I'm sorry but thats not on.

If I paid £45 for tickets to the cinema in advance and it unfortunately burns down the next day, I don't want a "credit" for when it reopens, whenever that may be. And if that cinema then asked me to pay a further £15 to watch it at home instead as an alternative, with a refund "tba", then frankly my reaction would not get through the swear filter on here.

What you've paid for is 9 games, not the 'next' 9 games. When we can all start going to those 9 games is dependent on the Government. With regard to a refund, then you're right, this is an as yet undefined date. Could be this week could be the end of the season. Perhaps that will be clearer after PB's Q & A today!

Re your cinema analogy, I'd change it a little. Consider that you have a Cineworld Annual pass but that the Cinema is closed because of an outbreak of legionnaires disease so needs to be completely sanitised but they don't know how long that will take so they agree that your annual pass will be extended by however long their closed!!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What you've paid for is 9 games, not the 'next' 9 games. When we can all start going to those 9 games is dependent on the Government. With regard to a refund, then you're right, this is an as yet undefined date. Could be this week could be the end of the season. Perhaps that will be clearer after PB's Q & A today!

Re your cinema analogy, I'd change it a little. Consider that you have a Cineworld Annual pass but that the Cinema is closed because of an outbreak of legionnaires disease so needs to be completely sanitised but they don't know how long that will take so they agree that your annual pass will be extended by however long their closed!!

To continue the analogy, you can extend the annual pass, but in the meantime you have to go to another cinema and pay extra to see the same film, because your pass isn’t valid.

How many people think Sky will keep their box office at £14.95? If they think it’s a success then next year it will be £19.95 etc.
Armchair fans will pay it because it’s cheaper than a match ticket.

 

[Pondicherry]

Its still relevant though. If a movie or album generates $800m worldwide, thanks primarily to the actor/artist, then where should that profit go ? It stands to reason that a humungous chunk of it goes to the very person(s) who deliver that box office success, because without them, there's no show.

It might be unpalletable, but the EPL is selling a product to the masses, and they are getting paid BILLIONS for it. More should filter down the leagues, that goes without saying. But basic economics dictate that the stars of the product at the top will hoover up a sizeable chunk. Its obscene the levels its got to now, but as glib as it sounds, it is what it is. A multi-billion pound industry will see the "stars" rewarded accordingly.

In most businesses (including the film business), the aim is to generate the biggest profits possible by eliminating or marginalising the competition and gaining market share.

However in football this doesn't work. Although clubs have other clubs as competitors, its the competition itself (the games, the leagues, the whole football pyramid) that makes it a success.

Without proper competition, there is no 'competition' (see Scotland or France). I can understand why the best players think they should be paid more money than they can ever spend at the expense of others but it is not good for football as a whole (I think most people agree with this). The reason this has not been resolved is that football is not governed properly and too much power sits with a small number of teams (about to get worse).

 

[Barham's tash]

To continue the analogy, you can extend the annual pass, but in the meantime you have to go to another cinema and pay extra to see the same film, because your pass isn’t valid.

How many people think Sky will keep their box office at £14.95? If they think it’s a success then next year it will be £19.95 etc.
Armchair fans will pay it because it’s cheaper than a match ticket.

This was also my point to Barber re the cost but I think there will be other impacts from this too.

The trial of this is a dangerous precedent that not only firmly establishes a base line cost but also runs the risk of impacting away attendance numbers in future seasons IF this is retained.

Now the cap on away ticket prices probably caps the price point theyd likely charge but realistically sitting at home, not having travel issues to some northern grief hole and spending less on refreshments by watching at home is IMO going to appeal to a lot more people than you’d think.

Sure you can’t beat a great away day but I think numbers might drift by c30-40% the longer we go behind closed doors and people get used to it.

 

[Easy 10]

Re your cinema analogy, I'd change it a little. Consider that you have a Cineworld Annual pass but that the Cinema is closed because of an outbreak of legionnaires disease so needs to be completely sanitised but they don't know how long that will take so they agree that your annual pass will be extended by however long their closed!!

To continue the analogy, you can extend the annual pass, but in the meantime you have to go to another cinema and pay extra to see the same film, because your pass isn’t valid.

Precisely. Or in this case, they'll keep your Cineworld Annual Pass money you've already paid for the time being, but if you want to see a film in the meantime then they'll stream it to you - for a further £15 a pop.

Bit cheeky, isn't it.

 

[Withdean and I]

The inexorable creep of capitalism - I won’t be paying £15 to watch a game on tv and I’ve just cancelled my BT Sport subscription too. May start visiting Lewes FC for a change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

This was also my point to Barber re the cost but I think there will be other impacts from this too.

The trial of this is a dangerous precedent that not only firmly establishes a base line cost but also runs the risk of impacting away attendance numbers in future seasons IF this is retained.

Now the cap on away ticket prices probably caps the price point theyd likely charge but realistically sitting at home, not having travel issues to some northern grief hole and spending less on refreshments by watching at home is IMO going to appeal to a lot more people than you’d think.

Sure you can’t beat a great away day but I think numbers might drift by c30-40% the longer we go behind closed doors and people get used to it.

I doubt it. The longer this goes on people will be clamouring for any away trip.

 

[Barham's tash]

I doubt it. The longer this goes on people will be clamouring for any away trip.

Initially sure but long term I’d expect to see the demographics change tremendously.

 

[Icy Gull]

The inexorable creep of capitalism - I won’t be paying £15 to watch a game on tv and I’ve just cancelled my BT Sport subscription too. May start visiting Lewes FC for a change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve cancelled my BT subscription too but only because I signed up for a month to get the Albion games, bloody expensive it was too, £12.50 a game but at least two of us in different households could watch

 

[zefarelly]

I've been saying for ages the option to buy an online season ticket from the club to watch all games should be available for all.

we as a family have the virgin package which gives us BT and SKYum sports . . .so we get most games anyway

Given the rest is covered it should be available to subscribers.

as its WBA I'll probably just look for a stream or listen to the radio . . . . if it was Palace we'd all have our pants down holding out the notes already!

 

[Wozza]

The inexorable creep of capitalism - I won’t be paying £15 to watch a game on tv and I’ve just cancelled my BT Sport subscription too. May start visiting Lewes FC for a change.

I’ve cancelled my BT subscription too but only because I signed up for a month to get the Albion games, bloody expensive it was too, £12.50 a game but at least two of us in different households could watch

For the record, I have too.

 

[Weststander]

In most businesses (including the film business), the aim is to generate the biggest profits possible by eliminating or marginalising the competition and gaining market share.

However in football this doesn't work. Although clubs have other clubs as competitors, its the competition itself (the games, the leagues, the whole football pyramid) that makes it a success.

Without proper competition, there is no 'competition' (see Scotland or France). I can understand why the best players think they should be paid more money than they can ever spend at the expense of others but it is not good for football as a whole (I think most people agree with this). The reason this has not been resolved is that football is not governed properly and too much power sits with a small number of teams (about to get worse).

Slightly differently, I think the issue of hopeless governance in the sport in both the EPL and Championship, allows an arms race of clubs being allowed to cheat and pay fees/wages way in excess of true club income. It started with Chelsea and ManC, latterly Derby, Everton, Massive, QPR and Villa.

I don’t think of the likes of Spuds or ManC have significantly more EPL power than Villa or Everton, for example. The EPL voting system prevents the top 6 getting everything they want. Clubs such as Brighton and CP get broadcasting income way beyond their dreams a couple of Sky/BT contracts ago.

The problem is that players, their agents and the PFA see that as a green light to grab the vast majority of the cash in wages. Young squad players at Arsenal and Spurs drive around in incredibly expensive supercars, before their careers has really taken off. With most owners (TB and Burnley’s owner appear to be the rare exceptions), fuelling the wage inflation by agreeing to the agents terms, to stop an EPL rival getting the player.

 

[chaileyjem]

PS: my guess as to how this will turn out - unlikely we will stay where are. I don't think it will be scrapped. So there will be a review and ...

- Prem will reduce the pricing to £10 or less.
- Brighton will develop a scheme to refund some of the ££ for 20/21 to season ticket holders - to those that want it. They've already hinted they are looking at it.
- Prem might potentially offer more games to free to air , or for "free" to BT/Sky/Amazon

One down - three to go.

 

[Wozza]

Occured to me that, to long-term Sky Sports subscribers regular televisied matches are going to almost feel 'free' over coming months.

The £14.95/match PPV cost makes the £19/month offer look incredible value.

Which, I guess, is probably the whole point of this PPV exercise.

After all, we're told it was a broadcaster initiative, and Sky/BT weren't sitting up worrying that Brighton fans had no means of watching the West Brom match.

The whole arrangement still stinks for those of us with little interest/time for neutral matches - especially in the fanless Covid era.

 

[DJ NOBO]

One down - three to go.

You’ll be disappointed with that mathematics

 

[chaileyjem]

You’ll be disappointed with that mathematics

Never my strong point.

 

[nickbrighton]

I posted this on the refund threadm but perhaps its more relevant to this one...

I thought the interesting thing from the Q and A, was that despite all the spleen spitting venom on here, only 48 people were actually concerned enough to email, and only 8 were against the concept of PPV. EIGHT out of in excess of TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders, so far from the club having got it wrong, If only 8 were bothered enough to contact the club I would argue this forum got it wrong over PPV and the clubs responses.

I have also seen twitter posts and comments saying how the club have performed a U Turn due to the fan pressure over refunds and PPV, . No such thing, the club never said they wouldn't refund,but were constantly reviewing the situation and as Barber said last night, there is no way you could come up with, and implement the refund scheme in a few days. Its obviously been months in the planning, was the announcement even brought forward as the board meeting was planned ages ago, not as a response to PPV and Big Picture announcements

This shows how the impression given on NSC forum (or any forum) is actually NOT always the majority view of the whole fan base. Sometimes this is forgotten on here, NSC is only one segment of a much larger following.

Once again, the club have made the best out of a bad situation, given there is no way the club can meet everyones needs and requests , the club once again seem to have found a way to cater for as many as its possible to do

Its easy to criticise the club, as many have done, but how many other clubs have done what Brighton has to keep fans informed, over this period.

 

[mrjon1976]

I posted this on the refund threadm but perhaps its more relevant to this one...

I thought the interesting thing from the Q and A, was that despite all the spleen spitting venom on here, only 48 people were actually concerned enough to email, and only 8 were against the concept of PPV. EIGHT out of in excess of TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders, so far from the club having got it wrong, If only 8 were bothered enough to contact the club I would argue this forum got it wrong over PPV and the clubs responses.

I have also seen twitter posts and comments saying how the club have performed a U Turn due to the fan pressure over refunds and PPV, . No such thing, the club never said they wouldn't refund,but were constantly reviewing the situation and as Barber said last night, there is no way you could come up with, and implement the refund scheme in a few days. Its obviously been months in the planning, was the announcement even brought forward as the board meeting was planned ages ago, not as a response to PPV and Big Picture announcements

This shows how the impression given on NSC forum (or any forum) is actually NOT always the majority view of the whole fan base. Sometimes this is forgotten on here, NSC is only one segment of a much larger following.

Once again, the club have made the best out of a bad situation, given there is no way the club can meet everyones needs and requests , the club once again seem to have found a way to cater for as many as its possible to do

Its easy to criticise the club, as many have done, but how many other clubs have done what Brighton has to keep fans informed, over this period.

only 48 people were actually concerned enough to email,

these were the emails he received on Friday night - there were certainly far more received on Saturday onwards.

I also disagree with the concept of this was always going to be the case - I am sure that refunds would have always been on the agenda, and the whole PPV / Government angle would have no doubt sped up this process. HOWEVER in his replies to me (and many others) over the weekend there was absolutely no mention of an impending announcement on refunds etc. So whilst the mechanisms may have been in place, I have no doubt that yesterday's announcement were in part due to the general negative response displayed to him personally and on various social media channels. He even alluded to this several times during the Q&A last night inadvertently. Are you suggesting that the Q&A that was published on the website on Saturday, and last night's Q&A were purely coincidental? By their own admission, there was no anticipation by the club of any negative responses to Friday's news, and they were caught with their pants down.
What stuck out over the weekend was the tone of his replies & information provided was in complete contrast to how they have been throughout this pandemic. Last night this was rectified and it felt like PB was offered up to the online Q&A in the same way Dominic Cummings was after his faux pas - in that "you created this shit storm, you deal with it." The announcement of refunds 2 hours before definitely took the sting out of any awkward questions, and his passionate assessment of the whole "Big Picture" idiocy shows where the club are at.

 

[Wozza]

I thought the interesting thing from the Q and A, was that despite all the spleen spitting venom on here, only 48 people were actually concerned enough to email, and only 8 were against the concept of PPV.

But, equally, loads of fans have said "If you don't like PPV, then simply don't pay it".

Well I'm in that camp. I've been vocal on here and elsewhere, but have no intention of emailing the club.

I'll be protesting by keeping my wallet closed.

See also: https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...-you-going-to-pay-%A314-95-to-watch-us-vs-WBA

 

[dazzer6666]

only 48 people were actually concerned enough to email,

these were the emails he received on Friday night - there were certainly far more received on Saturday onwards.

I also disagree with the concept of this was always going to be the case - I am sure that refunds would have always been on the agenda, and the whole PPV / Government angle would have no doubt sped up this process. HOWEVER in his replies to me (and many others) over the weekend there was absolutely no mention of an impending announcement on refunds etc. So whilst the mechanisms may have been in place, I have no doubt that yesterday's announcement were in part due to the general negative response displayed to him personally and on various social media channels. He even alluded to this several times during the Q&A last night inadvertently. Are you suggesting that the Q&A that was published on the website on Saturday, and last night's Q&A were purely coincidental? By their own admission, there was no anticipation by the club of any negative responses to Friday's news, and they were caught with their pants down.
What stuck out over the weekend was the tone of his replies & information provided was in complete contrast to how they have been throughout this pandemic. Last night this was rectified and it felt like PB was offered up to the online Q&A in the same way Dominic Cummings was after his faux pas - in that "you created this shit storm, you deal with it." The announcement of refunds 2 hours before definitely took the sting out of any awkward questions, and his passionate assessment of the whole "Big Picture" idiocy shows where the club are at.

If this was partly the case he did a ****ing sight better than Cummins or Boris would have done in the circumstances