West Brom v Burnley on Sky Box Office

[NottsClaret]

The real enthusiasm and effort some working people put into justifying how multi-billion pound businesses should squeeze a few more quid out of them is really heartwarming.

[clarethomer]

The real enthusiasm and effort some working people put into justifying how multi-billion pound businesses should squeeze a few more quid out of them is really heartwarming.

If you have even read the thread properly you would have also realised that it is not the broadcasters doing this either, it's the clubs themselves that are looking for fair value for their product.

[MACCA]

I hope they dont use this recycled banner.....

[Jakubclaret]

There is nothing to compare between a proper match day, the build up, the travel to the Turf, meeting your mates, catching up over a few beers, the anticipation of the walk to the ground, the atmosphere on Harry Potts Way, the walk up the stairs to your seat, the noise inside the ground, the crowd reaction to the players during the game, the players rising to the crowd, the feeling of being part of it when we score.and the feeling of joy when we win or disappointment when we lose vs. watching the players play these full contact training games in empty stadia with fake crowd noise. £14.95 my arse.

Equally for some people, it’s bloody cold outside stoke the fire up, you’ve got all the booze you could ever wish for on easy standby, no queuing or getting cold or paying daft prices, nice & warm in a comfy armchair settled without a care in the world certainly not going to catch the virus, £14:95 yes please.

[Dyched]

Is this a thread where people won’t watch their club for £15m
. But last week wanted them to spunk away ££££millions they don’t have?

Jokers.

[Zlatan]

Is this a thread where people won’t watch their club for £15m
. But last week wanted them to spunk away ££££millions they don’t have?

Jokers.

I don’t have £15m

[Bordeauxclaret]

If you have even read the thread properly you would have also realised that it is not the broadcasters doing this either, it's the clubs themselves that are looking for fair value for their product.

I suspect he’s referring to the clubs.

[Jakubclaret]

I don’t have £15m

I’d be surprised if anybody on this forum has £15 million pounds.

[Elizabeth]

Overpriced!

A figure in the region of £5 would have opened it up to not just those who think it is reasonable or a bargain in their circumstances.
A bit of an 'Im alright Jack' approach which I don't find a particularly good trait in people.
Especially when they express it in public knowing others will be struggling to find the money

[evensteadiereddie]

Er......

[jrgbfc]

Will you be paying?

No I won't. I've managed to survive up to this point without watching every game we play live, so missing a few more won't hurt. If it's a Saturday afternoon I'd rather go and watch a local non league game, and give the money to a club that actually needs it.

[clarethomer]

Overpriced!

A figure in the region of £5 would have opened it up to not just those who think it is reasonable or a bargain in their circumstances.
A bit of an 'Im alright Jack' approach which I don't find a particularly good trait in people.

Just out of curiosity - what would you have done to watch Burnley this season if the pandemic wasn't around?

Season ticket?
Away games?
Adhoc games?
Watched if part of something you paid for already?
Illegal stream?

Just want to understand what people are measuring this cost against?

[Sproggy]

Equally for some people, it’s bloody cold outside stoke the fire up, you’ve got all the booze you could ever wish for on easy standby, no queuing or getting cold or paying daft prices, nice & warm in a comfy armchair settled without a care in the world certainly not going to catch the virus, £14:95 yes please.

Fair enough. I have been that cold on the Turf on occasion that I've had to have my extremities amputated after the game but for me, the actual football is only part of the "matchday experience" (I will birch myself later for using that term). Half-hearted games on TV with fake crowd noise just aren't doing it for me so there's no way I'd pay 15 quid for the privilege.

[Elizabeth]

In my circumstances homer I could afford to watch Burnley any way I wanted to, if I chose.
I know of a lot of old people for example, and it's not just related to old people by the way, who haven't got a lot of money and haven't watched Burnley play for years but still ask who we played and if we won. They would love while this pandemic is on to sit in the comfort of their armchair and actually watch Burnley play, maybe for the first time in many years.
No heartstrings approach from me, just plain old fashioned decency.
Things won't change until people consider others as well as themselves

[Zlatan]

For some of us, as part of the match day experience, the football is almost incidental. Yes, I like it when we win, and it adds to my euphoria at the game, but it’s the joy of a social event with people who share a passion for the same thing.

You can’t buy that for £14.95 in front of your own TV

[Elizabeth]

Eddie you were the very first person to come on this board at the start of the pandemic to express that you would be alright financially. I remember the thread asked people how they would cope. I and other posters expressed disgust at your post in the context of the question asked and the responses that had been received up to then.
I find you a very distasteful poster

[Elizabeth]

Actually we didn't express disgust I think we took the p**s out of you

[Jakubclaret]

For some of us, as part of the match day experience, the football is almost incidental. Yes, I like it when we win, and it adds to my euphoria at the game, but it’s the joy of a social event with people who share a passion for the same thing.

You can’t buy that for £14.95 in front of your own TV

I disagree there, if everybody within the same household supports the same team & it’s a positive result you get an enormous amount of satisfaction knowing that the positive result enables a climb up the league & if you are successful with a bet also & rovers lose, I think it’s more psychological some of us seem to be socially conditioned where the mind feels it’s missing out & something is incomplete, especially if it’s habitual, it’s difficult for some people to enjoy there own company.

[diamondpocket]

For anyone who doesn't want to pay for the PPV and doesn't support watching live through an illegal stream then I suggest you sign up to the Clarets Player service, or ClaretsX it is now called, and wait 24 hours or so. Don't look at UTC messageboard, BBC site or any sports related sites, social media sites, etc. and you can watch the game on there as they replay the whole match. Save a few bob and can then watch it as if it were live with a few beers on the couch. That's what I do if I can't see the game for some reason.

[Zlatan]

I disagree there, if everybody within the same household supports the same team & it’s a positive result you get an enormous amount of satisfaction knowing that the positive result enables a climb up the league & if you are successful with a bet also & rovers lose, I think it’s more psychological some of us seem to be socially conditioned where the mind feels it’s missing out & something is incomplete, especially if it’s habitual, it’s difficult for some people to enjoy there own company.

Not sure what you disagree with, I think we both kind of said the same thing about a match day experience I said euphoria you said satisfaction...

Unless you meant that your household will still get that for £14.95 each game because you’ll all share the game together and still experience a degree of satisfaction - that’s not exclusive to you, granted, but it is definitely not the same for everyone. In my household I am the only Burnley fan who is also the only football fan. If I want to watch football on TV, then I’m banished to the bedroom or the office to watch on a laptop so I hope you’ll see why I won’t be paying £14.95 per game.

[evensteadiereddie]

Eddie you were the very first person to come on this board at the start of the pandemic to express that you would be alright financially. I remember the thread asked people how they would cope. I and other posters expressed disgust at your post in the context of the question asked and the responses that had been received up to then.
I find you a very distasteful poster

I'm not sure what your little tantrum has to do with anything being discussed here.

The thread you allude to asked, quite candidly, how different people under different circumstances were expecting - or hoping - to cope with the potential problems facing us.
Some folks expected to struggle and I - and others - hoped and answered in all honesty that if all went well, there wouldn't be much effect.
You didn't like that, you gave us details of your fears for your family - a daughter in Leeds, I believe - and I get that but I'm afraid your potential misfortune is not anybody's problem but yours. Help is, of course, available if you need it.
Of course, we all feel for those less well off in so many ways and, for what it's worth, I contribute quite generously to charities - this board's included - and for you to suggest otherwise is pathetic and cowardly.
"A distasteful poster" ? Get a mirror, mate.

[NottsClaret]

I suspect he’s referring to the clubs.

Thanks Bordeaux. Yes, the clubs, their owners, the Premier League. Absolutely swimming in obscene wealth and still screwing a few more quid out of people in pretty desperate times. And our reaction.. ‘well they deserve my money, especially as I’m saving money on the drive over and that sandwich I won’t need for the journey’.

[Dyched]

I don’t have £15m

Obviously a typo. But the point still stands. The club has lost a huge chunk of money due to covid. Yet fans still wanted them to splash it about. The same fans won’t then pay £15 to watch them play. It’s ******* laughable.

[evensteadiereddie]

Actually we didn't express disgust I think we took the p**s out of you

Aye and that really, really affected me..........

I find envy so, so tedious, don't you ?

[Jakubclaret]

Not sure what you disagree with, I think we both kind of said the same thing about a match day experience I said euphoria you said satisfaction...

Unless you meant that your household will still get that for £14.95 each game because you’ll all share the game together and still experience a degree of satisfaction - that’s not exclusive to you, granted, but it is definitely not the same for everyone. In my household I am the only Burnley fan who is also the only football fan. If I want to watch football on TV, then I’m banished to the bedroom or the office to watch on a laptop so I hope you’ll see why I won’t be paying £14.95 per game.

I’d rather pay the money knowing the club will benefit I wouldn’t dream of dodgy streams or anything of that nature, there’s no right or wrong & everybody’s different, I don’t think £15 is a grand sum of money for a 1 off event with the build up & post match, I’m not asking you to pay the £15 & I understand your reasons if you don’t feel you are getting bang for your buck it’s wise to not pay. Some will be comfortable with it others won’t.

[TVC15]

Anywhere between £5 and £7.50 per game seems a more appropriate price to me too in the context of the number of football fans who will be struggling financially, lost their jobs etc.
I also think this would mean significantly more people subscribing which could also have a knock on effect to future advertising revenue.

[SalisburyClaret]

Anywhere between £5 and £7.50 per game seems a more appropriate price to me too in the context of the number of football fans who will be struggling financially, lost their jobs etc.
I also think this would mean significantly more people subscribing which could also have a knock on effect to future advertising revenue.

Absolutely right. In the UK, we pay more to watch our football than anywhere else. Even at £5 per game it would be expensive but at least would be acceptable to most

[Elizabeth]

Now I remember why you express yourself in emojis eddie.
I dread to think what kind of an example you set for your pupils.
No mention of Ringo these days, you must have given up on that one, lol

[Rodleydave]

But hey there’s leichenstein v Gibraltar for free

[Elizabeth]

But you're alright dave

[evensteadiereddie]

Now I remember why you express yourself in emojis eddie.
I dread to think what kind of an example you set for your pupils.
No mention of Ringo these days, you must have given up on that one, lol

Your first sentence makes no sense. Of several hundred characters I typed only two were emojis. Focus !!!

You may be a failure in your profession, I wasn't - far from it ! You don't last forty years in teaching gaining promotions if you're no good.

Funny that YOU should mention Ringo, not me....


lol.

[Rileybobs]

I don’t see the point in comparing the costs to attending the game. Going to a live event has a totally different value (to me, anyway) than watching the same event on television.

£15 is a ludicrous amount of money to watch a single game. They have every right to charge that amount and we have every right to choose not to pay it.

I subscribe to Sky, and I’m quite happy to pay just shy of £80 for the full tv package and broadband. For me that represents decent value for money. I also have IPTV as I don’t see value in paying additionally for BT sports or box office boxing etc. I’ll be tuning into our games, but through my IPTV. Had the cost been £5 I would have happily paid to watch.

[Elizabeth]

You taught English I think Eddie. The standard of grammar today is representative of the teaching of that subject.
Now you have a history of spoiling threads to the point that they are closed down. With that in mind I will leave you by simply referring to your first post this morning

[Jakubclaret]

Anywhere between £5 and £7.50 per game seems a more appropriate price to me too in the context of the number of football fans who will be struggling financially, lost their jobs etc.
I also think this would mean significantly more people subscribing which could also have a knock on effect to future advertising revenue.

At the end of day though, life still goes on & businesses can't afford to run charities, the price point you've suggested might not be viable or cost effective, the sky sport package itself represents good value for upgrading at £18p/m for 146 live PL games so in a cost breakdown per game that's why the £15 seems so extraordinary high, people might refuse to pay the £15 all sky will do is raise the normal sky sports package up to offset the lack of interest/revenue. You raise it even to £1 to £2 per month for millions you've got the money back, not everybody accesses streaming sites as an alternative option the current level of subscribers should tell you that.

[claret2018]

Do you need an existing Sky Sports and BT subscription to be able to watch on PPV? I use now tv for sky sports so don’t have a sky box

[evensteadiereddie]

You taught English I think Eddie. The standard of grammar today is representative of the teaching of that subject.
Now you have a history of spoiling threads to the point that they are closed down. With that in mind I will leave you by simply referring to your first post this morning

If and when you return, please explain the point of your second sentence as it makes little or no sense. Give it some context.

Strange that you, of all people, should mention getting threads closed down.........you'll be talking about being banned from this board next.

Blimey, you have been busy stallking me this morning but, to humour you, I'll seek out my first post to see if it makes your rambling any more clear.

EDIT - I've just had a look and I assume it's the one where I answered the previous poster's response to a typo regarding any punters on here having £15 million with a joke (Did you not see the lol emoji ?) You need to concentrate a little more or at least if you're so desperate to have a go at me, pick something a little more convincing !

Anyhow, I'm so, so, so dreadfully sorry if your thin skin allowed you to be so badly offended by what I put. I'm sure, I hope, you can get over it.


Take care.

[TVC15]

At the end of day though, life still goes on & businesses can't afford to run charities, the price point you've suggested might not be viable or cost effective, the sky sport package itself represents good value for upgrading at £18p/m for 146 live PL games so in a cost breakdown per game that's why the £15 seems so extraordinary high, people might refuse to pay the £15 all sky will do is raise the normal sky sports package up to offset the lack of interest/revenue. You raise it even to £1 to £2 per month for millions you've got the money back, not everybody accesses streaming sites as an alternative option the current level of subscribers should tell you that.

The money is going to the Premier League clubs so presumably they have had input into the price point.
Personally I think they have misjudged the state of the nation so to speak....I think they could have got far more subscribers by making it more affordable.
Plus I think at the lower price point a lot more people would not bother with the faff and poorer quality of finding illegal streams.

The vast majority of people do have access to steaming - it’s got nothing to do with the level of subscribers. It’s just many people decide it’s worth paying for Sky / BT sports to get the much better quality and convenience than using streaming sites. It would be very different if sky sports subscription was as much as it is to watch sport in Canada and America....and there is lots of evidence over there of the increase in streaming and reduction in subscription when you exceed a certain price point.

[clarethomer]

You taught English I think Eddie. The standard of grammar today is representative of the teaching of that subject.
Now you have a history of spoiling threads to the point that they are closed down. With that in mind I will leave you by simply referring to your first post this morning

I don't know the history here but it appears to have been you that has taken this thread off topic with bickering.

Im not taking sides but if you have nothing further to say on this topic and want to start a thread about use of emojis and standard of teaching, why not create a thread to have that discussion?

[MACCA]

Wouldn't put it past them...

[Quickenthetempo]

Sorry QTT just signed back in, drop me an email and I’ll pick up from there. Much appreciated.

Email sent you can delete it now.

[NewClaret]

Anywhere between £5 and £7.50 per game seems a more appropriate price to me too in the context of the number of football fans who will be struggling financially, lost their jobs etc.
I also think this would mean significantly more people subscribing which could also have a knock on effect to future advertising revenue.

I’d tend to agree in the context of the current situation. Maybe £9.99 tops. I’d imagine they don’t want to “devalue” it or be subject to a massive hike next year.

Also, you have to take in to account this is a national price. £14.99 may seem a lot to us. As CT said yesterday, his ST average cost is lower. To London/Southern clubs I suspect it feels a lot cheaper and more reasonable.

More broadly, and looking ahead, I think what constitutes “fair value” depends on the quality and whether you keep the content. I’d gladly have paid £14.95 to have OT away to watch several times. If there’s some build up, decent HT analysis and FT analysis/interviews you’re likely getting 2.5 hours entertainment; I think £14.95 is very reasonable for that.

[clarethomer]

The money is going to the Premier League clubs so presumably they have had input into the price point.
Personally I think they have misjudged the state of the nation so to speak....I think they could have got far more subscribers by making it more affordable.
Plus I think at the lower price point a lot more people would not bother with the faff and poorer quality of finding illegal streams.

The vast majority of people do have access to steaming - it’s got nothing to do with the level of subscribers. It’s just many people decide it’s worth paying for Sky / BT sports to get the much better quality and convenience than using streaming sites. It would be very different if sky sports subscription was as much as it is to watch sport in Canada and America....and there is lots of evidence over there of the increase in streaming and reduction in subscription when you exceed a certain price point.

I think as Burnley fans who already benefit from one of the lower costs of watching premier league football, this price probably won't equate in value compared to say someone who pays £900-£1000+ for a season ticket. For those who couldn't afford that, or are on a waiting list, I imagine the streaming options that have been around for years will still remain their option.

Before the pandemic, I would see every home game live with my ST and I would pay £60 a year for a private IPTV provider who allowed good quality streams of the games. These would inevitably buffer on occassion, or you would go through a period with them having to play games with the content providers finding ways to close down/block the streams but it was still worth not having to deal with the public sites for me.

I rarely went to away games as family was getting a bit older and would notice me not being there for a day and I didn't want to be away from them. I have always hoped of the day where I could still watch my team at my stadium but get a legit way of watching the away games without the need of worrying about buffering and streaming.

£14.95 for away games for me, is a lot more than what I have been paying for the streaming service and I would hope that if this was to become seen as a more permanent way of watching, they will come up with a digital season ticket option but given the 'not knowing' of the pandemic this seems a reasonable short term solution. The clubs don't want to lose the match day revenue. They don't want to give away the product for free. They are a business and in isolation, Burnley probably need this more than any other club. Our owners are not rich compared to a lot of the other clubs.

Charging £5, £7.50 means you need to get triple or double the audience to achieve the same money. Its a bit like the old discussions around increasing our capacity and then charging less. We are a professional and commercial club. We have strong ties to the community but this often gets confused and there will be occassions where the two are not always able to work mutually together.

[snapcrackleandpop]

Anybody think we are worth £15 at the moment.

[Elizabeth]

I have just read your post timed 11.28 homer and had to come on to respond.
You responded to my original post this morning and I felt I gave you a reasonable response back. Please check and disagree if you think differently.
The poster you feel you should defend is a different matter. If you don't know his history of trying to hound me on this board then you should have butt out.
I not really bothered what you think but before interfering get your facts right.
I made a reasonable first post at 9.50 this morning, the first response was from the poster you are defending 2 mins later. Read it again if you've forgot. Tell me if it was a reasonable from this poster
Now that you know he trolls maybe you can understand my further responses and respect that I expressed I was backing off before he ruins another thread.
If you still feel the same way reluctantly I will have to accept that but I make no apologies.

[snapcrackleandpop]

Get a room

[Elizabeth]

Sorry rice crispies, this is what happens

[NewClaret]

Wouldn't put it past them...

[Burnley87]

It’s no surprise the Mr Garlick voted the way he did

For a guy who has little or no interest in investing into the playing squad but is willing to take his £15 per game from joe public

I for one wouldn’t have any issue with him Charging for the games if he showed as much ambition as the rest of the league during a pandemic in a transfer window

To be honest Burnley might come out slightly better out of this than having gate receipts due to most other clubs fan bases being vastly bigger than ours.

The fact the club haven’t informed the fans about what’s going on is a joke

[wilks_bfc]

Yes the £15 is cheaper than I would be paying to actually go to the game but part of the reason I go to the games is to see my young nephew & godson enjoying themselves

I wouldn’t pay £15 to watch the game at home by myself even if I didn’t have the means to be able to stream it

[clarethomer]

I have just read your post timed 11.28 homer and had to come on to respond.
You responded to my original post this morning and I felt I gave you a reasonable response back. Please check and disagree if you think differently.
The poster you feel you should defend is a different matter. If you don't know his history of trying to hound me on this board then you should have butt out.
I not really bothered what you think but before interfering get your facts right.
I made a reasonable first post at 9.50 this morning, the first response was from the poster you are defending 2 mins later. Read it again if you've forgot. Tell me if it was a reasonable from this poster
Now that you know he trolls maybe you can understand my further responses and respect that I expressed I was backing off before he ruins another thread.
If you still feel the same way reluctantly I will have to accept that but I make no apologies.

Sorry- I thought I had responded to your post but must not have hit send before I had to go out.

My response was that you didn't really answer my question in that I asked how you would have watched these games had covid 19 not impacted all of our ability to see our team play?

I didn't ask about whether you could afford the ppv. I just wanted to know how you normally watch Burnley's games?