| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 16:26 - Nov 5 with 1383 views | Saintsforeverj |
Good news |  |
|  |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 19:14 - Nov 5 with 1269 views | Sadoldgit |
If they had charged a fiver they probably would have gotten away with it. Too greedy by far. |  | | |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 07:33 - Nov 6 with 1097 views | JaySaint |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 19:14 - Nov 5 by Sadoldgit |
If they had charged a fiver they probably would have gotten away with it. Too greedy by far. |
exactly. I think £5 would have seen it work, with a few grumblings.
When I read £15, in my mind, that was for the whole weekend's fixture list, ie select any game you wanted and chop / change etc
LOL | |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:13 - Nov 6 with 1044 views | SaintNick |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 07:33 - Nov 6 by JaySaint |
exactly. I think £5 would have seen it work, with a few grumblings.
When I read £15, in my mind, that was for the whole weekend's fixture list, ie select any game you wanted and chop / change etc
LOL |
£5 would have seen it work for the fans, but it would not have even covered the cost of broadcasting the match.
Most people have followed the herd on this and moaned about paying more money on top of their sky subscription etc etc, but they are only paying to watch a game that if away they would not have probably seen anyway or if at home spent £30-40.
The idea of the PPV was to give clubs some income, yes we can moan about clubs forking millions out on wages, but they do that by budgeting what income they are going to get and matchday revenue is a big chunk that clubs cannot afford.
Most of the people on social media moaning about PPV were moaning 3 months ago that Saints were not forking out on transfer fees and moaning that we were not offfering players enough money and asking why not.
So I can see why PPV is there ideally it would be free, but there is a cost to doing it and if the clubs are to make money out of it then there has to be a reasonable cost.
How many do you think watched the game on Sunday, there is saturation coverage on tv at the moment Villa V Saints isnt a big draw, less than 40,000 would have watched this game under normal circumstances and it is not normally on tv.
Advertising would not be a great income stream because of the above.
Eastleigh are showing their games via their website for £9.99 their fans arent moaning, they want to see their team
This was a service to the fans nothing else, you either want it and pay it or dont pay for it, there were plenty of pubs showing it for free |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:18 - Nov 6 with 1034 views | JaySaint |
I get that,
Streaming services offer good quality, for all games around the world for around £3-5 a month
that would include all movies et al. | |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:51 - Nov 6 with 1004 views | Messysaints |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:13 - Nov 6 by SaintNick |
£5 would have seen it work for the fans, but it would not have even covered the cost of broadcasting the match.
Most people have followed the herd on this and moaned about paying more money on top of their sky subscription etc etc, but they are only paying to watch a game that if away they would not have probably seen anyway or if at home spent £30-40.
The idea of the PPV was to give clubs some income, yes we can moan about clubs forking millions out on wages, but they do that by budgeting what income they are going to get and matchday revenue is a big chunk that clubs cannot afford.
Most of the people on social media moaning about PPV were moaning 3 months ago that Saints were not forking out on transfer fees and moaning that we were not offfering players enough money and asking why not.
So I can see why PPV is there ideally it would be free, but there is a cost to doing it and if the clubs are to make money out of it then there has to be a reasonable cost.
How many do you think watched the game on Sunday, there is saturation coverage on tv at the moment Villa V Saints isnt a big draw, less than 40,000 would have watched this game under normal circumstances and it is not normally on tv.
Advertising would not be a great income stream because of the above.
Eastleigh are showing their games via their website for £9.99 their fans arent moaning, they want to see their team
This was a service to the fans nothing else, you either want it and pay it or dont pay for it, there were plenty of pubs showing it for free |
seeing as you can get a monthly subscription for a 5er out side fo the UK for more EPL games than we get for our sky subscription, i think they are telling porkies, please explain how having a few camaras plus a few ppl at a game is going to cost over a million per game when the EPL are not even charging them for the rights to show them all.
if they charged a 5er a decent price, then a hell of a lot more ppl would have paid.. like 99.9 % of ppl would have watched.
If it was a decent price i would watch more than just Saints... am sure others would as well. thats an awful lot of 5er's from potentially 3 - 4 million football fans in the UK. no way would they not make a profit. | | | |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:54 - Nov 6 with 1001 views | JaySaint |
exactly, the camera's are already there, as how on earth are 'other' streaming services able to offer the service.
This needed to be a gesture to the fans, who are the life-blood of football.....but no.
However, this is just the thin-end of the wedge. Just wait until the premier league remove Skyt/BT and offer their own service and will charge what they want. Maybe clubs can negotiate their own deals with the premier league and remove the fair allocation of TV money.... | |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:28 - Nov 6 with 977 views | SaintNick |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 10:54 - Nov 6 by JaySaint |
exactly, the camera's are already there, as how on earth are 'other' streaming services able to offer the service.
This needed to be a gesture to the fans, who are the life-blood of football.....but no.
However, this is just the thin-end of the wedge. Just wait until the premier league remove Skyt/BT and offer their own service and will charge what they want. Maybe clubs can negotiate their own deals with the premier league and remove the fair allocation of TV money.... |
I take both your points, I can agree with some of them, I certainly agree that the fans are the life blood of football, but at a time when a club like Saints who have run as a business are struggling and losing £3 million a month, I also see why they are keen to get some revenue.
I can see both sides of the story, it is fine to be the life blood of football but there will be many fans who wont have a club to support this time next year, I dont see why everyone gets up in arms about giving the best part of £15 towards keeping their club going. | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:33 - Nov 6 with 969 views | Sadoldgit |
Spot on about the pricing. It is about perceived value for money. I am happy to pay a fiver for a match (even though there are free streams available) but not £15. I have paid a tenner but that was pushing it. The fact that so many people are boycotting the £15 says it all. | | | |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:36 - Nov 6 with 966 views | SaintNick |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:33 - Nov 6 by Sadoldgit |
Spot on about the pricing. It is about perceived value for money. I am happy to pay a fiver for a match (even though there are free streams available) but not £15. I have paid a tenner but that was pushing it. The fact that so many people are boycotting the £15 says it all. |
It doesnt say it all, those boycotting it are those who are fans of premier league clubs, the lower league club fans are happy to pay £10 and are not demanding that they get if for free | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:39 - Nov 6 with 964 views | Bicester_North |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:36 - Nov 6 by SaintNick |
It doesnt say it all, those boycotting it are those who are fans of premier league clubs, the lower league club fans are happy to pay £10 and are not demanding that they get if for free |
Yeah but the premier league has taken the absolute p1ss out of fans for years, ripped off at every opportunity. The lower league fans have had a fairer deal without the rip off pricing and players and agents making ridiculous money out of the fans. | |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:52 - Nov 6 with 950 views | Messysaints |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:28 - Nov 6 by SaintNick |
I take both your points, I can agree with some of them, I certainly agree that the fans are the life blood of football, but at a time when a club like Saints who have run as a business are struggling and losing £3 million a month, I also see why they are keen to get some revenue.
I can see both sides of the story, it is fine to be the life blood of football but there will be many fans who wont have a club to support this time next year, I dont see why everyone gets up in arms about giving the best part of £15 towards keeping their club going. |
for EPL clubs who have spent 10s of millions on transfers and are still making millionairs every year, to ask the other none millionairs of the population to fund them is taking the piss. they have and get enough money, if they cant share it fairly, f football, ill rather give my 15 pound to some one who really needs it not greedy money grabbing players and club owners. | | | |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 12:06 - Nov 6 with 932 views | TimSaint |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:28 - Nov 6 by SaintNick |
I take both your points, I can agree with some of them, I certainly agree that the fans are the life blood of football, but at a time when a club like Saints who have run as a business are struggling and losing £3 million a month, I also see why they are keen to get some revenue.
I can see both sides of the story, it is fine to be the life blood of football but there will be many fans who wont have a club to support this time next year, I dont see why everyone gets up in arms about giving the best part of £15 towards keeping their club going. |
Of our 2 x PPV games, we watched the Chelsea game in the pub and for the Villa game, we paid - but went halves with a mate.
I don't mind paying for the odd game - and if you split it with mates or go to the pub, it doesn't have to be too expensive.
My question is though, how much of each £15 goes to Saints. The argument that by doing PPV, you are helping your club in troubled times is a fair point, but I wonder how much they actually receive and if they are the away team, do they get anything ? Either way, it is money they would not normally be getting, but it is probably pocket change in the grand scheme of things. |  |
| |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 12:13 - Nov 6 with 924 views | Sadoldgit |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 11:36 - Nov 6 by SaintNick |
It doesnt say it all, those boycotting it are those who are fans of premier league clubs, the lower league club fans are happy to pay £10 and are not demanding that they get if for free |
I am not demanding that I get it for free (even though there are free streams). I just want to be charged a reasonable rate as do many others it seems. I think that £5 is perfectly reasonable for watching football on a phone. I don’t think that £15 is reasonable. | | | |
| £ 14.95 Pay per view scrapped on 13:05 - Nov 6 with 899 views | Kennington |
The cameras are there anyway and the commentators are also there for the syndicated global channels. There is only a nominal extra cost to put these on PPV which would have probably been offset by advert revenues.
Can only think the greedy fookers that decide the boxing PPV boxing pricing were behind this. The boxing of course is different as it is or should br a genuine one off event with a huge production. In recent years though Sky have cut loads of corners with the production and many of those PPVs should really have been on regular Sky Sports. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
