Season Card / Streaming update

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

Understood. But we cannot be the only club that charged the  equivalent first round Plymouth matches at a tenner over the last couple of years. Which means EFL are setting the price to high. Did all of those clubs make representations and dig their heels in? To be fair, I’ll just listen to the radio commentary and not pay. I’m no longer a fan but a customer.

I can only imagine that the EFL has agreed a price to offset the lost revenue from Sky (who agreed to waive some of the rebate it was due from 19/20).  I don’t understand the revenue split, but I saw something from Andy Holt (ASFC) suggesting club gets 80%, EFL 20%.

I don’t disagree that £10 seems overpriced, but it would be good to understand what the breakdown is.  There could be costs that EFL / iFollow pay to Sky to provide the streaming service / cameras.

[GreedyHarry]

Ah, ok, that is an interesting split. I agree it would be good to understand fully how that is broken down.

That’s the key though isn’t it? I’ve gone off the deep end, but with a little bit more info from the club to show what costs are being faced, it’s likely I would acknowledge the extra cost and  not start moaning. I still wouldn’t pay a tenner to watch this match on Robins TV though, but at least I’d be doing so without being cross about it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Set by EFL and Sky as these deals are arranged and negotiated centrally/collectively.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 26/08/2020 at 12:01, cidercity1987 said:

What's changed since the end of last season?

My understanding a few days ago was that. Okay a worked example. 

We play Stoke away. 15,000 City fans sign up to the day pass, we get the money in its entirety. Stoke get all the money for any casual home fans who sign up. Say 5,000.

Whereas, Coventry 15,000 Coventry fans sign up, their TV gets 15,000 sign ups, whereas all our ST holders accept the offer and we get 5,000 casual fans. 

For one the club get all the revenue from their fans, for the other it's full revenue-ST substitute.

What's changed? Rights issues. Sky have kindly AFAIK waived the right to any fee or compensation in exchange for loss of exclusivity. 

Not kept up with this for a few days tbh.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 24/08/2020 at 14:19, RedM said:

I really think that local non league teams are going to benefit from this situation, and perhaps many fans will rethink attending their usual league club’s games. 

Subject to capacity limitations of course.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

This needs to be a sticky!!!

Theres nothing the club can do about it.

Spot on- communications aside, spot on- this is all centrally arranged- I think the League is too to some extent but certainly the Carabao Cup- should be a sticky as you say- NOT in the clubs gift yet to make definitive offerings.

[RedM]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I can only imagine that the EFL has agreed a price to offset the lost revenue from Sky (who agreed to waive some of the rebate it was due from 19/20).  I don’t understand the revenue split, but I saw something from Andy Holt (ASFC) suggesting club gets 80%, EFL 20%.

I don’t disagree that £10 seems overpriced, but it would be good to understand what the breakdown is.  There could be costs that EFL / iFollow pay to Sky to provide the streaming service / cameras.

And also my family bubble would only potentially be putting a tenner into the pot to watch it on tv, whereas if we had been attending in person at £10 each it would have been £30. So there at least on paper is a deficit of £20 somewhere.

I think they will try to set the tv match price as high as they can to try to counteract this, but set too high and they won’t pick up any ‘extras’ and would face losing many. 

[Gifford]

1 hour ago, RedM said:

And also my family bubble would only potentially be putting a tenner into the pot to watch it on tv, whereas if we had been attending in person at £10 each it would have been £30. So there at least on paper is a deficit of £20 somewhere.

I think they will try to set the tv match price as high as they can to try to counteract this, but set too high and they won’t pick up any ‘extras’ and would face losing many. 

Don’t give them ideas!

 

[Corsham Ed]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

This needs to be a sticky!!!

Theres nothing the club can do about it.

 

9 hours ago, BarnzFM said:

They can communicate clearly 

Here lies the issue, they don’t know how to communicate...

[CyderInACan]

2 hours ago, Corsham Ed said:

 

Here lies the issue, they don’t know how to communicate...

It’s a crazy. In times like this keeping the fans onside (no pun intended) should be relatively easy - via the socials and even email - in fact almost essential to keep people informed and engaged. 

Its all been managed farcically badly. 

The way the system processed the rugby ticket credit +10% was absolutely ridiculous too and comms around it were awful, hyperlinks missing etc etc 

Basic stuff really. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

It’s a crazy. In times like this keeping the fans onside (no pun intended) should be relatively easy - via the socials and even email - in fact almost essential to keep people informed and engaged. 

Its all been managed farcically badly. 

The way the system processed the rugby ticket credit +10% was absolutely ridiculous too and comms around it were awful, hyperlinks missing etc etc 

Basic stuff really. 

I’m just waiting for the Friday 5pm announcement

[BTRFTG]

5 hours ago, RedM said:

And also my family bubble would only potentially be putting a tenner into the pot to watch it on tv, whereas if we had been attending in person at £10 each it would have been £30. So there at least on paper is a deficit of £20 somewhere.

It's worse. City's ticket income is around £6m a year (against minimum outgoings of £45m, last year north of £60m.)  STs account for around half ticket income. City were banking 2.5x total ticket income in other commercial income, sponsorship, hospitality, those beers, pies and programmes folks buy, the dreadful replica shirts they flog to FKWs. No crowds and diminishing interest sees sponsorship rates fall, the TV company's hate the dilution of so many games on at once as if you're not watching the focussed channels on which they're flogging their ads, their rates fall and that hits the bottom line of monies available to football. If TV only gets half a product why pay top dollar? Problem there is City pockets more from fans of other clubs via the TV funding mechanisms than they do from their own fans though the turnstiles. Income this season could easily fall from £30m to £11m. That's covers only 35% of the wage bill and sod all else, including playing fixtures. City will be lucky to escape losing £40m next season.

Covid gave the EFL an opportunity to correct the madness and turn football back toward a sustainable, local basis. Not introducing wage caps in the Championship was utter stupidity. Not clamping down on financial accounting circumvention (we're right up there with the Sheff Wed & Derby,) similar folly. I'd go so far as to say all EFL clubs should have filed for insolvency & CVAs (I'd be amazed if any club remained technically solvent minus crowds,) then renegotiated their way back. Like the '8', when you've Hobson's you take what's offered.

If football's worth £10 a game rather than £35, then they need to cut their cloth accordingly. Lansdown's not a gambler but he sure as hell is rolling the dice on this one.

[Davefevs]

@BTRFTGgood post.

re - If football's worth £10 a game rather than £35, then they need to cut their cloth accordingly. Lansdown's not a gambler but he sure as hell is rolling the dice on this one.

In some cases that’s £10 between more than one person gathering around a TV set.

Football needs a reset, but in this country Prem clubs aren’t really impacted too much by no crowds because tv money is such a big part of their income.  If they continue to pay transfer fees to Champ clubs, the impact won’t be as great as it could be.  If they start holding Champ clubs to ransom with lower fees, or start shopping abroad, many Champ clubs will feel the pinch and some will go to the wall.

Salary cap was an opportunity to start that reset.

[BTRFTG]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@BTRFTGgood post.

re - If football's worth £10 a game rather than £35, then they need to cut their cloth accordingly. Lansdown's not a gambler but he sure as hell is rolling the dice on this one.

In some cases that’s £10 between more than one person gathering around a TV set.

Football needs a reset, but in this country Prem clubs aren’t really impacted too much by no crowds because tv money is such a big part of their income.  If they continue to pay transfer fees to Champ clubs, the impact won’t be as great as it could be.  If they start holding Champ clubs to ransom with lower fees, or start shopping abroad, many Champ clubs will feel the pinch and some will go to the wall.

Salary cap was an opportunity to start that reset.

True, but most Prem clubs walk an increasingly thin tightrope as was evidenced by the 'all stops' to deliver the end of season and limit the amount of clawback allowed under their contracts. Had the PL not completed the season 5 or 6 member clubs would have folded overnight, as many more before the start of next season should football not have returned. NB many assume parachute and solidarity payments are fixed, they're not and are a percentage of turnover on certain funding elements of the rights deals. They've already been slashed for next season (Bo'mo won't get what they assumed they might at the start of last season should they have been relegated,) and are likely to reduce further over the next few seasons. I'm amazed TV companies didn't lever to renegotiate their contracts last year and reckon they will should the full product not be on offer next season. If the 'clawback' determined whether the league existed or not any extension at reduced cost would have been accepted. That hasn't gone away. Those old enough will recall that exponential revenues in football were driven by TV companies seeking to gain market share via new (now old) technologies for their nascent offering. Sport the major hook to catch customers. They needed a reason for you to commit to purchasing their dish/squarial. They no longer need that given our ability to access 'product football' is multi platform and flexible and younger generations are 'purchasing' products in different ways to us old fogies.

Trickle down via fees is hugely diminished (see the rape of Wigan's assets including the training facilities they themselves 'stole' from Bolton.) PL also now has EPPP and as that takes hold the likes of the average players we've sold at over-inflated prices of late simply won't ever come to us in the first place.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@BTRFTG

Good posts those. Football seems in a very tight spot, especially in the Football League.

Not only them though, worth noting that a lot of PL clubs so far seem very subdued in the market.

On your salary cap point, I've followed this issue periodically and it seems that Championship clubs are unable to agree. Need 16/24 to agree to a rule change but guess it falls below at this time.

Clubs are due to revisit this in the Autumn apparently, so any new rule surely would kick in from 2021/22.

There are new rules on squad sizes which are a start. One debating point is as to whether it should be an absolute cap ie total per club or as a % of turnover. If it's the latter, how do you account for parachute payments?

Not actually followed as closely as I should our own accounts but costs of £60m?? Do you mean for 2019/20- that's fairly startling! Assume your £45m costs for 2018/19.

You can add Reading to gamblers list, long gone are their prudent days under Madejski.

One of the reasons so I've read, that things are stuck in delay is wrangling over FFP etc. What to do with the current system and the salary cap.

[westonred]

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/message-to-supporters/

[wendyredredrobin]

BCFC have announced that the Carabao Cup tie will be screened on Robins TV with a charge of £10 for watching.

Am I correct in assuming that those outside of the UK will not be able to watch the game as a part of their subscription or will the £10 offer be available to them as well?

[kevinmabbuttshair]

They're paying me ten quid, yeah?

[bristolcitysweden]

All clubs expected to communicate the same message on a specific date? Just say it.

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, kevinmabbuttshair said:

They're paying me ten quid, yeah?

Ummm.................

How long have you been watching football Kev?

[Sleepy1968]

55 minutes ago, westonred said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/message-to-supporters/

Better late than never. Going to give us a few working days to get our options in again

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, westonred said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/message-to-supporters/

Note that they haven't said they are working with fan groups/stakeholders.

So either they are confident that they have a range of options that will appeal without the need for validation from a group of fans, or they didn't think of that and will be back peddling because they just don't understand fans.

[JackofromSanJavier]

26 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

BCFC have announced that the Carabao Cup tie will be screened on Robins TV with a charge of £10 for watching.

Am I correct in assuming that those outside of the UK will not be able to watch the game as a part of their subscription or will the £10 offer be available to them as well?

It's a complete mystery to me, this temporary arrangement.  For the last couple of seasons I've been able to watch City games (until the cerveza / sangria / brandy cocktails kicked in) EXCEPT when the match was on ±Sky.  For those Sky games, there aren't any local bars showing UK sports as we now live too rural to be near any expat areas.  So time will tell - If it's going to set me back 11 euro each time City play I'm not sure if there's any benefit at all in keeping my Robins TV overseas supporter account going.  

City's loss could be Deportivo Lorca's gain!!

[Jerseybean]

Pretty sure I know the answer but in case I’m wrong, what do others think. As an overseas supporter I have a Robins TV subscription (which cost £120 I think) and previously enabled me to watch most home and away games. Will this ‘new opportunity’ trump that so I will be able to watch games home and away, however, it will now cost me a tenner a time? 

[bristolcitysweden]

6 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

Pretty sure I know the answer but in case I’m wrong, what do others think. As an overseas supporter I have a Robins TV subscription (which cost £120 I think) and previously enabled me to watch most home and away games. Will this ‘new opportunity’ trump that so I will be able to watch games home and away, however, it will now cost me a tenner a time? 

The price for us foreigners has been abused. I think we all should give the club full details about where we actually live. 

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, JackofromSanJavier said:

It's a complete mystery to me, this temporary arrangement.  For the last couple of seasons I've been able to watch City games (until the cerveza / sangria / brandy cocktails kicked in) EXCEPT when the match was on ±Sky.  For those Sky games, there aren't any local bars showing UK sports as we now live too rural to be near any expat areas.  So time will tell - If it's going to set me back 11 euro each time City play I'm not sure if there's any benefit at all in keeping my Robins TV overseas supporter account going.  

City's loss could be Deportivo Lorca's gain!!

You would imagine the overseas sub will be different to the UK one, as covered under different tv deals.  Of course no idea about pricing.

Im guessing EFL cup games weren’t included in any annual sub last year (league only)?

[Sleepy1968]

50 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

Pretty sure I know the answer but in case I’m wrong, what do others think. As an overseas supporter I have a Robins TV subscription (which cost £120 I think) and previously enabled me to watch most home and away games. Will this ‘new opportunity’ trump that so I will be able to watch games home and away, however, it will now cost me a tenner a time? 

These announcements should just be for uk based fans, but I they *might* set overseas prices the same to effective close VPN airways loophole. I'd hope not though as their content delivery partner seem to have the tech in place to catch 99% of VPN connections.

[BTRFTG]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@BTRFTG

Not actually followed as closely as I should our own accounts but costs of £60m?? Do you mean for 2019/20- that's fairly startling! Assume your £45m costs for 2018/19.

Interesting on the salary cap was SLs take when I heard him on the radio talking about Rugby's abortive attempt to cap salaries and he was one of the 2 owners who scuppered the deal. Wonder if his logic and reasoning applies to City?

Last year City spent around double it's income (operational losses circa £30m,) but that included player purchases. Strip out non-essential spend & I reckon expenses will be circa £45m, of which salaries comprise circa £32m, but as we're still buying players and laying staffs off it'll doubtless be higher. Sans ticket sales & crowds, income will likely be in the region £12m - £16m plus any monies we can get for offloading 'talent' (sic), which in Marley's case shows that likely to be chump change. Losses of £35m -£40m easily on the cards unless something radical happens.

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Interesting on the salary cap was SLs take when I heard him on the radio talking about Rugby's abortive attempt to cap salaries and he was one of the 2 owners who scuppered the deal. Wonder if his logic and reasoning applies to City?

Last year City spent around double it's income (operational losses circa £30m,) but that included player purchases. Strip out non-essential spend & I reckon expenses will be circa £45m, of which salaries comprise circa £32m, but as we're still buying players and laying staffs off it'll doubtless be higher. Sans ticket sales & crowds, income will likely be in the region £12m - £16m plus any monies we can get for offloading 'talent' (sic), which in Marley's case shows that likely to be chump change. Losses of £35m -£40m easily on the cards unless something radical happens.

Still surprised we haven’t sold anyone or at least really strong rumours. We do have wiggle room on a FFP, but as you say, reduced income starts to make that tight(er).

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Pretty sure I know the answer but in case I’m wrong, what do others think. As an overseas supporter I have a Robins TV subscription (which cost £120 I think) and previously enabled me to watch most home and away games. Will this ‘new opportunity’ trump that so I will be able to watch games home and away, however, it will now cost me a tenner a time? 

Don't know about you but I am still on last season's deal. 

I last paid the £110 RobinsTV season pass on 26 July 2019 and that saw me through last season and I was due to auto-renew on 26 July 2020. It's billed on an annual rather than seasonal basis (same as memberships). Covid meant that the renewal date got pushed out to 23 November 2020 - I guess they worried about people being unable to pay? Seemed strange to me at the time as we're all abroad aren't we?

So essentially as far as I am concerned I currently remain on that same contract as last season, and that runs until 23 Nov. So for the start of this season I expect to pay nothing more than I already have, and I should still get non-televised home and away league games. Then I'll be paying £110 again in November, when I expect to get non-televised home and away league game streamed as we had last season. The terms of my contract with the club haven't changed.

I understand that for ST holders it is a different situation. I'll be paying significantly less than £10 per game - but of course I do not have any of the rights and perks that ST holders have. I get no cash back, no shop discount, and I've no right to a seat at AG when fans return to stadia.

This is based on my reading of the Ts&Cs of my RobinsTV sub and the FAQs on RobinsTV bit of the website btw.