[Albion] Sky TV picks (no Albion games)

[Rinkmaster]

I won't be paying it. We are also sorting things out to cancel sky subscription. Not worth it for how many times the albion are shown.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Same here.

I get it that we can pay 15 quid on the tellybox and it would normally be 30 quid, plus train, plus beer, plus overnight stay - like we had a choice at Newcastle away last year - and then breakfast and an earbashing from the other half on Sunday. In that context it's reasonable.

The counter argument is games like tonight. Villa v Leeds with the wife out I could easily watch it. I have a morbid fascination with Leeds and Villa are going well with Grealish always being worth a watch for one reason or another. For £14.95 though, I'm not going to even consider that as a neutral or even a casual fan of either club. For a fiver I'd pay it. For a fiver I'd buy every bhafc game and so would a load of others in betting. For 15 quid they can forget West Brom at half 5 on a Monday.

Let's remember Netflix is 8 or 9 quid a month . Sell it cheap and pile it high. The PL are missing the point here. The market is anyone with a telly. Not the 2000 or so West Brom fans that could be arsed to make the journey.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Someone said
"currently spending nothing on the Albion. If the only way to see them is to pay £14.95 why is that daft?",
With respect, there is no comparison between a live event and watching it on tv. We may pay 2 or 3 times that to go to the Amex, but you are there,! You are a part of it . Being there in person creates memories that no tv set can do. I would not pay £14.95 on top of a subscription.
Like rock music , football is best enjoyed live ....(ideally standing up)

 

[redoubtable seagull]

Getting fed up reading this view. I’m a season ticket holder who normally goes to about half the away games. I would normally spend at least a couple of grand every season following us I’m
currently spending nothing on the Albion. If the only way to see them is to pay £14.95 why is that daft?

We’re not on until the Liverpool match (BT are showing that one). So that’s 4 games that I assume will be PPV, including Monday night’s match against West Brom.
£60 to watch my team on TV during Nov seems a lot of money to fork out in the current climate particularly alongside my Sky subscription.

Sky, BT and the PL have got this strategy so wrong. For example, I was quite keen to watch last night’s Villa Leeds game and would have paid a bit, probably a fiver, but I’m not going to pay £15. PPV pricing is only going to attract fans of the clubs shown but if they priced it right they’d get far more football fans watching.

I still enjoyed watching last night’s game though.....

 

[Birdie Boy]

Not sure if it has been mentioned in other threads but Greene King are showing all ppv games. Go to the pub, send the £15 to a food bank or spend that £15 on beer. You will be helping out your local economy as well. Win win and hopefully a win for the Albion.

 

[Live by the sea]

Really, Sky and BT Sport are absolute idiots. Far more people are likely to pay £14.95 to watch Liverpool vs Man City than to watch Brighton vs Burnley, so that should be the PPV game.

Not around the world , bt and skys model to earn subscribers is to show the biggest games that have global reach . Many other countries football watchers would not tolerate Ppv for football games .

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Wow, great news thanks for the update.

Just checked the Sky planner and Brighton v West Brom is on Channel 402 AT 11PM on Monday night,

I was thinking of paying for the game, but there seems little point now and I will avoid the result and watch late on Monday night.

Great news. NowTv have an offer of £20 per month for 3 months, at the moment. I know I won’t be able to avoid the score though.
Perhaps I’ll watch the repeat if we win.

 

[yxee]

I don't get the outrage really at £15. These are games that sky aren't showing otherwise and that nobody would be able to see. But it costs money to show and the club is taking a cut as well.

It's simple economics but it means we can all watch the football

Of course it's not the same as live but if that's not an option why not at least have this as an option instead?

 

[S'hampton Seagull]

It's interesting that the other games have not yet been confirmed as PPV. Is a break in the premier league position in this possible?

 

[dazzer6666]

I get it that we can pay 15 quid on the tellybox and it would normally be 30 quid, plus train, plus beer, plus overnight stay - like we had a choice at Newcastle away last year - and then breakfast and an earbashing from the other half on Sunday. In that context it's reasonable.

The counter argument is games like tonight. Villa v Leeds with the wife out I could easily watch it. I have a morbid fascination with Leeds and Villa are going well with Grealish always being worth a watch for one reason or another. For £14.95 though, I'm not going to even consider that as a neutral or even a casual fan of either club. For a fiver I'd pay it. For a fiver I'd buy every bhafc game and so would a load of others in betting. For 15 quid they can forget West Brom at half 5 on a Monday.

Let's remember Netflix is 8 or 9 quid a month . Sell it cheap and pile it high. The PL are missing the point here. The market is anyone with a telly. Not the 2000 or so West Brom fans that could be arsed to make the journey.

Yep - I can wear paying £15 for our games if that's the best way of seeing it, but I'm not doing that as a neutral. If it was a fiver I would..................probably at least 3 times a week.

 

[dazzer6666]

It's interesting that the other games have not yet been confirmed as PPV. Is a break in the premier league position in this possible?

I thought when it was announced it was always going to be an initial trial (end November I thought ?). Hopefully the rubbish viewing figures will prompt a rethink.

 

[Gwylan]

Of course it means you have to do a Likely Lads to avoid the score if you want to watch it "as live"

"Seagulls f ..."

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

More time in the pub then.

 

[pocketseagull]

I don't get the outrage really at £15.These are games that sky aren't showing otherwise and that nobody would be able to see. But it costs money to show and the club is taking a cut as well.

It's simple economics but it means we can all watch the football

Of course it's not the same as live but if that's not an option why not at least have this as an option instead?

This might be what the people in charge want you to think, meanwhile in the real world anyone with at the very least an internet connection and smartphone can watch any Premier League game free of charge.

They've set the price at a totally unrealistic level.

 

[bluenitsuj]

Streams are free

 

[dazzer6666]

"Seagulls f ..."

....ail to beat lowly West Brom in a desperately disappointing performance?

 

[Wozza]

3pm kick-offs on TV today:
Fulham v Crystal Palace - £14.95
Barcelona v Real Madrid - £5.99

 

[Wozza]

I don't get the outrage really at £15. These are games that sky aren't showing otherwise and that nobody would be able to see. But it costs money to show and the club is taking a cut as well.

It's simple economics but it means we can all watch the football

Of course it's not the same as live but if that's not an option why not at least have this as an option instead?

If you want to watch all Albion games each month by paying for Sky Sports and BT Sports subscriptions, plus Amazon Prime, and, say, £45 for 3 x PPV matches, that's your choice.

It's not 'outrage' from most people - it's "No thanks, you're taking the p1ss".

 

[banjo]

Streams are free

Free is the magic number......

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't get the outrage really at £15. These are games that sky aren't showing otherwise and that nobody would be able to see. But it costs money to show and the club is taking a cut as well.

It's simple economics but it means we can all watch the football

Of course it's not the same as live but if that's not an option why not at least have this as an option instead?

The model football finances follow isn't simple economics. It is sailing close to the wind, saddling debt, disproportionate distribution of funds, far too high transfer and salary deals. It is an economic model setup to fail at some point.

What you call 'simple economics' is what many of us will call football trying to prop up a financial model that should in all honesty radically change.

I'm not outraged as it is a simple commercial gambit. However I'm not paying it as the last thing the relationship between the broadcasters and football needs, is giving broadcasters new avenues to charge fans to bankroll their operations and the money flowing to just a select few clubs. It's a no for me Jeff on principle.