Fiver's Right

[Saxondale]

I'm obviously bored, because I've set up Twitter account called Fiver's Right.  The aim is to try and start some sort of coherent movement  - or least start a conversation - around the idea that football fans are willing to pay for pay-per-view football matches, but only at a fair price.

 

I think that price is £5, and I know many others roughly agree.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you could give the account a follow and we can see where it goes. You never know, if it gains enough of a following, it might be a vehicle to exert some sort of influence on the powers that be.

 

You've got to start somewhere.

 

https://twitter.com/FiversRight

 

[Steven]

I don't do Twitter but I would pay a fiver. 

[yorkie1999]

you need to tag talksport into it.

[Sampson]

Zero's right. If you pay for your subscription, you shouldn't pay extra.

[peach0000]

25 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Zero's right. If you pay for your subscription, you shouldn't pay extra.

Totally agree. Much rather a subscription where I can watch all games. I often will watch 10 in a weekend when it's possible, do that for a month at 5 pounds a game and that would be 200 pounds. 30 for now tv 7 for amazon and 20 for BT is expensive but it's a far better deal than 5 pounds a match.

[Finnegan]

I'm sorry but I object on two grounds:

 

1. As far as I'm aware, are there not international services in other countries for fans outside the UK that cost less than a Sky / BT subscription that let you watch all games? 

 

Even something as shit as Premier Sports costs me a third of what I pay for BT / Sky and with that I can watch every single La Liga game, around seven out of ten Serie A games, every Pro 14 game and a bunch of other stuff. 

 

There's no real reason they can't make every game available for TV coverage for what they we pay within our subscription. Even Sky and BT themselves aren't against that, its the Premier League pushing the PPV angle. 

 

2. If they absolutely have to push on and do it, the trade off is that they absolutely have to provide this service to their season ticket holders free of charge. Its already disgusting that season ticket holders have to pay a Sky or BT subscription to be watch. Asking them to then pay any PPV fee, even one penny, when they've already paid to watch their home games this season is beyond sick. 

 

If your team team is at home on PPV and you've got a season ticket, that reference number should be traded for a virtual ticket code which unlocks the necessary channel / ppv event. 

 

Edited 9 November 2020 by Finnegan

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

I'm sorry but I object on two grounds:

 

1. As far as I'm aware, are there not international services that cost less than a Sky / BT subscription that let you watch all games? 

 

Even something as shit as Premier Sports costs me a third of what I pay for BT / Sky and with that I can watch every single La Liga game, around seven out of ten Serie A games, every Pro 14 game and a bunch of other stuff. 

 

There's no real reason they can't make every game available for TV coverage for what they we pay within our subscription. Even Sky and BT themselves aren't against that, its the Premier League pushing the PPV angle. 

 

2. If they absolutely have to push on and do it, the trade off is that they absolutely have to provide this service to their season ticket holders free of charge. Its already disgusting that season ticket holders have to pay a Sky or BT subscription to be watch. Asking them to then pay any PPV fee, even one penny, when they've already paid to me watch their home games this season is beyond sick. 

1. There are of course, but they involve a VPN and are not officially legal.

 

2. Couldn’t agree more I have Sky and one of mates has BT - we swap spare device logins to have both - I’m not paying for BT, Amazon and any other Disney Google provider too when they step into the mix. The sooner you can have team season tickets the better.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Nick said:

There are of course, but they involve a VPN and are not officially legal.

 

No, you misunderstand. Or I'm explaining badly. 

 

I meant fans in other countries paying for their own equivalents to Sky and BT get to watch pretty much all Premier League games for likely less than we actually already pay, even though in a normal season we can't even watch 3pm kick offs, which is still most matches. 

 

Why do you think there's always a dodgy stream available to watch? It's because every match is on TV abroad. Every game is somewhere on American TV, what are they paying? What do they pay in Russia where all Prem games are televised? Or in the Arabic states or Japan or China or even just in Germany? 

 

My point is, it's our league and yet we already get shafted more than international fans. 

 

Edited 9 November 2020 by Finnegan

[Sol thewall Bamba]

People are against PPV as a concept, it's not the price that's the fundamental issue. 

[yorkie1999]

12 hours ago, peach0000 said:

Totally agree. Much rather a subscription where I can watch all games. I often will watch 10 in a weekend when it's possible, do that for a month at 5 pounds a game and that would be 200 pounds. 30 for now tv 7 for amazon and 20 for BT is expensive but it's a far better deal than 5 pounds a match.

But it's for games that wouldn't have been shown.

[peach0000]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

But it's for games that wouldn't have been shown.

They set a precedent by showing them and I don’t think people will accept any ppv for them now. It’s just a no go even at a fiver!

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, peach0000 said:

They set a precedent by showing them and I don’t think people will accept any ppv for them now. It’s just a no go even at a fiver!

I would and i'd pay a fiver to watch every Leicester away game in normal circumstances as well, problem for the broadcasters though is that i'd cancel the normal sport subscriptions.

[peach0000]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

I would and i'd pay a fiver to watch every Leicester away game in normal circumstances as well, problem for the broadcasters though is that i'd cancel the normal sport subscriptions.

That I think is part of the issue. If it was the only option I would pay 5 pounds for a Leicester match. (I would not pay 15) However I would not pay 5 for any non Leicester match. I would however be willing to spend. More than 5 pounds a week for access to every premier league match in a subscription format. Only being able to watch half on subscription for me makes me willing to pay a lot less. That’s the fundamental flaw of this system. They could make far more money another way. 
 

 

[AjcW]

Now that there's a clear structure in place for kick off days/times during COVID. The easiest thing is for Sky/BT to change their subscription packages so that...

 

A) The cost is slightly more in line with what fans overseas pay (although I'd argue we can't ask for exactly the same... the fact is there overseas fans never have the option of paying to attend games, whereas pre covid we did)

B) The cost reflects the fact you'll be able to watch every single Premier League game for the rest of the season (i'm always happy to pay for something that offers that sort of value! This is a unique time, we were never able to do this before!)

 

Then they need to work together to bundle together into a package.

 

I'm very much willing to pay for a product that replaces the match going experience whilst I'm unable to go to a game.

We can't sit there and complain at having to pay £40-50 a month for example, when I for one was paying that per game when we were allowed to go, because I couldn't commit to an ST and often decided last minute about whether I could go to home/away games. Even for a ST holder, with the discount of paying in bulk, you still spend a fair amount on the overall matchday experience/travel per week.

 

However obviously when fans are fully allowed back in and we revert to 6 games a weekend on tv rather than 10... the companies have to commit to reverting their costs and even looking at a reduction for those who were loyal during this period.

 

My NOWTV and BT Sport combined currently costs £47 a month, all internet based and played through my NOWTV box, so not done through any sort of satellite/cable. And obviously I also watch a fair bit of cricket/golf and F1 through that too so even more value. If they turn round in the international break and announce PPV is dead and we're back to every game being on as part of existing package, then how can I grumble at that? 

 

One thing I would like them to release on those digital platforms though, is a 'football only' package, because I could give up the other sports at the minute, but football is keeping me going!  

Edited 9 November 2020 by AjcW

[Saxondale]

17 hours ago, Sampson said:

Zero's right. If you pay for your subscription, you shouldn't pay extra.

Not everybody wants to pay a billion pounds a month to Sky. Some of us just want to watch Leicester matches.

[Saxondale]

9 hours ago, Finnegan said:

I'm sorry but I object on two grounds:

 

1. As far as I'm aware, are there not international services in other countries for fans outside the UK that cost less than a Sky / BT subscription that let you watch all games? 

 

Even something as shit as Premier Sports costs me a third of what I pay for BT / Sky and with that I can watch every single La Liga game, around seven out of ten Serie A games, every Pro 14 game and a bunch of other stuff. 

 

There's no real reason they can't make every game available for TV coverage for what they we pay within our subscription. Even Sky and BT themselves aren't against that, its the Premier League pushing the PPV angle. 

 

2. If they absolutely have to push on and do it, the trade off is that they absolutely have to provide this service to their season ticket holders free of charge. Its already disgusting that season ticket holders have to pay a Sky or BT subscription to be watch. Asking them to then pay any PPV fee, even one penny, when they've already paid to watch their home games this season is beyond sick. 

 

If your team team is at home on PPV and you've got a season ticket, that reference number should be traded for a virtual ticket code which unlocks the necessary channel / ppv event. 

 

I agree with much of this. The argument regarding provisions during Covid restrictions is sort of a separate thing. I'm talking about the long-term future of broadcast football.

 

Again, the argument regarding subscription packages is a separate thing. Not everybody wants to pay £40/£50/£60/£70 a month to Sky/BT/both for a load of sports content they don't want to watch.

 

I'm convinced there are many people, like me, who don't want to be committing large subscription fees to media companies, they just want to be able to cheaply, easily and legally access their team's games - or any other games that take their fancy for that matter.

[Webbo]

You realise that most of this subscription money goes to the clubs? You cut that money that means less money to the clubs, higher ticket prices, less wages and transfer fees for the players, so a bigger advantage to the bigger clubs. 

 

As for paying less abroad, of course they do. Why would a German or a French man pay what we do when they support their own teams? The PL to them is a bonus like their leagues are to us. The Asian countries that watch often have a lower standard of living, they couldn't afford to pay what we do. You can only charge what the market will stand. 

 

So much of these threads are based on wishful thinking without actually considering why things are the way they are and what the consequences of the change they want are. 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

You realise that most of this subscription money goes to the clubs? You cut that money that means less money to the clubs, higher ticket prices, less wages and transfer fees for the players, so a bigger advantage to the bigger clubs. 

 

As for paying less abroad, of course they do. Why would a German or a French man pay what we do when they support their own teams? The PL to them is a bonus like their leagues are to us. The Asian countries that watch often have a lower standard of living, they couldn't afford to pay what we do. You can only charge what the market will stand. 

 

So much of these threads are based on wishful thinking without actually considering why things are the way they are and what the consequences of the change they want are. 

They can make more by offering it for less but increasing their audience. You don’t pay sky or BT, nor do I. If it was priced reasonably and included all games, I would be more inclined too and I’m sure you would. Mirror that across the whole country and I doubt the revenue would decrease.

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, Strokes said:

They can make more by offering it for less but increasing their audience. You don’t pay sky or BT, nor do I. If it was priced reasonably and included all games, I would be more inclined too and I’m sure you would. Mirror that across the whole country and I doubt the revenue would decrease.

If you halved the cost, you'd have to sell double the subscriptions to break even. I'm not sure that's realistic.

[Strokes]

48 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you halved the cost, you'd have to sell double the subscriptions to break even. I'm not sure that's realistic.

I doubt it, it’s not like BT and Sky are doing it for free. If they use their own platform, the one that they use to sell to the rest of the world they cut the leeches out.