How much would you pay for a Spurs 'TV season ticket'?

[buckley]

I state again its not about overseas market as they have no or little option but to pay or not watch at all and I have said this over and over forget the foreign market they are a separate issue . Also not short term because of cv19 but long term it will be about you must be having a subscription to these satellite companies before you can access the £15 game . You say I am a cynic and I agree but you are naive if you think Sky and Bt are going to let you access football on box office for free . As I say the odd boxing match or pop concert you will be allowed to access .So I am a cynic and you are naive take your pick .
You only have to see these shenanigans with the two American owners to know it will always and has always been about " how can I squeeze the most money out of these mugs "

 

[tommo84]

I say all this in the long term not these interim measurements because of cv19

The bit I’ve quoted is the only thing that matters here - these are extraordinary measures taken to respond to and - from a business pov - survive extraordinary times. In the long term there will be so many other factors in play which will affect the decisions taken by clubs, broadcasters and fans that it’s silly to get all worked up on an assumption that those many many factors will lead to the current measures becoming a permanent resolution when even the Premier League isn’t yet looking beyond October!

The facts are that right now, due to the pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the Government, fans can’t attend games and clubs are without matchday income. Televising all games for no extra charge only solved one side of that issue. Allowing the EPL and it’s clubs (not the broadcasters) to charge for some of those games partially mitigates the impact of no matchday income on clubs also. Whether £15 is an optimal price point is yet to be determined but the PPV principle in these extraordinary circumstances is a sound one.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Before you call people deluded for a third time

It seems he's moved on from deluded. You're naive now

 

[Don_Felipe]

To be fair, if you only want to watch Spurs on Sky you don't have to get a £100 subscription - you just pay £10 for a day of Sky Sports on Now TV each time a TV game is on. It essentially is PPV already - they're just upping it.

It is right to be cynical, this is all about getting as much money from us as possible - but that's been the case since at least 1992.

Interesting what's happened in Italy though - is it that clubs have realised it's only the TV money that matters so they're not bothered about chasing ticket money?

 

[buckley]

Deluded naive are like birds of a feather not a lot of difference . It is and remains my opinion that us that go to games and pay to watch on TV will be shafted one way or another so perhaps I am cynical deluded and naive . Or perhaps those of you that think all of this will pan out for the better of us fans are correct clever and insightful . Time will tell but I respect your view even if I dont agree .

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

To be fair, if you only want to watch Spurs on Sky you don't have to get a £100 subscription - you just pay £10 for a day of Sky Sports on Now TV each time a TV game is on. It essentially is PPV already - they're just upping it.

It is right to be cynical, this is all about getting as much money from us as possible - but that's been the case since at least 1992.

Interesting what's happened in Italy though - is it that clubs have realised it's only the TV money that matters so they're not bothered about chasing ticket money?

NOW TV and a general consumer grade projector

 

[ralphs bald spot]

The bit I’ve quoted is the only thing that matters here - these are extraordinary measures taken to respond to and - from a business pov - survive extraordinary times. In the long term there will be so many other factors in play which will affect the decisions taken by clubs, broadcasters and fans that it’s silly to get all worked up on an assumption that those many many factors will lead to the current measures becoming a permanent resolution when even the Premier League isn’t yet looking beyond October!

The facts are that right now, due to the pandemic and the restrictions imposed by the Government, fans can’t attend games and clubs are without matchday income. Televising all games for no extra charge only solved one side of that issue. Allowing the EPL and it’s clubs (not the broadcasters) to charge for some of those games partially mitigates the impact of no matchday income on clubs also. Whether £15 is an optimal price point is yet to be determined but the PPV principle in these extraordinary circumstances is a sound one.

PPV its not about the money its what it represents and what almost inevitably it means to the game of football in this country. The reason you couldn't watch matches on a Saturday afternoon was always in part because it protected the smaller clubs. We now have PPV, the proposal by the big clubs to cut the league,stop relegation - get rid of the League cup and Charity Shield its a continuous step to erode what was the stand out points of the British game. Generally its not for the good of football but its good if your millionaire owner of a football club who are in the top six

PPV is the thin edge of the wedge its a move towards the big stronger and the small who gives a monkeys because we can take a ball away and play Real Madrid at midnight on Tuesday because the PPV audience is a bigger in China and then why not franchise out a club to China (please let it be Arsenal) this is where football is going. Fifteen quid I will probably end up paying it but its where it leads to that we ought to be concerned about

 

[buckley]

Don Felipe what you say is correct but that Now tv thing is just that its for now . If it happened that everybody became aware of now tv and started using Now tv it is my opinion that they would soon put a stop to it or vastly increase the fee . Only my cynical opinion of course .

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Fifteen quid I will probably end up paying it but its where it leads to that we ought to be concerned about

The A&C crystal ball (it's the left one ) says we'll end up with a European league, a Premier League that's all but a closed shop, no more than two divisions below that and the FA Cup. The non-league scene will be rammed with former league clubs scrambling for some semblance of an existence and eventually, somewhere down the line, it'll all implode on itself as fans slowly drift away from the game when they tire of the same old same old of it all plus the lack of real competition and a tipping point is reached. But that is, IMO, many, many years away yet.

EDIT: Actually, in such a scenario, it wouldn't surprise me if non league or bottom division clubs started to pick up fans wanting a fix of 'real' football.

 

[wrd]

Just reading this debate the problem with the majority of the argument is people are suggesting that the only way to watch these games in England is if you go to the games or pay for the subscriptions and that's simply not true. If you want to leave the other option out because of the morality and legality of it then you're missing a big chunk of the equation.

 

[Maxtremist]

What you are saying is true on box office events lets say a few times a year boxing match or some occasional pop star but football is the lifeblood of the Sky and Bt . if you think for one minute they are going to let you watch and I am not talking short term but in the long run there will be some kind of charge . The reason I say this is why would I bother paying them companies £100 month when I can cancel all my subscriptions and watch a game when I want for £15 . Of course what you say may or probably is correct but I am a cynic and I dont believe these Sky and BT people are going to risk losing their 6 to 7 million monthly payers.So that the nice football fans can watch their team for £15 a crack . I say all this in the long term not these interim measurements because of cv19 they are a business and these people do not do things to help the masses their aim is to fleece the masses .

Cause the part I bolded wouldn't work. If, let's say, Tottenham VS. Arsenal is on BT Sport, you'd need your regular monthly (or yearly or whatever) BT sport subscription to watch it.
If you cancelled your BT Sport, you wouldn't be able to buy that one game on PPV. It's not on PPV. It's on regular BT Sport which they're already regularly making money from.

The PPV thing is for Tottenham VS. Brighton which wasn't going to be on Sky Sports or BT Sport in the first place. Now it's being offered as a PPV thing.

So as cynical as you may be, you've got how it works wrong. Sky and BT aren't really losing anything. They're showing as many games as they were and are still gonna be showing the high profile games on TV cause their monthly subscriptions almost undoubtedly earn them more money so will still be the priority.

If you wanna be truly cynical, then the issue would be if they stop scheduling Tottenham VS. Arsenal for TV as normal and only make that PPV. That I'd understand the cynical view for... but I just can't see them doing that.

 

[HodisGawd]

PPV its not about the money its what it represents and what almost inevitably it means to the game of football in this country. The reason you couldn't watch matches on a Saturday afternoon was always in part because it protected the smaller clubs. We now have PPV, the proposal by the big clubs to cut the league,stop relegation - get rid of the League cup and Charity Shield its a continuous step to erode what was the stand out points of the British game. Generally its not for the good of football but its good if your millionaire owner of a football club who are in the top six

PPV is the thin edge of the wedge its a move towards the big stronger and the small who gives a monkeys because we can take a ball away and play Real Madrid at midnight on Tuesday because the PPV audience is a bigger in China and then why not franchise out a club to China (please let it be Arsenal) this is where football is going. Fifteen quid I will probably end up paying it but its where it leads to that we ought to be concerned about

Yeah, I quite agree. This issue is a bit like VAR.

VAR wasn't brought in because football was broken. VAR was brought in because it was a massive money-making exercise. The company behind it is cashing, tons of people in football have been paid-off to support it. Alan Shearer, for example.

This proposal has nothing to do with making our game better. It is about cashing in. Most football fans are the same, they love the game because of the tradition and values of it. In most walks of life, I wouldn't consider myself conservative (and definitely not Conservative), but when it comes to football I massively am. I don't want anything to change. I love football how it is, this proposal will push me away from it.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Just reading this debate the problem with the majority of the argument is people are suggesting that the only way to watch these games in England is if you go to the games or pay for the subscriptions and that's simply not true. If you want to leave the other option out because of the morality and legality of it then you're missing a big chunk of the equation.

It's a bit like marihuana. Everybody who wants it already knows how to get it. Those of us who don't want it don't need to be told all the time where to get it, and that makes it easier to simply not openly encourage each other to break the law.

 

[wrd]

It's a bit like marihuana. Everybody who wants it already knows how to get it. Those of us who don't want it don't need to be told all the time where to get it, and that makes it easier to simply not openly encourage each other to break the law.

I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't do anything and nowhere in my post did I even remotely encourage anything. I'm simply saying debating something whilst ignoring the large elephant in the room means you're missing a large part of the argument.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't do anything and nowhere in my post did I even remotely encourage anything. I'm simply saying debating something whilst ignoring the large elephant in the room means you're missing a large part of the argument.

Pay per view could be a way to combat illegal streaming, at very low prices. To combat illegal streaming, a per-game price would have to be maybe 2-3-4 pounds or something equally low-treshold to make it appealing. A PPV price of 15 pounds will do nothing to combat illegal streaming.

 

[wrd]

Pay per view could be a way to combat illegal streaming, at very low prices. To combat illegal streaming, a per-game price would have to be maybe 2-3-4 pounds or something equally low-treshold to make it appealing. A PPV price of 15 pounds will do nothing to combat illegal streaming.

I agree completely, I said in this thread as soon as this topic came up, Netflix showed the model to make it so convenient to stream television that it completely eliminates people desire to search for a free option. The prem has seemingly completely ignored that and I think they'll lose money from a lot of people who will now find other means to watch the game.

With that said, I think what's important to note is Sky and BT get the big games, if they're making PPV games which wouldn't normally be available to the public then I think that's a good model as long as season ticket holders get a free code to stream the game considering they already paid to view the thing. Then they should make those games imo no more than a fiver. I think that's the price point to say, yeah that's worth it and I think people would probably be less likely to illegally watch the game because as you said 15 quid will send people onto google.

 

[buckley]

I find with Netflix almost every time I search for something we indoors would like to watch there is a price to pay ranging from £1.99 to as much as £7.99 and £10.99 . very annoying one time we decided on one of three old films we would like to watch and they were all PPV .
The flip side is they have got a varied free view set of films . The same deal applies to Amazon who on some films you are also required to sign up to some MGM channel and pay them for certain films. Luckily I can always find something to watch that does not require me to part with any more than my monthly subscription . Whats this has got to do with football PPV I have no idea other than to say they can always put in added payments on top of your monthly payments .

 

[wrd]

ind with Netflix almost every time I search for something we indoors would like to watch there is a price to pay ranging from £1.99 to as much as £7.99 and £10.99 . very annoying one time we decided on one of three old films we would like to watch and they were all PPV .
The flip side is they have got a varied free view set of films . The same deal applies to Amazon who on some films you are also required to sign u

I'm not sure you're using Netflix lol, I don't think they have ppv or renting.

 

[buckley]

Seems you are right it is Amazon that has these charges sorry .

 

[Jules77]

Not trying to defend the prices, but one thing that must be considered is the true revenue. This isn't 15 per person, it's 15 per stream.. They have to model that likely more than one person will watch the same stream, even if we are all on lockdown. So for the companies/teams they are likely getting way less per person in reality and for most of us, we'd be paying less (split btw family or friends).