How much would you pay for a Spurs 'TV season ticket'?

[nailsy]

But that is exactly the scenario without PPV games and you haven't done it yet. Without PPV your only options to watch those games would be to attend in person or find a stream. If you don't mind watching streams then you may as well cancel your subscriptions right now.

It really feels like a lot of people have read the PPV situation in the wrong way somehow and the missed the part where these games were not scheduled for broadcast.

I have cancelled Sky Sports in the past when I thought it was too expensive. I'm only using sky and bt now as the price isn't extortionate.

I pay my subscription fee so that I can watch Tottenham when they're on TV. I watch a few other games as well, but I'm not that bothered about them. If I now have to pay an extra £15 or £30 a month to watch us when we're on TV it suddenly becomes too expensive again.

I haven't missed the bit about these games not being scheduled for TV. They could put them on ppv at a low cost and still make money. How many games do you get each month as part of your sky package? 12 premier League games? So a couple of quid a game. Then you add in the championship games, the games from abroad, all of the other sports events that are all included in the monthly price that you pay. Taking that into account how can the cost of one game suddenly be £15? I think some people have missed that other games that weren't due to be aired were being shown free of charge prior to the ppv coming in.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I have cancelled Sky Sports in the past when I thought it was too expensive. I'm only using sky and bt now as the price isn't extortionate.

I pay my subscription fee so that I can watch Tottenham when they're on TV. I watch a few other games as well, but I'm not that bothered about them. If I now have to pay an extra £15 or £30 a month to watch us when we're on TV it suddenly becomes too expensive again.

I haven't missed the bit about these games not being scheduled for TV. They could put them on ppv at a low cost and still make money. How many games do you get each month as part of your sky package? 12 premier League games? So a couple of quid a game. Then you add in the championship games, the games from abroad, all of the other sports events that are all included in the monthly price that you pay. Taking that into account how can the cost of one game suddenly be £15? I think some people have missed that other games that weren't due to be aired were being shown free of charge prior to the ppv coming in.

Strictly speaking those extra games shown before PPV came in were not free of charge you still needed a Sky/BT subscription to watch plus I think BBC did show a couple of less attractive games and didn't Amazon show some .
The answer is if people think it's overpriced then don't pay, there is always an alternative for example tonight on EFL ifollow anyone can fork out £10 and watch Salford City v Southend Utd , League Two or in old money 4th Division ,should be a great game.

 

[nailsy]

Strictly speaking those extra games shown before PPV came in were not free of charge you still needed a Sky/BT subscription to watch plus I think BBC did show a couple of less attractive games and didn't Amazon show some .
The answer is if people think it's overpriced then don't pay, there is always an alternative for example tonight on EFL ifollow anyone can fork out £10 and watch Salford City v Southend Utd , League Two or in old money 4th Division ,should be a great game.

Yes, I should have said at no additional cost rather than free of charge, but the point still stands.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

What of it went through Sky or bt, at all? What if spurs were putting each match that wasn’t being broadcasted on spurs tv for £15 a pop. Would people pay them?

 

[mattdefoe]

We pay the equivalent of 75 Pounds a year for all of the below or if you are with the telecommunications company on your phone they give you the channel for however long your phone plan is . There can be a 10 sec delay behind live but the content , price and quality is top drawer

Premier league
Champions league
Europa league
Nations league
Euros and euro qualifiers
World Cup and qualifiers
Nations league
Women’s internationals and premier league

League cup and fa cup is currently a seperate subscription or just find a stream online .

England needs this type of service now !!

 

[nailsy]

What of it went through Sky or bt, at all? What if spurs were putting each match that wasn’t being broadcasted on spurs tv for £15 a pop. Would people pay them?

No. £15 is too expensive no matter who you're paying it to.

And from what I've read people want a proper Team season ticket where you pay one provider and you watch every game that your team plays. None of this nonsense where you have to pay four different companies to try and catch the games that you want.

 

[Real_madyidd]

I think I would rather pay per month. £30 a month just for our games seems fair. The club could then pay whoever owns the rights for each competition and give access via some sort of spurs TV app.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

In the UK the reason games are split between Sky , BT and Amazon is totally down to the Premier League , their marketing department are putting up the the TV slots into different packages, 12.30 kick offs cheaper than the later kick offs so that they can get the highest prices possible , unless the PL change their marketing strategy games will be split between different TV companies.

 

[vegassd]

I pay my subscription fee so that I can watch Tottenham when they're on TV. I watch a few other games as well, but I'm not that bothered about them. If I now have to pay an extra £15 or £30 a month to watch us when we're on TV it suddenly becomes too expensive again.

But that's not what is happening is it? You are paying those extra fees to watch us where we are not on TV essentially. The TV company is showing a game that they weren't going to and you have to pay extra if you want to watch it. You are not paying extra to watch the "TV games" you are only paying for the "non-TV games".

I haven't missed the bit about these games not being scheduled for TV. They could put them on ppv at a low cost and still make money. How many games do you get each month as part of your sky package? 12 premier League games? So a couple of quid a game. Then you add in the championship games, the games from abroad, all of the other sports events that are all included in the monthly price that you pay. Taking that into account how can the cost of one game suddenly be £15? I think some people have missed that other games that weren't due to be aired were being shown free of charge prior to the ppv coming in.

The business model for Sky/BT does not work like that though does it. They are not calculating the value of each event and then creating a subscription price from that, so you cannot attribute a singular value to each event like that.

To say that Sky costs £30/m and they show PL 12 games per month therefore a PL game should cost £2.50 is nonsense.

The prices for PPV games will be based on supply and demand. They will set a high price early on so it can be discounted later rather than vice versa. And that premium you pay is also based on the fact you now have the choice. As a Sky subscriber you don't pay your money and then pick which 12 PL games you want to watch... the schedule is out of your control. The PPV games now put that schedule into your control and there is a premium associated with that.

I think some people have missed that other games that weren't due to be aired were being shown free of charge prior to the ppv coming in.

That was a move prompted by the government to cover the lockdown games at the end of last season. That is not this season.

 

[nailsy]

But that's not what is happening is it? You are paying those extra fees to watch us where we are not on TV essentially. The TV company is showing a game that they weren't going to and you have to pay extra if you want to watch it. You are not paying extra to watch the "TV games" you are only paying for the "non-TV games".


The business model for Sky/BT does not work like that though does it. They are not calculating the value of each event and then creating a subscription price from that, so you cannot attribute a singular value to each event like that.

To say that Sky costs £30/m and they show PL 12 games per month therefore a PL game should cost £2.50 is nonsense.

The prices for PPV games will be based on supply and demand. They will set a high price early on so it can be discounted later rather than vice versa. And that premium you pay is also based on the fact you now have the choice. As a Sky subscriber you don't pay your money and then pick which 12 PL games you want to watch... the schedule is out of your control. The PPV games now put that schedule into your control and there is a premium associated with that.


That was a move prompted by the government to cover the lockdown games at the end of last season. That is not this season.

I don't know why you're telling what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

As I've said, I'm not going to pay for extra PPV games at £15 a go. If that becomes the norm I will start watching them through other means and I'll probably cancel my subscription to the rest of the games.

I've never said the cost should be £2.50, I've used it as an illustration of how much we pay per game within the normal subscription and why £15 a game is an unreasonable cost. £5 or £6 should be fine. Most people seem to agree with this.

The games on BBC One continued into this season. e.g. Leicester V Burnley on the opening weekend. Why is it suddenly OK to charge people £15 a game when the reason for showing these games remains the same?

 

[vegassd]

I don't know why you're telling what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

I'm not trying to tell you what you should do mate. Just trying to highlight that you aren't being forced to pay any more money than normal to watch any more games than normal.

You said "If I now have to pay an extra £15 or £30 a month to watch us when we're on TV" and all I'm saying is that this sentiment is incorrect. Those games "when we're on TV" are still available to you without paying any extra money. The extra money would only be for games that would not normally be on TV.

I agree with you that if PPV ends up applying to all games and the price stays at £15 then Sky etc. will lose the majority of their football watching customers because it will become too expensive. That's exactly why they won't do it. Subscribers are far more valuable to them so they will cater to subscribers first and casual in-outers last. Another reason why the PPV price is so high.

Think about a Brighton fan - or Burnley or Sheffield or any of the lesser supported teams. If Sky want to make money off that Brighton fan (which they do) they need to grab it as and when they can. A Brighton fan will be less likely to become a subscriber because they don't get shown that often, and if they get relegated that coverage gets worse. But maybe that Brighton fan wants to watch the Brighton vs. Spurs game because of Bale, or Spurs are their second team, or they have a Spurs mate or whatever.

To that fan £15 may well be worth it because they know they won't be spending much throughout the year. To a Spurs fan that £15 is probably not worth it because it will be one of the more boring games of the season and they are already paying a Sky sub. It's the same price but it carries a different value for different people.

I would love to see the PPV games priced at something like £5 but I don't think it would be a reasonable model to follow unless all games became PPV so the big games help cover the cost of the small games. And I doubt many people want to see all games PPV unless the subscriptions get removed.

 

[Maxtremist]

I don't know why you're telling what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

As I've said, I'm not going to pay for extra PPV games at £15 a go. If that becomes the norm I will start watching them through other means and I'll probably cancel my subscription to the rest of the games.

I've never said the cost should be £2.50, I've used it as an illustration of how much we pay per game within the normal subscription and why £15 a game is an unreasonable cost. £5 or £6 should be fine. Most people seem to agree with this.

The games on BBC One continued into this season. e.g. Leicester V Burnley on the opening weekend. Why is it suddenly OK to charge people £15 a game when the reason for showing these games remains the same?

Not to take this topic too far off topic but I'd imagine a large part of the change is the increasing Covid cases and the government pushing back when fans can come into stadiums. With that being pushed back, I think clubs were looking at that as a way to start to make money again but with that falling through they went with this. It's annoying situation where the clubs, no matter how rich they are, are looking to recruit some more money so PPV is how. Letting more PL games than normal was working up to a point and from a fans perspective was fantastic, but broadcasting does cost and putting on that many games was costing 'em too I'd imagine so sadly was never going to last all season.

As for the £5/£15 price point, yes it's agreed generally that fans would be fine paying £5/£6... but how many would actually watch and pay it? As I've asked on here before, would 3 times as many people actually watch the game as £5 than would at £15? I personally don't see that happening and thus, the PL puts the high price point cause that still gets 'em more money in the end.

Similarly I think a lot would swallow a pay monthly deal easier BUT the biggest issue with that is we and the PL have no idea how long this is gonna last for. Everything the PL and clubs are saying points to things going 'back to normal' as soon as possible so, so by February (if we're being optimistic) you might start to see fans back in the stadium then. And with that, they might then decide that's when they end PPV. Or PPV only lasts for this season. So next season it's normal. So how can you really do a pay monthly scheme for something that's only going to last maybe 5/6 months? I think the practicality of a pay monthly thing might be too hard to do now without any long term clarity.

As for your other posts, I get and fully understand your point that the more this seems to happen, the more likely you are to change to streaming overall and I think that's fair. I think for me, I wouldn't find that an easy switch just because my TV and watching matches via that is an easier and better experience for me. It's why I've never fully gone streaming, personally.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Compared to actually attending Spurs games , £15 PPV is pretty reasonably priced, say you watched 50 Spurs games on TV at £15 that would cost you £750 you can't buy an adult ST at Spurs for that price, they start around £800 with many over £1000 and a ST only covers 19 home PL games . Advantage of attending games is you get crowd atmosphere and you don't have to listen to Sky/BT pundits wittering on, advantage of watching on TV you get the perfect view plus replays of controversial incidents which you don't get on the big screens but you do have to listen to pundits. I will fork out the £15 or watch down the pub in which case I will probably spend £15 anyway.


PS. Seems that ifollow streaming is working quite well, probably why PL chose £15 as a starting figure, time will tell if they have got it right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-giving-EFL-clubs-lifeline.html#:~:text=There were 386%2C700 streams viewed,iFollow service or club equivalents.

 

[nailsy]

Not to take this topic too far off topic but I'd imagine a large part of the change is the increasing Covid cases and the government pushing back when fans can come into stadiums. With that being pushed back, I think clubs were looking at that as a way to start to make money again but with that falling through they went with this. It's annoying situation where the clubs, no matter how rich they are, are looking to recruit some more money so PPV is how. Letting more PL games than normal was working up to a point and from a fans perspective was fantastic, but broadcasting does cost and putting on that many games was costing 'em too I'd imagine so sadly was never going to last all season.

As for the £5/£15 price point, yes it's agreed generally that fans would be fine paying £5/£6... but how many would actually watch and pay it? As I've asked on here before, would 3 times as many people actually watch the game as £5 than would at £15? I personally don't see that happening and thus, the PL puts the high price point cause that still gets 'em more money in the end.

Similarly I think a lot would swallow a pay monthly deal easier BUT the biggest issue with that is we and the PL have no idea how long this is gonna last for. Everything the PL and clubs are saying points to things going 'back to normal' as soon as possible so, so by February (if we're being optimistic) you might start to see fans back in the stadium then. And with that, they might then decide that's when they end PPV. Or PPV only lasts for this season. So next season it's normal. So how can you really do a pay monthly scheme for something that's only going to last maybe 5/6 months? I think the practicality of a pay monthly thing might be too hard to do now without any long term clarity.

As for your other posts, I get and fully understand your point that the more this seems to happen, the more likely you are to change to streaming overall and I think that's fair. I think for me, I wouldn't find that an easy switch just because my TV and watching matches via that is an easier and better experience for me. It's why I've never fully gone streaming, personally.

Does it cost them much to show the games? Aren't all the games filmed for the foreign audiences anyway? And don't they get advertising revenue for these games? If they're worried about cost stop getting in high cost pundits.

I'd guess that they'd get more people watching at £5 a game, but there's no way of knowing. They aren't releasing the viewing figures from the weekends games so I'd guess that they were extremely low.

Compared to actually attending Spurs games , £15 PPV is pretty reasonably priced, say you watched 50 Spurs games on TV at £15 that would cost you £750 you can't buy an adult ST at Spurs for that price, they start around £800 with many over £1000 and a ST only covers 19 home PL games . Advantage of attending games is you get crowd atmosphere and you don't have to listen to Sky/BT pundits wittering on, advantage of watching on TV you get the perfect view plus replays of controversial incidents which you don't get on the big screens but you do have to listen to pundits. I will fork out the £15 or watch down the pub in which case I will probably spend £15 anyway.


PS. Seems that ifollow streaming is working quite well, probably why PL chose £15 as a starting figure, time will tell if they have got it right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-giving-EFL-clubs-lifeline.html#:~:text=There were 386%2C700 streams viewed,iFollow service or club equivalents.

Watching a game on tv and going to a game are totally different experiences. We shouldn't be comparing costs.

 

[Maxtremist]

Does it cost them much to show the games? Aren't all the games filmed for the foreign audiences anyway? And don't they get advertising revenue for these games? If they're worried about cost stop getting in high cost pundits.

I'd guess that they'd get more people watching at £5 a game, but there's no way of knowing. They aren't releasing the viewing figures from the weekends games so I'd guess that they were extremely low.



Watching a game on tv and going to a game are totally different experiences. We shouldn't be comparing costs.

I work in media but not quite in TV so only got limited knowledge on it fully, but broadcasting is another expense as opposed to just filming. I don't believe the advertising is enough to cover it all or close to it but I could be wrong here.
Would assume viewing figures are low and £5 would get more, but I still don't think it would get 3 times more .

I think I saw you say you mainly watch Spurs games? So the £5 wouldn't have changed yours for example and I wouldn't have watched either.
I watched the other games when they were made available for free but that was only cause they were there rather than any real desire to watch them. I think what you have to take account for in viewing figures and the PPV stuff is the neutral fan watching. Neutral fan is much more likely to watch a high profile game with two really good teams. I think Sky, BT, The PL and West Brom and Burnley would all tell you that their game is not a high profile game that many are rushing to watch. There's a reason a lot of these games weren't picked for television in the first place so I'd kinda expect low viewing figures, even before the price issue.

 

[nailsy]

I work in media but not quite in TV so only got limited knowledge on it fully, but broadcasting is another expense as opposed to just filming. I don't believe the advertising is enough to cover it all or close to it but I could be wrong here.
Would assume viewing figures are low and £5 would get more, but I still don't think it would get 3 times more .

I think I saw you say you mainly watch Spurs games? So the £5 wouldn't have changed yours for example and I wouldn't have watched either.
I watched the other games when they were made available for free but that was only cause they were there rather than any real desire to watch them. I think what you have to take account for in viewing figures and the PPV stuff is the neutral fan watching. Neutral fan is much more likely to watch a high profile game with two really good teams. I think Sky, BT, The PL and West Brom and Burnley would all tell you that their game is not a high profile game that many are rushing to watch. There's a reason a lot of these games weren't picked for television in the first place so I'd kinda expect low viewing figures, even before the price issue.

Yep, I wouldn't have paid for the games at the weekend, even if they were £5. Like you I did watch quite a few of the extra games that were on during restart though.
I get what you're saying about neutral fans, but these games are on because there's no fans in the stadium, they shouldn't be trying to take advantage of the situation. The lower league teams are putting the games out for less money, when their costs are probably higher as they don't have the same amount of cameras at every game. I really see this as corporate greed and it's putting me off their entire product range.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Watching a game on tv and going to a game are totally different experiences. We shouldn't be comparing costs.

That is perfectly true but when some fans are paying up to £80/£90 a seat to attend a game plus travelling and food/drink I doubt they will quibble at parting with £15 for a game on TV that normally wouldn't have been broadcast in the UK.
Streaming figure for the recent Everton - West Hame game in Caraboa Cup was 15,452 at a tenner a time , pretty sure that figure for a PL game between the two teams would be exceeded even at £15.

 

[spursfan1991]

Based on current votes at total cost of season ticket:

126 votes x £150 = £18,900
136 votes x £250 = £34,000
24 votes x £375 = £9,000
24 votes x £500 = £12,000

I have sent the above to [email protected]. £5 per game it is.

 

[vegassd]

I really see this as corporate greed and it's putting me off their entire product range.

Totally agree - it's all greed really and I'm actually quite hopeful that the introduction of PPV is going to start changing how it works.

With the subscription model you end up paying for a load of stuff you probably never use. If you don't like golf or cricket you can't choose to remove those things and save money. And you're still paying even during the summer or international breaks when there is no PL on, or for games where you aren't available to watch. It's how the whole system works... they get you in and you part with your money even if you aren't watching because there's no other option.

Something like NowTV does make it more accessible but I for one would like to see a more PPV model or a season ticket for just the games I want to watch. I definitely don't mind paying to watch but I don't like the idea of paying for stuff I have no interest in.

Out of interest, if you could change your own subscription so you got all Spurs games but literally nothing else (no other sports, no other football) for the same money do you think you would do it?

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

On the cost of TV football is it worthwhile for some clubs fans to even pay for Sky/BT , take the 2018/19 season , if your a Spurs fan 26 PL games televised so probably worthwhile , if your a Palace fan just 12 games televised not much for your outlay when your paying the same as other fans even worse for the Saints just 8 games on TV.

Liverpool bank UK£33.5m as they top Premier League TV table - SportsPro

Champions Manchester City only third in UK’s live match broadcast rankings.

www.sportspromedia.com