PPV for Villa Games

[ramshackler]

They have blown it with this decision, it will literally open the floodgates of people moving to piracy.

I pay for Sky BT and Amazon prime as morally I feel obliged rather than just paying for a decent IPTV service.

However I also have an IPTV service as I want to watch the villa games that aren't televised. I feel not being able to watch your team in this day and age is ridiculous and simply isn't the way we consume media in this day and age and the PL need to recognise that fact and quickly.

However I'm fuming that combined £100pm isn't enough to enable me to simply watch my teams games. There is no way I'm paying £15 per game on top of everything else.

Either offer me the chance to pay for a villa TV season ticket. Or the sky/ BT sub comes with the choice to choose the game you want each week.

Keiran Maguire the footy financial expert has rightly stated on BBC that fans are going to en masses to piracy. He is spot on. I'm even considering cancelling my sky and BT completely now tbh. 

[DCJonah]

2 minutes ago, ramshackler said:

They have blown it with this decision, it will literally open the floodgates of people moving to piracy.

I pay for Sky BT and Amazon prime as morally I feel obliged rather than just paying for a decent IPTV service.

However I also have an IPTV service as I want to watch the villa games that aren't televised. I feel not being able to watch your team in this day and age is ridiculous and simply isn't the way we consume media in this day and age and the PL need to recognise that fact and quickly.

However I'm fuming that combined £100pm isn't enough to enable me to simply watch my teams games. There is no way I'm paying £15 per game on top of everything else.

Either offer me the chance to pay for a villa TV season ticket. Or the sky/ BT sub comes with the choice to choose the game you want each week.

Keiran Maguire the footy financial expert has rightly stated on BBC that fans are going to en masses to piracy. He is spot on. I'm even considering cancelling my sky and BT completely now tbh. 

Hasn't this come from the premier league and sky and bt have provided them with the way to do it. Surely the anger should be at the league and not sky and bt. Sky and bt are just continuing to offer what they have done for years. 

 

[Sulberto21]

9 minutes ago, MNVillan said:

Out of curiousity, if the PL came out with a digital season pass model that gave you TV access to every match and revenue was split evenly, what would people pay for that?

As I said in another thread, I pay $50 per year for Peacock TV. That gets me probably 2/3 of Villa matches live. The other ones that are on network TV here I either go to the pub or wait on the result until a replay stream pops up on Peacock later that night.

I would definitely pay for that. Even if it was £200/300 branded as Premflix as some have pointed out.

Re the 'moaning' - I think it's wholly unfair that that the top 6 will be shown on the normal sky channels whereas Villa etc will be put on to the ppv more often than not. I think if it was distributed fairer fans would probably be willing to pay the ppv fees.

However as @OutByEaster? Has correctly states there has to be a fair distribution of revenue because the teams like Liverpool Manure and Arsenal have huge global followings. And if they have their own ppv channels you may aswell fast forward the European super League.

 

[Sulberto21]

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Hasn't this come from the premier league and sky and bt have provided them with the way to do it. Surely the anger should be at the league and not sky and bt. Sky and bt are just continuing to offer what they have done for years. 

 

Correct blame the League. They ratified it. 

[Thug]

People will ‘vote with their feet’
 

if enough people purchase the PPV, then they will continue to charge this fee.  If enough don’t, they will reduces it.

these games were never meant to be shown live, so they are completely within their rights to charge for them.  The only thing up for debate is ‘how much’

Will I be paying £15 for a game that I can’t even invite family or friends over? No I will not. I will find alternative means where I will pay nothing or very little.

If the price was half of that, I’d save myself the hassle of alternative routes - and I know this because when NowTV used to charge about £7 per game.. I’d do exactly that.

So in my case, you can have £7.50, or you can have £0.  I’m watching the game regardless.

other people’s thresholds will obviously differ.

Its sky and BT’s job to find the sweet spot where more people are likely to buy the event than not.  And considering the expertise in this field, I suspect they already did the math and believe £15 is that sweet spot.

 

[GingerCollins29]

You would think now would be the perfect time for a netflix style company to buy all the prem rights and offer streaming packages, such as all villa games for x amount. Every single football fan would do this

[ramshackler]

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Hasn't this come from the premier league and sky and bt have provided them with the way to do it. Surely the anger should be at the league and not sky and bt. Sky and bt are just continuing to offer what they have done for years. 

 

Absolutely, I'm just pointing out how it makes me and many others feel.

Even though I've been a subscriber I've still technically breached copyright by watching non televised villa games. Morally I've justified this to myself by paying for every football sub going and telling myself they need to wise up.

But now what's the point, it's just too much money. I'm not going to spend £150pm it's mental. So in my mind I can now either pay £100pm and still breach copyright by watching Villa games now available on PPV, or pay £6pm and watch everything anyway whilst breaching copyright in the same way. 

I appreciate both are the same crime, but I and many others have justified it by paying for sky and BT but just wanting to watch our teams. This has just pushed it too far imho. I definitely see people leaving in their droves

[ramshackler]

2 minutes ago, Thug said:

People will ‘vote with their feet’
 

if enough people purchase the PPV, then they will continue to charge this fee.  If enough don’t, they will reduces it.

these games were never meant to be shown live, so they are completely within their rights to charge for them.  The only thing up for debate is ‘how much’

Will I be paying £15 for a game that I can’t even invite family or friends over? No I will not. I will find alternative means where I will pay nothing or very little.

If the price was half of that, I’d save myself the hassle of alternative routes - and I know this because when NowTV used to charge about £7 per game.. I’d do exactly that.

So in my case, you can have £7.50, or you can have £0.  I’m watching the game regardless.

other people’s thresholds will obviously differ.

Its sky and BT’s job to find the sweet spot where more people are likely to buy the event than not.  And considering the expertise in this field, I suspect they already did the math and believe £15 is that sweet spot.

 

Exactly. It needs a reasonable price point, but I'm also wary of how the money is being divided. It should be a central pot and divided as it has been historically. Otherwise we end up like la Liga.

Even if PL or Villa or whoever charged £20pm or a similar season ticket price pro rata I'd probably pay it. And keep sky sub on top, but it's likely to be between 45-60 per month for 3-4 games which is wildly expensive for watching a game at home

[sharkyvilla]

7 minutes ago, GingerCollins29 said:

You would think now would be the perfect time for a netflix style company to buy all the prem rights and offer streaming packages, such as all villa games for x amount. Every single football fan would do this

I'm not sure in the UK that's allowed due to the monopoly rules, it's why Sky had to give up some of the rights in the first place.  I don't see why that would be different for a streaming service.  Also they have to protect the 3pm Saturday kick offs for lower league clubs especially when crowds are allowed back in, the Premier League could just abandon the 3pm Saturday kick off altogether to get around that but I think it would be a shame.  

[Loxstock92]

33 minutes ago, Thug said:

these games were never meant to be shown live, so they are completely within their rights to charge for them.

This.

let’s rewind to pre COVID. Forget that fans have been locked out of stadiums and this won’t happen.

You’re a season ticket holder so you’re attending all home games.  You have your subscription to sky/BT so can watch away games from home subject to broadcasting schedule. We acknowledge that not every game will be shown on tv, as it always has been. 
 

now you have been presented with this option. Watch any Villa game but pay extra when it’s on. Essentially instead of paying for an away ticket + travel + food which could be £60-100. You have the choice to pay £15 to watch it in the comfort of your own home. Understand the experience is different, but you get to see the game at a much lower cost.

I think the fact we’ve managed to see extra games for free and are now being told if we want to continue t’s going to cost us, maybe sky shouldn’t have bothered to do so and just kept the status quo
 

btw this isn’t me defending the decision. I, like most of you think the £15 cost is a lot, especially as it’s not ALL games being given the option which means that some fans pay more than others.
 

If it were up to me. 
 

1. maintain current format. Sat evening games, super Sunday, MNF etc. This is a given with a sky/BT subscription.

2. All other games made available through box office for 7.50-£10 max.

3. Rotate who is available through standard format and ppv to ensure fairness. 
 

How much from ppv games are allocated I’m still unsure. 
 

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

Could someone please take Twitter off Eni Aluko. I know she's perfectly entitled to her (stupid) opinions, but I'm concerned people associate her with this football club and don't realise she's independently idiotic.

 

 

 

[Delphinho123]

I genuinely don’t know anyone that likes Eni Aluko. She has this weird ability to just piss everyone off, all of the time. Annoyed she’s associated with our club to be honest. 

I think it all started when she started accepting payouts and accusing everyone of being racist. 

 

[Junxs]

What I think the most unfair thing about all of this is that glory hunting plastic fans are the ones that are benefitting the most, as Liverpool and Man Utd will be shown every week regardless of who they are playing. Their fans will have all games included in their Sky/BT subs without having to pay a penny more

If they are going down this route then the fairest thing would have been to divide all the televised games equally, then all fans have to pay the same or similar amount to watch their teams games.

I can't remember the last weekend when either of the 2 mentioned clubs above didn't have their match televised.

 

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I'm not sure in the UK that's allowed due to the monopoly rules, it's why Sky had to give up some of the rights in the first place.  

It's not a monopoly if you can choose "PremFlix" for £20 a month or pay Sky £15 a game

[Junxs]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

It's not a monopoly if you can choose "PremFlix" for £20 a month or pay Sky £15 a game

No but the rights to show the games come up every few years, and no one company can buy all 6 packages. Hence Sky had to share it out when Offcom did the report all those years ago.

This new non existing "PremFlix" of yours can't just show up out of the blue and buy all the broadcasting rights

[Villan_of_oz]

10 hours ago, Jareth said:

I heartily recommend finding an Aussie to set you up on Optus Sport - a Smart DNS service later and you have all the games for approx £9 per month in high def - it's neither piracy or illegal, but obvs the premier league should be having a word with Optus when it comes to protecting the geolock of the service. 

In Oz I paid a year in advance. The whole year, every PL match $99. I guess this what you get for being so far away. 

I think what you guys have to pay in the UK is beyond ridiculous. I'm not sure I could do it as much as I love my team and football.

I'm not tech savvy but if I can help anyone in their pursuit of cheaper viewing you can msg me.

[GingerCollins29]

2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I'm not sure in the UK that's allowed due to the monopoly rules, it's why Sky had to give up some of the rights in the first place.  I don't see why that would be different for a streaming service.  Also they have to protect the 3pm Saturday kick offs for lower league clubs especially when crowds are allowed back in, the Premier League could just abandon the 3pm Saturday kick off altogether to get around that but I think it would be a shame.  

Fair enough, didnt know about that!

[Tomaszk]

Aluko is horribly oblivious. 

Maybe she should try and not having a well paid job she has no credentials for. See if she's so relaxed about spending money.

This would be two strikes for me if I was Purslow. Three if you include the signings she's probably responsible for that have been pumped almost every match.

[villa4europe]

Purslow voted for it so he's not in a position to criticise her opinion on it... 

[Delphinho123]

I remember when she started bleating about racism in the England women’s team and not one of her teammates backed her up on it. 

She got 80k for that. 

She’s a **** halfwit who shouldn’t be anywhere near our club. I have no idea if she’s doing a good job in whatever position she holds (because women’s football is atrocious), but I’d prefer it if she had no connection with our football club. Pains me to see she has #avfc in her Twitter bio.

You look at all the good the club have done and continue to do. You have to wonder how this moron got a job.