sephjnr

22 minutes ago, phantom said:

How would a side with a capacity of 10k make more moeny being at home against a team that could hold 40k?

Make more money for their selves of their own volition including match day revenue. Which - in a similar vein to the EFL selling off online TV to Sky - is now reliant more on handouts from the PL who are DESPERATELY trying to ringfence for their own control even further.

There should have been a provision to guarantee home draws for non-PL teams vs PL. That would be much fairer to increase revenue instead of nebulous donations to 'grass roots', which I suspect is slang for 'bypass the other professional outfits and establish our own training facilities'.

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I know there’s a thread for this, but this…

…saves the hassle of replays and midweek rd5 matches causing a headache re new broadcast times.

And ****** non-PL teams out of more matchday revenue.

Taunton vs Weston-Super-Mare tomorrow night, if Weston win Taunton are down outright.

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I read that as ‘ big pussies’ . 

Don't let Silvio read this thread, he may put a whack on it.

3 hours ago, One Team said:

Great to have Pompey back in the Championship with us, proper football clubs and fans. 

Great to see some of the Cotts lads getting promoted again!

Cotts himself got sent down to the National League last night as Forest Green can't cover the difference now.

3 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

They've linked to their Now TV options for non Sky customers. Its 11.99 for the day or £26 for the month. Not massively different to RTV or iFollow. It won't be three figures a month. 

Can't see any issue with this, we look to be increasing our revenue with this deal as shown by Dave. 

The issue is that it will still be whatever Sky feels like streaming. And the question as to whether or not that revenue granted by the league (instead of taken from customers) can be declared as a mitigator in financial reports is still unanswered.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I really hope Sky Stream has a record or watch later option.

This is the issue I have - if the delivery is just having more matches for their existing channels then this is not an improvement for the average viewer. If Sky themselves start an on-demand service that can sit alongside or replace either their main broadcasts or NOW then that's an option that wil markedly increase revenue from people who don't want to pay three figures a month. Such was the main way of breaking Sky's dominance for good, and if they've bought the right to it in-house that's one of their main problems no longer being an issue.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As Mr P states, clubs are expected to receive circa £2-2.5m extra in revenue from the EFL as a result.  In return, I expect online broadcasting revenue to decrease.  These are our Broadcasting revenues in recent years:

This will include plenty more than RTV, ie RTV is a smallish percentage of these…and this will go down.

We will undoubtedly see lower attendances (like for like) and all the revenue that comes from that.

I can only assume the £2-2.5m more than makes up for any lost revenues?

In terms of how it can be reported to be FFFP compliant I don't see - at face value - how it's an equivalent. There may be some allowances for this, I don't know.

8 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Looks like it’s a 50% increase on the current deal, whether that relates to each club seeing 50% more will be seen but if it does it would bring in more then the club makes off streaming games. 

That's revenue to the EFL itself, not the clubs. It's taking control of the cash directly out of the clubs so I don't see they can report online streaming as revenue in any cases of FFFP questionning.

Source (EFL)

Massive step backwards IMO. Way to get people more reliant on Sky's bloated, outdated subscription models. Also taking money directly out of the clubs' pockets.

On 30/03/2024 at 10:41, Ronnie Sinclair said:

I read the other day that they are moving to Nike next year - I can’t imagine a German kit that isn’t Adidas it’s just wrong !

*googles Adi Dassler's political affiliations* ... ... 0.0

On the bright side, that should ease the demand on Plymouth tickets amirite

NOW WIN THIS GODDAMN GAME

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

I'm lost @sephjnr what do you mean?

There were only 5 required away games for West Ham, there are 9 here.

9 minutes ago, shahanshahan said:

Ticket details have just been announced. Maximum allocation of 1,739 tickets, and first priority goes to season ticket holders who have been to nine or more away games

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/plymouth-away-set-for-priority-sale/

Good luck to you @ollywhyte

By that logic, Plymouth are a bigger club than West Ham.

The absolute neck of this club.

14 minutes ago, Downend2005 said:

If Liam Manning was a Yankee Candle, he’d be Tap Water.

Before or after it passes through kidneys?

3 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

Pearson was sacked after Cardiff, maybe some synergy.

If the unthinkable happens, would it be the first time a side has got two gaffers sacked from the same club in the same term?

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT WANT THIS. Just checking.

Get in!!

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Bet there are a few gutted that Cornick scored.

The goal that didn't count for shit, yes. His third goal total for the team which is appalling considering his prominence in the side, and you'd prefer to slate people who point that out instead of actually mitigating it.

Can we please stop playing out from the back when there are 5 players open running downfield?

For a football team stuck in the 70s their fans have a poor grasp of what it was like.

... and it's gone, 2-2.

Commentator's curse.

12 minutes ago, sephjnr said:

Never mind, just watching the last stages of Weston away at Chelmsford. Well done for the 12 mad buggers for making the trip, at least you got a penalty save for the trouble.

In fact they levelled with a handful of minutes to go. Great point against the 3rd place side.