Jump to content

PPV for Villa Games


Recommended Posts

Eluko is vile, her comments about people being on furlong being workshy, she ain’t got a clue, when someone bought up saying you work for sky she couldn’t defend herself just went on the personal attack against this one

 

Hopefully no one buys these games so they know they have **** up and do like last season show all games for free on sky bt and bbc again

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

I agree.

It was like she was baiting people though. Very strange.

You would never in a million years find Purslow putting his foot in it to this extent twice within three months. 

She needs to get off twitter if she's going to remain in a prominent position at Villa, she can't be trusted to not embarrass herself and the club.

Or we could just sack her now and save face for the next time she asks why people less well off than her don't want to spend money on something they've already paid for.

Christ, good luck with that.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Or we could just sack her now and save face for the next time she asks why people less well off than her don't want to spend money on something they've already paid for.

Which is the standpoint of the club

Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them

She asked what's wrong with it

The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Which is the standpoint of the club

Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them

She asked what's wrong with it

The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks 

Double question marks is antagonistic...was not posed as a sensible question

And this isn't in response to a question someone has asked her, this is a tweet out of the blue. She represents the club. Implying that watching it on TV is the 'same product' as the one we pay 30 quid to see in person is insulting. If purslow had said the same they'd be similar outcry

Edited by tomav84
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Which is the standpoint of the club

Aston Villa want you to pay £15 to watch them

She asked what's wrong with it

The anger is being misplaced at her, at least she asked and in a manner that posed as a sensible question, she shouldn't have asked a question about something that the club shouldn't have done but she's getting shit when the club isn't? That's bollocks 

In my opinion it was poorly thought out but the question itself wasn't the problem no, it was her responses afterwards.

It's like she was bored and decided to play devil's advocate poking those who were basically saying "I can't afford it".

The gist I saw before she disappeared off twitter when people said they couldn't afford it or didn't want to pay was her saying well you don't have to go, you've got a choice. Yes, thanks Eni, great input, I think they know it's not essential. They want to go/watch games, and have been able to, now they're being asked to pay more.

Edited by Tomaszk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Junxs said:

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

True, which is a shame, because it would benefit fans who would be able to watch games when they want and how they want to.

But big boys need to share money's between themselves so opening up the market for a business that is cheaper and better than Sky or BT is clearly out of question at the minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Junxs said:

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.

 

I agree, but annoyingly it always has been the case that Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs, would be most frequently on Sky and BT. Their fans (including their many glory hunters), have always therefore had the better deal, when it comes to televised coverage. 

From our point of view, we will still get the games that Sky and BT choose to cover, as part of our normal subscriptions. The difference is that our club (along with all but one, of the other PL clubs) have decided that we will no longer get our other PL games free (as we had done since the restart, if we had Sky/BT/Amazon). Those games will still be provided to us by Sky and BT now, but at a charge. It is for each of us to decide whether or not, we are prepared to or are currently in a position to pay it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been blown way out of proportion due to the usual social media pile on. It is basically a *good idea* to have all matches available to stream for those that want to watch, given that it’s not posible to have fans in the ground. It is just the price point that sucks.
 

If they had sold them for £10 like the Carabao cup games then I’m guessing that there wouldn’t have been much if any of a backlash. October is a test month after all so hopefully they learn from their mistakes and reduce the prices in November after some bad PR and poor uptake.
 

I don’t believe that this will mean they will keep attractive fixtures stuck behind a paywall in the future. No casual or neutral fan I know would ever pay £15 to watch a football match that didn’t involve their own team, so it would be a terrible business model. I am only contemplating paying £15 because it’s villa and they are my team and I would pay a hell of a lot more to see them live if I was able. Even if it was the title decider or the champions league final I wouldn’t pay £15 and I doubt many others would either. The PL are not entirely stupid and they know they are walking a tight rope already with fans moving to piracy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the big danger to Sky and BT. People find other options to watch these other games and then question why they are paying again to Sky and BT when their games are available at the same option.......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said:

I think this has been blown way out of proportion due to the usual social media pile on. It is basically a *good idea* to have all matches available to stream for those that want to watch, given that it’s not posible to have fans in the ground. It is just the price point that sucks.
 

If they had sold them for £10 like the Carabao cup games then I’m guessing that there wouldn’t have been much if any of a backlash. October is a test month after all so hopefully they learn from their mistakes and reduce the prices in November after some bad PR and poor uptake.
 

I don’t believe that this will mean they will keep attractive fixtures stuck behind a paywall in the future. No casual or neutral fan I know would ever pay £15 to watch a football match that didn’t involve their own team, so it would be a terrible business model. I am only contemplating paying £15 because it’s villa and they are my team and I would pay a hell of a lot more to see them live if I was able. Even if it was the title decider or the champions league final I wouldn’t pay £15 and I doubt many others would either. The PL are not entirely stupid and they know they are walking a tight rope already with fans moving to piracy. 

£10 is what I spent on a day pass to watch the Liverpool game (best tenner I've spent in my life, by the way). If they'd come up with that figure I wouldn't have batted an eye. I just don't get why they think we'd be ok paying £15 now when the price has always been £10 before.

They should consider lowering even further to £5 though, because of the second bold bit here. £15, even £10 severely limits the audience they're going to get. I can see them regretting this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought - the last two gameweeks have been classics in terms of goals scored, so there might be an influx of people paying for these passes in the hopes they'll see more of the same. If the next one has a more regular amount of goals then there will be a significant drop off in sales going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CottenM said:

NBA League Pass is £25 a month and you can watch every game from every team
No unfair bias for fans of smaller / bigger teams
Even if the games are on network TV they're still available also*
£25 is still reasonable money, but not extortionate imo
Something like this would have been easy to copy, and they've got it wrong for me.

(*sure BT and Sky wouldn't let this bit happen...)

The broadcasting rights of the Premier League, the biggest league of any kind in the world, are ridiculous. Prior to this PPV scheme, how could someone who lives in England not have potential access to watch all matches? Like you said...want to watch any NBA match? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Want to watch NFL? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Live in Canada? Pay a monthly fee for DAZN and watch any Premier League, EFL, UEFA, Serie A, NFL, etc. match. I'm living abroad and for £30/month I can watch any Premier League, EFL, Bundesliga, Ligue 1/2, Golf, NHL, NFL, etc. "Problem" is that the Premier League games generally won't have English commentary. Sure, I can watch it as such, but how can the biggest league in the world not give me any other options to watch the matches in English?

 

Prior to DAZN, there was a point in time when all Premier League games were broadcast in Canada on TV. Of course you needed a basic sports package to access the channels, but I always thought it was ridiculous that I could choose which game I wanted to watch while people in England have no choice on what games they can watch.

Edited by a-k
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, a-k said:

The broadcasting rights of the Premier League, the biggest league of any kind in the world, are ridiculous. Prior to this PPV scheme, how could someone who lives in England not have potential access to watch all matches? Like you said...want to watch any NBA match? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Want to watch NFL? Pay a monthly fee and watch any match you want, regardless of where you live. Live in Canada? Pay a monthly fee for DAZN and watch any Premier League, EFL, UEFA, Serie A, NFL, etc. match. I'm living abroad and for £30/month I can watch any Premier League, EFL, Bundesliga, Ligue 1/2, Golf, NHL, NFL, etc. "Problem" is that the Premier League games generally won't have English commentary. Sure, I can watch it as such, but how can the biggest league in the world not give me any other options to watch the matches in English?

 

Prior to DAZN, there was a point in time when all Premier League games were broadcast in Canada on TV. Of course you needed a basic sports package to access the channels, but I always thought it was ridiculous that I could choose which game I wanted to watch while people in England have no choice on what games they can watch.

Again it's against the law to show any football match from the UK or worldwide at 3 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. That's the reason why we can't currently see all our games, they'd either have to scrap 3pm kick offs in the Prem or change the law and screw over lower league teams whose fans may decide to just stay home and watch the Premier League on telly rather than turn up to their local team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll have done their homework and decided that this is the price point that'll net them the most income. Like many others, I think it's too much and there's not anything they could add to or change about it to make me pay 15 quid for a single match. How much were the games when we were in the championship? I used to pay for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â