Jump to content

Football Thread 2020/2021


Recommended Posts

I don't get it. Those £15 PPV games are for games that isn't covered under the Sky Sports or BT Sport sub at all. So if there wasn't a pandemic it wouldn't be screened at all.

 

Yes some people would have paid a season ticket already but that's an argument between them and the club, not to do with the broadcaster? The clubs should be refunding the cash or allowing season ticket holders to view their games for free?

 

That said, £15 is a fair bit of cash though, you'd think they'd make it very cheap or for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smoothy said:

I don't get it. Those £15 PPV games are for games that isn't covered under the Sky Sports or BT Sport sub at all. So if there wasn't a pandemic it wouldn't be screened at all.

 

If there wasn't a pandemic, you could go to them,

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smoothy said:

I don't get it. Those £15 PPV games are for games that isn't covered under the Sky Sports or BT Sport sub at all. So if there wasn't a pandemic it wouldn't be screened at all.

 

Yes some people would have paid a season ticket already but that's an argument between them and the club, not to do with the broadcaster? The clubs should be refunding the cash or allowing season ticket holders to view their games for free?

 

That said, £15 is a fair bit of cash though, you'd think they'd make it very cheap or for free.

 

It's even worse if you support a "lesser" team like Palace, where your games are shown on Sky/BT less often, so you'd end up paying for more £15 matches than the fans of the 'big' clubs. 

 

Based on  the below (from the last "normal" season), a Southampton fan with Sky/BT also has to pay for 30 games/£450 to watch every game vs 9 games/£135 for a Liverpool fan.

 

All clubs are guaranteed income for minimum number of games, but that doesn't actually mean they get to be shown at least that many times.

 

Most-Televised in 2018/19 season:)

Liverpool                        29     TV income: £33.5m
Manchester United         27    TV income: £31.2m
Man City                         26    TV income: £30.1m

Tottenham                     26    TV income: £30.1m
Chelsea                         25    TV income: £29m
Arsenal                         25    TV income: £29m
Newcastle United         19    TV income: £22.3m
Everton                         18    TV income: £21.2m
West Ham                     16    TV income: £19m
Wolves                            15    TV income: £17.9m
Leicester City                 15    TV income: £17.9m
Fulham                         13    TV income: £15.7m
Brighton                         13    TV income: £15.7m
Crystal Palace             12    TV income: £14.6m
Cardiff City                     12    TV income: £14.6m
Burnley                         11    TV income: £13.5m
Watford                         10    TV income: £12.3m
Bournemouth                 8    TV income: £12.3m
Southampton                 8    TV income: £12.3m
Huddersfield                    8    TV Income: £12.3m

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smoothy said:

Exactly.  So seeing as you can't, either they don't screen them at all or they screen them for a charge?

 

Or they could just screen them and not try to nickel and dime the fans with a 4th distinct service they have to "sub" to just to watch a single team play football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skadupuk said:

 

It's even worse if you support a "lesser" team like Palace, where your games are shown on Sky/BT less often, so you'd end up paying for more £15 matches than the fans of the 'big' clubs. 

 

Based on  the below (from the last "normal" season), a Southampton fan with Sky/BT also has to pay for 30 games/£450 to watch every game vs 9 games/£135 for a Liverpool fan.

 

All clubs are guaranteed income for minimum number of games, but that doesn't actually mean they get to be shown at least that many times.

 

Most-Televised in 2018/19 season:)

Liverpool                        29     TV income: £33.5m
Manchester United         27    TV income: £31.2m
Man City                         26    TV income: £30.1m

Tottenham                     26    TV income: £30.1m
Chelsea                         25    TV income: £29m
Arsenal                         25    TV income: £29m
Newcastle United         19    TV income: £22.3m
Everton                         18    TV income: £21.2m
West Ham                     16    TV income: £19m
Wolves                            15    TV income: £17.9m
Leicester City                 15    TV income: £17.9m
Fulham                         13    TV income: £15.7m
Brighton                         13    TV income: £15.7m
Crystal Palace             12    TV income: £14.6m
Cardiff City                     12    TV income: £14.6m
Burnley                         11    TV income: £13.5m
Watford                         10    TV income: £12.3m
Bournemouth                 8    TV income: £12.3m
Southampton                 8    TV income: £12.3m
Huddersfield                    8    TV Income: £12.3m

 

Although to be fair, in every other year those Huddersfield fans are paying a lot more than £305 less for their season ticket...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plissken said:

Chelsea are very entertaining this year.  I'm just not sure that they mean to be.

 

it almost like they are being forced to give the opponents a goal by playing Kepa as a penalty or handicap for all the money they spent in the summer

 

he makes Pickford look an assured, reliable and calming influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dizogg said:


Yeah, anyone who would consider paying £15 on one game of football almost certainly has a sky sports subscription, probably BT Sport as well.

 

I pay more than that every game in normal times and I don't get replays!

Link to post
Share on other sites


I’ve had this goalkeeping bug in PES, I think it’s to do with the goalkeeper AI misjudging the speed of the ball and laying down to block it instead of kicking it away. It’s Kepa’s error for Southamptons second goal for when this tweet is deleted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost impossible to soak up pressure from City and then break on them, as the second you do you get a snide pullback which fizzles any move out. Still, doesn't stop us trying that approach again though. 28th time's the charm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smoothy said:

Exactly.  So seeing as you can't, either they don't screen them at all or they screen them for a charge?

 

The price is the stupid bit, but it's also worth stating those aren't the only two options available to the Premier League.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

It's almost impossible to soak up pressure from City and then break on them, as the second you do you get a snide pullback which fizzles any move out. Still, doesn't stop us trying that approach again though. 28th time's the charm. 

 

City do not do tactical fouling.  Pep was very, very upset when he was accused of this.  He said it was an outrageous suggestion.

 

(He didn't say it was an incorrect one.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 5R7 said:

 

Nah, someone, anyone should be pushing the premier league to explain why we're getting arm pits as offside. Everyone should be happy as it'll make the game better for everyone.

 

Thinking the Pickford thing should be investigated shows up the real nasty football fans who can only find pleasure in the misery of others. That was an awful attempt at a tackle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, skadupuk said:

 

It's even worse if you support a "lesser" team like Palace, where your games are shown on Sky/BT less often, so you'd end up paying for more £15 matches than the fans of the 'big' clubs. 

 

Based on  the below (from the last "normal" season), a Southampton fan with Sky/BT also has to pay for 30 games/£450 to watch every game vs 9 games/£135 for a Liverpool fan.

 

 

That wont last though.   You can easily see from YouTube viewing figures of highlights or social media followers which clubs get the biggest audiences (clue: it's the ones who win every week) and they are the ones that broadcasters actually care about.  Once all this settles down and the idea of PPV isn't new or scary then it's going to be the bigger clubs who will be on PPV a lot more, and they'll demand a bigger cut of those revenues.  Why would Sky (or BT/Amazon/whoever holds the rights) try and sell, say, Fulham vs Burnley as a PPV game when they can do Liverpool vs Manchester United? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Naysonymous said:

 

That wont last though.   You can easily see from YouTube viewing figures of highlights or social media followers which clubs get the biggest audiences (clue: it's the ones who win every week) and they are the ones that broadcasters actually care about.  Once all this settles down and the idea of PPV isn't new or scary then it's going to be the bigger clubs who will be on PPV a lot more, and they'll demand a bigger cut of those revenues.  Why would Sky (or BT/Amazon/whoever holds the rights) try and sell, say, Fulham vs Burnley as a PPV game when they can do Liverpool vs Manchester United? 

Think about why Microsoft is pushing Gamepass instead of just sticking to selling games the 'normal' way and you'll be close to the reason why your scenario won't happen for quite a while yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.