• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

PPV Premier League

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just get a decent IPTV. Ultimate TV is a tenner a month, installs to your firestick in a couple of mins, doesn't need a vpn or kodi and has a billion channels.
 
They show the games in October as normal over here, so I guess we’re lucky this time.
What happens after that is anyones guess.
 
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?

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
 
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'.
 
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.
 
That being the case, the clubs have been too greedy.

It's spectacularly incoherent, because the some of the money they're now so desperate to make up is the money they handed back to the broadcasters with barely a whimper last season.
 
£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.
 
I get free access to all the Premier League matches by having a AU$25 a month SIM card only mobile phone plan.

AU$99 a year if you want to purchase access separately (was on special at AU$60 until end of Sept).

Every game streamable live or on replay - in one place.
 
£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.
When fans overseas can see every game for free legally,yes it is high.

We are already paying x amount for Sky and x amount for BT. Now we are expected to pay £15 for the 20% or so games we aren't on TV which is roughly £120 a year for us Liverpool fans a lot more for a club that has less TV games scheduled for TV.

How is that fair for the fans?

As has already been said, yes there would have been grumblings with a PPV model. But £3-5 fans would have sucked it up.

No chance I'm paying to see the Sheffield utd game, I like many others will chance their luck on other methods. If it was a fiver I'd have probably bought it.
 
I just cancelled my sky subscription after 20 years (i was offered a 35% discount, but that still wasn't enough), so maybe time to get a dodgy box.

For now I'll use NowTV ... thought I was being dead clever threatening to leave Sky for NowTV, until someone told me they own Now 🙂
 
Isn’t your now tv more expensive than Sky? I get BT as part of my virgin package and I have now tv sports for £28/month. I pay the extra £3 for 1080 50fps streams.
 
Its half price for 3 months at the moment, so I get Sky, BT & Premier (in Ireland) for €36.50 pm; that will give me time to work out what best to do (or for Sky to come in with their inevitable offer to get me back).

My Sky bill had crept up to over €150 pm (Sports, HD, multiroom, no movies, no broadband, no phone), which was just ridiculous.Outside of sport (well LFC matches to be precise) I don't watch much that I cant get on Freeview (though I have to sort my satellite system to get UK channels now) so even if I end up paying €73 to get sport I'm better off. And I can stop it for the summer months, and potentially drop BT if the live fixtures allow, or even get day passes
 
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?
 
Here in Canada, DAZN has exclusive rights to the Premier League, Carabao, and UEFA competitions. It's $120 per year, all-in, for everything. Every single match

Also get every single NFL game among a number of other lesser sports.

Still unfortunate that no matches are on basic cable packages but far more value than what you lot are facing.
 
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?
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.

Time will tell.
 
What I dont understand is they keep calling it a loss making exercise. And at cost.

Yet every game is covered by the premier league and broadcast throughout the world.

Sky and BT are being greedy, because they could just use the same feed at no cost to them.

I still wouldn't touch it for £10. They are so out of touch. Ashley is actually talking sense for once.
 
It’s not just the feed which would be covered by international broadcasts. It is the UK broadcast having their own pundit and crew. Then it’s Bt/sky using their box office service to broadcast. All that will need paying.
 
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.
 
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.

If sky and bt offered that for matches at a reduced fee I’d be all over that. Sack off all the glitz and pass the savings to us.
 
[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.
 
There's talk about a price drop to £9.99 per match , which just makes them out to be even bigger money grabbing cunts hunting for that sweet spot on terms of pricing

Surely Amazon have the financial clout to agree a bigger TV deal than sky or BT ? They create Prime sport and televise all league matches for £14.99 a month or whatever


PL TV money is 1.5bn per season. Divide that by a year for ease is 125m per month ish

125m divided over £15 per sub is 8/9m subs required a month , I'm sure Amazon or netflix could manage that

In truth you could divide the packages up and not go for the whole fixture list and it would still be super viable for all parties


In truth £15 would be the low end but who wouldn't pay sky's current pricing for an infinitely better package?

The fact is, the premier League is going out of its way to juggle greed and providing the worst VFM package for its customers as possible, it's remarkable really that they've done it so successfully over 20 odd years and made the league the biggest thing in any competitive sport globally
 
I guess they were thinking normally a ticket costs £40... boxing PPV costs whatever... so £15 isn't too bad.

I'd probably pay whatever they were charging if there were no alternatives but there are. They're really late to the party on the whole streaming side of things.
 
Exactly! If one of those networks/streaming sites offered every game available in HD/4k whatever for £25/month you’d probably see a huge drop off in streams. The competition laws/greed of tv companies means we will never see 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.

Hang on I thought £14.95 was doing it at cost, is a tenner covering costs or not?

They should listen to Mike Ashley, every pound they drop in price increases the viewing figures. £5 sounds like the right place to be for cost v viewing numbers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom