IFollow Revenue - Accrington Stanley

[Davefevs]

I follow Andy Holt on Twitter, Stanley’s owner.  This morning he posted this!

I wouldn’t say he’s a big fan of streaming, but he does recognise it is part of today’s football.  He hates the financial distribution model though.

[TBW]

May as well give it up for free. 

[Sir Geoff]

Home teams should keep the revenue from their games imo.

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Home teams should keep the revenue from their games imo.

That is Andy’s view, or at least get a share of it.  As it stands, it’s whoever sells the pass.  For example Accrington (home) v Ipswich, Accrington get nothing if Ipswich sell the pass, Andy’s argument is that it is HIS fixture / HIS rights being sold.  He’s not naive to think he should get it all, but that he gets nothing.

It is really a continuation of the big boys changing from shared match ticket revenue model (of old) versus the current - home team keeps it all…ie the big teams get bigger, competition is degraded.  The big clubs are nothing without the supporting pyramid 

I’m with him.

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

That is Andy’s view, or at least get a share of it.  As it stands, it’s whoever sells the pass.  For example Accrington (home) v Ipswich, Accrington get nothing if Ipswich sell the pass, Andy’s argument is that it is HIS fixture / HIS rights being sold.  He’s not naive to think he should get it all, but that he gets nothing.

It is really a continuation of the big boys changing from shared match ticket revenue model (of old) versus the current - home team keeps it all…ie the big teams get bigger, competition is degraded.  The big clubs are nothing without the supporting pyramid 

I’m with him.

I haven't got twitter so can't read much of what is said. I have followed the story on POF, so know the basics. Are Accrington on ifollow or do they have their own streaming service ?

I guess, but could be wrong, that with Robins TV we keep all the income less any payments to EFL for broadcasting their product.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

I haven't got twitter so can't read much of what is said. I have followed the story on POF, so know the basics. Are Accrington on ifollow or do they have their own streaming service ?

I guess, but could be wrong, that with Robins TV we keep all the income less any payments to EFL for broadcasting their product.

Accrington are on iFollow.

As I understand it the revenue models are the same whether on iFollow or own service.  Having your own service allows you to bolt on things like your own pre-match broadcast, place your own adverts, etc.  But yes, the £10 per match fee goes to the club that sells the match pass (of which EFL get their cut whether it’s iFollow or own service).  This Saturday QPR fans could purchase Robinstv (we get the tenner), or Rangers TV (QPR get the tenner).

[WolfOfWestStreet]

The biggest story there is this statement.

If football clubs are taking 100% of their fans LOSSES as revenue from accounts registered via team (i.e the team encouraging you to sign up to an account), then that is pretty disgusting imo.

And seeing as most supporters I'd guess bet on their own team to win, are the club actively profiting from losing matches?

I'd like to know how much money has city made or make from fans loosing bets.

[ExiledAjax]

26 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

The biggest story there is this statement.

If football clubs are taking 100% of their fans LOSSES as revenue from accounts registered via team (i.e the team encouraging you to sign up to an account), then that is pretty disgusting imo.

And seeing as most supporters I'd guess bet on their own team to win, are the club actively profiting from losing matches?

I'd like to know how much money has city made or make from fans loosing bets.

It looks like the Club gets a portion of the losses rather than 100% of losses. They get "100% of the EFL Digital Share of Losses". That will not be 100% of the total losses and as we don't know exactly what the "EFL Digital Share" is and we don't know exactly how "Losses" are defined either, it's hard to say whether £0.00 is surprising or not. We'd need to see the contract to which this statement is related in order to see just how much Clubs might be benefiting from their encouragement of gambling.

But, you're correct that this looks like Clubs get a fixed and long-term financial benefit from advertising gambling products on their websites or during their games. Which is, as you say, pretty disgusting.

[1960maaan]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

That is Andy’s view, or at least get a share of it.  As it stands, it’s whoever sells the pass.  For example Accrington (home) v Ipswich, Accrington get nothing if Ipswich sell the pass, Andy’s argument is that it is HIS fixture / HIS rights being sold.  He’s not naive to think he should get it all, but that he gets nothing.

It is really a continuation of the big boys changing from shared match ticket revenue model (of old) versus the current - home team keeps it all…ie the big teams get bigger, competition is degraded.  The big clubs are nothing without the supporting pyramid 

I’m with him.

I tried to keep up with the recent discussion on Twitter. He is an interesting follow.
I don't think he's wrong either. Now home teams keep their own Gate money, why not let them keep the majority of the TV money. It's their ground organisation etc. The main argument is bigger teams wanting a bigger cut , again. 
I liken it to Man U wanting to have their own station and keeping all the rights. One thing they seem to forget, without the "little" team , there wouldn't be a game. There has to be some fairness in the set up or the pyramid collapses . 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

20 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

It looks like the Club gets a portion of the losses rather than 100% of losses. They get "100% of the EFL Digital Share of Losses". That will not be 100% of the total losses and as we don't know exactly what the "EFL Digital Share" is and we don't know exactly how "Losses" are defined either, it's hard to say whether £0.00 is surprising or not. We'd need to see the contract to which this statement is related in order to see just how much Clubs might be benefiting from their encouragement of gambling.

But, you're correct that this looks like Clubs get a fixed and long-term financial benefit from advertising gambling products on their websites or during their games. Which is, as you say, pretty disgusting.

Some research was done by a journo and he discovered that clubs have a choice whether they accept this money or not. The reason it is zero is apparently AS don't. 

I doubt every club does the same. I'd like to put that question forward to our club at some point.

[ExiledAjax]

17 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Some research was done by a journo and he discovered that clubs have a choice whether they accept this money or not. The reason it is zero is apparently AS don't. 

I doubt every club does the same. I'd like to put that question forward to our club at some point.

Interesting. Which journalist?

As you say I'd hope we don't accept it. I also wonder if we had something similar to this as part of the Mansion Bet and Dunder deals?

Edited September 28, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[BTRFTG]

21 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I tried to keep up with the recent discussion on Twitter. He is an interesting follow.
I don't think he's wrong either. Now home teams keep their own Gate money, why not let them keep the majority of the TV money. It's their ground organisation etc. The main argument is bigger teams wanting a bigger cut , again. 
I liken it to Man U wanting to have their own station and keeping all the rights. One thing they seem to forget, without the "little" team , there wouldn't be a game. There has to be some fairness in the set up or the pyramid collapses . 

Holt's primary objection is for the smaller clubs in less accessible/fashionable locations, visits from 3 or 4 better supported teams make a huge difference to them, not only in gate receipts but also in food & beverage sales. If fans have no choice but to go to the game to see it they often will. In harsher economic times if its cheap to watch a stream whilst supping Aldi/Lidl branded beer, they'll opt for that, particularly if midweek.

We've STs at AG but for little reason as we've watched more games on the box than in flesh. Moving games, making it impossible to get to and from games, travel pricing, convenience. Its becoming a no-brainer to give up travelling to matches. Same for away fixtures. We used to do them all in person. We'll do very few in person this year but will manage to see the majority. Folks focus on the revenues broadcasting generates (mostly for the few,) whilst ignoring the devastating impact it has on the game in general.

[Davefevs]

On 28/09/2022 at 12:19, ExiledAjax said:

Interesting. Which journalist?

As you say I'd hope we don't accept it. I also wonder if we had something similar to this as part of the Mansion Bet and Dunder deals?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63065901

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63065901

Yep found it myself actually (sometimes I remember that google exists), and also the Rob Davies piece on the Guardian - looks like he got to Holt first and bagged an "Exclusive" on it. The whole thing stinks.

[WolfOfWestStreet]

On 28/09/2022 at 12:19, ExiledAjax said:

Interesting. Which journalist?

As you say I'd hope we don't accept it. I also wonder if we had something similar to this as part of the Mansion Bet and Dunder deals?

Well worth a follow. Niche is unearthing the shitty stuff in football. Crypto nonsense, gambling, all the weird stuff that's crept in. 

Don't know about the former deals, and I'll be honest Dunder just appeared to be a money laundering operation not a bookie.

[ExiledAjax]

On 01/10/2022 at 01:43, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Well worth a follow. Niche is unearthing the shitty stuff in football. Crypto nonsense, gambling, all the weird stuff that's crept in. 

Don't know about the former deals, and I'll be honest Dunder just appeared to be a money laundering operation not a bookie.

Thanks for this. After you posted this I actually bought the book advertised in that Twitter profile. Am about 75% through it and it's brilliant. So thank you for recommending a great read!