Sky again | Page 3 | Vital Football

Sky again

Sincilbanks

Vital 1st Team Regular
#41
Like you ImpAlaska, I'm a Lincoln City fan so will do what I can to watch the Mighty Imps. But I disagree that the only way to change it is for us to be crap again. It can change if iFollow, the EFL, and clubs put the fans before big business as PerthImp has said.
HAHAHAHAHA!! EFL put fans first? Dream on....
 

ImpAlaska

Vital Squad Member
#42
Like you ImpAlaska, I'm a Lincoln City fan so will do what I can to watch the Mighty Imps. But I disagree that the only way to change it is for us to be crap again. It can change if iFollow, the EFL, and clubs put the fans before big business as PerthImp has said.
hahaha, am I a realist or a defeatist? I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure anyone outside of Lincoln City will pay attention. While the point of principle is not insignificant, the financial value involved is pretty small beer. I'm not sure what deal season ticket holders get, but then they pay at least twice as much as me. If iFollow was a similar value to a season ticket, then the demand for compensation/recognition has a greater imperative.
 

ImpAlaska

Vital Squad Member
#43
hahaha, am I a realist or a defeatist? I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure anyone outside of Lincoln City will pay attention. While the point of principle is not insignificant, the financial value involved is pretty small beer. I'm not sure what deal season ticket holders get, but then they pay at least twice as much as me. If iFollow was a similar value to a season ticket, then the demand for compensation/recognition has a greater imperative.
I suppose there is an additional context to all this: I bought the iFollow subscription knowing that, regardless of schedule changes, I was never going to get to watch more than 50% of the games. Mid -week games are out because of the time difference and work. Weekend games are often out because my kids are competitive swimmers and I am heavily involved with USA Swimming at a local level.
 

LA_Imp

Vital Youth Team
#44
hahaha, am I a realist or a defeatist? I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure anyone outside of Lincoln City will pay attention. While the point of principle is not insignificant, the financial value involved is pretty small beer. I'm not sure what deal season ticket holders get, but then they pay at least twice as much as me. If iFollow was a similar value to a season ticket, then the demand for compensation/recognition has a greater imperative.
I hear you, but what's a forum for, if not to raise our pet peeves, and tilt at the injustices of the world, not matter how small.
 

PerthImp

Vital 1st Team Regular
#46
hahaha, am I a realist or a defeatist? I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure anyone outside of Lincoln City will pay attention. While the point of principle is not insignificant, the financial value involved is pretty small beer. I'm not sure what deal season ticket holders get, but then they pay at least twice as much as me. If iFollow was a similar value to a season ticket, then the demand for compensation/recognition has a greater imperative.
Let’s see how realistic the TV companies are when LCFC are a multi-million pound Premier League club winning the Champions League 🤔. Well, you have to have ambition and dreams eh 😳🙄🤪
 

WellingtonImp

Vital Reserves Team
#48
Tired of these Sky games to be honest. I pay for an iFollow subscription with a certain expectation and then after the fact broadcasting rights get changed. Identify them at the start of the season or factor in subscriptions for iFollow.
I can (begrudgingly) understand not selling iFollow match passes for the Sky covered games, but I think that iFollow season pass holders should still get their feed. ;-)
 

Luke Imp

Alert Team
Staff member
#49
Yep - fully aware of this, but my argument remains, why can’t the big boys sit down and sort out a deal which is in the fans interests instead of the big TV companies and their legal agreements, which can be changed if people have the wit and intelligence to do it.
Why would Sky the EFL etc agree a £600m TV deal, with 'x' amount of games to be shown each season, live, per division and then start changing them? Makes no sense.
 

Luke Imp

Alert Team
Staff member
#50
Let's not forget the the Club presumably receives a decent fee every season from Sky due to the £120m/season 5-year EFL TV deal so it's not to be sniffed at.

We're only on TV because we're doing well. Most others receive the same fee for no TV appearances! We'll get a little extra from being selected for live coverage.
 

NottyImp

Vital Football Legend
#51
Haha maybe I'll make it my side hustle. I'll rope in myself, MichiganImp, and the 7 other Imps stateside for a class action lawsuit that will shake the foundations of International Football. I anticipate ripple effects similar to the Bosman ruling.

I will have to study for, and take the Bar first, so please be patient.
I understand Trump University could issue you a law degree for, *ahem*, a small charge.
 

Impala

Vital Squad Member
#53
Being a Sky subscriber I'll save a tenner and watch a higher quality broadcast.
However, it's annoying how Sky 'blackout' other ways of watching for some iFollow subscribers. They do a similar thing with the NFL - you can buy a streaming subscription but then can't watch the games Sky select.
 

clanfordimp

Vital Squad Member
#54
Why would Sky the EFL etc agree a £600m TV deal, with 'x' amount of games to be shown each season, live, per division and then start changing them? Makes no sense.
Why would our own club charge 'x' number of 60 year old season ticket holders (90 to be precise) a lot of us with 40 and 50 odd year association with the club who were born in the second part of the year, £500 per person more over the next 5 seasons than every other 60 year old season ticket holder, some, if not a lot who would only of been season ticket holders since the Cowley's came on the scene
That doesn't make sense to at least 90 of us.
 

SalfordImp

Vital Football Legend
#55
Why would our own club charge 'x' number of 60 year old season ticket holders (90 to be precise) a lot of us with 40 and 50 odd year association with the club who were born in the second part of the year, £500 per person more over the next 5 seasons than every other 60 year old season ticket holder, some, if not a lot who would only of been season ticket holders since the Cowley's came on the scene
That doesn't make sense to at least 90 of us.
Why, I clue is that the '90' are less than 1.5% of the current ST holders. Not everything can be put down to age and to length of time being a ST holder. Everyone's money has the same purchasing power.
 

Luke Imp

Alert Team
Staff member
#56
Why would our own club charge 'x' number of 60 year old season ticket holders (90 to be precise) a lot of us with 40 and 50 odd year association with the club who were born in the second part of the year, £500 per person more over the next 5 seasons than every other 60 year old season ticket holder, some, if not a lot who would only of been season ticket holders since the Cowley's came on the scene
That doesn't make sense to at least 90 of us.
You've done well to spin that post to air a grievance.

If I recall correctly, most agreed it was the right thing to do (60 being too lower for concession rates) and it was just unlucky that a select few were caught in that change.
 

clanfordimp

Vital Squad Member
#57
Why, I clue is that the '90' are less than 1.5% of the current ST holders. Not everything can be put down to age and to length of time being a ST holder. Everyone's money has the same purchasing power.
The point I was making is this scenario. I am sat next to a friend who is exactly the same age as me, he was born in May and I was born in September of the same year we are both 60.
Because he is 60 before the start of the season he qualified for a discount season ticket but I didn't because my 60th is after the season has started. Near the end of the season the club announces that the age for discount price season tickets will rise to 65 for the following seaon but all those already receiving discount tickets will be allowed to keep buying them at the reduced rate.So although me and my friend are both 60 he gets his ticket at £100 a season cheaper than me for the next 5 seasons.
My personal opinion is that it was a mistake by the club, they will make an extra 9 grand in 5 seasons but were only going to upset 90 people so it's not even a risk for them and they knew that.
Anyway having droned on about it again I am (nearly) over it.
What the club should of done though if they want to increase revenue that would make an impact is to announce that as from the beginning of next season ALL 60 to 64 year olds will pay the full season ticket price.
Wonder if that would of gone down with as much as a whimper.
If we go up or even if we dont ticketing prices will change. You wont be paying one fee for a ticket in a particular stand you will be paying for where your seat is in a particular stand, what you will pay for is your view. And that's right. Take the co-op. If your in lower 1 or lower 7 should you be paying the same price as upper 4. Block 4 will be premium prices to sit in the seats with the best view. That's one way to raise revenue and that's how I think it will go.
 

SalfordImp

Vital Football Legend
#59
The point I was making is this scenario. I am sat next to a friend who is exactly the same age as me, he was born in May and I was born in September of the same year we are both 60.
Because he is 60 before the start of the season he qualified for a discount season ticket but I didn't because my 60th is after the season has started. Near the end of the season the club announces that the age for discount price season tickets will rise to 65 for the following seaon but all those already receiving discount tickets will be allowed to keep buying them at the reduced rate.So although me and my friend are both 60 he gets his ticket at £100 a season cheaper than me for the next 5 seasons.
My personal opinion is that it was a mistake by the club, they will make an extra 9 grand in 5 seasons but were only going to upset 90 people so it's not even a risk for them and they knew that.
Anyway having droned on about it again I am (nearly) over it.
What the club should of done though if they want to increase revenue that would make an impact is to announce that as from the beginning of next season ALL 60 to 64 year olds will pay the full season ticket price.
Wonder if that would of gone down with as much as a whimper.
If we go up or even if we dont ticketing prices will change. You wont be paying one fee for a ticket in a particular stand you will be paying for where your seat is in a particular stand, what you will pay for is your view. And that's right. Take the co-op. If your in lower 1 or lower 7 should you be paying the same price as upper 4. Block 4 will be premium prices to sit in the seats with the best view. That's one way to raise revenue and that's how I think it will go.

Unfortunately there has to be a 'cut off' date somewhere. My wife was on the wrong side of it when they changed State pension age for women.

Now back to be on topic of Sky....
 
#60
Dear LA_Imp, ImpAlaska, PerthImp and all contributors.

I will start by saying how serious we take your concerns and by acknowledging the disruption Sky games cause to domestic and international fans.

I will also apologise as there is no short way to explain this matter's complexities; however, I recognise I owe you an explanation based on comments and frustration outlined in this thread.

The process for a TV selection varies, but generally, I would receive an email from the EFL and Sky noting our game has been provisionally selected for TV coverage. On receipt, I am expected to provide any comments within 24/48 hours.

In regular circumstances, our comments may be any policing or staffing concerns, fixture clashes with local events (i.e. Christmas market) or even shortened period between games. Broadly speaking, it is a consultative process.

The comments are correct in noting the direct commerciality to the club. Sky's commitment to the EFL does make up a significant proportion of our core funding, which all clubs receive as an equal share based on our divisional status. Crude maths being 80% goes to the Championship, 12% to LG1 with 8% LG2.

Also, for LG1 TV games, the home club receives a £30k' facility fee', with the away club receiving £10k. I did see a comment which suggested LG1 clubs pool their TV money, and no additional payment is received. This was correct for a short period (2017-18 season from memory) after LG1 clubs collectively voted for this approach; however, we have now reverted to a core payment + facility fee model as described above.

So why would Lincoln City agree to a TV game, given the disruption it causes fans?

For the Oxford game, which may or may not go ahead anyway due to possible international call ups, we will likely be commercially neutral with the £10k payment netting off iFollow revenue loss.

However, the other benefits, both tangible and intangible, are multiple.

Firstly, TV games provide the club with a national and international profile, which is invaluable as part of our ongoing attempts to attract like-minded investment into the club.

Secondly, our sponsors' benefit is significant, with TV games providing more exposure in 15 live minutes than a whole season of highlights on Quest, SSN, and other digital platforms. We do bat above average for attracting national partners - the likes of Pappa Johns and historically Utilita have been great backers of the club. Ultimately these companies have a budget to put into clubs across the whole of the EFL (and possibly other sports), with their marketing managers hedging their bets based on historical and future TV performance. What also should be factored in is the profile TV games provide our local partners - who on the whole sponsor Lincoln City for their love of the club. A single TV game allows us to 'pay back' local sponsors for their support, with something that could actually stand up to scrutiny if measured based purely by return on investment.

The final element is that we know live home games generate the "most significant spike in impressions to Visit Lincoln and other Lincolnshire destination websites", as qualified by an economic impact report carried out by the University of Lincoln. In short, Lincoln City being on TV is a proven benefit to our City/County economy. This is all part of the consideration of many local political decisions. An example would be support from (say) the Local Enterprise Partnership when looking to attract funding for the Stacey West development. (To be clear, this is for illustration only)


Is all of the above worth the disruption to the fans without thought? The short answer is no.

When offered a TV game, we review all considerations and aim to come to a sensible football and sensible business decision. To give this context, of course, you know about all the times we agree to be on Sky, but what about the game that is offered, considered and rejected that you never never get to know about?

As to the disruption to international fans, in particular when it comes to iFollow restrictions. This is a little more complex due to the intricacies of the multi-layered broadcasting contacts.

I will try and simplify by saying Sky holds the UK's rights, with many other broadcasters having direct rights for their market, albeit often a copycat feed from Sky's production team.

At the time of live TV selection, we cannot confirm if a game will be picked up by any of the XX international rights holders. Sky is mandated by a pledge to fans regarding fairness and notice periods; however, this is not as rigorous as we leave the UK market.

Dealing with international TV rights is out of our hands. By the terms of the iFollow contract (which has to be subservient to the broadcasters contact - that is just the hierarchy of how it works), the broadcaster automatically triggers a clause which means the game is no longer available on iFollow. This usually is no huge drama, as long as the local partner (say Viacom in India) commits to showing the game. However, what can often happen is the local broadcaster decides there are other more prominent events for that marketplace (i.e. a 2nd division cricket fixture in India), which means not only have they triggered an iFollow blackout, but they also do not show the game.

The best-case scenario is the local partner recognises this and releases the iFollow blackout. However, I understand that this often doesn't even register on the producer's radar, meaning they wave the broadcast rights, but double whammy - the blackout remains.

For Lincoln City, we do not have direct dialogue with the international broadcasters, so there is no way to evaluate the overall disruption. Truthfully, this is a leap of faith and often more down to other local events than the profile of our chosen fixture.

As you can see, this is rather complex, somewhat out of our hands, but in no way do we ever act in a blasé fashion, and 100% we always do our best to consider any disruption Vs overall benefit to the club. I respect and understand that I will make an unpopular decision based on impact on personal circumstances; however, I give you my absolute assurance that a decision is never made without evaluating the wider impact and what is overall best for Lincoln City Football Club.

If I can close on a positive, in sharing that the LCFC Vs Peterborough fixture was watched live by a total UK audience of c400,000. I am told the LG1 range usually is 150,000-250,000. Of course, we have to respect our opponents' role in these outstanding figures; however, this was somewhat repeated for the Gillingham fixture, with another above-average performance of total viewing figures.


I do hope the above does go somewhat to explain our thinking, even if you disagree with any conclusions that we arrive at.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Liam Scully.
 
Last edited: