|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 9, 2020 17:16:37 GMT
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287 
|
Post by Rex on Oct 9, 2020 18:37:49 GMT
A) Supply & demand B) Maybe it actually works? |
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 9, 2020 19:07:58 GMT
A) Supply & demand B) Maybe it actually works? not in this house tho'......no need for the supply, and certainly no demand...... |
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 10, 2020 11:56:45 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54491180kind of backs up my initial post don't know of or have heard of people doing the illegal streaming of EFL games , but guess it does go on even at a tenner
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Oct 10, 2020 13:16:53 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54491180kind of backs up my initial post don't know of or have heard of people doing the illegal streaming of EFL games , but guess it does go on even at a tenner I often stream Celtic away games (home ones are on my season ticket and on a very high quality stream) but have never seen EFL games available on the site I use. There has been an awful lot of fuss about the £15 charge for some Premier League games which baffles me slightly. Once the genie got out of the bottle in 1992, it was never going to go back in and the market will continually be tested to maximise profits, that's just how capitalism works. That some fans don't see the correlation between things like this and their continual demands that the owners of clubs should make increasingly 'bigger and better' signings is quite amusing though. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 10, 2020 13:39:01 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54491180kind of backs up my initial post don't know of or have heard of people doing the illegal streaming of EFL games , but guess it does go on even at a tenner I often stream Celtic away games (home ones are on my season ticket and on a very high quality stream) but have never seen EFL games available on the site I use. There has been an awful lot of fuss about the £15 charge for some Premier League games which baffles me slightly. Once the genie got out of the bottle in 1992, it was never going to go back in and the market will continually be tested to maximise profits, that's just how capitalism works. That some fans don't see the correlation between things like this and their continual demands that the owners of clubs should make increasingly 'bigger and better' signings is quite amusing though. and rightly so...[fans and the c word!!] when Arsenal can boast a signing of £45 million and then in the same breath say they have to sack their mascot as a money saving issue it beggars belief |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by eppinggas on Oct 12, 2020 9:37:47 GMT
Interesting one. Surely the actual premiership product (in terms of quality) is better than League 1. Therefore people will pay the premium price...
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 24, 2020 1:36:45 GMT
I'd argue that the issue here is the charge on top of the charge. So you pay for Sky and then you have to pay for the match on top of that.
I'd also argue that a competitive market that is not set at the level of the consumer is not a market according to standard capitalist theory but a cartel. So a true market in football rights would be if the consumer had a choice of price/quality options where you could pay say £2 to watch a wobbly stream of someone showing the match on a single mobile phone camera on the halfway line to £30 to chose between multiple camera shots and lots of commentary options (with a number of intermediate options in between). But with sports rights the market doesn't work at the level of the consumer - it works at the level of the provider who then rip off the consumer. The consumer's only option is to buy or not buy from one provider. There is no real choice for the purchaser which I'd argue makes it a monopoly cartel not a free market.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by eppinggas on Oct 24, 2020 8:38:13 GMT
I'd argue that the issue here is the charge on top of the charge. So you pay for Sky and then you have to pay for the match on top of that.
I'd also argue that a competitive market that is not set at the level of the consumer is not a market according to standard capitalist theory but a cartel. So a true market in football rights would be if the consumer had a choice of price/quality options where you could pay say £2 to watch a wobbly stream of someone showing the match on a single mobile phone camera on the halfway line to £30 to chose between multiple camera shots and lots of commentary options (with a number of intermediate options in between). But with sports rights the market doesn't work at the level of the consumer - it works at the level of the provider who then rip off the consumer. The consumer's only option is to buy or not buy from one provider. There is no real choice for the purchaser which I'd argue makes it a monopoly cartel not a free market.
Fair point if you have a Sky Sports subscription, you shouldn't have to pay on top of that. But it's not a cartel as the Govt have taken steps to divide up the market more fairly - BT Sports / BBC / Amazon Prime all get games. The flaw would appear to be a hastily arranged "all games available for £14.95" regardless of whether you hold an existing subscription or not. If you're an ST holder - do you get your games for free (like the EFL)? I think they're still arguing about that. Doesn't effect me. I'd never pay to watch the premiership, or have a Sky/BT Sports subscription. I pay to watch the Gas and help support my Club. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 24, 2020 12:39:59 GMT
I'd argue that the issue here is the charge on top of the charge. So you pay for Sky and then you have to pay for the match on top of that.
I'd also argue that a competitive market that is not set at the level of the consumer is not a market according to standard capitalist theory but a cartel. So a true market in football rights would be if the consumer had a choice of price/quality options where you could pay say £2 to watch a wobbly stream of someone showing the match on a single mobile phone camera on the halfway line to £30 to chose between multiple camera shots and lots of commentary options (with a number of intermediate options in between). But with sports rights the market doesn't work at the level of the consumer - it works at the level of the provider who then rip off the consumer. The consumer's only option is to buy or not buy from one provider. There is no real choice for the purchaser which I'd argue makes it a monopoly cartel not a free market.
Fair point if you have a Sky Sports subscription, you shouldn't have to pay on top of that. But it's not a cartel as the Govt have taken steps to divide up the market more fairly - BT Sports / BBC / Amazon Prime all get games. The flaw would appear to be a hastily arranged "all games available for £14.95" regardless of whether you hold an existing subscription or not. If you're an ST holder - do you get your games for free (like the EFL)? I think they're still arguing about that. Doesn't effect me. I'd never pay to watch the premiership, or have a Sky/BT Sports subscription. I pay to watch the Gas and help support my Club. Ok but you still don't have choice when purchasing an individual unit. If I want to watch a game I have to buy from the one provider of that game. In reality the extension of providers has therefore increased overall cost for fans not reduced (although I also accept it has increased access a bit too as the number of televised games has increased as a result) them and restricted choice for followers of a particular team. For example, I know a Villa fan who is frustrated so many of their games are now box office/BT Sport when they bought Sky in order to watch Villa games because it was advertised that they'd be showing most of the games. That is not how it is supposed to work. I guess it depends how you define the product in this case. But I'd argue that the US system of sports rights (while far from perfect) is much fairer to the consumer. With them the consumer has more choice- I can pay to watch games online/on my phone at a cheaper cost but less quality or I can pay a national or local provider to put it on my Telly or I can pay for a premium bells and whistles box office type service. The same game but different prices and quality and, in theory at least, it should keep the cost down for the consumer. Now TV type arrangements introduce a bit of this but not enough.
Not being one of life's big fans of capitalism maybe I'm the wrong person to make this argment but surely the main basic advantage of it is that competition between providers is supposed to create choice for the consumer and therefore drive down product prices. TV rights in the UK blatently don't work that way because the consumer doesn't actually doesn't actually get a choice beyond 'purchase' or 'not purchase'. So cartel is the right word I think - it's not a monopoly or a closed market but it is a market that functions primarily at the level of the providers not the consumers which I think is quite problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Oct 26, 2020 7:26:37 GMT
Deliberately avoided the Man U v Chelsea game so I could watch Liverpool later.
Then realised my sky subscription doesn't include it.
Mad or what??
These games should be on BBC and ITV for a season not just post lock down.
£15 honestly!!
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 26, 2020 17:22:07 GMT
Deliberately avoided the Man U v Chelsea game so I could watch Liverpool later. Then realised my sky subscription doesn't include it. Mad or what?? These games should be on BBC and ITV for a season not just post lock down. £15 honestly!! To be fair I don't think you missed much with that Man United - Chelsea game; worst match I've seen all season so far. All that talent on the pitcn yet both teams were so worried about the state of their defence and the counter-attack that they didn't really want to go forward with the ball. Dire stuff!
But I agree with the sentiment. They are exploiting the tribalism that makes football what it is to rip people off at a difficult time and that just seems base level grubby to me irrespective of all else.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Oct 27, 2020 8:15:29 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54491180kind of backs up my initial post don't know of or have heard of people doing the illegal streaming of EFL games , but guess it does go on even at a tenner I often stream Celtic away games (home ones are on my season ticket and on a very high quality stream) but have never seen EFL games available on the site I use. There has been an awful lot of fuss about the £15 charge for some Premier League games which baffles me slightly. Once the genie got out of the bottle in 1992, it was never going to go back in and the market will continually be tested to maximise profits, that's just how capitalism works. That some fans don't see the correlation between things like this and their continual demands that the owners of clubs should make increasingly 'bigger and better' signings is quite amusing though. I did appreciate the games being on BBC during lock down but didn't hardly watch any of them coz Liverpool won it so soon. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by eppinggas on Oct 27, 2020 9:18:22 GMT
Fair point if you have a Sky Sports subscription, you shouldn't have to pay on top of that. But it's not a cartel as the Govt have taken steps to divide up the market more fairly - BT Sports / BBC / Amazon Prime all get games. The flaw would appear to be a hastily arranged "all games available for £14.95" regardless of whether you hold an existing subscription or not. If you're an ST holder - do you get your games for free (like the EFL)? I think they're still arguing about that. Doesn't effect me. I'd never pay to watch the premiership, or have a Sky/BT Sports subscription. I pay to watch the Gas and help support my Club. Ok but you still don't have choice when purchasing an individual unit. If I want to watch a game I have to buy from the one provider of that game. In reality the extension of providers has therefore increased overall cost for fans not reduced (although I also accept it has increased access a bit too as the number of televised games has increased as a result) them and restricted choice for followers of a particular team. For example, I know a Villa fan who is frustrated so many of their games are now box office/BT Sport when they bought Sky in order to watch Villa games because it was advertised that they'd be showing most of the games. That is not how it is supposed to work. I guess it depends how you define the product in this case. But I'd argue that the US system of sports rights (while far from perfect) is much fairer to the consumer. With them the consumer has more choice- I can pay to watch games online/on my phone at a cheaper cost but less quality or I can pay a national or local provider to put it on my Telly or I can pay for a premium bells and whistles box office type service. The same game but different prices and quality and, in theory at least, it should keep the cost down for the consumer. Now TV type arrangements introduce a bit of this but not enough.
Not being one of life's big fans of capitalism maybe I'm the wrong person to make this argment but surely the main basic advantage of it is that competition between providers is supposed to create choice for the consumer and therefore drive down product prices. TV rights in the UK blatently don't work that way because the consumer doesn't actually doesn't actually get a choice beyond 'purchase' or 'not purchase'. So cartel is the right word I think - it's not a monopoly or a closed market but it is a market that functions primarily at the level of the providers not the consumers which I think is quite problematic.
Stop being so reasonable! I was kind of playing devil's advocate... Interesting developments with Sky & BT both wanting to abandon the current games/pricing policy. Strange dynamic though. My understanding is that EFL supporters are (largely) supportive of iFollow and are paying their £10 / 8 Euros without much fuss. Perhaps because we are in part helping our Clubs survive, not helping fund the obscene salaries and lifestyle of PL players? Could it be that the 'better' supporters are further down the league. Bit of a joke there, but an element of truth. We're not here for the glory, we're Gasheads. I see Mike Ashley is proposing £5 a game. If Sky & BT drop the price to £5, will that be 'fair'? If the EFL charge double that price for an inferior product, would that be 'fair'? Interesting times ahead. Anyway I'm nailed on for my £10 (as long as my kids don't mess around with the VPN) for this evening. UTG. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2020 9:34:50 GMT
Ok but you still don't have choice when purchasing an individual unit. If I want to watch a game I have to buy from the one provider of that game. In reality the extension of providers has therefore increased overall cost for fans not reduced (although I also accept it has increased access a bit too as the number of televised games has increased as a result) them and restricted choice for followers of a particular team. For example, I know a Villa fan who is frustrated so many of their games are now box office/BT Sport when they bought Sky in order to watch Villa games because it was advertised that they'd be showing most of the games. That is not how it is supposed to work. I guess it depends how you define the product in this case. But I'd argue that the US system of sports rights (while far from perfect) is much fairer to the consumer. With them the consumer has more choice- I can pay to watch games online/on my phone at a cheaper cost but less quality or I can pay a national or local provider to put it on my Telly or I can pay for a premium bells and whistles box office type service. The same game but different prices and quality and, in theory at least, it should keep the cost down for the consumer. Now TV type arrangements introduce a bit of this but not enough.
Not being one of life's big fans of capitalism maybe I'm the wrong person to make this argment but surely the main basic advantage of it is that competition between providers is supposed to create choice for the consumer and therefore drive down product prices. TV rights in the UK blatently don't work that way because the consumer doesn't actually doesn't actually get a choice beyond 'purchase' or 'not purchase'. So cartel is the right word I think - it's not a monopoly or a closed market but it is a market that functions primarily at the level of the providers not the consumers which I think is quite problematic.
Stop being so reasonable! I was kind of playing devil's advocate... Interesting developments with Sky & BT both wanting to abandon the current games/pricing policy. Strange dynamic though. My understanding is that EFL supporters are (largely) supportive of iFollow and are paying their £10 / 8 Euros without much fuss. Perhaps because we are in part helping our Clubs survive, not helping fund the obscene salaries and lifestyle of PL players? Could it be that the 'better' supporters are further down the league. Bit of a joke there, but an element of truth. We're not here for the glory, we're Gasheads. I see Mike Ashley is proposing £5 a game. If Sky & BT drop the price to £5, will that be 'fair'? If the EFL charge double that price for an inferior product, would that be 'fair'? Interesting times ahead. Anyway I'm nailed on for my £10 (as long as my kids don't mess around with the VPN) for this evening. UTG. The thing is with iFollow, season ticket holders are covered. The issue with this is that ST holders aren't even covered. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by eppinggas on Oct 27, 2020 11:28:02 GMT
Stop being so reasonable! I was kind of playing devil's advocate... Interesting developments with Sky & BT both wanting to abandon the current games/pricing policy. Strange dynamic though. My understanding is that EFL supporters are (largely) supportive of iFollow and are paying their £10 / 8 Euros without much fuss. Perhaps because we are in part helping our Clubs survive, not helping fund the obscene salaries and lifestyle of PL players? Could it be that the 'better' supporters are further down the league. Bit of a joke there, but an element of truth. We're not here for the glory, we're Gasheads. I see Mike Ashley is proposing £5 a game. If Sky & BT drop the price to £5, will that be 'fair'? If the EFL charge double that price for an inferior product, would that be 'fair'? Interesting times ahead. Anyway I'm nailed on for my £10 (as long as my kids don't mess around with the VPN) for this evening. UTG. The thing is with iFollow, season ticket holders are covered. The issue with this is that ST holders aren't even covered. Is that the case for all PL Clubs? If that's true, then that's really poor. So in theory you have paid for a Season Ticket, a Sky contract, a BT contract, and you are still expected to pay £14.99 a game on top for the 'box office' games. Makes you almost glad to be in the EFL. |
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 27, 2020 12:42:19 GMT
The thing is with iFollow, season ticket holders are covered. The issue with this is that ST holders aren't even covered. Is that the case for all PL Clubs? If that's true, then that's really poor. So in theory you have paid for a Season Ticket, a Sky contract, a BT contract, and you are still expected to pay £14.99 a game on top for the 'box office' games. Makes you almost glad to be in the EFL. I think quite a lot are saying exactly that. The charge on top of the charge is simply inexcusable in my view.
I think the truth is that, with my kind of idealist FC United style model hat on, I might have a vision for the way I'd like football to go and at the other end of the scale you have the corporate giants who obviously want to maximise profits and aren't really bothered about anything else. The debate tends to get pushed into those all or nothing terms - ie. 'something is fundamentally wrong with football and it needs to be completely reimagined so its more fan orientated' vs 'this is just another entertainment business so companies have every right to extract the top value they can for a premium product'.
But in reality I think what most people want is a balance. They just want easy access to something they like that doesn't rip them off and I can't help thinking that the PL might have overplayed it's hand a bit here particularly with young people who tend to be much more savvy about value for money around media stuff. They will not be paying for this and will remember who it was that screwed them over.
It's the exploitation of the tribal loyalties that make football football that I ultimately find grubby here.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Oct 27, 2020 14:39:42 GMT
Is that the case for all PL Clubs? If that's true, then that's really poor. So in theory you have paid for a Season Ticket, a Sky contract, a BT contract, and you are still expected to pay £14.99 a game on top for the 'box office' games. Makes you almost glad to be in the EFL. I think quite a lot are saying exactly that. The charge on top of the charge is simply inexcusable in my view.
I think the truth is that, with my kind of idealist FC United style model hat on, I might have a vision for the way I'd like football to go and at the other end of the scale you have the corporate giants who obviously want to maximise profits and aren't really bothered about anything else. The debate tends to get pushed into those all or nothing terms - ie. 'something is fundamentally wrong with football and it needs to be completely reimagined so its more fan orientated' vs 'this is just another entertainment business so companies have every right to extract the top value they can for a premium product'.
But in reality I think what most people want is a balance. They just want easy access to something they like that doesn't rip them off and I can't help thinking that the PL might have overplayed it's hand a bit here particularly with young people who tend to be much more savvy about value for money around media stuff. They will not be paying for this and will remember who it was that screwed them over.
It's the exploitation of the tribal loyalties that make football football that I ultimately find grubby here.
My Dad is a ST holder at Cardiff and couldn't watch the Preston game because he doesn't have Sky. |
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Nov 13, 2020 18:37:48 GMT
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 14, 2020 23:13:19 GMT
Rare victory for consumer power in football. |
|
