Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
What a dick! 09:00 - Oct 18 with 3696 viewsWrightUp5hit___

Just doesn't understand his "product" or customers in the least.

https://www.westlondonsport.com/brentford/efl-chief-insists-streaming-games-will

Surely the Chairmen must realise by now they have employed an idiot
0
What a dick! on 09:54 - Oct 18 with 3572 viewsstevec

Going forward I'm not sure how far into a clubs games this streaming applies but at the moment the maths says clubs, certainly like ours, will be better off.

32 million extra for the clubs, I think 80% of that usually distributed amongst Championship clubs which means £1 million each.

Leaving aside the fact that LR looks pretty empty for most of our midweek home games, working on a basis our midweeks attract 12,000 gates then the difference in drop off on the percentages mentioned means we've suffered a loss of about 516 people.

Times that by £30 say, £15480, then times by the 4 home games it covers, mean the club gains a cool £938,000 a season.

Purely on numbers through the door we'd need to lose over 8,000 fans on each of those 4 games for it to have a negative impact, highly unlikely.

If, of course, this got extended over Saturday games at some point then it'd be a different matter.
0
What a dick! on 10:40 - Oct 18 with 3503 viewsNottsQPR

Harvey may be a d1ck, but as I’ve said before I think midweek streaming is a great idea and should force clubs to actually think about admission prices, their in-stadium offering and how they attract people to the game.

I have Sky, live in Nottingham and love the fact I can watch the game. If QPR were at forest midweek I’d go, but I can’t make it to the Loft due to work and family.
0
What a dick! on 11:10 - Oct 18 with 3434 viewscaliforniahoop

What a dick! on 09:54 - Oct 18 by stevec

Going forward I'm not sure how far into a clubs games this streaming applies but at the moment the maths says clubs, certainly like ours, will be better off.

32 million extra for the clubs, I think 80% of that usually distributed amongst Championship clubs which means £1 million each.

Leaving aside the fact that LR looks pretty empty for most of our midweek home games, working on a basis our midweeks attract 12,000 gates then the difference in drop off on the percentages mentioned means we've suffered a loss of about 516 people.

Times that by £30 say, £15480, then times by the 4 home games it covers, mean the club gains a cool £938,000 a season.

Purely on numbers through the door we'd need to lose over 8,000 fans on each of those 4 games for it to have a negative impact, highly unlikely.

If, of course, this got extended over Saturday games at some point then it'd be a different matter.


The numbers make sense to me!
0
What a dick! on 11:24 - Oct 18 with 3319 viewsdavman

What a dick! on 11:10 - Oct 18 by californiahoop

The numbers make sense to me!


They do make sense, but all this illustrates is that this is NOT about football, it's all about finance.

I know its the 'modern' way and its all about the cash, but what about football, the experience? This strips out attendance one way or the other and lowers atmosphere at games, which will probably further reduce when people realise that going to the game doesn't give them much more of a buzz than staying at home, where it is a little bit warmer and less hassle.

Soon, no-one will go, so where would that take us? Rich clubs playing in front on no-one.

If I am acting like an old fart and not with the programme, sorry, but this is a GAME we are talking about isn't it? I am not sure I'll celebrate the day QPR turn a big profit in, but if we ever win anything again, I'll be all over that...

...and this is coming from someone who has paid the club for the games I can't get to when I work away from home...

Can we go out yet?
Poll: What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

1
What a dick! on 11:32 - Oct 18 with 3302 viewsstevec

What a dick! on 11:24 - Oct 18 by davman

They do make sense, but all this illustrates is that this is NOT about football, it's all about finance.

I know its the 'modern' way and its all about the cash, but what about football, the experience? This strips out attendance one way or the other and lowers atmosphere at games, which will probably further reduce when people realise that going to the game doesn't give them much more of a buzz than staying at home, where it is a little bit warmer and less hassle.

Soon, no-one will go, so where would that take us? Rich clubs playing in front on no-one.

If I am acting like an old fart and not with the programme, sorry, but this is a GAME we are talking about isn't it? I am not sure I'll celebrate the day QPR turn a big profit in, but if we ever win anything again, I'll be all over that...

...and this is coming from someone who has paid the club for the games I can't get to when I work away from home...


True, but those wages need paying.
0
What a dick! on 12:36 - Oct 18 with 3158 viewscaliforniahoop

What a dick! on 11:32 - Oct 18 by stevec

True, but those wages need paying.


This should enable them to drop match day prices/season tickets next season, no excuse, this is supplemental income.
0
What a dick! on 12:39 - Oct 18 with 3148 viewsqprd

What a dick! on 10:40 - Oct 18 by NottsQPR

Harvey may be a d1ck, but as I’ve said before I think midweek streaming is a great idea and should force clubs to actually think about admission prices, their in-stadium offering and how they attract people to the game.

I have Sky, live in Nottingham and love the fact I can watch the game. If QPR were at forest midweek I’d go, but I can’t make it to the Loft due to work and family.


Agree

its not just fans who live outside London- there are tons of other fans who are older or immobile and cant make the matches- people like myself who regularly have to work nights (but can watch from my desk). and other people who cant afford to spend 100 quid to take a family of four to a match, but may be willing to spend a fiver to watch the match
1
What a dick! on 12:48 - Oct 18 with 3113 viewsWestbourneR

A lot of people here not really getting the point.

The £1 million the club would get from streaming is 'supplemental' income we really need - not money we can then negate by dropping ticket prices etc.

Any idea that all the money will be passed to the fans is pie in the sky.

Our books don't add up - we need gate receipts and TV money.

Besides, if I can make it to a game I'll go because I like to watch live football in person - whether the game is on TV or not. And I suspect the 12,000 that still turn up now are generally a lot like me.

Streaming is to make extra money no replacement money. It's the harvest the cash from fair weather fans not to replace the people that do actually go.

Poll: Should JFH get the sack?

2
Login to get fewer ads

What a dick! on 12:49 - Oct 18 with 3112 viewsCiderwithRsie

What a dick! on 11:32 - Oct 18 by stevec

True, but those wages need paying.


The one thing that the revolution in football finances has proved is that wages will increase to use up all of any increase in income, even if that means players being paid not to play.

I'm for live streaming for the benefit of those who can't attend anyway and as publicity for the club, and so long as it doesn't actually cost us that's fair enough. IMO some of the extra income should be used to reduce prices to attract in those who can attend (better for atmosphere even if income-neutral) and the stream used to advertise the lower prices to an audience who might be tempted to future games.

It also helps if the actual football being streamed isn't sh*te.
0
What a dick! on 13:26 - Oct 18 with 3014 viewsstevec

What a dick! on 12:49 - Oct 18 by CiderwithRsie

The one thing that the revolution in football finances has proved is that wages will increase to use up all of any increase in income, even if that means players being paid not to play.

I'm for live streaming for the benefit of those who can't attend anyway and as publicity for the club, and so long as it doesn't actually cost us that's fair enough. IMO some of the extra income should be used to reduce prices to attract in those who can attend (better for atmosphere even if income-neutral) and the stream used to advertise the lower prices to an audience who might be tempted to future games.

It also helps if the actual football being streamed isn't sh*te.


You mention publicity, a fair point and I was surprised at the high turnout v Derby following the streamed Reading game.

Nothing like seeing your team win away on TV, wishing you’d been there and head straight for the next game.
0
What a dick! on 13:29 - Oct 18 with 3008 viewsSimonJames

What a dick! on 12:36 - Oct 18 by californiahoop

This should enable them to drop match day prices/season tickets next season, no excuse, this is supplemental income.


It's not supplemental income. Due to the ridiculous distortion in footballers wages caused by the ludicrous amount of money washing around in the Premiership, this income would just be an additional way of saving up to buy a proper striker.

100% of people who drink water will die.

0
What a dick! on 13:31 - Oct 18 with 3003 viewsJuzzie

Using the PL average of £45k/week, there needs to be an across the board, all clubs to do it, reduction in player salaries by at least 50-60%.

F**k Gordon Taylor, the wages are just absolutely insane and even with such a reduction I'm sure the poor little lambs can still get by on £20,000 a week. That's £3m on a 3 year contract.
That would still mean a football player earns (sic) in one year what the average person would take 36 years to earn. That's how insane player salaries are.

Appropriate reductions in the Championship too.


That'll solve the problem.




But will never happen.
2
What a dick! on 13:43 - Oct 18 with 2969 viewsSimonJames

What a dick! on 13:31 - Oct 18 by Juzzie

Using the PL average of £45k/week, there needs to be an across the board, all clubs to do it, reduction in player salaries by at least 50-60%.

F**k Gordon Taylor, the wages are just absolutely insane and even with such a reduction I'm sure the poor little lambs can still get by on £20,000 a week. That's £3m on a 3 year contract.
That would still mean a football player earns (sic) in one year what the average person would take 36 years to earn. That's how insane player salaries are.

Appropriate reductions in the Championship too.


That'll solve the problem.




But will never happen.


Unsurprisingly Premiership players (and even more so their agents) aren't going to accept lower wages and watch the clubs' shareholders trouser the best part of the £5.1bn broadcast money.
Maybe Labour can nationalise the PL when they next get elected

100% of people who drink water will die.

0
What a dick! on 14:29 - Oct 18 with 2864 viewsfrancisbowles

What a dick! on 13:31 - Oct 18 by Juzzie

Using the PL average of £45k/week, there needs to be an across the board, all clubs to do it, reduction in player salaries by at least 50-60%.

F**k Gordon Taylor, the wages are just absolutely insane and even with such a reduction I'm sure the poor little lambs can still get by on £20,000 a week. That's £3m on a 3 year contract.
That would still mean a football player earns (sic) in one year what the average person would take 36 years to earn. That's how insane player salaries are.

Appropriate reductions in the Championship too.


That'll solve the problem.




But will never happen.


Unfortunately, it's a global marketplace! Without action from FIFA (Lol), if English clubs don't pay wages others will.

There needs to be action that sees income of the top division in each country trickle down the divisions, so that there is less wealth amongst the 'elite' to waste on players and agents.

Can't see that happening though.
0
What a dick! on 14:33 - Oct 18 with 2854 viewstimcocking

Doesn't understand? An idiot?

I fear you greatly underestimate 'them'.

I'd see his hateful influence as malign, possibly at the behest of some shadowy larger clubs. No way his attacks on the small teams are idiocy. They are deliberate. Attack in plain sight.
[Post edited 18 Oct 2018 14:35]
0
What a dick! on 14:37 - Oct 18 with 2845 viewstimcocking

What a dick! on 09:54 - Oct 18 by stevec

Going forward I'm not sure how far into a clubs games this streaming applies but at the moment the maths says clubs, certainly like ours, will be better off.

32 million extra for the clubs, I think 80% of that usually distributed amongst Championship clubs which means £1 million each.

Leaving aside the fact that LR looks pretty empty for most of our midweek home games, working on a basis our midweeks attract 12,000 gates then the difference in drop off on the percentages mentioned means we've suffered a loss of about 516 people.

Times that by £30 say, £15480, then times by the 4 home games it covers, mean the club gains a cool £938,000 a season.

Purely on numbers through the door we'd need to lose over 8,000 fans on each of those 4 games for it to have a negative impact, highly unlikely.

If, of course, this got extended over Saturday games at some point then it'd be a different matter.


You act as if it is a black and white calculation with no intangibles. Which is absolutely wrong. There are many other factors to consider.

Over time, it'll probably hurt smaller clubs. This is exactly what they want i'd have thought.
0
What a dick! on 20:57 - Oct 18 with 2645 viewsJuzzie

What a dick! on 14:29 - Oct 18 by francisbowles

Unfortunately, it's a global marketplace! Without action from FIFA (Lol), if English clubs don't pay wages others will.

There needs to be action that sees income of the top division in each country trickle down the divisions, so that there is less wealth amongst the 'elite' to waste on players and agents.

Can't see that happening though.


Fine by me. Let them all fk off abroad.

We’ll still have 92 clubs and maybe ticket prices where people can actually afford to go to games and enjoy the day out with their friends, kids etc without paying silly amounts to do so.
0
What a dick! on 16:02 - Oct 19 with 2220 viewswombat

What a dick! on 20:57 - Oct 18 by Juzzie

Fine by me. Let them all fk off abroad.

We’ll still have 92 clubs and maybe ticket prices where people can actually afford to go to games and enjoy the day out with their friends, kids etc without paying silly amounts to do so.


the first step towards away fans not being wanted at grounds, home team wins are more support , home team win as less police costs , home team wins as less lost seats more important for the big clubs but we all know they like any cash they can hoover up.

Poll: which is your favouite foot

0
What a dick! on 17:21 - Oct 20 with 1858 viewssmegma

IVe never heard of the bloke which tells a story
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024