Premier league TV games - 2nd class treatment to "smaller" clubs - Sunday Telegraph today.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Fulwood Blade

Fulwood Blade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
12,091
Location
yes, Fulwood
This is an article from todays Sunday Telegraph, highlighting that Newcastle aren't on the TV in the opening chosen games. We are mentioned in the article about only been on once at home to Leeds, but 5 of the big 6 (Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and man City) are on every game.

The article mentions the potential for illegal feeds.

It's an interesting scenario really as there are probably many among us that didn't miss a single AWAY game last season and now it's going to be the same for HOME games.

Quite prepared to stump up real money to get a real game legally...............so what are the Premier league and TV companies bothered about? Premier league meeting this Thursday to discuss apparently - any chance of change?

UTB

tele.jpg
 

Fulwood Blade said:
Quite prepared to stump up real money to get a real game legally...............so what are the Premier league and TV companies bothered about? Premier league meeting this Thursday to discuss apparently - any chance of change?
Click to expand...

The PL are run by Sky and they say who's on TV the bias towards the richer clubs is unbelievable, if truth be told how many times have we seen a classic Liverpool V Man Utd game in history of PL I'm struggling to remember.
 
bypassblade said:
The PL are run by Sky and they say who's on TV the bias towards the richer clubs is unbelievable, if truth be told how many times have we seen a classic Liverpool V Man Utd game in history of PL I'm struggling to remember.
Click to expand...

Simple economics really......and common sense......clubs with bigger world wide fanbases bring in the big money.

We don’t complain really. We collect our £120 million from Sky....
compare this to £6 the million given to the Championship, £3 million given to the Scottish PL, £1 million given to league 1 and £500,000 given to league 2 clubs.

The huge financial disparity seems morally unfair but Sky would argue that those figures/ rewards are based on revenue those leagues earn them.
Sky data shows that the big 6 bring in far more viewing figures than the other teams put together. Hence those clubs have always argued for a bigger slice of the pie.
The PL have resisted and given slight rewards based on league position but even the smallest clubs with little fanbase still earn massive money in the PL.

However a solution could be an additional subscription service for this season .....let’s say £10 a match.
 
There has to be a legal way of watching every behind closed doors match this season, there is even a case that matches with reduced capacity should all be broadcast as well.

Illegal streams are so widely available that the Premier League need to embrace showing every match live in the UK legally. They just need to protect stadium attendances by introducing a blackout system where a match can only be live if a minimum of 90% of tickets are sold.
 
Has any reason been given for why all the games aren't being shown this season? Nothing has materially changed since the conclusion of last season.

As a compromise I'd suggest Sky keep picking the 4 - 5 matches per week they show normally and the rest are all sold as box office events.

Would give Sky the chance to earn an extra few quid to cover the costs of covering additional games and would give the fans a chance to watch the games legally while they don't have the option to be there in person.

A lot of people (myself included) are capable of finding other ways to watch it, but that can be hit and miss for quality, delay, commentary etc. If Sky put each of our games up at £7.99 or something to watch live then I am sure a lot of people would prefer that to a stream.
 
Im sure I saw a report that there was an agreement to allow screening of matches on Saturday at 3.00pm so all matches could be seen ? I fucking hope so - I hadnt missed any match home or away for over 35 years and its been so frustrating to not be able to go to a match. But if we cant even see them either its total nonsense. This is pure discrimination against the clubs outside of the glamour sides.
 
So is this really news. It's been going on since the start.

The Big 5 have changed since the early '90's but it's still the same story.

Two years after the start of the Premier league there was no way they were going to allow Everton one of the Big 5 (in those days) get relegated.

That's not what they had planned.

On May 7th 1994 they had to find some fall guys.

It's a 'Them & Us' both off and on the pitch. Let's hope Chris Wilder can continue to give as many bloody noses on the pitch as possible.
 
I don’t see why the Premier League don’t just run their own subscription service - I think a big proportion of fans would be happy to pay £20 a month to be able to watch all the games.

They’d make a lot from doing that when you think how many football fans there are.
 
Here's the thing, Sky want the games that will bring the most viewers. And sad as it may be, Man City and Liverpool will bring more viewers than Newcastle or Brighton will. So if the Prem pressured Sky to show an even distribution there's a likelihood Sky turn round and offer less money. I doubt many of the clubs are up for that if push comes to shove.

But the big issue is that the games are all already being recorded and broadcast live across the world. We have this weird rule that games on Saturday at 3 o'clock can't be broadcast though because of some old belief that people would stop going to games. At this point, even ignoring the current unique circumstances, that's a risk you'd think most would be willing to take. Tickets are expensive enough as it is. If you go to see a game in person then it's because you really want to be there in person. Most Prem teams are restricted more by stadium capacity than ability to sell tickets and the ones that aren't are probably full of hardcore fans anyway.

Just lift the restrictions, allow the games to be broadcast in the UK, problem solved. As it stands there's this ridiculous situation where demand for an away game can vastly outstrip availability yet my only alternative is to take pick of whether I'd like Dutch or Thai commentary with my illegal stream knowing it's subject to freezing or being taken down mid-game. Where's the sense in that? Stop getting in your own way, provide a service, and take my money. I'm a sucker for football, I'll pay it.
 
i dont understand why we dont have the same agreement. surely the premier league werent that naive to think that everything would be rosy 6 weeks later. you need to broadcast every game. but because it will not be if but when people find illegal streams. premier league should call Eddie hearn
 
When we leave the EU The Premier League will be able to sell the fixtures to one provider again as they did in the 90s.. my guess is that they will partner up with Amazon who financially can blow the rest of the broadcasters out of the water.
 

Harry's Game said:
When we leave the EU The Premier League will be able to sell the fixtures to one provider again as they did in the 90s.. my guess is that they will partner up with Amazon who financially can blow the rest of the broadcasters out of the water.
Click to expand...
Actually the EU was against the way the Premier League collectively sold their rights. They wanted a system whereby clubs sold their own rights. The Premier League committed to selling to more than one broadcaster to prevent breaking competition law. If the current process is stopped there would be nothing to stop clubs selling their own rights like they do in Spain and Italy. Be careful what you wish for.
 
I sympathise with the position, watching our games on a screen isn't a problem for me like it is for most.

I do wonder, though, if there's a proportion of Newcastle fans who will now realise they're not a big club anymore?
 
MobileBlade said:
Actually the EU was against the way the Premier League collectively sold their rights. They wanted a system whereby clubs sold their own rights. The Premier League committed to selling to more than one broadcaster to prevent breaking competition law. If the current process is stopped there would be nothing to stop clubs selling their own rights like they do in Spain and Italy. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand the model I think they will go down, They could partner up with Amazon, who would broadcast live games in a similar manner to Sky and BT.. AND alongside run a pay per view model with Amazon where all the rest of the games would be available on pay per view With profits shared between broadcaster and club.
 
Sheffsteel said:
However a solution could be an additional subscription service for this season .....let’s say £10 a match.
Click to expand...

I know all Championship are going on a streaming service, but what about leagues 1 & 2 they must be allowed to survive. I know to some the PL is the be all and end all but people forget, when we had proper football Liverpool and such relied on teams like Chester, Oxford Scunthorpe to name a few.
 
bornablade said:
So is this really news. It's been going on since the start.

The Big 5 have changed since the early '90's but it's still the same story.

Two years after the start of the Premier league there was no way they were going to allow Everton one of the Big 5 (in those days) get relegated.

That's not what they had planned.

On May 7th 1994 they had to find some fall guys.

It's a 'Them & Us' both off and on the pitch. Let's hope Chris Wilder can continue to give as many bloody noses on the pitch as possible.
Click to expand...
Erm fans used to be able to attend? That's different from before
 
The worst part of this is that it's not too difficult for many of us to find an 'unofficial' stream to watch the games, but there are lots of fans out there who aren't as technologically-inclined who are going to miss out.

It's incredible that the Premier League is conspiring with the broadcasters to prevent fans from being able to watch their team.
 
MobileBlade said:
Actually the EU was against the way the Premier League collectively sold their rights. They wanted a system whereby clubs sold their own rights. The Premier League committed to selling to more than one broadcaster to prevent breaking competition law. If the current process is stopped there would be nothing to stop clubs selling their own rights like they do in Spain and Italy. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Spain moved to a centralised TV deal a few years ago.

If the Premier League wanted to move away from a centralised TV rights model, it would surely require a majority vote. As it would only benefit 5 or 6 clubs, there is no way it would ever happen.
 
YES Blade said:
Spain moved to a centralised TV deal a few years ago.

If the Premier League wanted to move away from a centralised TV rights model, it would surely require a majority vote. As it would only benefit 5 or 6 clubs, there is no way it would ever happen.
Click to expand...

Agree....the big issue regards PL football is that the big 6 have a massive worldwide pulling power.

They’d love a subscription service where each club is paid based on viewing figures. However this would make the financial gap wider.

The argument regards the current deal is that yes....the big 6 receive less money but the lower clubs in the PL receive more money making the league stronger and more attractive as a whole.
 
sheff_blade90 said:
i dont understand why we dont have the same agreement. surely the premier league werent that naive to think that everything would be rosy 6 weeks later. you need to broadcast every game. but because it will not be if but when people find illegal streams. premier league should call Eddie hearn
Click to expand...

Hearn has every game live and on demand on DAZN Canada.I can thoroughly recommend it 😉.
 
The other 15 can't afford to risk any change which potentially rewards the big five pro-rata to their worldwide appeal.
Being one of the other 15 means that we get to share in the PL income which derives mainly from the big 5.
Beggars can't be choosers.
If our TV income didn't come courtesy of the PL , we wouldn't have any.
Like it or lump it.
 
YES Blade said:
Spain moved to a centralised TV deal a few years ago.

If the Premier League wanted to move away from a centralised TV rights model, it would surely require a majority vote. As it would only benefit 5 or 6 clubs, there is no way it would ever happen.
Click to expand...
Think you might think there are probably more than that who think they would be better off. Might be closer than you think.
 
Seems bizarre to me that something branding itself as entertainment can hold events that no UK fan can legally see - either in person or on TV.
What's the point of playing a match no-one can see? May as well play it on FIFA 2020.
 
Is there a way United could give season ticket holders access to live streaming of all our home games?
 
Honestly feel that any games sķy don't want to broadcast should be shown on free to view by whichever channel wants to pick it up.
See how the 'big 6' fans feel then.
 

By not showing matches people will go to iptv quite simple
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom