Pay Per View Premier League Games

Tom Mann Centuria · 10-10-2020 3:06pm

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Realistically, the only solution they have in the long term is a clamp down on the pirate streams. Greater enforcement of fines and penalties against the pirates, more resources being spent on tracking down the providers, forcing ISP's to become more proactive in blocking pirates, etc. Lots of folks here won't like it, but I am guessing tougher measures will come at some point.

I'm sure they will try, and there might be occasions when services go down, but something else always pops up in its place. Just like when they got on top of card sharing, iptv took its place. It will never go away. If there had been a silver bullet for piracy don't you think Hollywood would have used it years ago. The more legitimate streaming options, the greater the choice for piracy, and when you're hawking your "product" world wide that multiplies into the hundreds upon hundreds.

Okon · 10-10-2020 3:31pm

PPV PL football matches in the UK was always the way it was going to go... it was the PL's wet dream. The current no fans in the stadium thing just gives them the excuse for it now, but it would have been a business model the PL would have been wanting to see one day. This is just the start.

Richard Hillman · 10-10-2020 3:36pm

CSF wrote: »

I still don’t know where you get the idea that it’d be a tenner a month. People would pay multiple times more than that so they’ll charge more. I mean they’re already charging more than that for ONE game.

If they were going worldwide with it, they would have to put it at a price point that would suit people around the world. Nobody in China, India, USA would be paying €40-50 a month for it.

NFL has a similar price point around the world. It differs slightly per country with currency fluctuations.

There would be a lot of peeved off people if the PL charged €50 a month at home and €10 a month in India. Plus there would be ways around it.

CSF · 10-10-2020 3:55pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If they were going worldwide with it, they would have to put it at a price point that would suit people around the world. Nobody in China, India, USA would be paying €40-50 a month for it.

NFL has a similar price point around the world. It differs slightly per country with currency fluctuations.

There would be a lot of peeved off people if the PL charged €50 a month at home and €10 a month in India. Plus there would be ways around it.

It’s a good point, but I think they’d have no such problems p*ssing people off. That’s literally what they’re doing right now.

They’ll be running some serious modelling on the various numbers and scenarios around it, and expect nothing less than the one that brings in the most profit.

This PPV thing will likely be significant enough with it. If people show that they’ll still pay the asking price even when they’re upset about it, that will be a factor in all future pricing.

They’ve gone with this because they think people will largely moan about this, talk about all the alternative things they’ll do than pay it, but ultimately pay for the games that their team plays in.

Any money they bring in from the neutral for certain games will just be the cherry on top.

10-10-2020 4:13pm

CSF wrote: »

I still don’t know where you get the idea that it’d be a tenner a month. People would pay multiple times more than that so they’ll charge more. I mean they’re already charging more than that for ONE game.

Because they are losing more and more people to iptv, ok it might not be a 10er but more people paying less would make them more money and not be worrying about losing people to iptv.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The point of 1/20th was that there is 20 teams and MUFC would be expected to be a way above average contributor. Yet 1 million season tickets at £75 (a price suggested by the poster I was replying to) doesn't bring in even 1/20th of the current £1.6B per year of the UK/Ire TV deal.

Why do you think I'm underestimating with one million? It seems an over estimation to me. UK/Irl population is 71M - but adults who like football is maybe 15M. Those who support MUFC (or would be interested enough to subscribe) is clearly just a fraction of that.
The likes of Brighton and Burnley aren't going to bring in much than 25,000 subs, so MUFC/Pool etc have to take the slack.

At £75 you would need 21M subscriptions to maintain the current TV deal income. And as I said that's before the new costs of having to build a platform, provide the product yourself (cameras, electrics, buying satellite space). And a massive advertising campaign (currently Sky/BT can effectively advertise for nothing on their own stations).

At the end of the day, the purpose isn't to find a price-point at which you or duffman are willing to pay. It's to find a profitable price-point for everyone.

But look, I've shown you my maths - if you think I'm wrong then I'd welcome you trying to convince me in kind.

A conservative estimate for the UK is there are 5m iptv subscribers alone and it’s growing, every one of those is almost certainly for sport. Add that to the legitimate subs and the extra ones you would get who won’t pay for sky and don’t really understand or want iptv.

Oat23 wrote: »

I pay €30 per month for Sky Germany. Came with a Sky Q box and includes HD as standard (+ €5 if I wanted UHD, but not worth it).....

We are really getting the short straw in Ireland getting lumped in with the Uk also, we would be far better off being treat the same as the rest of the world and getting much cheaper subs, 3pm games much easier etc. Never understood why we have to pay the same as the Uk.

ArmaniJeanss · 10-10-2020 4:31pm

Eduardo Large Blackjack wrote: »

Because they are losing more and more people to iptv, ok it might not be a 10er but more people paying less would make them more money and not be worrying about losing people to iptv.

Margins an issue surely. Like if my margin is 50% and I halve my selling price then it doesn't matter whether I 10x or 100x my amount of sales, my profit will now be zero.
So it remains over-simplistic to try to pick a price-point that gets people off iptv. It's akin to saying a 5 star hotel should find a price point that gets the bed&breakfast or hostel people in.

Eduardo Large Blackjack wrote: »

A conservative estimate for the UK is there are 5m iptv subscribers alone and it’s growing, every one of those is almost certainly for sport. Add that to the legitimate subs and the extra ones you would get who won’t pay for sky and don’t really understand or want iptv.

It's an extreme annoyance for Sky/BT obviously, but reducing their prices closer to the iptv level, just to attract these customers, would be a terrible business move.

Eduardo Large Blackjack wrote: »

We are really getting the short straw in Ireland getting lumped in with the Uk also, we would be far better off being treat the same as the rest of the world and getting much cheaper subs, 3pm games much easier etc. Never understood why we have to pay the same as the Uk.

100% agreement with you here. I don't know enough about politics, but maybe after Brexit someone might be able to make/take a case that it should be different markets?

CSF · 10-10-2020 4:52pm

Eduardo Large Blackjack wrote: »

Because they are losing more and more people to iptv, ok it might not be a 10er but more people paying less would make them more money and not be worrying about losing people to iptv.

They’re not worried about that. They would not be charging 15 euro a game if they were worried about losing their core profit base. They’re obviously thinking that the numbers that they’ll lose don’t outweigh the money they bring in from the increase.

The best we can hope for is that they’re wrong. But the worry would be that they’ve a lot more resources to put into analysing this than us.

Fr Tod Umptious · 10-10-2020 10:45pm

Pre COVID there was no chance in hell that any premier league official streaming service would be at a reasonable price in the UK and Ireland.
Since it's inception it has always been a premium product and priced as such by the TV companies.
And that would have been the case if an online service was offered, either by the TV companies or the EPL themselves.

Now post COVID it may be a different story, no immediately but in the longer term.
The reality is the premiere league product is not what it was.
The empty stadiums, the fake crowd noise, players being out due to COVID etc
Added to that you have people unemployed or on reduced incomes due to the economic effects of COVID.
And while we are at it thrown in Brexit and how it "should" be more difficult and more expensive for EU players to get work permits and thus less high profile EU players in the league.

So I can see a big contraction in what the TV companies are willing to pay for rights in the future, plus I can't see the EPL making the leap of ditching the TV companies and going it alone in the current environment.

So maybe we will see reduced viewing costs in the future, but I still think that individual team subscriptions are a long way off, the premiere league we as build on as group of 20 breaking away from a group of 92 to maximize their incomes, individual team subscriptions would go against all of that.

This PPV attempt is a cash grab by the TV companies now because they really don't know what the future may hold for their long term model.

Nunu · 11-10-2020 11:19am

€16.95 per match and first up is Newcastle v Man Utd. Why am I not surprised?

They claimed the box office games would be the 5 games usually set for 3pm Saturday in pre pandemic times...then they pick a game with arguably two of the biggest fan bases in the U.K.

This fixture is nearly always televised as part of basic SKY/BT service. They are well and truly dipping their toes in the septic pool.

I’m out. Cancelling SKY today and I don’t even have any premium channels at the moment. €35 per month for standard set up. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Mitch Connor · 11-10-2020 12:13pm

Nunu wrote: »

€16.95 per match and first up is Newcastle v Man Utd. Why am I not surprised?

They claimed the box office games would be the 5 games usually set for 3pm Saturday in pre pandemic times...then they pick a game with arguably two of the biggest fan bases in the U.K.

This fixture is nearly always televised as part of basic SKY/BT service. They are well and truly dipping their toes in the septic pool.

I’m out. Cancelling SKY today and I don’t even have any premium channels at the moment. €35 per month for standard set up. It’s beyond ridiculous.

United vs Newcastle was not a match picked fir a TV slot. Those tv slots were picked in the summer.

All matches not in a TV slot are ppv games.

CSF · 11-10-2020 12:22pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

United vs Newcastle was not a match picked fir a TV slot. Those tv slots were picked in the summer.

All matches not in a TV slot are ppv games.

The tv slots weren’t picked that long ago. I think it was 3 weeks back. They’d have known this was in the works and there probably is merit to the idea that this one was cherrypicked.

Teams like Newcastle, Villa and Leeds against the likely top 4 are probably gonna be prime candidates for this.

ArmaniJeanss · 11-10-2020 12:37pm

There have always been a few MidTable v Pool/MUFC games in the 3pm slot each season. The nature of the packages means there are min/max quotas on how often each team can be picked.

Going by the TV slots it looks like the regular picks went as follows.
Sky have number one choice and picked Spurs v West Ham.
This forced BT (choice 2) to pick Everton v Pool or City v Arsenal. They picked the first game.
Sky obviously picked City v Arsenal then (and got it with a low number pick which is great for future City/Arsenal quotas in the main pack).

Sky then knowing they have 2 big games already to build the weekend around, chose Palace v Brighton with Pick 4. It's a game with a historic edge, and also useful to fill the min quotas on each team.
Skys 5th pick is Leeds v Wolves on Monday night. It's a decent Monday night game and teams like this not in Europe are always candidates for a Monday slot on CL weeks.

With such a slate of games, it seems like a fairly obvious week to skip MUFC and save them for later.

lertsnim · 11-10-2020 12:46pm

Nunu wrote: »

€16.95 per match and first up is Newcastle v Man Utd. Why am I not surprised?

They claimed the box office games would be the 5 games usually set for 3pm Saturday in pre pandemic times...then they pick a game with arguably two of the biggest fan bases in the U.K.

This fixture is nearly always televised as part of basic SKY/BT service. They are well and truly dipping their toes in the septic pool.

I’m out. Cancelling SKY today and I don’t even have any premium channels at the moment. €35 per month for standard set up. It’s beyond ridiculous.

Arsenal v Leicester is also going to be ppv. Bollocks to that as it would definitely have been shown on Sky or BT any other season.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 11-10-2020 2:58pm

Tito Football covered something like this a while back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5jqCh3Eiq0

There's a huge amount of money to be made if they went for an Amazon-Prime/GamePass type option.

larchielads · 11-10-2020 3:18pm

They did this before, i remember it wasnt great and think there was one decent fixture through it all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PremPlus

Degag · 11-10-2020 10:50pm

lertsnim wrote: »

Arsenal v Leicester is also going to be ppv. Bollocks to that as it would definitely have been shown on Sky or BT any other season.

Yeah, surely would have been. As such any game between the top 6/7 should NEVER be on ppv because as such, they were always on Sky/BT. I'd imagine there would be very few exceptions to this really.

If this becomes a reality will be strongly considering cancelling my sub.

CSF · 12-10-2020 12:02am

Degag wrote: »

Yeah, surely would have been. As such any game between the top 6/7 should NEVER be on ppv because as such, they were always on Sky/BT. I'd imagine there would be very few exceptions to this really.

If this becomes a reality will be strongly considering cancelling my sub.

Sky are still gonna want the biggest games. While some of the borderline games have now gone the other side of the line, Everton v Liverpool, Man City v Arsenal, Man United v Chelsea and Man United v Arsenal are all televised.

But like, the games of the top 6 against teams that were previously televised more often will have to be on PPV more often,

This would become even more controversial if you had the likes of West Brom and Burnley on PPV 20+ times and United, City, Chelsea and Liverpool like 5,

Fr Tod Umptious · 12-10-2020 1:10am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There have always been a few MidTable v Pool/MUFC games in the 3pm slot each season. The nature of the packages means there are min/max quotas on how often each team can be picked.

Going by the TV slots it looks like the regular picks went as follows.
Sky have number one choice and picked Spurs v West Ham.
This forced BT (choice 2) to pick Everton v Pool or City v Arsenal. They picked the first game.
Sky obviously picked City v Arsenal then (and got it with a low number pick which is great for future City/Arsenal quotas in the main pack).

Sky then knowing they have 2 big games already to build the weekend around, chose Palace v Brighton with Pick 4. It's a game with a historic edge, and also useful to fill the min quotas on each team.
Skys 5th pick is Leeds v Wolves on Monday night. It's a decent Monday night game and teams like this not in Europe are always candidates for a Monday slot on CL weeks.

With such a slate of games, it seems like a fairly obvious week to skip MUFC and save them for later.

Please stop.
This facts based analysis is getting in the way of people having a good whinge.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 10:32am

All existing Sky Sports, BT Sports and Premier Sports subscribers will see all the games they have paid for in their packs. This will not change, 230 odd games.

Then we have the non televised games that were never to be shown on TV anyway. These games will be shown on PPV. Fans now have a chance to see these games but if they don't want to pay for them then nothing changes as they weren't going to be on TV.

All the big games will still be picked up by the Sky Sports and BT Sports as the PPV games will be the last picks. Liverpool V Man City can't be on PPV as an example because if Sky don't pick it as their first pick game then BT definitely will

CSF · 12-10-2020 12:13pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

All existing Sky Sports, BT Sports and Premier Sports subscribers will see all the games they have paid for in their packs. This will not change, 230 odd games.

Then we have the non televised games that were never to be shown on TV anyway. These games will be shown on PPV. Fans now have a chance to see these games but if they don't want to pay for them then nothing changes as they weren't going to be on TV.

All the big games will still be picked up by the Sky Sports and BT Sports as the PPV games will be the last picks. Liverpool V Man City can't be on PPV as an example because if Sky don't pick it as their first pick game then BT definitely will

This would make sense to be seen as an addition if fans were able to attend games.

How it actually is, is that you’ve fans who bought season tickets who are being asked to pay 15 GBP to see same games in an empty stadium.

It’s 100% a hustle on fans who have no other option.

Does it offer a potential benefit to someone who never intended to attend the game in the first place? Yes, but at that price it doesn’t exactly represent value either.

Mitch Connor · 12-10-2020 12:33pm

Id be a prime target for this. At 5 id pay for a united game no problem. At 10 I'd consider it, but would likely not pay it. At 15 I'm giving it zero consideration. There is not chance I pay that.

Not even for a united game, never mind Leeds vs someone.

The pricing of this is insane. They might point to ufc etc.... But they are once off monthly events. Not 5 every freaking week.

Rossi IRL · 12-10-2020 12:55pm

I paid a tenner for Salford vs Man Utd u21s in the league cup but was OK with it as the money went straight to Salford. Still thought it was too much at the time. Wont be paying €17 or €18 to watch Utd vs Newcastle that's for sure.

I already pay for sky, bt and the rest around €140 a month. Been paying for sky every month since it first came into the country. Got to do some studying now on the other means to get around this.

Fr Tod Umptious · 12-10-2020 12:58pm

Rossi IRL wrote: »

I paid a tenner for Salford vs Man Utd u21s in the league cup but was OK with it as the money went straight to Salford. Still thought it was too much at the time. Wont be paying €17 or €18 to watch Utd vs Newcastle that's for sure.

I already pay for sky, bt and the rest around €140 a month. Been paying for sky every month since it first came into the country. Got to do some studying now on the other means to get around this.

Well there's actually nothing to get around.

These are games that would not have been shown on Sky or BT anyway, so you're not missing out on anything.

Rossi IRL · 12-10-2020 1:00pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Well there's actually nothing to get around.

These are games that would not have been shown on Sky or BT anyway, so you're not missing out on anything.

It may not be the case for games that were already set for the standard TV schedules this season, wait till next season for more bigger games being put on PPV

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 1:05pm

CSF wrote: »

This would make sense to be seen as an addition if fans were able to attend games.

How it actually is, is that you’ve fans who bought season tickets who are being asked to pay 15 GBP to see same games in an empty stadium.

It’s 100% a hustle on fans who have no other option.

Does it offer a potential benefit to someone who never intended to attend the game in the first place? Yes, but at that price it doesn’t exactly represent value either.

For Irish fans it is a bonus. For UK fans I can see the point but I don't think any fans have paid season tickets this year?

Mitch Connor · 12-10-2020 1:06pm

Rossi IRL wrote: »

It may not be the case for games that were already set for the standard TV schedules, wait till next season for more bigger games being put on PPV

Plus, while I do believe the game selections are what they are, at the moment at least, I don't think it really matters.

if the games weren't on tv at all, you would have people that would get around it and watch them. But you would also have people that would just get on with their lives and watch the highlights or whatever when they are legally available.

I think when you make games actually available, but at this price, you are far more actively encouraging people to look for other means, or turn them off your product in general. I think this is an actively bad move, mainly at this price point.

The other sticking point is how it is being delivered. If it was via streaming of some sort, and was 'just' a 15 quid cost you could argue it. But the 15 is on top of the BT or Sky Sub - so you have to be paying for one of these premium providers in the first place. I have to think there are *some* people who would have gone to games, and not had the sky sub - so now not only are you telling them they can't go to the games, you are telling them if they want to pay 15 to watch them on tv they also have to pay for Sky or BT (or both cause the PPV games are being split too!).

I just can't get my head around how the PL have allowed this idea to become an absolute mess. A high cost, on top of a premium subscription, for games they will tell you are not the big games of that match day.

*Slow clap for the PL*.

JPA · 12-10-2020 1:15pm

I'm sure you don't need a sports subscription to get the games on box office.

CSF · 12-10-2020 1:30pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

For Irish fans it is a bonus. For UK fans I can see the point but I don't think any fans have paid season tickets this year?

They have. I know some personally.

CSF · 12-10-2020 1:33pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

Well there's actually nothing to get around.

These are games that would not have been shown on Sky or BT anyway, so you're not missing out on anything.

Not really true. I’d have usually waited for the TV fixtures to come out, and book to go over to the games that aren’t televised (assuming life doesn’t get in the way).

There will be others that only watched the televised games anyway, and this will be nothing new to them, but paying 17 euro to watch a football game in an empty stadium is not a solid substitute for many people.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 1:43pm

Rossi IRL wrote: »

I already pay for sky, bt and the rest around €140 a month. Been paying for sky every month since it first came into the country. Got to do some studying now on the other means to get around this.

All the 146 Sky games will continue on Sky sports main channels. All 52 BT games will be on BT main channels and all Premier Sport games will be available too.

The only games on PPV are games that were not in the rights packages already sold to the TV companies. These games were never meant to be on TV.

CSF · 12-10-2020 1:44pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

All the 146 Sky games will continue on Sky sports main channels. All 52 BT games will be on BT main channels and all Premier Sport games will be available too.

The only games on PPV are games that were not in the rights packages already sold to the TV companies. These games were never meant to be on TV.

But people were meant to be able to go to them. 17 euro to watch it in an empty stadium does not seem like a happy medium.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 1:44pm

CSF wrote: »

They have. I know some personally.

Then their club have screwed them over. Shame on the clubs.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 1:46pm

Rossi IRL wrote: »

It may not be the case for games that were already set for the standard TV schedules this season, wait till next season for more bigger games being put on PPV

The multi year tv packages have already been sold so it can only happen once those contracts expire. Sky and BT have paid big money for the first picks and won't allow / want PPV taking the big matches.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 1:50pm

CSF wrote: »

Not really true. I’d have usually waited for the TV fixtures to come out, and book to go over to the games that aren’t televised (assuming life doesn’t get in the way).

There will be others that only watched the televised games anyway, and this will be nothing new to them, but paying 17 euro to watch a football game in an empty stadium is not a solid substitute for many people.

That is the virus fault - nothing to do with TV companies. They are offering an option as they can't go to stadium. The clubs should not be selling season tickets to fans with no crowds. It is a disgrace that they are. I know the team i support have suspended season tickets until fans return.

CSF · 12-10-2020 2:00pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

That is the virus fault - nothing to do with TV companies. They are offering an option as they can't go to stadium. The clubs should not be selling season tickets to fans with no crowds. It is a disgrace that they are. I know the team i support have suspended season tickets until fans return.

The problem isn’t that they’re offering an option. The problem is that they’re heavily overcharging, forcing people’s hands knowing that people have no other legal option to watch their team.

Why does the price of these games massively outweigh what we’re paying to watch what are supposed to be the better games?

In a month of 40 games, you’d be paying 300 to watch the weaker 50% of games and less than 20% of that to watch the stronger 50% of games.

In reality, people probably wouldn’t watch all the televised or the non-televised games, but it doesn’t make those maths above any less predatory.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 2:22pm

CSF wrote: »

The problem isn’t that they’re offering an option. The problem is that they’re heavily overcharging, forcing people’s hands knowing that people have no other legal option to watch their team.

Why does the price of these games massively outweigh what we’re paying to watch what are supposed to be the better games?

In a month of 40 games, you’d be paying 300 to watch the weaker 50% of games and less than 20% of that to watch the stronger 50% of games.

In reality, people probably wouldn’t watch all the televised or the non-televised games, but it doesn’t make those maths above any less predatory.

The existing TV package is unaffected by this.

None of the PPV games were due to be shown on TV so nobody loses anything. You gain an option that doesn't need to be exercised.

CSF · 12-10-2020 2:32pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

The existing TV package is unaffected by this.

None of the PPV games were due to be shown on TV so nobody loses anything. You gain an option that doesn't need to be exercised.

Just because you’re not losing something on your TV package specifically doesn’t mean you’re not losing something.

I didn’t see anyone suggest that what you get on your TV package is now less than it was. The problem is that they’re hustling people for the other games knowing that they’ve no other available legal options.

Non solum non ambulabit · 12-10-2020 3:01pm

CSF wrote: »

Just because you’re not losing something on your TV package specifically doesn’t mean you’re not losing something.

I didn’t see anyone suggest that what you get on your TV package is now less than it was. The problem is that they’re hustling people for the other games knowing that they’ve no other available legal options.

True. But before PPV there was zero way to watch legally.

CSF · 12-10-2020 3:04pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

True. But before PPV there was zero way to watch legally.

There was. A big gigantic stadium full of people. It’s the people who go to the games that are effected and basically hustled by this. Not the TV viewer.

The TV viewer is not being offered value for money either, but it would be correct to say that they do not lose anything that they had pre-Covid.

12-10-2020 3:05pm

CSF wrote: »

Just because you’re not losing something on your TV package specifically doesn’t mean you’re not losing something.

I didn’t see anyone suggest that what you get on your TV package is now less than it was. The problem is that they’re hustling people for the other games knowing that they’ve no other available legal options.

How many people really care about the legality? There are millions of people across the UK and Ireland who have have had access to every single premier league game for years though IPTV or subs to foreign sat providers etc.

This sort of thing is more likely to drive more people to illegal systems imo. You can see it on this thread people who pay for sky and BT getting annoyed and mentioning moving to other "means".

CSF · 12-10-2020 4:17pm

Eduardo Large Blackjack wrote: »

How many people really care about the legality? There are millions of people across the UK and Ireland who have have had access to every single premier league game for years though IPTV or subs to foreign sat providers etc.

This sort of thing is more likely to drive more people to illegal systems imo. You can see it on this thread people who pay for sky and BT getting annoyed and mentioning moving to other "means".

Some people do, some people don’t.

A lot of older people in particular aren’t as tech savvy and would feel a bit ropey about the idea of having a dodgy box, an android stick, or whatever the best one is at any given time.

Personally, I’ve never had any account or subscription with any of those services. I’ve only ever watched the odd stream for a non-televised game I wasn’t able to go over to.

Obviously what is happening now will push more such people towards illegal streaming who were previously happy enough to just get the Sky and BT Sport subscriptions/going to their teams games.

Degag · 12-10-2020 5:03pm

Not really understanding the argument of people either saying it represents value for money as it costs less than seeing your team in person.

Seeing a game live bears no comparison to watching on TV. The atmosphere is just something totally different. The sights, smells (some good, some bad!) etc and just the sheer excitement of walking down the road to a game with 70000 other people. You also get a totally different perspective of how players play when they don't have the ball IMO.

I've been to games where i've sat centre circle 4 or 5 seats back. You could almost reach out and touch the players.

For me, paying 50 quid for this experience (albeit only about once a year) totally out-trumps paying €17 quid for the TV experience. There is just no comparison.

Mitch Connor · 12-10-2020 5:22pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

True. But before PPV there was zero way to watch legally.

indeed - but now it is available, but the costs are considered to be very high.

When you provide a feature, but price it poorly, you create a negitive view in general and the narrative around it will see people looking at other means, that previously would not have imo.

IMO the price point is actively discouraging.

Decuc500 · 13-10-2020 12:29pm

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

The existing TV package is unaffected by this.

None of the PPV games were due to be shown on TV so nobody loses anything. You gain an option that doesn't need to be exercised.

Surely the 3pm games that were shown on Premier Sports in Ireland are affected by this if they are now all pay per view?

Or am I missing something here?

CSF · 13-10-2020 1:26pm

Decuc500 wrote: »

Surely the 3pm games that were shown on Premier Sports in Ireland are affected by this if they are now all pay per view?

Or am I missing something here?

Looks like they’ve lost the rights to those

Father Hernandez · 14-10-2020 11:04am

https://twitter.com/PremierSportsTV/status/1316317288786731008

Fitz* · 14-10-2020 11:42am

I wonder how many more of those PPV games will be available on Premier Sports?

€17 a month for Premier Sports through Now TV and you get all those games then. I know it's another expense to add to sports subscriptions but for example, it pays this month if you support Chelsea who will have 2 games.

lertsnim · 14-10-2020 1:36pm

Fitz* wrote: »

I wonder how many more of those PPV games will be available on Premier Sports?

€17 a month for Premier Sports through Now TV and you get all those games then. I know it's another expense to add to sports subscriptions but for example, it pays this month if you support Chelsea who will have 2 games.

At least you also get the BT channels for that €17

beakerjoe · 16-10-2020 12:10pm

lertsnim wrote: »

At least you also get the BT channels for that €17

I have the BT pack for 6 quid a month with SKY.

Got the deal in march before lockdown hit. So wasted 2 months of it with no Soccer but it made up for it when it game back in droves.

So its nice that Premier Sports have some of these games.

ArmaniJeanss · 16-10-2020 12:15pm

I haven't seen a single plug for these extra games on Sky Sports. All their 'coming up this weekend' previews mention are the 'normal' games & the Glasgow Derby.
Looks to me they are pretty much abandoning the concept, which would tie in with the idea that it was EPL driven rather than something Sky/BT saw as a potential way to make money.

Pay Per View Premier League Games

Comments