A sensible decision at last
comment by AFTVfan (U22503)
posted 5 minutes ago
A sensible decision at last
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About time, money grabbing feckers.
Do you know anyone who paid £14.95 to watch a game on TV.
My friend a Fulham fan paid this to watch a game v Palace. His reasoning was that £15 would cost him and his son lunch at the actual ground so he didnt mind paying.
comment by AFTVfan (U22503)
posted 2 minutes ago
Do you know anyone who paid £14.95 to watch a game on TV.
My friend a Fulham fan paid this to watch a game v Palace. His reasoning was that £15 would cost him and his son lunch at the actual ground so he didnt mind paying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know anybody, but some people must have.
I think if they were charging £15 a month but showed all of your team of choice games it would have been good.
I would have paid for that but to pay £15 for Palace vs Fulham is a pizz take.
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^ Yeah, that’s what’s remarkable about this: it wasn’t a terrible idea for the clubs or the fans, per se.
It could actually have served as a prototypical model to cut out the middle man, helping deliver funds directly from fans, who aren’t philosophically opposed to handing money over to watch football, to the clubs they choose to support (or otherwise choose to watch) without having to line the pockets of the subscription broadcasters.
But their greed appears to have done them over. I wonder if part of the reason for the high price was to do with rebates to the same broadcasters under the terms of broadcast rights agreements though?
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
++
here we go again.
You honestly think that in normal circumstances you should be able to receive 'a season ticket' of live PL football games on your TV in the UK for a fiver a go, when to actually attend these games in person can cost you up to £100+ a game?
How long do you think the game (as we know it) would last.... if Turkeys did actually vote for Christmas
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree.
comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right; you have to be effective (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
^ Yeah, that’s what’s remarkable about this: it wasn’t a terrible idea for the clubs or the fans, per se.
It could actually have served as a prototypical model to cut out the middle man, helping deliver funds directly from fans, who aren’t philosophically opposed to handing money over to watch football, to the clubs they choose to support (or otherwise choose to watch) without having to line the pockets of the subscription broadcasters.
But their greed appears to have done them over. I wonder if part of the reason for the high price was to do with rebates to the same broadcasters under the terms of broadcast rights agreements though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're probably right, they were trying to claw back the rebate money. £14.95 was still a rip off though and was a very bad look with a recession and people struggling for money. I've never had a Sky or BT subscription but I would very happily have paid £5 a time to watch Spurs.
This will save Sandy some money, then again hes very anti BBC so will probably find a way to pay
Some Arsenal fans would have paid nearly £30 to watch home defeats by Leicester and Aston Villa.
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this (though Arsenal rather than Spurs of course!).
However one slight flaw in the ointment would be knowing that if, for whatever reason, I did choose to watch Liverpool vs Man Utd, I'd effectively be handing money to those caants.
Think that could cause a sleepless night or two...
Apart from that though, I'm already looking forward to settling down on Boxing Day afternoon and watching WBA 0:0 Burnley on the BBC
comment by Lexington 125.2 - Give Reiss A Chance (U8879)
posted 18 minutes ago
Apart from that though, I'm already looking forward to settling down on Boxing Day afternoon and watching WBA 0:0 Burnley on the BBC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Lexington 125.2 - Give Reiss A Chance (U8879)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this (though Arsenal rather than Spurs of course!).
However one slight flaw in the ointment would be knowing that if, for whatever reason, I did choose to watch Liverpool vs Man Utd, I'd effectively be handing money to those caants.
Think that could cause a sleepless night or two...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideally, all of the PPV income would be pooled and divided between the 20 PL clubs after a proportion is put aside for the lower leagues and funding grassroots football.
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 7 hours, 8 minutes ago
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
++
here we go again.
You honestly think that in normal circumstances you should be able to receive 'a season ticket' of live PL football games on your TV in the UK for a fiver a go, when to actually attend these games in person can cost you up to £100+ a game?
How long do you think the game (as we know it) would last.... if Turkeys did actually vote for Christmas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky and BT show 20+ PL matches a month, as well as the CL, Europa League, FA Cup, League Cup, lower league football, European football, MLS football, and a dozen other major sports for £40/month so please stop crying when someone suggest £5 for ONE match is reasonable
Sign in if you want to comment
Premier League Scraps Pay Per View
Page 1 of 2
posted on 14/11/20
posted on 14/11/20
A sensible decision at last
posted on 14/11/20
comment by AFTVfan (U22503)
posted 5 minutes ago
A sensible decision at last
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/11/20
About time, money grabbing feckers.
posted on 14/11/20
Yes Eddie.
posted on 14/11/20
Do you know anyone who paid £14.95 to watch a game on TV.
My friend a Fulham fan paid this to watch a game v Palace. His reasoning was that £15 would cost him and his son lunch at the actual ground so he didnt mind paying.
posted on 14/11/20
comment by AFTVfan (U22503)
posted 2 minutes ago
Do you know anyone who paid £14.95 to watch a game on TV.
My friend a Fulham fan paid this to watch a game v Palace. His reasoning was that £15 would cost him and his son lunch at the actual ground so he didnt mind paying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know anybody, but some people must have.
posted on 14/11/20
Good news for winter!
posted on 14/11/20
I think if they were charging £15 a month but showed all of your team of choice games it would have been good.
I would have paid for that but to pay £15 for Palace vs Fulham is a pizz take.
posted on 14/11/20
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/11/20
^ Yeah, that’s what’s remarkable about this: it wasn’t a terrible idea for the clubs or the fans, per se.
It could actually have served as a prototypical model to cut out the middle man, helping deliver funds directly from fans, who aren’t philosophically opposed to handing money over to watch football, to the clubs they choose to support (or otherwise choose to watch) without having to line the pockets of the subscription broadcasters.
But their greed appears to have done them over. I wonder if part of the reason for the high price was to do with rebates to the same broadcasters under the terms of broadcast rights agreements though?
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/11/20
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
++
here we go again.
You honestly think that in normal circumstances you should be able to receive 'a season ticket' of live PL football games on your TV in the UK for a fiver a go, when to actually attend these games in person can cost you up to £100+ a game?
How long do you think the game (as we know it) would last.... if Turkeys did actually vote for Christmas
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 11 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had gone in with £5 a match pay per view I think it could have been a very successful scheme. It's low enough that people wouldn't really be bothered by it. Instead they got greedy and in the end have deservedly lost out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree.
posted on 14/11/20
comment by rosso - it’s not good enough to be right; you have to be effective (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
^ Yeah, that’s what’s remarkable about this: it wasn’t a terrible idea for the clubs or the fans, per se.
It could actually have served as a prototypical model to cut out the middle man, helping deliver funds directly from fans, who aren’t philosophically opposed to handing money over to watch football, to the clubs they choose to support (or otherwise choose to watch) without having to line the pockets of the subscription broadcasters.
But their greed appears to have done them over. I wonder if part of the reason for the high price was to do with rebates to the same broadcasters under the terms of broadcast rights agreements though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're probably right, they were trying to claw back the rebate money. £14.95 was still a rip off though and was a very bad look with a recession and people struggling for money. I've never had a Sky or BT subscription but I would very happily have paid £5 a time to watch Spurs.
posted on 14/11/20
This will save Sandy some money, then again hes very anti BBC so will probably find a way to pay
posted on 14/11/20
Some Arsenal fans would have paid nearly £30 to watch home defeats by Leicester and Aston Villa.
posted on 14/11/20
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this (though Arsenal rather than Spurs of course!).
However one slight flaw in the ointment would be knowing that if, for whatever reason, I did choose to watch Liverpool vs Man Utd, I'd effectively be handing money to those caants.
Think that could cause a sleepless night or two...
posted on 14/11/20
Apart from that though, I'm already looking forward to settling down on Boxing Day afternoon and watching WBA 0:0 Burnley on the BBC
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Lexington 125.2 - Give Reiss A Chance (U8879)
posted 18 minutes ago
Apart from that though, I'm already looking forward to settling down on Boxing Day afternoon and watching WBA 0:0 Burnley on the BBC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/11/20
comment by Lexington 125.2 - Give Reiss A Chance (U8879)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
I paid for the two spurs ones I’m afraid to say. I just hate facking about with streams.
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this (though Arsenal rather than Spurs of course!).
However one slight flaw in the ointment would be knowing that if, for whatever reason, I did choose to watch Liverpool vs Man Utd, I'd effectively be handing money to those caants.
Think that could cause a sleepless night or two...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideally, all of the PPV income would be pooled and divided between the 20 PL clubs after a proportion is put aside for the lower leagues and funding grassroots football.
posted on 14/11/20
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 7 hours, 8 minutes ago
I actually want PPV to stay rather than a subscription to sky. I only watch spurs matches and maybe 5 or 6 bigger non-spurs matches during a season. £5 a match would be a great pricing point.
++
here we go again.
You honestly think that in normal circumstances you should be able to receive 'a season ticket' of live PL football games on your TV in the UK for a fiver a go, when to actually attend these games in person can cost you up to £100+ a game?
How long do you think the game (as we know it) would last.... if Turkeys did actually vote for Christmas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky and BT show 20+ PL matches a month, as well as the CL, Europa League, FA Cup, League Cup, lower league football, European football, MLS football, and a dozen other major sports for £40/month so please stop crying when someone suggest £5 for ONE match is reasonable
Page 1 of 2