Jump to content

Recommended Posts

PR masterstroke by the club here - everyone forgetting the utter contempt with which we were treated over the STs in an instant over something which is of no benefit to us whatsoever.

 

Bet they rang round the others to check there was enough to get the PPV through first lol

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, urban fox said:

Buying a ST is a big commitment but does not give a right to be sanctimonious about it. I have followed the foxes since I was a nipper in the sixties but for one reason or another have never been a ST holder. Early doors couldn’t afford one, family and work commitments meaning not physically able to attend matches in later years so on and so forth. Call me plastic if you like but I have followed my club through thick and thin. Over the years they have had plenty of my hard earned from match day tickets etc. (I have probably spent more over the years than half the ST holders have). Why should a ST holder of say 3 years get priority over me, a dedicated fan of 50 years in respect of discounted ppv. It should be same price for all, and definitely less than £15 a pop. If the situation persists and we cannot go to the ground then ST holders deposits will be refunded. The £70 was a deposit to enable their seats to be reserved, (set when it was thought normal service would be resumed October). Nobody was forced to pay it, those who would happily have paid it but are not a currentST holder never had the option and have to join the waiting list 

👍 and we shouldn't forget that thousands of members have also paid out £35 each without the promise of getting something back.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Being angry/happy per season needs context. It's all relative. Given our position we should have nailed 4th (maybe 3rd tbf) and it was such a disappointing collapse people were right to be angry, even if 5th place is a great finish for a club like ours. Because it's not like we were mid table all season then suddenly won a couple to finish 5th, we were very poor from December through to the end of the season. However, in 30/40/50 years, then that collapse will be forgotten compared to the 5th placed finish and we will be saying "we saw the club finish 5th in the top flight". 

 

IF we keep looking back with the attitude of "we used to finish top 10 in the second tier so we should be happy with top 10 in the top flight" then we'll never progress. Man Utd fans moan because how shit they are now, they don't think "well we've won 13 titles in the last 30 years so we should have happy with this".

Great! So you want Leicester fans to be a bunch of total toss pots just like that Man U crowd.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, foxpleasure said:

Great! So you want Leicester fans to be a bunch of total toss pots just like that Man U crowd.

You totally missed my point so there's nothing great about that.

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

 

 

 

Jeez.

Yes we *should* have finished higher than fifth given the context of the season but I'm merely suggesting we should try and enjoy this period in our history (results, league finishes, our owners) a little bit more.

Apologies for any positivity I may have brought into the thread lol

I didn't necessarily disagree with your post, I was just adding context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow a thread which was started to rightfully praise our club owners for thinking about us fans rather than themselves manages to degenerate into bickering between us fans. 

 

Only on FoxesTalk!

 

Edited by Blue Fox 72
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The cynic in me say they knew where it was going and voted against for the pr

It was said that Susan Whelan spoke passionately against the proposal which leads me to believe we voted against for genuine reasons.  Not that I was likely to doubt our brilliant owners anyway.

Edited by deep blue
Misspelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ealingfox said:

PR masterstroke by the club here - everyone forgetting the utter contempt with which we were treated over the STs in an instant over something which is of no benefit to us whatsoever.

 

Bet they rang round the others to check there was enough to get the PPV through first lol

 

Lol! Explain that one then 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They charge us a booking fee on tickets, put King Power branding round the stadium and don’t pump their own money into the club. Worst owners ever :rolleyes:

Theres a few noticeable posters who slag the club/higher management/owners/king power at every opportunity yet never post in the positive threads about them. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt from the Athletic article covering the vote:

 

The result was an emphatic 19-1 when votes were cast by the 20 Premier League clubs, with Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive said to have spoken “passionately” against the proposals.

Manchester United chief executive Ed Woodward also argued against the plan and others declared their own reservations, particularly around the logistics of how to deal with season-ticket holders, but ultimately only Leicester formally objected in the vote.

Clubs across the Premier League are known to have been “taken aback” by the ferocity of the reaction to the announcement. “It is a plague on all our houses except Leicester,” said one club source.

Leicester, though, were not the only club to raise issues at the meeting. There were concerns that it would constitute a PR own goal on the back of a transfer window in which the 20 clubs committed to spending more than £1 billion in transfer fees and there was also disagreement over the money to be charged.

One senior executive at a Premier League club said they would rather watch Match of the Day than pay £15 for a match. Another source told The Athletic after the meeting: “If you ask 20 millionaires to go into room and decide what £15 means, this is what happens. It has failed the Netflix test, one game is more than a monthly Netflix subscription.”

A source said that it is not unusual for clubs to speak passionately against proposals in meetings between the 20 clubs, but then — once they know the numbers — vote with it, both so that the Premier League appears united and also because they know they might need the support of clubs leading the charge on the issue later on down the line. A source said: “Premier League votes are like being in the Prime Minister’s cabinet. It is seen as an act of betrayal and often futile to vote against the majority when you know you don’t have the numbers to win.”

https://theathletic.com/2127623/2020/10/10/premier-league-pay-per-view-fixtures/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, KingsX said:

Excerpt from the Athletic article covering the vote:

 

The result was an emphatic 19-1 when votes were cast by the 20 Premier League clubs, with Susan Whelan, the Leicester City chief executive said to have spoken “passionately” against the proposals.

 

 

Manchester United chief executive Ed Woodward also argued against the plan and others declared their own reservations, particularly around the logistics of how to deal with season-ticket holders, but ultimately only Leicester formally objected in the vote.

 

 

Clubs across the Premier League are known to have been “taken aback” by the ferocity of the reaction to the announcement. “It is a plague on all our houses except Leicester,” said one club source.

 

 

Leicester, though, were not the only club to raise issues at the meeting. There were concerns that it would constitute a PR own goal on the back of a transfer window in which the 20 clubs committed to spending more than £1 billion in transfer fees and there was also disagreement over the money to be charged.

 

 

One senior executive at a Premier League club said they would rather watch Match of the Day than pay £15 for a match. Another source told The Athletic after the meeting: “If you ask 20 millionaires to go into room and decide what £15 means, this is what happens. It has failed the Netflix test, one game is more than a monthly Netflix subscription.”

 

 

A source said that it is not unusual for clubs to speak passionately against proposals in meetings between the 20 clubs, but then — once they know the numbers — vote with it, both so that the Premier League appears united and also because they know they might need the support of clubs leading the charge on the issue later on down the line. A source said: “Premier League votes are like being in the Prime Minister’s cabinet. It is seen as an act of betrayal and often futile to vote against the majority when you know you don’t have the numbers to win.”

 

https://theathletic.com/2127623/2020/10/10/premier-league-pay-per-view-fixtures/

Haha **** off Athletic, trying to place the blame on the dissenting voice a bit there. 'A source' eh? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, urban fox said:

Buying a ST is a big commitment but does not give a right to be sanctimonious about it. I have followed the foxes since I was a nipper in the sixties but for one reason or another have never been a ST holder. Early doors couldn’t afford one, family and work commitments meaning not physically able to attend matches in later years so on and so forth. Call me plastic if you like but I have followed my club through thick and thin. Over the years they have had plenty of my hard earned from match day tickets etc. (I have probably spent more over the years than half the ST holders have). Why should a ST holder of say 3 years get priority over me, a dedicated fan of 50 years in respect of discounted ppv. It should be same price for all, and definitely less than £15 a pop. If the situation persists and we cannot go to the ground then ST holders deposits will be refunded. The £70 was a deposit to enable their seats to be reserved, (set when it was thought normal service would be resumed October). Nobody was forced to pay it, those who would happily have paid it but are not a currentST holder never had the option and have to join the waiting list 


I’m not a season ticket holder and never have been so I’m not being precious about the issue, but the ST holders have already paid to see the games. So a discount for them is fair. Don’t get me wrong, I do agree £15 is steep and it should be cheaper for everyone.

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

Some miserable and cynical sods on here!

Can we not all occasionally just say a collective well done to Leicester City Football Club, Susan Whelan and all

involved in us taking a stand against something that is plainly wrong! 
 

“Susan Whelan, she’s one of our own”

 

Well Said Sir. !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, urban fox said:

Buying a ST is a big commitment but does not give a right to be sanctimonious about it. I have followed the foxes since I was a nipper in the sixties but for one reason or another have never been a ST holder. Early doors couldn’t afford one, family and work commitments meaning not physically able to attend matches in later years so on and so forth. Call me plastic if you like but I have followed my club through thick and thin. Over the years they have had plenty of my hard earned from match day tickets etc. (I have probably spent more over the years than half the ST holders have). Why should a ST holder of say 3 years get priority over me, a dedicated fan of 50 years in respect of discounted ppv. It should be same price for all, and definitely less than £15 a pop. If the situation persists and we cannot go to the ground then ST holders deposits will be refunded. The £70 was a deposit to enable their seats to be reserved, (set when it was thought normal service would be resumed October). Nobody was forced to pay it, those who would happily have paid it but are not a currentST holder never had the option and have to join the waiting list 

 

Sorry but STHs are and always will be more important at any given time to any given club. It might not be that convenient for you personally but that's just how it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we made a stand but I do think the uproar over this is kind of hypocritical amongst fans. We are in a financial crisis and anything like this is going to be criticised but with all that in mind it still doesn't stop fans demanding their clubs continue to spend millions on new players to strengthen their clubs.

 

I am guilty of this, I've been fairly frustrated at our lack of recruitment but Where's the money going to come from? As fans are we going to concede that we push and push so much because the monster of the football machine encourages us to do so? Essentially we either have to " pay " for it or we are expecting clubs to convince their players to take huge pay cuts so they can still spend the vast amounts of money to keep signing players. This lost revenue takes its toll on clubs that tend not to have strict profit margins because if they did that they would be accused of a lack of ambition by fans and media.

 

Our wage bill is huge compared with our turnover, that is the downside of being successful in a short space of time and honouring those heroes with wages to match their achievements. Likewise we then want to maintain that push to break the elites monopoly but without bringing in way more commercial revenue its a finely poised position that feels like its at tipping point. This is where we are, thankfully our model of selling assets for obscene fees enables us to do what we do and to be the best of the rest but I'm not naive enough to expect the club to give us new and improved players in this current climate without there being a consequence. 

 

I won't be paying £15 per match as the last time we won a game where I watched it in its entirety live was Villa at home in March. I'm better being kept away but I don't think this is as vulgar as being made out given what we demand of our clubs. This whole modern day football greed and obsession is disgusting but we aren't completely innocent in all this. If we really are the victims then let's collectively make a stand but a) we won't and b) be careful what the end result is.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm glad we made a stand but I do think the uproar over this is kind of hypocritical amongst fans. We are in a financial crisis and anything like this is going to be criticised but with all that in mind it still doesn't stop fans demanding their clubs continue to spend millions on new players to strengthen their clubs.

 

I am guilty of this, I've been fairly frustrated at our lack of recruitment but Where's the money going to come from? As fans are we going to concede that we push and push so much because the monster of the football machine encourages us to do so? Essentially we either have to " pay " for it or we are expecting clubs to convince their players to take huge pay cuts so they can still spend the vast amounts of money to keep signing players. This lost revenue takes its toll on clubs that tend not to have strict profit margins because if they did that they would be accused of a lack of ambition by fans and media.

 

Our wage bill is huge compared with our turnover, that is the downside of being successful in a short space of time and honouring those heroes with wages to match their achievements. Likewise we then want to maintain that push to break the elites monopoly but without bringing in way more commercial revenue its a finely poised position that feels like its at tipping point. This is where we are, thankfully our model of selling assets for obscene fees enables us to do what we do and to be the best of the rest but I'm not naive enough to expect the club to give us new and improved players in this current climate without there being a consequence. 

 

I won't be paying £15 per match as the last time we won a game where I watched it in its entirety live was Villa at home in March. I'm better being kept away but I don't think this is as vulgar as being made out given what we demand of our clubs. This whole modern day football greed and obsession is disgusting but we aren't completely innocent in all this. If we really are the victims then let's collectively make a stand but a) we won't and b) be careful what the end result is.

Whilst you’re correct about the signings and the pressure fans and the media put on, but the money clubs will get from this is tiny, in comparison to their budgets.

Lets just say we got to keep all the proceeds from our home games and they are all in PPV, not sky.

Thats 16 games, say this idea is really popular and an average of 40,000 people fork out £15 quid for the right to watch.

That brings in about 600,000 grand per game of my maths is correct.

x 16 home games = just over 9 and a half million quid.

A lot of money, but nothing that would affect any clubs turnover.

Now the figures I’ve suggested are all grossly overblown - A portion of the £15 per game will go to the broadcasting company to pay for multi cameramen, commentary teams, engineers etc.

We will have many home games on Sky and BT and when we are on PPV, there won’t even be close to 40,000 people paying for individual subscriptions to the games.

I would be amazed if any clubs make more than one average players Yearly wages out of this.

Edited by Aus Fox
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Whilst you’re correct about the signings and the pressure fans and the media put on, but the money clubs will get from this is tiny, in comparison to their budgets.

Lets just say we got to keep all the proceeds from our home games and they are all in PPV, not sky.

Thats 16 games, say this idea is really popular and an average of 40,000 people fork out £15 quid for the right to watch.

That brings in about 600,000 grand per game of my maths is correct.

x 16 home games = just over 9 and a half million quid.

A lot of money, but nothing that would affect any clubs turnover.

Now the figures I’ve suggested are all grossly overblown - A portion of the £15 per game will go to the broadcasting company to pay for multi cameramen, commentary teams, engineers etc.

We will have many home games on Sky and BT and when we are on PPV, there won’t even be close to 40,000 people paying for individual subscriptions to the games.

I would be amazed if any clubs make more than one average players Yearly wages out of this.

Yes I agree, but that can be said for matchday revenue compared to the absurd television revenue that the PL pulls in throughout the world. The real money is in that but even just a drop in the smaller revenue streams will stretch teams as they maximise their pursuit to compete with the elite. 

 

The PL has also cancelled the TV deal with China due to non-payment and I wonder what effect that is having on poor decisions like this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hollyfox said:

I've got about 10 Bedford city fans coming round my house to watch it. 

 

I'll lay on a few beers and bowls of crisps. 

 

Should be a good night👍

What an Irresponsible Act  

 

It would be far more responsible in these times not to have 10 people coming round.  That way we can all get to matches sooner rather than later.

Edited by Frank Large's Black Book
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...