Premier league to go ppv this month

[YES Blade]

I think people are more outraged over the price. £15 per 90 minutes of football on TV. £570 per season.

So still cheaper than a season ticket and paying for away tickets then? Plus you can have 15 people round one TV if you’ve got that many mates willing to pay a quid each.

 

[Danetheblade]

I heard they only had small cocks in Barnsley

Must be why it's cheaper.. less work.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Thank God for Dazn Canada. I'll be travelling to Canada every week before our games like I have for years. Football these days disgusts me on many levels.

 

[PokerBlade]

A game at the Lane pay as you go is between £25 and £45 quid isn’t it (for an adult)?

Paying £15 for a match on TV when we’ve spent £50m on transfers isn’t out of the way in my view.

Forget Sky and BT, it’s nothing to do with what you pay for them, it’s a way of the club generating revenue.

But it's not the same product or service. If I pay for a ticket then I'm buying a strictly limited quantity product and I'm getting to be there in person. The cameras are already there, the game is already being broadcast around the world, and the product is in principle infinitely reproduceable (i.e. there's no practical limit on how many households it could be broadcast to). And it's a service I've already been getting for a given price that is now going up by approx. £15/week. At a time where my own finances are being squeezed.

Whether it's the PL, Sky, or the clubs, or all of them in agreement, someone's gouging me.

 

[Kenilworth]

Doubt if that will happen this season

And I'll probably miss much of next season but for good reasons

I’d worry with you being there. Keep safe, my friend

 

[nopigfansintown]

But as someone living in the UK to get this you’d have to find a job, get a visa, pack up your stuff, find a house, move, get settled in, sort a Dazn subscription out. So it’s entirely irrelevant what they get in Canada isn’t it?! The tit.

No, such things are never irrelevant.

 

[Jon Bon II]

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

I’d worry with you being there. Keep safe, my friend

Thank you.

And you.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Not saying that at all. Just pointing out that the majority of Blades games will not get selected for PPV. Even when they do (Liverpool away) the PPV income will probably go to the home team?

For those who can afford Sky/BT subscription, and don’t mind watching with no fans in the stadium, it will represent reasonable value for what’s available now.

How many Blades home games will get selected for PPV do you think? (That’s just me being cynical)
My present time zone is UK + 7 hours, so in reality, early kick off games are the only ones I can watch or listen to anyway.

I think you're missing the bigger picture: financially this massively favours glory clubs. Sheffield U v Fulham will pull a few thousand PPV views.

Man U or Liverpool or Arsenal or Chelsea vs whoever will pull in 10's of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands?

Football clubs like us already have to fight against an unfair system where 3 or 4 clubs are enriched by glory fans snapping up merchandise, tickets, dedicated TV channels, and so on and so forth.

TV revenue has always been fairly distributed. With one swoop, overnight, we now have a system where the rich get richer and the poor (aka: us!) get a hell of a lot poorer.

Do you really think once they get a smell of the cash this will go away? If you accept this now, this will be the way of things forever. When fans are allowed back in stadia, things will be even worse for small clubs, because now every glory hunter is paying £15 to watch his team on TV, and next to nobody is paying to watch Sheffield United, or Burnley, or West Brom, or Fulham, or .... (because most of the fans are attending the game!).

Congratulations.. you just further entrenched Premier League exclusivity.

 

[Danetheblade]

Yeah yeah, me too.

 

[nopigfansintown]

My German friend has just bought a DAZN gift card so he can watch sports in his country. A great help for foreign Blades to watch United who for some reason can't or don't want to subscribe through the website : https://www.amazon.de/DAZN-Streaming-Service-Gutschein-Mail/dp/B07Q1D1BHX/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&dchild=1&keywords=dazn&qid=1602284744&sr=8-1

He uses the DAZN app on his firestick or chromecasts from the laptop: https://www.amazon.de/DAZN/dp/B01IPC7MBE/ref=sr_1_3?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&dchild=1&keywords=dazn&qid=1602284744&sr=8-3

If people are looking for reliable VPNS to protect their cyber security I will DM a good recommendation.

 

[Dimyan93]

Well done Leicester for being the only team against this.

So ashamed that we didn't join them. Money money money

 

[originaltrueblade]

Premier League under fire

Redirect Notice

 

[Deleted member 1486]

And this is another important point! (Alyson Rudd)

Clubs’ short-sighted move will backfire

There was, until recently, a ban on live TV coverage of games that kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday. This was to protect attendance at smaller clubs who feared their supporters might be tempted to stay indoors on wet October afternoons and watch something more glamorous and comfortable.

That blackout, first adopted in the 1960s, ended with the pandemic. Games can now be covered live at 3pm on a Saturday without fear of attendance repercussions because no fans can attend live games anyway. This left the way open for the broadcasters to fill a void. If fans could not attend any game, big or small, then they could help raise the spirit of a worried nation by at least giving them access to all top-flight matches whether they kicked off at 3pm or not.


Ironically, during Project Restart — the effort to finish the 2019-20 season when it resumed after a three-month hiatus in June — only one Premier League match would tend to kick off at 3pm, with the rest staggered across the weekend with a live slot. It is just another point at which a referee blows his whistle. Right now, it is football that needs protecting, not just one of its kick-off times.

What a boon, though, for those who subscribe to BT Sport and Sky Sports. They were being offered more matches than normal and even those who could not afford a subscription service were offered the occasional live game on the BBC. Amazon Prime got in on the act too. Football has been a ray of hope in bleak times.
Did it feel too good to be true, a little on the crazy side of altruistic? It certainly feels that way now. BT and Sky will now charge existing subscribers to watch the games that they had not originally planned to broadcast as part of their service.

Broadcasting every match has been a bit of a burden, it turns out, and the extra money raised will go towards production costs, with some channelled back to the clubs.

It will be the broadcasters who receive the flak, however. The reason for subscribing up front to the sports channels is for the reassurance that if there is a match on TV, then you will be able to see it. We do not have a pay-per-view culture here beyond the occasional boxing bout, the need to subscribe to which is part of the experience and adds to the novelty.

The first fixtures that will require extra payment will be those games scheduled for 3pm kick-offs next Saturday, including Chelsea v Southampton and Newcastle United v Manchester United. Clubs must either find a way to refund season-ticket holders who fork out the extra £15 per game or abandon any hope that being a season-ticket holder means anything at all and make complete refunds.

More broadly, though, while the clubs may be desperate to recoup more TV revenue, this is a short-sighted decision. If Sheffield United v Fulham is screened as part of the original service then both clubs will be watched by a larger number of neutrals and will have a chance to impress youngsters who have to choose their team somehow.

The clubs are killing the chance for someone to say, in ten years: “Oh, I started supporting Burnley because of how they put nine past West Bromwich Albion in October 2020, when the pandemic meant all I did was watch football on the telly.”

They are far less likely to state that they started supporting Burnley because their cricket-mad parents decided to fork out an extra £14.95 for next weekend’s Premier League game at the Hawthorns.

These are difficult times. Revenue is evaporating but goodwill and foresight should not be abandoned just as the most cynical were starting to love football for its efforts to get up and running and keep us happy.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

I think you're missing the bigger picture: financially this massively favours glory clubs. Sheffield U v Fulham will pull a few thousand PPV views.

Man U or Liverpool or Arsenal or Chelsea vs whoever will pull in 10's of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands?

Football clubs like us already have to fight against an unfair system where 3 or 4 clubs are enriched by glory fans snapping up merchandise, tickets, dedicated TV channels, and so on and so forth.

TV revenue has always been fairly distributed. With one swoop, overnight, we now have a system where the rich get richer and the poor (aka: us!) get a hell of a lot poorer.

Do you really think once they get a smell of the cash this will go away? If you accept this now, this will be the way of things forever. When fans are allowed back in stadia, things will be even worse for small clubs, because now every glory hunter is paying £15 to watch his team on TV, and next to nobody is paying to watch Sheffield United, or Burnley, or West Brom, or Fulham, or .... (because most of the fans are attending the game!).

Congratulations.. you just further entrenched Premier League exclusivity.

You're absolutely right.

Of course they wouldn't think of sharing the income equally would they?

 

[Digger]

A game at the Lane pay as you go is between £25 and £45 quid isn’t it (for an adult)?

Paying £15 for a match on TV when we’ve spent £50m on transfers isn’t out of the way in my view.

Forget Sky and BT, it’s nothing to do with what you pay for them, it’s a way of the club generating revenue.

There maybe just a few Blades who are a bit struggling with finances at the moment. Apparently some shit is going down this year that is having a big influence on where to spend the bit you have put aside for "luxuries".
£5 is enough.

 

[nopigfansintown]

After becoming well versed in what foreign subscribers to premier league football pay, I won't ever have a Sky or BT subscription package: never mind supporting this ludicrous PPV model. British football supporters are taken for absolute mugs. At a time when the economy is in tatters it absolutely stinks.

 

[LudlamBlade]

Even with a three way split between the broadcaster and both clubs it's still only £5 to each team per match.

Like the idea of this though...

 

[s4-blade]

People actually pay to watch football on TV when streaming sites/iptv exist?
Baffling.

 

[robbiez666]

I would pay £5-10 to watch a game if that was it. No extra sky/bt cost.

If the clubs expect to get £100 million plus for broadcast rights, this is the cost. Why would Sky & BT allow clubs to ppv when they've paid so muchvto get those rights? People would stop subscribing and just ppv

Football itself has to change. Wages, fees, tv money, tickets. It's all too high. Money has ruined the game from top to bottom

 

[MobileBlade]

I've paid £10 to watch Harrogate Town on 4 occasions and I don't mind paying that to a lower league club whose income relies largely on gate receipts.

Most of the games I've seen on Now TV have hardly been worth watching ( not just United games) and I certainly wouldn't want to pay any more than £10 per game.

It's about time Premier League clubs stopped spending obscene amounts of money on transfers fees and wages.

That's just what people were saying in the Brewster thread. Don't pay the money they were saying. Its obsene.......

 

[Charlieblade]

I think you're missing the bigger picture: financially this massively favours glory clubs. Sheffield U v Fulham will pull a few thousand PPV views.

Man U or Liverpool or Arsenal or Chelsea vs whoever will pull in 10's of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands?

Football clubs like us already have to fight against an unfair system where 3 or 4 clubs are enriched by glory fans snapping up merchandise, tickets, dedicated TV channels, and so on and so forth.

TV revenue has always been fairly distributed. With one swoop, overnight, we now have a system where the rich get richer and the poor (aka: us!) get a hell of a lot poorer.

Do you really think once they get a smell of the cash this will go away? If you accept this now, this will be the way of things forever. When fans are allowed back in stadia, things will be even worse for small clubs, because now every glory hunter is paying £15 to watch his team on TV, and next to nobody is paying to watch Sheffield United, or Burnley, or West Brom, or Fulham, or .... (because most of the fans are attending the game!).

Congratulations.. you just further entrenched Premier League exclusivity.

I think that assessment is a bit of a whoosh on your part. As I already explained, in reply to your first enquirer, my view may be couched in sarcasm, which does not translate well in the written word.
I do not support the system, I simply pointed out that when and if Blades games get picked up for this service, it is likely to be infrequent, therefore, fans who already have a subscription are more likely to have the game included in current packages.
At no point did I recommend it, quite the opposite. Much of your post simply repeats what I have already said. We won’t get picked for it, so the big clubs will. The results of that selection favours the big clubs, so obvious, it’s hardly worth pointing out.
I am not as dumb as you assume I am.

 

[Houston_Blade]

But it's not the same product or service. If I pay for a ticket then I'm buying a strictly limited quantity product and I'm getting to be there in person. The cameras are already there, the game is already being broadcast around the world, and the product is in principle infinitely reproduceable (i.e. there's no practical limit on how many households it could be broadcast to). And it's a service I've already been getting for a given price that is now going up by approx. £15/week. At a time where my own finances are being squeezed.

Whether it's the PL, Sky, or the clubs, or all of them in agreement, someone's gouging me.

That’s your choice. It would also be the clubs choice not to sign decent players and pay decent wages without the revenue that they were expected coming into the coffers.

I haven’t paid for a season ticket this season so I’m £500 plus £100 for my son up in terms of football as it is. I don’t mind spending £15 x 10 assuming it’s for the club to help them out a bit.

 

[Houston_Blade]

There maybe just a few Blades who are a bit struggling with finances at the moment. Apparently some shit is going down this year that is having a big influence on where to spend the bit you have put aside for "luxuries".
£5 is enough.

If they are struggling then they don’t have to pay or watch. There’s a choice. It’s £10 for the championship so £15 for the PL seems fair enough to me and might covers some of the £15m black hole that people have spoken about in lost matchday revenue.

 

[SteveBlade]

 

[Mumbo]

£14.99!!!! I can get a blowjob for that.

Is that teeth out or teeth in?

 

[Kanye]

But as someone living in the UK to get this you’d have to find a job, get a visa, pack up your stuff, find a house, move, get settled in, sort a Dazn subscription out. So it’s entirely irrelevant what they get in Canada isn’t it?! The tit.

Or you could use s VPN?

A game at the Lane pay as you go is between £25 and £45 quid isn’t it (for an adult)?

Paying £15 for a match on TV when we’ve spent £50m on transfers isn’t out of the way in my view.

Forget Sky and BT, it’s nothing to do with what you pay for them, it’s a way of the club generating revenue.

Going to the lane or watching on TV is barely comparable IMO

 

[LudlamBlade]

If they are struggling then they don’t have to pay or watch. There’s a choice. It’s £10 for the championship so £15 for the PL seems fair enough to me and might covers some of the £15m black hole that people have spoken about in lost matchday revenue.

How much of the £14.95 do you reckon will go to the clubs involved? I'm guessing (based upon no knowledge of the deal, just a little bit of standard business acumen) it's less than an equal three way split, which means less than £5 going to each club.

You're funding skysports and BT to give their directors payrises, same for the chief execs at the Premier League.

It's not just a matter of
..

"If you don't want to pay it, then don't watch it."

A more pressing restriction is that a lot of lower income households simply can't afford to pay an extra £15-60pm, and it's a bit harsh to just say...

"Can't afford it? Don't watch it."

...considering the Blades are basically lifeblood for a lot of fans.

Zero chance of getting in to watch games, zero atmosphere when you do watch, and yet we're being asked to pay nearly £15 a match to follow our team.

Bear in mind how many folk have been laid off/made redundant etc and suddenly the whole thing comes across as pretty heartless! Would love to hear what Marcus Rashford MBE thinks about it.

Go and spend 10 x £15 in the club shop or donate it direct to the treasury if you want to help the club. Lining the pockets of the EPL, BT and SkySports is never going to do that.

All Blades aren't we. UTB FTP IWWT TCIO UFUMS COYRAWW

 

[Mumbo]

About to be announced......Whilst there will still be your games as usual on sky/Bt. All the extra games eg.3pm kick offs will be charged at £14.99 per game on top of your monthly tv subscription. Fulham v Blades will be ppv. All of the proceeds is going straight to the clubs to subsidise them during covid. This will be ongoing until fans are allowed back in.

What a fucked up world.
Football is awash with millionaires and billionaires
who could bale out the entire football pyramid without getting out of bed but no,let’s milk the fans.

 

[LudlamBlade]

How much of the £14.95 do you reckon will go to the clubs involved? I'm guessing (based upon no knowledge of the deal, just a little bit of standard business acumen) it's less than an equal three way split, which means less than £5 going to each club.

You're funding skysports and BT to give their directors payrises, same for the chief execs at the Premier League.

It's not just a matter of
..

"If you don't want to pay it, then don't watch it."

A more pressing restriction is that a lot of lower income households simply can't afford to pay an extra £15-60pm, and it's a bit harsh to just say...

"Can't afford it? Don't watch it."

...considering the Blades are basically lifeblood for a lot of fans.

Zero chance of getting in to watch games, zero atmosphere when you do watch, and yet we're being asked to pay nearly £15 a match to follow our team.

Bear in mind how many folk have been laid off/made redundant etc and suddenly the whole thing comes across as pretty heartless! Would love to hear what Marcus Rashford MBE thinks about it.

Go and spend 10 x £15 in the club shop or donate it direct to the treasury if you want to help the club. Lining the pockets of the EPL, BT and SkySports is never going to do that.

All Blades aren't we. UTB FTP IWWT TCIO UFUMS COYRAWW

Apologies for the long rant, been awake ower 24 hour now and starting to see the fuzzy side of life!