PPV u-turn?

[Never to the dark side]

Looks like it, although not this side of the International break.

Well done to all the football followers who thought 14:99p was way too much

[Steve Watts]

I just don't get the mentality of people who were moaning about ppv.  It's only because Sky were showing every match for a month at no extra cost, giving viewers far more than the 130 odd they would have been expecting throughout the course of the season!  Had Sky bought the rights to show all 380 Premier League matches this season, the cost of Sky Sports would be considerably higher than £30 per month.

Further down the pyramid we've been forced to pay to watch everything - we didn't just get it included in our package.  Now people who could easily spend over £150 per household to watch a premier league match can now watch it for £15 per household.  No-one is forcing anyone to pay it.  

Someone said to me yesterday "I mean, come on, who's going to pay £15 to watch West Brom vs Fulham?".... Well...that's an easy one....West Brom and Fulham fans who want to watch their team.  Just like we've paid a tenner to watch our team play each time this season at a lower level.  For one match this season we had 18,000 subscribers to a single match.  Those won't have been fans of Southampton!  What ppv gives people is a chance to watch a match they wouldn't be otherwise able to at a fraction of the price they'd have paid had they been allowed to attend in person.  No-one would have mentioned this had Sky not shown every match at no extra cost at the start of the season.  Premier League clubs and fans are merely falling in line with the EFL and paying slightly more than us for a superior product.  (I'm aware that this argument about paying more than us is watered down slightly by us paying the same as League 1 & 2 clubs, but the money is vital further down the pyramid to try and sustain the clubs)

[SinéadB]

3 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

I just don't get the mentality of people who were moaning about ppv.  It's only because Sky were showing every match for a month at no extra cost, giving viewers far more than the 130 odd they would have been expecting throughout the course of the season!  Had Sky bought the rights to show all 380 Premier League matches this season, the cost of Sky Sports would be considerably higher than £30 per month.

Further down the pyramid we've been forced to pay to watch everything - we didn't just get it included in our package.  Now people who could easily spend over £150 per household to watch a premier league match can now watch it for £15 per household.  No-one is forcing anyone to pay it.  

Someone said to me yesterday "I mean, come on, who's going to pay £15 to watch West Brom vs Fulham?".... Well...that's an easy one....West Brom and Fulham fans who want to watch their team.  Just like we've paid a tenner to watch our team play each time this season at a lower level.  For one match this season we had 18,000 subscribers to a single match.  Those won't have been fans of Southampton!  What ppv gives people is a chance to watch a match they wouldn't be otherwise able to at a fraction of the price they'd have paid had they been allowed to attend in person.  No-one would have mentioned this had Sky not shown every match at no extra cost at the start of the season.  Premier League clubs and fans are merely falling in line with the EFL and paying slightly more than us for a superior product.  (I'm aware that this argument about paying more than us is watered down slightly by us paying the same as League 1 & 2 clubs, but the money is vital further down the pyramid to try and sustain the clubs)

The problem is, if you want to be able to watch all of one PL clubs matches, then you'll have to have access to BT Sport, Sky Sports, (maybe Amazon Prime as well) and then pay for £14.95 on top of those subscriptions for the games that aren't on BT/Sky/Amazon.

[Never to the dark side]

Could I ask where does  the 18,000 come from?

No I am not questioning the figures,would like to know where they come from

Is it in the public domain?

of City followers only or plus what ever other team we were playing

[Selred]

5 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Had Sky bought the rights to show all 380 Premier League matches this season, the cost of Sky Sports would be considerably higher than £30 per month.

But this is the issue. If you're say a Fulham fan you'd need Sky to watch some games, BT sports to watch some other games and then if there's Fulham games not on either of those then you have to fork out another £15 per game. 

[Tipps69]

5 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

I just don't get the mentality of people who were moaning about ppv.  It's only because Sky were showing every match for a month at no extra cost, giving viewers far more than the 130 odd they would have been expecting throughout the course of the season!  Had Sky bought the rights to show all 380 Premier League matches this season, the cost of Sky Sports would be considerably higher than £30 per month.

Further down the pyramid we've been forced to pay to watch everything - we didn't just get it included in our package.  Now people who could easily spend over £150 per household to watch a premier league match can now watch it for £15 per household.  No-one is forcing anyone to pay it.  

Someone said to me yesterday "I mean, come on, who's going to pay £15 to watch West Brom vs Fulham?".... Well...that's an easy one....West Brom and Fulham fans who want to watch their team.  Just like we've paid a tenner to watch our team play each time this season at a lower level.  For one match this season we had 18,000 subscribers to a single match.  Those won't have been fans of Southampton!  What ppv gives people is a chance to watch a match they wouldn't be otherwise able to at a fraction of the price they'd have paid had they been allowed to attend in person.  No-one would have mentioned this had Sky not shown every match at no extra cost at the start of the season.  Premier League clubs and fans are merely falling in line with the EFL and paying slightly more than us for a superior product.  (I'm aware that this argument about paying more than us is watered down slightly by us paying the same as League 1 & 2 clubs, but the money is vital further down the pyramid to try and sustain the clubs)

The issue wasn’t the PPV, it was the price, £14.99 for a normal league game was deemed too expensive. When you compare that EFL clubs ‘only’ pay £10 & for a full night of boxing or MMA it costs £20.

Supporters wanted the price reduced, after all, it’s not like the Premier League clubs haven’t been given enough money from tv deals as it is.

[phantom]

27 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Could I ask where does  the 18,000 come from?

Have to admit I have not seen any viewing figures for any of our games

Personally I find that figure very high, but would be interesting to know

[YorksRed]

I wonder if the clubs have started to think about life when/if things get back to normal.

I live too far away to allow anything more than a handful of trips to the Gate every season so the club doesn’t make a huge amount of money out of me.  However, I’d be willing to pay for a stream.  So in my case, offering that would give them an additional line of income that they wouldn’t otherwise have.  

I know that I could get a free stream somewhere on the internet if I wanted but I actually don’t mind paying a reasonable amount if the club benefits.

It’s obviously a tricky balance to maintain a good level of fans attending (for many reasons, not just financial) but offering an official stream wouldn’t be eating into that for many cases.

[Major Isewater]

5 minutes ago, phantom said:

Have to admit I have not seen any viewing figures for any of our games

Personally I find that figure very high, but would be interesting to know

Not to mention the thousands locked out of their living rooms.

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

Looks like it, although not this side of the International break.

Well done to all the football followers who thought 14:99p was way too much to pay

On a complete tangent.

Just been watching re-run of The West Wing.

In the first episode the President meets with a group of religious leaders , one of who complains "you can buy pornography on the street for just $5. Isn't that too high a price to pay for freedom of speech?"

The President replies “ No,  but it is too high a price to pay for pornography!" 

[Steve Watts]

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

Could I ask where does  the 18,000 come from?

No I am not questioning the figures,would like to know where they come from

Is it in the public domain?

of City followers only or plus what ever other team we were playing

 

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Have to admit I have not seen any viewing figures for any of our games

Personally I find that figure very high, but would be interesting to know

Jerry confirmed the figure (though not which match - I would presume Villa, maybe) when we did the tour last week.  Lowest was 2.5k for the Exeter match.  Usually around 7-8k I think he said (though don't recall 100% on that one)

[Steve Watts]

2 hours ago, SinéadB said:

The problem is, if you want to be able to watch all of one PL clubs matches, then you'll have to have access to BT Sport, Sky Sports, (maybe Amazon Prime as well) and then pay for £14.95 on top of those subscriptions for the games that aren't on BT/Sky/Amazon.

But the problem with that argument is, if you want to be able to watch all of one PL clubs matches in any other season then you'll have to have access to BT Sport, Sky Sports, (maybe Amazon Prime as well) and then pay for an average of £32 plus travel, plus any refreshments (if you decide) (per person) on top of those subscriptions for the games that aren't on BT/Sky/Amazon to get to the match.  Unless you use a VPN to access other feeds, it is still cheaper to watch all of one PL clubs matches than at any other time. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

 

Jerry confirmed the figure (though not which match - I would presume Villa, maybe) when we did the tour last week.  Lowest was 2.5k for the Exeter match.  Usually around 7-8k I think he said (though don't recall 100% on that one)

Wow, that 7/8k is much more than I thought, although if we are talking home games only, then perhaps not, because of the refund we are getting.

[Steve Watts]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Wow, that 7/8k is much more than I thought, although if we are talking home games only, then perhaps not, because of the refund we are getting.

I might have misremembered that figure, but I think it was around that.  18k highest, 2.5k lowest I'm 100 sure of though.

[phantom]

Would be interested to know the figures please @JerrySLOif they are known