Bristol City, Bristol Rovers and EFL clubs meet to discuss scrapping TV blackout

[Curr Avon]

Should the the Saturday blackout be lifted?

Or will it decimate matchday revenue?

Thoughts?

Bristol City, Bristol Rovers and EFL clubs meet to discuss scrapping TV blackout - Bristol Live (bristolpost.co.uk)

Full article below..

 

The EFL is hosting its annual meeting this week and on the agenda is the future of broadcasting for the 72 EFL clubs

EFL clubs are set to discuss potential changes to broadcasting arrangements today (Thursday) which could bring an end to the Saturday TV blackout.

Games played at 3pm on Saturdays are prohibited from being screened on TV or streamed online to protect ticket sales, but some clubs believe revenue streams are being missed as a result.

The i reports Bristol City, Bristol Rovers and their fellow EFL members will be shown a presentation at their two-day annual league meeting on future broadcasting options ahead of the Sky Sports TV deal expiring in 2024.

It is understood that some clubs are eager to see changes made to broadcasting regulations, allowing the iFollow service to be expanded to cover games played during the traditional blackout. As it stands, only fans based overseas can stream these games. However, the report suggests other clubs fear the ability to watch games from home will affect attendance.

According to the report, there is a level of support from some of the 72 clubs that future TV contracts include the Championship only, allowing League One and League Two teams to charge supporters £10 per game to stream fixtures online.

Many clubs and fans alike believe the current TV deal does not cater enough for third and fourth-tier teams – Rovers did not feature on television once last season despite being one of the bigger clubs in League Two and ultimately winning promotion – and removal of the blackout and freedom to broadcast their own games could give them more control. However, they would have to weigh that up against the guaranteed revenue that a contract with Sky or another big broadcaster provides.

No decisions are expected regarding the blackout at this week's AGM in Chester, with discussions said to be in their infancy. Should the EFL decide to remove the blackout in future, approval from UEFA would be required.

Also on the agenda at the meeting is supporter behaviour, with clubs set to discuss how to tackle the problem of pitch invasions since fans have returned after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bristol Live understands a FA investigation into the events after Elliot Anderson's decisive goal towards the end of Rovers' 7-0 victory over Scunthorpe United is still ongoing, more than a month after the game which took place at the Mem.

Referee Charles Breakspear threatened to call the fixture off after fans streamed onto the pitch in the 85th minute, causing a significant delay. A 16-year-old was given a banning order by Avon & Somerset Police last month after admitting assaulting a Scunthorpe player during the pitch invasion.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I think that over time local people would be more comfortable missing games and some would lose some attachment to their clubs eventually effecting revenue, but obviously there will be others (like those who live long distances) who will feel greater attachment to the club having an opportunity to pay to stream games. Matchday income on stuff like food would go down, not sure if that would make a big difference or not. I don't have particularly strong feelings on the blackout either way but if lifted I think over the long term that revenue would be more likely to go down than up.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Baba Yaga

[Bristol Rob]

Matchday revenue likely to be down, advertising revenue likely to be up if more people can potentially see the ads.

Those who already fly VPN will continue to do so, those who prefer the live experience will probably continue.

Maybe a season or two as an experiment might encourage a few more back if things are going well and the streaming on a Saturday then stops.

[Angmering Red]

Not sure if its possible but would think it be to set up the match day pass to only be for the away team to stream the match and gain the revenue to its own supporters but not the home team, that way supporters who cant or don't want to go to away games can pay to watch and the away team get additional revenue through selling the game.
 

Maybe those who go regularly to the away games would still go, or not, I don't know.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

Like Baba Yaga I don't have, strong feelings either way but I could see this hitting the numbers that travel away more than home crowds but I might be wrong. I'd be interested to know which clubs would back the move and those vehemently opposed. I wonder whether a correlation could be drawn between those who live in the shadow of the Premier League giants e. g stream Bolton at 3 and pop along to Old Trafford for a late kick off, or alternatively play in the far flung corners of the league such as Barrow, Carlisle, Lincoln or Plymouth. 

[Sir Geoff]

I thought it was a UEFA ruling. Not sure how that can be overturned by EFL (sorry haven't read the article so apologies if that is covered in it).

[Betty Swallocks]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I thought it was a UEFA ruling. Not sure how that can be overturned by EFL (sorry haven't read the article so apologies if that is covered in it).

It’s an FA ruling, nothing to do with UEFA. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I thought it was a UEFA ruling. Not sure how that can be overturned by EFL (sorry haven't read the article so apologies if that is covered in it).

I believe it is, and EFL would need to ask UEFA to make the change.

[Betty Swallocks]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I believe it is, and EFL would need to ask UEFA to make the change.

Strange that it would be an UEFA ruling, I can remember there being a El Classico game which was shown across the world bar the UK as we are the only country with a 3pm black out.

You only have to holiday abroad to see how many different countries show games on a Saturday between 3&5, UK time. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Having reluctantly decided not to renew my ST this season (not based on cost but other factors) this would be great news for me. I`ve got Sky so even taking out the games on there (red button or otherwise) there would probably be upwards of thirty games I`d pay a tenner for. That way I would still be supporting the club financially and be able to see the games.

I appreciate there are many other factors to consider though and it`s not all about me!

[Northern Red]

37 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I thought it was a UEFA ruling. Not sure how that can be overturned by EFL (sorry haven't read the article so apologies if that is covered in it).

I think UEFA give the option of a blackout period, and it's down to individual FAs to decide the dates and times that it applies in their own territory. Not all countries use it which is why you'll see Satuday afternoon games popping up on various European sports channels.

[Midlands Robin]

As a starting point I would remove the restriction on the ability to stream local radio commentaries via the Internet. 

Regarding TV services, more and more people are getting around the black out by using VPNs and illegal streams so the 3pm black out is getting harder to enforce anyway. 

I agree with some of the comments above, give it a one season trial and potentially restrict viewing passes to sale for the away team but with a revenue split with the home side, something like 80/20 to the away team. This would cover any home fans who would inevitably purchase a stream from the away teams service. 

I admit I am biased in this because I don't get down to the gate as often as I could 20 years ago as I live in the Midlands now. 

[Denbury Red]

57 minutes ago, Angmering Red said:

Not sure if its possible but would think it be to set up the match day pass to only be for the away team to stream the match and gain the revenue to its own supporters but not the home team, that way supporters who cant or don't want to go to away games can pay to watch and the away team get additional revenue through selling the game.
 

Maybe those who go regularly to the away games would still go, or not, I don't know.

This isn’t a bad shout as currently our fans who go away are, many but clearly not all, are often very unpleasant to be around. I went to Coventry last season with my son and can honestly say the behaviour of many fans was appalling. 

How some behave and believe it’s ok to be so aggressive is beyond me!

Bring on iFollow for away games!

 

[Furious Custard]

£10 A stream is still to much in my opinion. ~£10 a month would bring it more in line with other streaming services that may actually have something you want to watch on ! 

IFollow only costs £140? A season for non UK viewers. Should be no more than that for UK based viewing for the year IMO. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

9 minutes ago, Furious Custard said:

£10 A stream is still to much in my opinion. ~£10 a month would bring it more in line with other streaming services that may actually have something you want to watch on ! 

IFollow only costs £140? A season for non UK viewers. Should be no more than that for UK based viewing for the year IMO. 

I`m sure there would be a `season ticket` option which would be less than £230/£460. For those of us who have Sky it would then become a decision we would have to make whether to buy one or pay game-by-game.

Personally I`d get a season pass for home and away, watch the main games on Sky but the red button ones on Robins TV.

[Victory Park Reds]

Lots of people have fire sticks these days loaded up the max with everything.
I like going to watch a live game however if it’s a wet cold winter afternoon away from home and someone offered me such an item I maybe tempted.

N.b I have renewed my season ticket x 2 children 

[StGeorge]

4 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Having reluctantly decided not to renew my ST this season (not based on cost but other factors) this would be great news for me. I`ve got Sky so even taking out the games on there (red button or otherwise) there would probably be upwards of thirty games I`d pay a tenner for. That way I would still be supporting the club financially and be able to see the games

Stuff Sky, Go Robins TV and VPN,  move to Germany, its really not hard

[Mrdc]

22 minutes ago, StGeorge said:

Stuff Sky, Go Robins TV and VPN,  move to Germany, its really not hard

Can trump that find a decent IPTV supplier and you can have every City game plus just about every other TV channel in existence for about £60 a year. 

[Colemanballs]

7 hours ago, Mrdc said:

Can trump that find a decent IPTV supplier and you can have every City game plus just about every other TV channel in existence for about £60 a year. 

Would you be able to recommend a good one? 

[Pezo]

I really fear for attendances, you can see it on night games when the red button is available there must be at least 5k that don't turn up. I really like the atmosphere and social side of football and I only have to travel an hour to get to AG, but as someone who already travels to Nordistan to watch RobinsTV I have pretty much given up on weekday games and away games in favour of RobinsTV mainly because no one else that I know goes on a weekdays and as I said the attendances and atmosphere is already down.

My fear then from watching through COVID is that it's pretty easy to turn it off if we're shit and if we're shit for a season then people will quickly lose the habit and connection with the club.

[Olé]

There's an absence of overtly dissenting voices on this thread so if for no other reason let me try out the argument against (besides the revenue/attendance point several have flagged*).

It comes down to whether people who follow football see themselves as supporters or spectators. I think the vast majority will say the former - and I think the two are materially different.

Support is active not passive, it's meant to represent a level of effort and investment to consummate your allegiance. A spectator is a viewer: passive and purely entertainment focussed.

Every one of us I hope remembers their first game, the first time they walked out into a stand (normally into Ashton Gate), the first time they saw live football and the scale of their ground.

We need to protect the effort required to experience that buzz, to be able to properly support your club. Otherwise some people will never experience it or others never get addicted to it. 

Football is not meant to be 'Netflix' or fans will get bored at Bristol City Season 3 Episode 9 and switch over to Forest Season 1 Episode 1 and that might be that. Allegiance requires effort.

Allegiance is also about proximity - a convention that would be destroyed by unlocking TV access to any club. And it is about being able to support (as in physically get behind) your team. 

Even for away games the VPN stuff hasn't sat right with me. How many people hand on heart would have ever made that extra effort to get to an amazing away game if they never had to?

Making an alternative and universal point of access to football that requires no effort may stop large numbers - even generations - of people from having experiences that bond them to us.

You don't build affinity and loyalty without effort and experiences. A viewer is someone who can switch off. Get people hooked on these experiences, and as we all know, we all come back.

 

(*And obviously the revenue/attendance point is not to be ignored: at a time when football finances are precarious, it's insanity to introduce a lower cost / lower commitment access point).

[Pezo]

56 minutes ago, Olé said:

 (*And obviously the revenue/attendance point is not to be ignored: at a time when football finances are precarious, it's insanity to introduce a lower cost / lower commitment access point).

You know full well there is a businessman somewhere talking about lowering the barrier to entry. The thing a business degree won't tell you is that for a club like ours there isn't a massive queue of additional people wanting to go but can't - it's about keeping the support we do have and encouraging younger fans (young people don't need encouraging to watch Liverpool, there mates are already talking about that).

It's the barrier to exit that concerns me - RobinsTV makes it much easier to quit or give up like you say, like a Netflix subscription! A season tick for attendance and season ticket to watch on TV are psychologically two completely different things e.g. no one has ever made a friend by watching a game on TV sat at home.

[richwwtk]

1 hour ago, Olé said:

There's an absence of overtly dissenting voices on this thread so if for no other reason let me try out the argument against (besides the revenue/attendance point several have flagged*).

It comes down to whether people who follow football see themselves as supporters or spectators. I think the vast majority will say the former - and I think the two are materially different.

Support is active not passive, it's meant to represent a level of effort and investment to consummate your allegiance. A spectator is a viewer: passive and purely entertainment focussed.

Every one of us I hope remembers their first game, the first time they walked out into a stand (normally into Ashton Gate), the first time they saw live football and the scale of their ground.

We need to protect the effort required to experience that buzz, to be able to properly support your club. Otherwise some people will never experience it or others never get addicted to it. 

Football is not meant to be 'Netflix' or fans will get bored at Bristol City Season 3 Episode 9 and switch over to Forest Season 1 Episode 1 and that might be that. Allegiance requires effort.

Allegiance is also about proximity - a convention that would be destroyed by unlocking TV access to any club. And it is about being able to support (as in physically get behind) your team. 

Even for away games the VPN stuff hasn't sat right with me. How many people hand on heart would have ever made that extra effort to get to an amazing away game if they never had to?

Making an alternative and universal point of access to football that requires no effort may stop large numbers - even generations - of people from having experiences that bond them to us.

You don't build affinity and loyalty without effort and experiences. A viewer is someone who can switch off. Get people hooked on these experiences, and as we all know, we all come back.

 

(*And obviously the revenue/attendance point is not to be ignored: at a time when football finances are precarious, it's insanity to introduce a lower cost / lower commitment access point).

I get exactly what you are saying and agree entirely about the difference between a supporter and viewer, but I'm not sure how many people are stopped from becoming supporters just because it is possible to watch City without being there.

Firstly, I don't imagine anyone such as yourself who has got the bug, time and finances to be able to do 40+ games a season is going to stop just because they could watch it on their laptop at home. And even if you did so occasionally due to circumstances you wouldn't ever lose the drive to go to as many games as you could.

I would also imagine that a vast majority of City fans are people that mainly go to Ashton Gate routinely and away games occasionally, but would love to go to more if circumstances allowed. For these people it is a bonus to be able to watch City when life doesn't allow you to be there in person, and also brings a little more into the club coffers.

As for 'armchair' fans, then I don't see anyone becoming a City fan in the first place just because Robins TV exists when there is so much higher quality football on TV to attract them in the first place.

Basically, if you're already a fan then I don't see that the Robins TV option is going to make many people think '**** it, can't be arsed to go' when they normally would. The only people I really see watching online are people who wouldn't otherwise go to the match. I haven't got to many away games for the last few years due to having a young family growing up. But my son is now old enough to really be into it and is planning on starting to go to away matches this season, hopefully with me in tow, but if not with his mate who we seem to have converted on the last day of the season (he was going to get a Taunton Town ST but has changed to City now!). Robins TV has made no difference to their level of support whatsoever.

Edited June 10, 2022 by richwwtk

[bcfcredandwhite]

I can only speak for myself personally - I'd be in favour and it would NOT change my attendance habits. 
Although, as I said on another thread, I haven't visited Ashton Gate for a while (Fulham - last game before lockdown) due to multiple factors. Under 'normal' conditions I buy membership and go to about half a dozen home games and 2 away games each season and those are planned outings for me. This would not change if I could watch the games on TV - in fact I'd end up subscribing to the games that I wouldn't normally see, so City's income from ME would increase. 

I'm not convinced that being able to watch a game live on TV would deter loads of fans from attending Ashton Gate who would normally go - unless they were already 'wobbling' anyway. You can't beat watching a live match in the stadium - like watching a band live compared to watching their music video.

Perhaps, having easy access to a live TV stream might be the 'bait' to persuade some current armchair fans who currently have to rely on Sky Sports News to follow their team, to get down to BS3 occasionally? Besides, all those TV fans would be paying - and perhaps some of the new TV subscription revenue could be used to subsidise the cost of a stadium ticket? IMHO anything that gets Bristol City 'out there' into people's homes is a good thing.

 

[ooRya]

[cheese]

My view (who's else would it be I suppose), is that it may have more of an effect further down the ladder.  I know plenty of people who will take in a local non league game when their supported team is away.

[Denbury Red]

Interesting comments on this thread - but I’ve been a “supporter” for over 50 years - I’ve had a season ticket when living at home - until 1985, and once more for the many years to date once my children have come with me - despite living in S Devon and travelling over 100 miles each way for a home game!  
 

Going to away games is great - or should I say ‘was’ great, when you could choose to sit or stand!  Latterly if I attend an away game you have to stand all game, not sit in your allocated seat and put up with the behaviour of ‘and I won’t call these supporters’ those who choose to act appallingly at away games!

When Safe Standing arrives in full and makes away grounds provide seats for those who want to sit and standing for those who want to stand then I shall attend more games as a “supporter”.

Having said that to have the chance “support” city on Robins TV for away games would be fabulous!

[eardun]

14 hours ago, Olé said:

There's an absence of overtly dissenting voices on this thread so if for no other reason let me try out the argument against (besides the revenue/attendance point several have flagged*).

It comes down to whether people who follow football see themselves as supporters or spectators. I think the vast majority will say the former - and I think the two are materially different.

Support is active not passive, it's meant to represent a level of effort and investment to consummate your allegiance. A spectator is a viewer: passive and purely entertainment focussed.

Every one of us I hope remembers their first game, the first time they walked out into a stand (normally into Ashton Gate), the first time they saw live football and the scale of their ground.

We need to protect the effort required to experience that buzz, to be able to properly support your club. Otherwise some people will never experience it or others never get addicted to it. 

Football is not meant to be 'Netflix' or fans will get bored at Bristol City Season 3 Episode 9 and switch over to Forest Season 1 Episode 1 and that might be that. Allegiance requires effort.

Allegiance is also about proximity - a convention that would be destroyed by unlocking TV access to any club. And it is about being able to support (as in physically get behind) your team. 

Even for away games the VPN stuff hasn't sat right with me. How many people hand on heart would have ever made that extra effort to get to an amazing away game if they never had to?

Making an alternative and universal point of access to football that requires no effort may stop large numbers - even generations - of people from having experiences that bond them to us.

You don't build affinity and loyalty without effort and experiences. A viewer is someone who can switch off. Get people hooked on these experiences, and as we all know, we all come back.

 

(*And obviously the revenue/attendance point is not to be ignored: at a time when football finances are precarious, it's insanity to introduce a lower cost / lower commitment access point).

Great post. The only caveat I would put on it is that streaming at 3pm would be great option for those fans who are too elderly/disabled to get to Ashton Gate. We have disabled badges for car parking; why not for streaming football matches. Wouldn’t impact attendances. 

[BS2 Red]

On 09/06/2022 at 22:28, Mrdc said:

Can trump that

[Red-Robbo]

On 10/06/2022 at 07:03, Olé said:

There's an absence of overtly dissenting voices on this thread so if for no other reason let me try out the argument against (besides the revenue/attendance point several have flagged*).

It comes down to whether people who follow football see themselves as supporters or spectators. I think the vast majority will say the former - and I think the two are materially different.

Support is active not passive, it's meant to represent a level of effort and investment to consummate your allegiance. A spectator is a viewer: passive and purely entertainment focussed.

Every one of us I hope remembers their first game, the first time they walked out into a stand (normally into Ashton Gate), the first time they saw live football and the scale of their ground.

We need to protect the effort required to experience that buzz, to be able to properly support your club. Otherwise some people will never experience it or others never get addicted to it. 

Football is not meant to be 'Netflix' or fans will get bored at Bristol City Season 3 Episode 9 and switch over to Forest Season 1 Episode 1 and that might be that. Allegiance requires effort.

Allegiance is also about proximity - a convention that would be destroyed by unlocking TV access to any club. And it is about being able to support (as in physically get behind) your team. 

Even for away games the VPN stuff hasn't sat right with me. How many people hand on heart would have ever made that extra effort to get to an amazing away game if they never had to?

Making an alternative and universal point of access to football that requires no effort may stop large numbers - even generations - of people from having experiences that bond them to us.

You don't build affinity and loyalty without effort and experiences. A viewer is someone who can switch off. Get people hooked on these experiences, and as we all know, we all come back.

 

(*And obviously the revenue/attendance point is not to be ignored: at a time when football finances are precarious, it's insanity to introduce a lower cost / lower commitment access point).

 

I guess this is the mark of being a fan of a club like City as opposed to a plastic supporter of one of the big six. Virtually every City fan has watched us live, a fair percentage have, or have had, season cards, and many have watched away games as well as home games.  Your typical West Country Arsenal fan (or Man U, or Liverpool, or Man City these days, or Chelsea, or Spurs - mostly older guys there) has never watched them outside the confines of his/her house or the pub. They have their "Gooners" duvet set, but are really just followers rather than fans.