Jump to content

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:


No, £5 is not fair.

 

The subscription we pay already is fair.

 

 

The subscription has never covered 3pm games, at least until recently.

However, I concur it’s an outrageous approach, ever more so during this period when everyday people are struggling. 
I fear this is just a test the water cost exercise for PremFlix though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:


They can get fcked with this sorry. This is a step too far.

 

Sky and the PL have been destroying this league for proper football fans for years but even with everything they have done before taken into a account this is the biggest outrage of the lot.

 

Take a stand, cancel your subscriptions, when it’s £15 to watch West Brom Burnley then it’s time to say enough is enough.

This is the clubs, not the broadcasters, a second reason why we should be proud of our club but angry with the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Where are you?

 

I live near Sheffield and I get it fine, always have done. It's a perfect "replacement" for when I'm not at a game.

145 miles south west. North Somerset. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BakerLCFC said:

Premier League pay-per-view plan will 'drive fans towards illegal streams' https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54491180

Something i've always questioned about the illegal bit. We pay for broadband from an internet service provider.  If that service includes piracy such as streamed films, sports, music, porn or whatever, they are still the ones providing it. It's not our fault that they cannot remove it, it's their fault, their servers are connected to the network. It's no different to a drug dealer and a drug user, the drug user cannot stop what they are doing because they are addicted, they may have been at fault in the first place for taking the drug but it's the drug dealer that's the real culprit, he's the one who's providing the service and consequently the penalty for dealing in drugs is far worse than taking them.

Edited by yorkie1999
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a really good article on the Athletic about the PPV and about how Susan Whelan spoke “passionately” against the plan. Chief executives from other clubs spoke out against the move as well but once they saw the figures they decided to vote in favour...

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

145 miles south west. North Somerset. 

lol Jeez, nothing compared to me then! Fair play. I understand you now.

Edited by Fox92
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I am starting to hope fans aren't allowed back for a while now, at least that way it'd force me to go the non league route, which I'd probably end up enjoying.

Yeh its good fun, it usually includes a side portion of UFC .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite most peoples opinions on the TV monies im kind of ok with it. I wouldnt choose it but I understand the need to balance revenue.

 

Whilst I'm not an expert, would this action by Sky etc potentially lower the TV company's revenue on the PL football clubs when the next round of contracts are up for auction by lowering there bids based on covid etc and maybe having more control? The potential for this would be a hammer blow for a lot of PL clubs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Something i've always questioned about the illegal bit. We pay for broadband from an internet service provider.  If that service includes piracy such as streamed films, sports, music, porn or whatever, they are still the ones providing it. It's not our fault that they cannot remove it, it's their fault, their servers are connected to the network. It's no different to a drug dealer and a drug user, the drug user cannot stop what they are doing because they are addicted, they may have been at fault in the first place for taking the drug but it's the drug dealer that's the real culprit, he's the one who's providing the service and consequently the penalty for dealing in drugs is far worse than taking them.


Well yeah.

 

Thats why hardly anyone faces the consequences of watching these streams and the people uploading them end up in court eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Adster said:

Eh? 

 

EA make the same fvcking game each year with extremely minor "enhancements" and have the audacity to get people to pay for it again and again whilst starting from scratch and labeling it as "new". The only noticeable "difference" is the roster change. Don't get me started on their greedy and gambling-like micro transactions in it's shitty FUT mode. Its corporate greed at its finest and is totally comparable. 

It's not the same every year though is it. It might seem like that to you but it's not easy within a yearly iteration to drastically change a game.

 

My point is that by releasing it every year it isn't corporate greed. There would be uproar if games like FIFA decided to release every other year. You don't have to buy it each year. You don't have to buy FIFA points.

 

However the Premier League are charging us £15 as the only way to watch a match. There is no (legal) alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've created a petition on change.org. We need to fight against this PPV as if we just sit back and take this before we know it this will become the norm. I know it might not change anything overnight but we need a way to send a message to the premier League. http://chng.it/N9XyDGzqFf

Does anyone know if foxes trust or anyone else are planning any action to combat this?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crashtoasted said:

I was annoyed by this but now I’ve woken up and seen that two of our matches have been picked for PPV in the opening week of it I’m seriously pissed off. So now not only are the premier league trying to tear money from skint football fans they are punishing the club most representative of those fans as they were the only ones to dare to vote against it.

I very much doubt they've picked our next two games to get back at the club via the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BakerLCFC said:

I've created a petition on change.org. We need to fight against this PPV as if we just sit back and take this before we know it this will become the norm. I know it might not change anything overnight but we need a way to send a message to the premier League. http://chng.it/N9XyDGzqFf

Does anyone know if foxes trust or anyone else are planning any action to combat this?

Discussions between the Premier League Fans Groups are currently underway to decide the next steps, an initial statement was issued by the Football Supporters Association and a couple of individual Trusts have already published their reaction, we are currently working on a statement

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Something i've always questioned about the illegal bit. We pay for broadband from an internet service provider.  If that service includes piracy such as streamed films, sports, music, porn or whatever, they are still the ones providing it. It's not our fault that they cannot remove it, it's their fault, their servers are connected to the network. It's no different to a drug dealer and a drug user, the drug user cannot stop what they are doing because they are addicted, they may have been at fault in the first place for taking the drug but it's the drug dealer that's the real culprit, he's the one who's providing the service and consequently the penalty for dealing in drugs is far worse than taking them.

See the argument, but don’t like it at all, although the drugs argument is dead right I will admit!

 

Outside of drugs and the like, the argument leads to too much of an abdication of personal responsibility, something we need more of, especially right now. The counter argument would be a car manufacturer, and if I ran someone over because I am shyte driver, it’s not their fault, it’s mine. Just because they provided the service/goods, does not make it their fault.

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

Apart from the the thousands of paying customers every week, the rebates to the broadcasters and 100 million plus handout to the lower leagues. 

Good point. However they are more likely to incur rebates by doing this and moving fixtures which goes against the Asian markets who are currently the main demanders of the rebate 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward, am I being a bit cynical thinking games that will be on the standard sky channels will be the Burnley, Brighton, Palace etc type games, whereas the real interesting fixtures like local Derbies and the top teams vs each other will be on PPV.  Surely they’ll want Liverpool and Manchester Utd fans paying the extra given there’s probs over a million of them out there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...