CBX1985

I agree with most of this. Not sure I believe a breakaway is realistic; a threat, maybe, but not sure it would add much.

No, it is up to clubs. Premiership and Championship teams probably want it gone; league one more likely want it to remain; and league 2 and below will be desperate for it to be kept. Which means at a vote, chances are it is kept. Not sure Sky care all that much (other providers, like TNT, might want this more from a place of challenger firm). Were it to open up, Sky would be expected to pay a lot more for content, but it would clearly bring very little additional income for that content. Those not already subscribed are hardly likely to want to pay up just for a few 3pm games - so would need to drastically change their model. It is a little inconvenient. But Sky are doubling our income. For that, we will probably have an extra 5 games kick off Mon-Fri than already, several earlier than normal and a few more on a Sunday. To me it feels a price worth paying.

Indeed. A further, agents are liable to telling white lies: My client is reviewing their options and is unwilling to sign "at this time". It puts out the word that they might be interested in a change and makes the club up wage offer. Always be sceptical it might all be smoke and mirrors.

Not sure I agree. If you were going to do that, you'd just do it. There is a base level of income for the games. Once you exceed this, you get very little more for each game available. Therefore, I doubt that showing all the games would get more than a 10% increase. I think Sky may be reluctant to even agree to it. This deal has a further component. Lg 2 teams, like Accrington, have very small fan bases. Their fans might be less likely to go if Man Utd are on TV (I doubt EFL would stop many just because it's on TV). They would receive less TV cash and may impact attendences. Keeping 3pm is for them. The core fact to the deal is this: all the clubs voted in favour. Every. Single. One. If you take away blackout, you would need to offer all the clubs - not simply Championship - way way more money to agree. This is basically a compromise: loads more of everyone's games are to be televised, but 3PM remains. There is a natural limit to about 30 games per season broadcast. All clubs get more money, with an exclusive slot (the lower you are the more 3pms you have). If you break from these principles, teams in league 2 start voting against the deal en-mass. While those clubs get much less TV money, they have a vote - and if you alienate Lg 2 and half of League 1, you might well lose it.

I recall from my visit several years ago the national football museum in Preston, they had an exhibit on the history of the offside rule. Prior to it's introduction there would be no formations by modern standards (the usual was 1-1-8 or 1-0-9) and that short passing becomes utterly pointless - so the ball is hoofed one side to the other. Offside emerged quickly due to it's necessity (first as gentlemen's agreement and then rule).

I'm sure solutions will emerge, but I think they will need to make it more of a hassle - to stop all but the most determined.

I think with Sky paying as much as they are they are going to want to have their monopoly on UK EFL. The sums brought in from broadcasting abroad will be small, but worthwhile continuing. However, a few losses to show "we are making sure no-one circumvents Sky" would probably be in the club's interest, if not UK fans overseas.

I suspect they will be stricter on Rams TV being viewed in the UK. They cannot do much to stop VPNs, but they can restrict UK registered credit and debit cards (as one of the numbers in the long PAN code denotes country of registration). Quite a simple process to block on these grounds; no different in practice than not accepting American Express.

I don't know. Probably when shown in UK, lots for away games and a fraction for home games. I recall during the pandemic it was about 1/3rd of normal attendance was watching (based on the company accounts). Will be less the more people can attend games.

You offer a bundle which includes: SKY Sports but also crucially Sky Broadband, Sky home insurance, Sky mobile etc, and the base TV package (which is Sky TVs greatest driver of profit) The sport element has made a loss for Sky every year in it's history, but by bundling lots of other things in to the package the sports budget (and formally, but less so now Movies) becomes negligible overall but it drives all the other subs. Few people subscribe without wanting Sport or Movies. What they are doing here is trying to get a percentage of the EFL fan market to subscribe. The individual matches will make eye watering losses but are designed to drive enough people to subscribe to enough "extras" to make it worth it. You need lots of add on products to make this model work, which is what makes the numbers appear uneconomic and yet they are highly successful.

Then it will be on TV. Any games not covered by 3pm Saturday rule are being broadcast.

They don't need to. All they need is enough people who do not want buffering, random commentary, fear legal consequences etc. The bottom of the market never subscribed - what they need is enough ordinary people who want an easy life (and little hassle) to pay. They will, realistically, accept a certain percentage steam. They will make token efforts to combat it - to deter people who would subscribe by creating risk, not to stop it.

As I explained in a different thread, the model for streaming games is just not there. It probably never will be as it is the one area normal TV has a distinct, and almost impossible to penetrate competitive advantage. MM either did not understand this or did and was trying to frighten the horses at Sky to give clubs more. Basic example. Sky are giving us £9m for next season. This will be £195,652 per match whether broadcast or not. This will be VAT free to DCFC. To match that, at £10 per game (assuming each is broadcast) we would need 19,562 domestic subscribers. However, we would only receive £8 in £10 due to tax. Therefore, to break even we would need 24,456 people to pay for each match home and away to break even. Home matches would clearly have lower subscriber numbers as you might as well go if you are going to charge. Therefore, on any reasonable analysis to simply match Sky money we would need as many people watching EVERY game on TV (irrespective of home crowd) as were attending. We would then need to pay for the production (which would need to have very good values to justify the subscriber needs), which Sky take care of. Sky do this by economic aggregation. The overall number of subscribers is so high that individual payments (to clubs) are relatively low (but high to them). We would never have this luxury and can never realistically over come the sheer weight of the numbers I outline.

Jobs like that a ripe for AI. They are so far removed from anyone of influence they in reality know as much as we do.

I think a big part of getting out of Lg 1 is acceptance you are there. Because we were such a basket case, we took it quite well and management appeared humble enough to not feel the big I am. If you think you are better than it, it will consume - as endless Tuesday night cup ties versus teams like Harrogate Town takes it's toll. The budget helps, but is not all. Where BC will have issues is if they don't mentally accept the difference and carry on as though going up is inevitable. I found that we had the effect of being everyone's cup final: you can defeat anyone if primed for a one off match.

The old carrot on a stick regime. I give us more chance of winning the Champions League in the next ten years than Birmingham having a 60,000 seater stadium.

He has four years left in his contract as well.

I would normally be with you on this. I usually feel some compassion -as we have all been in their shoes. But having been on the train between Derby and Birmingham after the 2022 match with the repugnant BCFC fans, they deserve all they get.

Me, too - it was great fun. The coverage on Sky was funereal - which was amusing as I was laughing me head off.

And as I said, we pay 20% tax on that ST figure - so lose £1.32m to HMRC. The monies from Sky will be VAT free, as it would be charged on top (by the EFL) and reclaimed by Sky (from HMRC).

A little. Back of a fag packed calculation and 22,000 sold (with £300 per season ticket as average - some will be nearly twice that and some much below) nets you £6.6m.

I like Rams TV, but it would mean a lot less money for clubs at this level. The Premier League has value in that millions like watching that standard so they will always rake it in; at this level it is more hard fought. The thing that gets forgotten with clubs selling games themselves is that not only do they need to meet all the costs of production and sale etc, they also need to pay VAT on each sub. So 20% of all the sub goes in tax. If they sell to Sky they charge collectively they would do this + VAT, but Sky get to reclaim it from HMRC - so there is no tax on the sale. In other words, you need to outperform what you are offered by 20% to simply break even. Same with ticket sales - let's say we gain £1m more by going with the TV deal in revenue but £1m worth of ST holders cancel - you are actually up by £200,000 on that deal - as the ST would attract VAT at source.

Good question. I don't know.

I think Sky have said that part of the agreement is that Sky are going to be bound to choosing games much further in advance. Therefore, more games will be shown but much more notice is going to be given for each game. If this is contractual rather than "agreement", then this might actually work the other way for you - giving more certainty even if times are slightly off.

I also don't live all that close, coming from probably the same distance the other way. I quite like early Saturday kick offs (as last day of the season), but not evenings if at all avoided. I am going to chime in that I think it's swings and roundabouts. People living abroad get to watch all the games on TV, but we can't. I rarely go to away games (haven't been to one for about eight years sort of rarely), but try to go to every home game with ST. I have a projector and wall blank-sheet, so can watch televised games in comfort at home with a beer on cinema like screen. For me, I value being able to watch away games on TV all the time even if a bit of inconvenience is relevant to home games. I know there are VPNs and such, but it is a major hassle to do that- so pleased more than one or two Sky games and the same for Rams TV will be on.