It's economics 101, isn't it?And they wonder why piracy exists
Yeah all the pubs are fucked, I'm just explaining why sky must be grasping.
I don't know why the premier league doesn't have their own platform at this stage. Why bother with all these providers and weird contracts when they could leverage the tech netflix built and go it alone?
I dont think it'll be £20 a month.. maybe £15 a game... sorry couldn't resist.Agree, charge something like £20 a month so fans can see all games of their club they support, most would buy into that I reckon
That being the case, the clubs have been too greedy.Listened to a radio 5 podcast in this earlier.
They said it's all the clubs. The broadcasters get a hosting fee only.
The clubs were also discussing broadcasting it via their own channels, but decided the costs would be prohibitive for some clubs.
The broadcasters also didn't want it as potential competition & a reason people didn't need them, so agreed to do it 'at cost'.
That being the case, the clubs have been too greedy.
When fans overseas can see every game for free legally,yes it is high.£15 per match is high, but don't mean to be an arsehole, but the clubs must be losing huge amounts from the matchday revenue (some of you locals will know better), I have always been an armchair fan, and although the match atmosphere with fans makes it worth watching for me, as a person I don't like attending them because I get really dizzy and shit (has been the case since my 20's - don't know why maybe I should see a doctor - just don't like being in large noisy gatherings).
So if they are losing millions from those matches - does it not make sense for them to charge a bit for those games that would normally not be televised ? - I mean ticket prices for these matches would be normally£40+ right ? so is not £15 worth it ?
Not trying to stir shit up or side with greedy owners etc.. just making a point on this matter due to the current circumstances.
Well if the model is to believed... They are doing PPV games 'at cost' meaning they will continue to show the biggest games through normal sky/BT subscription.I wonder how this will work for games currently not chosen for PPV. At the moment Sky/BT compete for the biggest games, but might they start leaving out bigger games so that they can try to monetise on PPV and use the blanket sky sports subscription for lesser games?
Use the Premier League feed, turn it on 2 minutes before kick-off and turn it off 2 minutes after final whistle. 15 minutes of car adverts at half-time if you can get some money for them; no-one needs the informed wisdom of Micah Richards or Tony Cascarino, and I'll be in the kitchen fixing myself a drink and something to eat anyway. Nice, crisp HD feed and I'll happily pay £4.95 and wait for Match of the Day to hear what Klopp thought of the performance.
It's hardly surprising that the guy who owns Sports Direct understands that.
[article]The Premier League is to screen four more pay-per-view matches next month at £14.95 each before clubs hold a review of the controversial experiment.
The London derby between West Ham and Fulham, and Leeds’ trip to Crystal Palace, will be among the fixtures fans will have to pay extra to watch on the weekend of 7-8 November.
Showing games on pay per view was a response to the absence of fans from stadiums, allowing supporters a chance to watch their team. The move has been a public relations disaster for the league, however, after adding one more layer of expenditure for fans in the midst of a pandemic.
Estimates of viewing figures suggest the pay-per-view plan has succeeded on its own terms, with matches being watched on average by 40,000 people, or the equivalent of a full stadium. This means the experiment is unlikely to be abandoned, with a review set to concentrate on the price point and a possible reduction to £10 a match.
On Monday the Newcastle owner, Mike Ashley, intervened in the debate, calling on the league to “make it much more accessible” for fans by charging £4.95 per match until Christmas. Ashley’s proposal is believed to have been given short shrift, however, with the proposed price deemed too low to cover the costs of broadcast[/article]
How misleading is this? Some games would’ve got nowhere near that. If they released the buys for each game you’d see us as one of the big draws. Especially if other games struggle to reach 1,000 buys. Then there is the number of people they turned to steaming. That could impact the numbers of those who buy sky and bt.