Closed Doors Live Streaming.

[RandomGuy.]

11 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

 

Bit of a Catch-22 eh?

Aye. Its shite, but I'm not being the one who's dobbing them in.

From what I can tell its rife as f**k

[Derry Alli]

For the avoidance of doubt here : we aren't "dobbing" a company in that is taking money from the government for people they have sacked because they're his mates and they work there.

Confused? 

Good. 

[Peedzy]

Set it up centrally, divide the streaming income by 42 and pay the same out to each club.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Equally, you have done the same.  Clubs/the league should be exploring all options and checking for viability.  Clubs being able to get some income Vs no income is a no brainer if it reaches an acceptable amount (that will vary club to club).  It's obvious that clubs are going back so they need to fund it. 

From what we're led to believe the existence of some of the clubs (including our own) is precarious at the best of times and that's playing in front of at least 1,800 paying customers each week. Additionally, most of us also rely on decent sponsorship money and a either a wee run in a cup or alternatively a big gate against either a local rival or one of the well supported top tier sides, as such, I can't see how charging a smaller fee for streaming compared to normal gate money will possibly prove viable, especially when you take into account the missed revenue though catering, club shop and even programme and half time draw tickets. There's also the argument that two or three from the same household would normally be in attendance which cuts down the figures even more if only paying 1x streaming fee.

It's also highly unlikely that anyone other than diehard supporters would be willing to access a "pay per view" product such as this, especially with the competition we'd be up against, not to mention the spiralling costs of TV subscriptions and that's before we even talk about the likely economic climate with mass unemployment and high household debt levels.

I might be coming across as all defeatist and cynical here but I honestly can't see how clubs at our level (and below) can possibly countenance football returning without paying fans actually in attendance.

It just seems like financial suicide to me.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

40 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Equally, you have done the same.  Clubs/the league should be exploring all options and checking for viability.  Clubs being able to get some income Vs no income is a no brainer if it reaches an acceptable amount (that will vary club to club).  It's obvious that clubs are going back so they need to fund it. 

 

I've did various calculations and always come up with what I think is a fairly high figure. You might be prepared to pay it though e.g. Ayr would need 500 subscribers paying £56.00 a month for two home games to cover weekly wages and tests of about £7k. Assuming home teams keep.any takings.

Eta that subscription would be reduced if sponsorship income is factored in.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[RandomGuy.]

51 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

For the avoidance of doubt here : we aren't "dobbing" a company in that is taking money from the government for people they have sacked because they're his mates and they work there.

Confused? 

Good. 

 

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

The pub owner has been pretty open about claiming furlough money for people hes gotten rid of. Theres also garages taking money for people theyve got working.

It's very simple.

The pub owner was the boss of a family member of a work mate. She was sacked, along with everyone but the head chef, but theyve seemingly found out their boss is boasting about the amount of money hes earning through furlough.

Theres an MOT garage who has furloughed all their staff apart from the boss, who is a MOT tester. My mate works there as a MOT tester. He is furloughed, but is still being brought in to do MOT tests, but the boss is the one who signs them all off.

I'm not naming the garage, as it would inevitably end in my friend suffering the most.

Its rife, and by all accounts every industry going is at it.

Edited May 23, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Skyline Drifter]

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

It's very simple.

The pub owner was the boss of a family member of a work mate. She was sacked, along with everyone but the head chef, but theyve seemingly found out their boss is boasting about the amount of money hes earning through furlough.

Theres an MOT garage who has furloughed all their staff apart from the boss, who is a MOT tester. My mate works there as a MOT tester. He is furloughed, but is still being brought in to do MOT tests, but the boss is the one who signs them all off.

I'm not naming the garage, as it would inevitably end in my friend suffering the most.

Its rife, and by all accounts every industry going is at it.

Both of these are outright fraud. Not sure what point it is you are making here?

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Both of these are outright fraud. Not sure what point it is you are making here?

I was making the point that furlough fraud is happening.

[Derry Alli]

12 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

but theyve seemingly found out 

This, again, contradicts what you were saying earlier. 

Can you not help yourself? 

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Mr. Alli said:

This, again, contradicts what you were saying earlier. 

Can you not help yourself? 

I've been clear all along the pub owner himself is the one spreading the story hes claiming furlough money for sacked employees.

[Derry Alli]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

I've been clear all along the pub owner himself is the one spreading the story hes claiming furlough money for sacked employees.

No, you said he's openly going around saying it. Then you've said that *enter long winded sentence* has seemingly found out that he's saying this. 

Those aren't the same thing. For what it's worth, your mates a shitebag for doing work for his boss for free. 

[Finlay21]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I've been clear all along the pub owner himself is the one spreading the story hes claiming furlough money for sacked employees.

He certainly can’t be the most sensible type of person then , hope he tells the wrong person and gets what he deserves the fraudulent p***k

its tax payers like  us that will end up paying more tax in the future to repay all this furloughed money , don’t mind paying it back for the people who needed it , but hate paying back for fraudulent and cheating p***ks 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Robbo63

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

It's very simple.

The pub owner was the boss of a family member of a work mate. She was sacked, along with everyone but the head chef, but theyve seemingly found out their boss is boasting about the amount of money hes earning through furlough.

Theres an MOT garage who has furloughed all their staff apart from the boss, who is a MOT tester. My mate works there as a MOT tester. He is furloughed, but is still being brought in to do MOT tests, but the boss is the one who signs them all off.

I'm not naming the garage, as it would inevitably end in my friend suffering the most.

Its rife, and by all accounts every industry going is at it.

That's a very dangerous game to be playing with HMRC, contrary to what many may believe they're a bit like the mounties, as in they always get their man (or woman).

They may not have a great record with big business but many a small business owner will testify to their prowess at investigating, catching and successfully prosecuting.......

[johnnydun]

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

 

I've did various calculations and always come up with what I think is a fairly high figure. You might be prepared to pay it though e.g. Ayr would need 500 subscribers paying £56.00 a month for two home games to cover weekly wages and tests of about £7k. Assuming home teams keep.any takings.

Eta that subscription would be reduced if sponsorship income is factored in.

So including away fans, they could possibly get double that number, they could charge £14 a game?

Seems reasonable to me.

[DA Baracus]

If your mortgage is £500 a month but you tell the bank that you can only pay £100 and that "it's better than nothing", the bank will still take your house.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, itzdrk said:

That's quite a jump, I'm talking about:. The only way to watch v the only way to watch.  

You are talking about: being able to watch v the best way to watch. 

But you were suggesting it's perfectly appropriate to charge similar amounts for a TV experience and a live one.  It's not.

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

So including away fans, they could possibly get double that number, they could charge £14 a game?

Seems reasonable to me.

I was being generous with 500 and I'm not sure they'd get another 500 for each visiting team.

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I was being generous with 500 and I'm not sure they'd get another 500 for each visiting team.

The average gate was 3019 in the Championship last season. I think a third would be achievable.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

The average gate was 3019 in the Championship last season. I think a third would be achievable.

I disagree, that figure would be best case scenario.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I said companies will end up having increased taxes to pay due to the furlough scheme, this was when someone claimed its "free money". If you dont believe that will happen then so be it.

 That's a total misrepresentation of what you said.  

You weren't saying this money will have to be recouped through taxation in the long term. You were directly saying furlough money will need paid back by the companies in receipt of it.  You know this.