Closed Doors Live Streaming.

[DA Baracus]

25 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

I totally understand you and the other guys side of the argument, the majority against this idea support (and this is not a dig) less supported clubs than my own, I just think the away support you would receive would be higher that what it is now.

You say the uptake wouldn't be enough.

Just shy of 80% on here would be willing to do it.

Even if 100% of fans who would normally attend games did it there would still be a huge, insurmountable shortfall.

[johnnydun]

12 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Even if 100% of fans who would normally attend games did it there would still be a huge, insurmountable shortfall.

No there wouldn't.

How did you work that one out?

[johnnydun]

17 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

The ex-pats who currently have access to streams, and don’t use them to anything like you suggest?

Do they currently get this at 3pm live on a Saturday home and away? 

Is this currently counted towards the gate receipts?

[Homer Thompson]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

Do they currently get this at 3pm live on a Saturday home and away? 

Is this currently counted towards the gate receipts?

Yes, to 3pm Saturday.

Home and away depends on the club.

and no, of course not!

[Monkey Tennis]

17 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

No there wouldn't.

How did you work that one out?

Presumably because like most of us, he thinks there's no way they'd be willing to pay anything like as much.  There would also be big losses in terms of hospitality and sponsorship, losses which would far exceed the savings made in not requiring stewards.

[DA Baracus]

Yes, reduction in income from hospitality and sponsorship is the main one. Hospitality is such a big matchday income source. 

Sponsorship would almost certainly be down. Many companies simply won't be in the position to afford it. Those that can would almost certainly not be willing to pay as much for games in empty stadiums. Remember that most clubs only have a single camera, so right away you're taking away a quarter of pitch side advertising. Sponsors of individual games would vanish or pay a vastly reduced sum. Match ball sponsors likewise. It's been argued that there can still be sponsors for such things online, but the vastly decreased reach and association with a possibly poor or average quality product (empty stadiums on a single camera stream ran by volunteers) is not appealing. Any sponsors taking it up would again almost certainly do so on reduced terms.

Then you have the reduction in food and merchandise sales, programme sales and half time draws. The latter two can be done online but the uptake would almost certainly be reduced.

 

This article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51177558

states that gate revenue makes up 43% of total revenue. Granted, that was for the Premiership, but the figures also note that TV money makes up 10% and UEFA prize money 18%. So down the leagues gate money will almost certainly make up a larger percentage since TV goes down and clubs obviously don't get income from UEFA. Crucially it notes that sponsorship and commercial activities make up 26%. Again, I imagine that would be higher down the leagues as they don't have the other sources.

 

The numbers don't add up. Playing games in empty stadiums won't work.

[Paisley Ton]

Well this has been a healthy debate.

While the polls show the P&B crowed would be up for it is also true that they are internet users and would just see streamed games as an extension of their internet services.

So in the real world we need to know what the committed  participation would actually be and is it feasible to support our teams until attendance at games resumes.  As stated before I feel that for this to work we would need a fair % of those going to home games to take up the streamed away option. Smaller teams will benefit from larger teams away support but it needs to be a season type ticket package to avoid drop off in interest which would make the initiative a non starter. 

As it would cost very little our teams should contact and poll their supporters to see the actual level of interest and whether the finances work before we let thing drag on or we will likely end up with a 18 game season dominated by those who survive as full time operations.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Paisley Ton

[johnnydun]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Yes, reduction in income from hospitality and sponsorship is the main one. Hospitality is such a big matchday income source. 

Sponsorship would almost certainly be down. Many companies simply won't be in the position to afford it. Those that can would almost certainly not be willing to pay as much for games in empty stadiums. Remember that most clubs only have a single camera, so right away you're taking away a quarter of pitch side advertising. Sponsors of individual games would vanish or pay a vastly reduced sum. Match ball sponsors likewise. It's been argued that there can still be sponsors for such things online, but the vastly decreased reach and association with a possibly poor or average quality product (empty stadiums on a single camera stream ran by volunteers) is not appealing. Any sponsors taking it up would again almost certainly do so on reduced terms.

Then you have the reduction in food and merchandise sales, programme sales and half time draws. The latter two can be done online but the uptake would almost certainly be reduced.

 

This article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51177558

states that gate revenue makes up 43% of total revenue. Granted, that was for the Premiership, but the figures also note that TV money makes up 10% and UEFA prize money 18%. So down the leagues gate money will almost certainly make up a larger percentage since TV goes down and clubs obviously don't get income from UEFA. Crucially it notes that sponsorship and commercial activities make up 26%. Again, I imagine that would be higher down the leagues as they don't have the other sources.

 

The numbers don't add up. Playing games in empty stadiums won't work.

Thank you for your detailed reply.

Again, like mine, a lot of the figures are still guess work.

It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of a Championship match incomings and outgoings.

If anyone could post figures or a link, that would be most helpful.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, johnnydun said:

It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of a Championship match incomings and outgoings.

If anyone could post figures or a link, that would be most helpful.

A breakdown of what exactly? I doubt you will find any club publish numbers in the public domsin.

[DA Baracus]

6 hours ago, johnnydun said:

Thank you for your detailed reply.

Again, like mine, a lot of the figures are still guess work.

It would be interesting to see an actual breakdown of a Championship match incomings and outgoings.

If anyone could post figures or a link, that would be most helpful.

I did try to find that sort of info for the Championship and for my own club, but can't see it anywhere.

[timlichtie]

Personally, I don't get to Gayfield that often (I'm at more away games because of my location)
A trip to Gayfield costs me 300 miles of diesel, 2 nights in a hotel and 2 expensive meals for 2, before I even factor in the price of a pint in Tutties & paying on the gate.
£20 to have it streamed to my armchair? Count me in!
I'd still rather be at Gayfield, Palmerston, Somerset, Firhill & even the sh*tehole that is the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium though...

Most clubs have a strong band of travelling fans who don’t necessarily live near the home ground. I agree that £20 a game to support my team and the others in the league would be a small price to pay.

[forameus]

On 24/05/2020 at 23:42, Monkey Tennis said:

Presumably because like most of us, he thinks there's no way they'd be willing to pay anything like as much.  There would also be big losses in terms of hospitality and sponsorship, losses which would far exceed the savings made in not requiring stewards.

This.  I didn't vote in the poll because it didn't quite cover how I felt about it.  I would be interested in taking up a subscription, probably for home and away, but it's massively dependent on what it cost, and I'm not convinced that clubs could do it for the sort of money I'd be prepared to spend.  There's no way I'm paying the equivalent of a ticket to Firhill to watch a stream, and I don't imagine I'm alone in that.  You've likely got to charge as much as you would for a walk-up, and you're likely going to lose the money from the Old Boys (and girls) who either don't know how or physically can't stream the games. 

[Homer Thompson]

9 minutes ago, forameus said:

This.  I didn't vote in the poll because it didn't quite cover how I felt about it.  I would be interested in taking up a subscription, probably for home and away, but it's massively dependent on what it cost, and I'm not convinced that clubs could do it for the sort of money I'd be prepared to spend.  There's no way I'm paying the equivalent of a ticket to Firhill to watch a stream, and I don't imagine I'm alone in that.  You've likely got to charge as much as you would for a walk-up, and you're likely going to lose the money from the Old Boys (and girls) who either don't know how or physically can't stream the games. 

You're also definitely losing money from families who can buy one sub and all watch together.

I dont think theres any doubt that to make the same amount of money from streaming alone would require clubs to either charge more than PATG or get more subscribers than normally attend games. Neither are even remotely likely.

[johnnydun]

With the Premiership now given the green light for live streaming (although limited), if they start before us, it may give us something to at least gauge from.

[D'Jaffo]

If it’s a success is it something we could see rolled out in the Championship?

I know Cameron says he doesn’t think there’s a market for it and I tend to agree with him but that was before the news about Sky and the virtual season ticket offer.

[Homer Thompson]

I'm not sure this news changes anything for the championship.

The premiership are starting again to ensure we don't lose money from the TV deal. They're not starting because they think streaming will replace normal matchday income.

All this announcement means is that sky have agreed to allow games they're not broadcasting to be streamed in the UK.

[rb123!]

If it’s a success is it something we could see rolled out in the Championship?

I know Cameron says he doesn’t think there’s a market for it and I tend to agree with him but that was before the news about Sky and the virtual season ticket offer.

Sky won't broadcast Championship games, BT possibly but doubtful. BBC Scotland don't think would be able to facilitate live streaming.

[Homer Thompson]

Sky won't broadcast Championship games, BT possibly but doubtful. BBC Scotland don't think would be able to facilitate live streaming.

Is it not the individual clubs in the Premiership that are going to be streaming games? Sky has just given their OK

[D'Jaffo]

Is it not the individual clubs in the Premiership that are going to be streaming games? Sky has just given their OK

Yeah they’ve waived the rule that would prohibit games being shown at 3 o’clock.

I think they’re also assisting clubs in the setting up of the streaming services.

[craigkillie]

The 3pm rule is nothing to do with Sky - it's the national FAs who decide on that.