The game was on ESPN which I would need to subscribe to in order to watch it. The cost of this is £12 per month and looking at the fixtures they’re showing, most involve the Sky 4 and rarely Everton. Also, Sky offers the sports package which would cost about £40 a month to watch the Blues on average once a month.
The reason I don’t subscribe to these packages is because, barring the odd game, I have no interest in watching the Sky 4 every week, never mind contributing to their already bulging coffers with my cash. Now don’t get me wrong, the Sky deal we have is a good deal but I just feel that the Premier League clubs and Sky are missing out on a massive opportunity.
We are playing Chelsea next week and although the TV cameras are there, I cannot pay Sky or Everton to watch this game. This, I feel, is a missed opportunity. Why is it that Sky doesn’t have pay-per-view? Even if it is only on the non-featured games. Surely the business model is fundamentally wrong when I, as a consumer, want to pay Everton and Sky for this service and they won’t/can’t take my money?
I know this would have an impact on their subscriptions but if they look at the bigger picture, I reckon it would be more lucrative. Ok, maybe former subscribers would only pay now and then but I’m sure they would still get more cash from the fan bases of 20 clubs every week rather than just the elite few. Alternatively, they could offer me an Everton season ticket where I get to watch every Everton game all season. This could be sold to fans worldwide and considering Everton have around a million fans I believe it could be very lucrative for every club and Sky.
We are looking and spending a couple of hundred million quid on a stadium to get an extra 15,000 seats when we could have an extra 50,000 season tickets holders for the cost of fuck all. Everton will have an idea of the amount of interest as our first Europa league game was only available on EvertonTV.
You see, as a businessman myself, I have never been and will never be in the situation were a customer wants to give me money and I don’t get it off him. NEVER! The clubs and Sky should act now before live streaming is actually worth watching.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 03/12/2009 at 23:20:05
Anyone else know if the sky deal prevents Everton TV from offering full games?
I believe we already have ManU TV chelsea TV etc so I believe it could be a real attraction for the non matchgoing (for whatever reason)supporters.
2 Posted 03/12/2009 at 23:30:30
3 Posted 04/12/2009 at 00:19:14
I currently live in the USA, and all NFL games are shown live on local TV, but if not enough match tickets are sold there is a TV blackout to force people to buy tickets. This would be tough to enforce in England because our country is similar in size to many of their states, that normally only have one team!!!
Would be good to trial it, though, I guess...
4 Posted 04/12/2009 at 00:35:40
5 Posted 04/12/2009 at 01:24:22
6 Posted 04/12/2009 at 06:22:17
I think Johnny hits the nail on the head, showing every game would have to have a detrimental effect on attendances.
This season while the younger members of our group have been gallivanting around Europe, we’ve kinda got into the habit of meeting at one of the houses and we love it. Nice warm house, company of your choice, no traffic, beers without queueing, all the latest jokes... you can even stand up if you want to, it's absolutely brilliant.
If you could guarantee every Everton match would be on telly, I could guarantee half a dozen of us would not renew our tickets next year, grounds would empty up and down the country mate.
Who knows? Maybe the lost gate money may well be offset by the newly generated TV revenue, but personally I found the only downside of Wednesday night was the thousands and thousands of empty spaces, didn’t like that one bit.
Maybe if the club's benefited more from TV deals — how much more can they get though? — they could still ensure big crowds by dramatically reducing the cost of tickets?
7 Posted 04/12/2009 at 07:38:09
You also have to remember that smaller clubs will be affected if the big clubs show their games. A lot of fans go to local smaller games when they can't get to their own team as often.
8 Posted 04/12/2009 at 08:27:10
If it did have this effect then maybe Sky could offer us an away game season ticket. Also they could offer the full season ticket to our overseas fans only. This could still be very lucrative although if they done this I’d be well pissed off as it’s my idea and I’d still be on Iraq goals.
9 Posted 04/12/2009 at 09:14:56
10 Posted 04/12/2009 at 09:26:54
It is the same for the form of entertainment that is football. With careful thought and the use of postcode technology and the like, there could be restrictions on certain distances from a ground (eg 100 miles?) within which you cannot get the service for your team.
At some point folks, this will happen but I wonder if the world of football will be tripping over their shorts for not seeing the opportunity first. Will this also be owned and controlled by some Far East entrepreneur yet to make his billions?
11 Posted 04/12/2009 at 09:30:10
The whole shebang costs me £40 a month and that includes ESPN which I blagged when renewing my Sky package. For that I can get access — either live or via Football First recorded — and don’t miss much of the action of my beloved Blues.I reckon your stay in the Highlands has turned you into a Scots skinflint, Jimmy!
12 Posted 04/12/2009 at 09:50:14
Anyway, would you seriously trust this club to organise the broadcasting of their games?
And as a poster further up said, a Premier League TV season ticket is impossible due to the broadcasting ban on 3 o'clock Saturday games being broadcast in the UK.
13 Posted 04/12/2009 at 09:50:19
14 Posted 04/12/2009 at 10:03:20
15 Posted 04/12/2009 at 11:07:16
I understand the attendances would be affected but I remember going to Goodison back in the late 80s early 90s and the crowds were down to the early 20s. I don’t remember the atmosphere being any worse than it is now though. Anyway, do you really want people there who wouldn’t go if it was on TV? As long as Everton could tap into that money ongoing who is arsed? They might actually pay towards a nice new ground in L4.
Richard Dodd - as a fellow formby resident and blue I don’t think I could disagree with you any more. Are you saying that the wages the players are now on is a good thing? Also, I don’t think that the Premier League is necessarily a good thing. I don’t remember being upset about the state of things in 1987.
There is too much English footy on TV. Simple. I am quite happy for Match of the Day on Saturday night, pay per view for everything else at say £5 a game to whichever club you subscribe and if all else fails, get your arse to the ground.
I cancelled my Sky subscription on the basis that they and the Champions league format have created a deluxe SPL in England and only massive investment by someone will dislodge that. We now have Football Monopoly in England and only the super rich can play.
16 Posted 04/12/2009 at 11:39:51
They will travel 100’s of miles to Goodison if they want to.
They will watch on Sky from around the corner if they want to (when available)
They will watch on Iraqgoals.net if that’s all they can get.
As it stands, someone living next to the Wimslow can go in there on a match day and sink a swift 6 pints with lots of fans, then go home at 2.50pm and login to iraqgoals.net and watch the match. They can even open their window to hear the crowd for extra atmosphere. This goes for any Everton fan across the world, barr the open window and the Wimslow extras. This effectively puts the FA rule of showing live games on a Saturday between 3 and 5pm out the window.
And someone said before, if the game was on the telly every week, they would not get a season ticket. That’s their choice. But I reckon if in the same season, someone offered them a Derby ticket, they would bite their hands off for it.
My prediction is that Clubs will depend on a core of season ticket holders (eg 20-30,000) and try to fill the rest of an unobstructed view stadium from a fan base who attend for 2-6 games a season whenever they can. These part-time attendees would also be willing to pay let’s say £50 a month (well I would) to see the rest of the games from their home on the proper telly.
Fans from the rest of the world will probably only visit Goodison a few times in their lifetime, so their only way of supporting Everton financially at the moment, is buying merchandise off the website, then sitting with their Everton kit on in front of their PC watching the game for free. From a business point of view, this cannot be right.
17 Posted 04/12/2009 at 11:53:23
The point being that they can’t provide it.
18 Posted 04/12/2009 at 12:42:29
19 Posted 04/12/2009 at 13:12:30
Pay per view seems to have diminised on Sky anyway... so I would assume there’s a reason for that. Probably based on a costing of provision, foreign alternatives and subscription..
It could also lead to the income from Sky being directly calculated on the basis of the season ticket... which could see a lot of smaller premiership clubs like us loosing out. We probably get more under the current system than we would under a season ticket system...
20 Posted 04/12/2009 at 13:28:02
The big four are crying out for this to happen for the simple reason that it will significantly increase their own revenues. We may have a great following but could we honestly compete in PPV sales against Arsenal, Utd and Liverpool particularly with the interest they generate in Asia?
21 Posted 04/12/2009 at 13:32:40
The ESPN deal for the last round was GBP 625m (Singapore and Thailand went to a consortium of Starhub [Singapore], TEN [Dubai] and Goal TV [HK]).
This season (the last of the current deal in Singapore) every single game is shown live. There are now 7 channels that can show live Prem games. And given there are always some games on a Sunday / Monday, effectively every single Prem game is shown live. Getting your local boozer to show your game is tough (my local’s run by a Red, though he’s okay showing our games when they’re not on!)
But then my full cable TV package here costs me around 20 quid a month.
On top of all this, ESPN / STAR Sports show loads of football-interest programmes - some of which are specifically made by them, some of which (highlights, Premier League World etc.) are direct takes from Sky. Sky even co-produce some of the Asia-specific programmes.
Yes it’s football over-load, but there’s always other channels to watch, or the "off" button...
22 Posted 04/12/2009 at 14:02:31
That’s why it’s just as important to build our Everton brand across the world as being bought over by a Billionaire.
23 Posted 04/12/2009 at 05:19:14
In my opinion, during the credit crunch people are saving money and not wasting it on things they don’t need. Certain people only go the big games during the season against attractive opposition. Everton have countered this with a points system that they believe will attract fans to go the less glamorous ties. For example you get 25 points at most for an unattractive tie and 5 points for an away game or a normal home game.
What many people do not know is that the club has no option whether it allows Sky TV to cover the match as Sky buys the rights off the Premier League not the clubs. The clubs get a variety of fees depending on how big the club is, for example, Manchester United will get more than Bolton. But really in this world of ever more technological advances, people can subscribe for about £3 a month to foreign channels and watch 3 0 clock football and all the other Premier League games live.
With our game being rearranged for Sky it has set up a moral dilemma for me. I have become increasingly disillusioned with football... maybe it’s just our form this season but it seems other fans of other clubs feel the same. Sky, along with the greedy Premier League officials, have wrecked football.
Nowadays, there is a huge decrease in football support. Less than 10% of match going fans are under 24. The clubs may be able to milk the benefits now but when they don’t have anybody to go to the match in 10 years it will financially harm the club.
There is an increasing argument between growing clubs for the need to have the finances to compete with the top 4. There is a financial argument and a moral argument. I think football needs to go through a massive restoration as I can’t see where the next generation of fans will come from.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, football may be in its most financially successful decade but has anybody thought of the future? Selling games to Sky means fewer fans through the gate so you’ve lost potential custom and a potential fan.
Another thing is things need to be done to attract people to want to go to watch the game at Goodison Park. Also with cheaper leisure activities for people, football is becoming less popular.
Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal are popular clubs that sell out most home games. The other maybe 13 or so clubs need to realise that they need to be thinking about future income, as, if more and more fans give up going the match, they will have lost a customer for life.
24 Posted 04/12/2009 at 14:18:23
Yet the evidence suggests it’s hardly ’massive’. We we’re about 1,200 down on the average league attendance last season (5th) compared with the season before (finished 5th). But we had a good FA Cup run with two trips to Wembley so that probably compensated in terms of people who decided they could forego some of the league games.
This season so far, our league average is 37,478, with loads more games in the Europa.
So where is this huge decrease in football support? Certainly not at Goodison... and I’m sure not infront of millions of TVs and computer screens.
25 Posted 04/12/2009 at 14:28:47
26 Posted 04/12/2009 at 15:23:40
Firstly, I do think a lot of our fans are knowledgeable about the rights to Premier League games. Secondly, the fees are not based on an abritrary notion like how ’big’ the club is... it’s based on screened matches, which is obviously based on demand and directly related to demand.
Thirdly, it’s not that cheap to subscribe to a foreign tv channel. It’s actually quite expensive if you want to legitimately received a satellite broadcast for ALL/Majority of the live games.
27 Posted 04/12/2009 at 15:35:36
Anyway, this argument probably will appear on these pages in 10 years time. Sky isn’t going anywhere soon.
28 Posted 04/12/2009 at 15:36:41
The reality of the situation is that gap between the big 4 and the chasing pack will only widen when a PPV system is inevitably introduced.
29 Posted 04/12/2009 at 15:49:33
How does one go about "legitimately" subscribing to a foreign channel?
And when you say expensive, what are we talking about, hundreds? As much as a season ticket costs?
30 Posted 04/12/2009 at 16:04:37
You buy a subscription..the right to view foreign satellite channels on a individual home basis has not been challenged in court (only public broadcasting)... And if it was challenged — making such activity illegal would probably breach EU freedom of services legislation...
They are not cheap... most of them are considerably more expensive than a season ticket... Sky Italia, Scandanavian Canal+, Greece Nova, Showtime Sports... all pretty dear.
31 Posted 04/12/2009 at 16:51:36
Now obviously if it’s cheaper to see the game on the box, then they need to think about what do about keeping crowds up. Simple, they should run the grounds as a loss leader, or at a small profit and reduces prices accordingly, obviously full house = better atmosphere and usually a better game.
If all the revenue made is shifted to TV then a cheap to run stadium would be ideal, and surely Goodison fits into this scernario and is one of the reasons I’ve been against sending the club to the brink of administration to build a new (mediocre) ground.
32 Posted 04/12/2009 at 17:24:09
not that I doubt you but how do ManU TV and Chelsea TV get away with it if Sky restricts their broadcasting?
And also do you know if Sky only have the UK broadcasting rights?
33 Posted 04/12/2009 at 17:36:13
The point of most concern is that, as Tom Stokes points out, some (not many) clubs have a bigger fanbase than our own. Although this is only because of recent success they have enjoyed. I’m sure with a bit of success ourselves our worldwide appeal and fanbase would rise considerably.
As it stands we cannot compete financially with anyone. At least this way there would only be a few clubs who are bigger.
34 Posted 04/12/2009 at 19:03:51
The only problem comes from the greed of trying to keep live match tickets so expensive as well as raking in TV money.
35 Posted 04/12/2009 at 20:03:16
Neither Man U tv nor Chelsea tv show any live Premier League matches...
As for foreign rights... as far as I’m aware they are sold as batches in each country... to the highest bidder. The only Sky company I’ve come across broadcasting Premier League in Europe is Sky Italia but there is rumours that Murdoch has fingers in broadcasting pies all over the continent. In fact, he was able to get an the albanian channels to stop broadcasting 3 o'clock games on the eve of last season, so that’s believable...
36 Posted 04/12/2009 at 20:23:29
You’ve obviously looked into this, but I still don't get it.
Every time I have a pint after the game, I seem to meet somebody who hasnt been to a game but has been able to watch it, often in pubs near County Rd,
How does that work?
37 Posted 04/12/2009 at 20:47:54
I’ve been doing it for about 6 years now... no substitute for getting to Goodison, but at least I get to watch the game every week...
38 Posted 04/12/2009 at 22:02:32
39 Posted 04/12/2009 at 21:36:13
40 Posted 04/12/2009 at 22:30:46
Basically, when I left Liverpool I should have moved further away rather than to Scotland. Typical.
41 Posted 11/12/2009 at 12:30:43
The reason you don’t sell rights individually, but as a Premier League collectively is because the likes of Man Utd & Liverpool would be able to charge much more than we could so the gap would get even wider (see Spain where this already happens).
Secondly, if they show games at 3pm on Saturdays, a significant level of supporters would watch INSTEAD of going to games — and we are not talking about games at Old Trafford or Anfield, who could afford it, but the likes of League One & League Two sides where a drop of a few hundred or more of the attendance would make a big difference.
The way it works at present allows people to go to the lower league game, and then still be able to watch the Prem afterwards.
Sky Moneys are divided up over a number of criteria.
1 - Everybody gets an even split of 1 pot
2 - you get paid so much extra every time you are shown
3 - at the end of the season Prize money is paid out at something like £2m a place starting from about £20m at the bottom upwards.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Fan Articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.