£15 Quid a Game. | Page 13 | Vital Football

£15 Quid a Game.

£15 to watch on TV Fair or Not?

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
I put on the reasons for cancelling Now TV that there weren’t enough Aston Villa games, and we were being screwed the most. That feedback is for sky, and I get their point it wasn’t them that set the price perhaps.

But I can’t influence that, an email to someone high at AVFC is going to do what? Tens of thousands of disgruntled Sky customers... that’s a good bit of power Sky have to go back to the league.

At least do tiering. The top games are £15, the red plastics to watch a game against another set of plastics in red will pay that money regardless. The likes of a good Villa game, no more than £9.99, an ordinary one £5.99.
 
Last edited:
Apparently around 20,000 viewers for our first PPV game. Don’t know how that compares to normal but sounds a bit rubbish & I’m sure the likes of West Brom will be even worse
 
Is it the price point that is the issue here, given that we won't be given games for free like we did after project re-start?

Had an interesting debate tonight about this. The revenue for clubs is tiny for this. fine, we get that I think. The backlash for BT and Sky has embarrassed them and again, fine, I think we get that.

But you actually want to see the games don't you? Whilst you don't have the choice to go to games?

If it isn't free, but is reasonable, do you think that then means 'you' would pay? Or are you just being pushed to piracy like iptv regardless?

My take was I pay for Sky, BT, Amazon and then am asked to pay more (and no discount for being a subscriber compared to those who don't pay - albeit that is a side issue I didn't bring up) ... so £15 I think was steep.

IF I had the choice to go to a game, or ppv, I don't think I would mind then, as it would be a choice. This is not a choice when you are obsessed, ie take it or leave it, is it?

I don't really have the health for away games these days, so I would choose - due to that fact - to pay PPV if given the choice (it was clear that isn't the plan or model of sky/bt and it won't become an option!)

Seems to me, from the discussion, that in some ways, this is more hassle than it is worth for clubs, PL, broadcasters, especially with the backlash from many of us.

So then, it would be down to the odd game picked up by Sky/BT (as was the case pre-covid) , then radio and/or the match of the day type of highlights. But no chance of going live yet, and no way to watch it on ppv etc.

What do you do then?

In my opinion, you (I am talking about most of us collectively, not talking for 'you') would just look at streams and iptv like many are doing now.

I think at a time of all this covid worry, lives, relatives, jobs on the line, the obsession of this sort of thing is important. The other read on that is it is so low down the pecking order, it won't impact most people if they can't watch it.

?
 
david-avfc said:
Apparently around 20,000 viewers for our first PPV game. Don’t know how that compares to normal but sounds a bit rubbish & I’m sure the likes of West Brom will be even worse
Click to expand...

Saw the same and commented earlier mate. Very bad take up based on normal viewing figures in my mind.

Think the figure I saw related to the Leic game though re 20k, and I'm sure the stream I was on had a 30k plus 'people watching' figure, so it's a massive own goal.

Again, I could be wrong, but for PPV the broadcasters are taking costs, the rest goes to the clubs to split - not sure how that sits with your chat JF, because it really feels like clubs are positioning against the broadcasters here from what I've read.
 
mike_field said:
Again, I could be wrong, but for PPV the broadcasters are taking costs, the rest goes to the clubs to split - not sure how that sits with your chat JF, because it really feels like clubs are positioning against the broadcasters here from what I've read.
Click to expand...

No, think they are all grappling with what to do in unprecedented times. Just can't help but think their wrong steps (the price point in this instance) is pushing even more (usually honest) people to the illegal streams and once you see them working, do you then really go back to these big corporations?!
 
Oh and grappling with their business plans obviously. The clubs need the broadcasters money... NEED it totally. The broadcasters don't want to offer every game, they want their business model to stand.

Then along comes a pandemic and fans want to see their teams.
 
The Fear said:
No, think they are all grappling with what to do in unprecedented times. Just can't help but think their wrong steps (the price point in this instance) is pushing even more (usually honest) people to the illegal streams and once you see them working, do you then really go back to these big corporations?!
Click to expand...

No completely agree with that and pushing people to streams etc.

Was just making the comment that it seems (on the price point) where clubs are blaming the broadcasters, yet the broadcasters are holding true to covering costs only - ergo the clubs are the recipients here.

I've still no idea why the broadcasters didn't just add £5 to the monthly subscription cost for the extra games and then promise to uphold the full cost of the TV deal this year (with no claw backs) as a benefit to clubs directly.

The the broadcasters could argue for similar or less 'sponsorship' moving forward, all games get streamed as it suits them better when you factor in cameras at all games anyway which has a cost + their own advertising etc.
 
FOr me, and I've said it before, more games, more fans on, more advertising.

Trouble is, the looming recession will lead to real pressure points ON advertising.

So I can understand the problems.

They can all either be the friends or 'enemies' of the fans right now though, either way, as always, it will long be remembered.
 
What is it, 300K raised for charity as a protest at the PPV - that's a hell of a lot of £15 quids! Particularly in the current climate.

I actually wonder if this is an attempt by clubs to claw back some power, as we've all long said, there would be a saturation point where PL clubs were beholden to broadcasters and then broadcasting revenue would go down because the clubs didn't have the legs to argue after fans were marginalised.

Strange times for sure.
 
The Arsenal game is on PPV on Sunday evening. I suppose they have to make room on the normal subscription schedule to fit all the Liverpool, Man. Utd, Spurs, Chelsea and Man. City games in.
 
ironside said:
The Arsenal game is on PPV on Sunday evening. I suppose they have to make room on the normal subscription schedule to fit all the Liverpool, Man. Utd, Spurs, Chelsea and Man. City games in.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was agreed as a 4 week trial, so we are still within that trial, albeit, it appears they all know it isn't working either in this format or/and at this price point.
 
sky is ruining football really not surprised if they are behind this project europe super league or what ever i used to watch the champions league when it was on itv only haven't bothered with it since . I only watch villa games mostly streaming as i dont want to support sky . Too much money in football and sky started it rolling
 
The Fear said:
Is it the price point that is the issue here, given that we won't be given games for free like we did after project re-start?

Had an interesting debate tonight about this. The revenue for clubs is tiny for this. fine, we get that I think. The backlash for BT and Sky has embarrassed them and again, fine, I think we get that.

But you actually want to see the games don't you? Whilst you don't have the choice to go to games?

If it isn't free, but is reasonable, do you think that then means 'you' would pay? Or are you just being pushed to piracy like iptv regardless?

My take was I pay for Sky, BT, Amazon and then am asked to pay more (and no discount for being a subscriber compared to those who don't pay - albeit that is a side issue I didn't bring up) ... so £15 I think was steep.

IF I had the choice to go to a game, or ppv, I don't think I would mind then, as it would be a choice. This is not a choice when you are obsessed, ie take it or leave it, is it?

I don't really have the health for away games these days, so I would choose - due to that fact - to pay PPV if given the choice (it was clear that isn't the plan or model of sky/bt and it won't become an option!)

Seems to me, from the discussion, that in some ways, this is more hassle than it is worth for clubs, PL, broadcasters, especially with the backlash from many of us.

So then, it would be down to the odd game picked up by Sky/BT (as was the case pre-covid) , then radio and/or the match of the day type of highlights. But no chance of going live yet, and no way to watch it on ppv etc.

What do you do then?

In my opinion, you (I am talking about most of us collectively, not talking for 'you') would just look at streams and iptv like many are doing now.

I think at a time of all this covid worry, lives, relatives, jobs on the line, the obsession of this sort of thing is important. The other read on that is it is so low down the pecking order, it won't impact most people if they can't watch it.

?
Click to expand...

TBH I’m not gonna pay for it regardless of cost as right now I don’t have the choice between going and not going and therefore having to pay to watch it on tv. I’m being forced with one choice and one choice only and that’s to pay BT or Sky £15 to watch through a TV in my living room on my own with no fans in the ground and therefore no real atmosphere. It’s extortion and it’s wrong, so if they feel that it’s right to try and rob the people then I’ll just do the same with the streams.

My season ticket works out £16-17 per game and less in the championship as there’s more games. I can legit go to a game and not spend a single penny more than that if I want to (The fuel in the car is already paid for and parking nearby is free). Why would I pay £15 for the current product? Can’t warrant it whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Quite simple.

If they want to charge me £5- £8 per game I will pay. They would have potential had £24 from me so far.

At £15 a game they can fuck off and have had nothing from me and will continue to get f all.

I will always find a stream and it just makes me think again, why do I bother with a Sky subscription? (Currently subject to review)
 
Xchurch Villa said:
Quite simple.

If they want to charge me £5- £8 per game I will pay. They would have potential had £24 from me so far.

At £15 a game they can fuck off and have had nothing from me and will continue to get f all.

I will always find a stream and it just makes me think again, why do I bother with a Sky subscription? (Currently subject to review)
Click to expand...
It appears paying £ 90 a month for tv,broadband and phone is not enough for these fuckers like you I would happily pay a reasonable amount for the extra games but there greed has backfired and it will do far more damage to their reputations than a few thousand pounds extra revenue.

Don’t forget https://reditt.soccerstreams.net/home dont give these bastards another penny
 
For me, it is the price point. I'd rather not use the streams some of you do, the spyware etc on those sites is amazing. I like to pay my way and I do recognise that when I pay for Sky/BT I only get a few of our games, so that is a choice. So then if they charge a decent amount, not £15 which is taking the St Michael especially during these tough times, I would pay.
 
TV, broadband the phone has nothing to do with what we pay for football to be fair. Not sticking up for the big companies, they have spoiled the football I love, but I don't think we are victims when it comes to our choices of the best broadband, or the latest phones.

I just don't like being over a barrel price point wise, when I don't have the choice (through no ones fault) of going to the game.
 
The Fear said:
For me, it is the price point. I'd rather not use the streams some of you do, the spyware etc on those sites is amazing. I like to pay my way and I do recognise that when I pay for Sky/BT I only get a few of our games, so that is a choice. So then if they charge a decent amount, not £15 which is taking the St Michael especially during these tough times, I would pay.
Click to expand...

Don't dispute the spyware JF but apart from being bombarded by horny woman who apparently live in Bournemouth and want to have sex with me - it ain't done me any harm.

Now where was that message from Alexa?, she's a 21 year old Russian student apparently :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.