CBX1985
-
Posts
645 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CBX1985
-
-
@Ghost of CloughWell I doubt there will be much impact on overseas subscriptions. I suspect some measures may be put in place to hinder people having regular holidays in Spain, but for the most determined they'll find a work around. The UK will lose some as so few games will be on the service, but the extra Sky money will dwarf it (probably within the first week of the season).
The original question was whether the club would gain or lose by this deal. My single point is that financially this deal is absurdly good. Sky do not want clubs and leagues streaming their games directly (in the UK). So, they make knock-out deals that makes it madness for anyone to ever give it a real go.
The club, in short, will be massively up - it really isn't in dispute.
MM was wrong - he was looking at PL and saying we should get x percent of that (he ignored Super League rugby rights, cricket and others and simply focused on the highest paying; that is not a negotiating strategy). Sky base their numbers on expected subscribers (either gained or retained), expected revenue of each, percentage profit on top minus rights cost. That value is more than DCFC could ever themselves obtain and as long as the offer is above that (which it will be made to be) streaming will always lose and the amount gained by not streaming will always be more.
NB the advertising point is mute. A paper mill and Pukka Pies are not paying much to broadcast to 1000 people. The total advertising level on Rams TV will be negligible. And almost certainly overtaken by the top firms wanting to advertise in the 20 games live on national TV.
-
1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:
Fair enough. That makes sense.
But the bit that didn't was that you were tacking on the tax calculation on to the £20 a month subscription calculation to give what you call the 'real tax position'. However that £20 a month subscription has never been sold in the UK market. It's only ever been for international buyers.
Well, no it hasn't but here are a few pointers (ignoring the converse of a standing start):
That figure I gave of 48,878 at £20pcm is the break even point and it is a numerical fact. What that means is, if we went down that road we would need bandwidth to cope with that number of subscribers, we would need properly staffed hotline (with lots of staff on every matchday as when s**t hits the fan people will want someone to call or "it never works, I'm cancelling"). We would need to deal with those wishing to cancel. They would need training and if part time, would have a high turnover. That is going to all cost a lot, but under this deal Sky kindly do that all for us.
Then, remember that is simply to match the income - not to beat it by a single penny. The club would be taking on massive risk by abandoning a sure thing with Sky and so is going to want to at least project doubling it's investment - otherwise why get up in the morning when someone else is prepared to do it for you. You either are going to have to make it too expensive that no one buys or too cheap (which £20pcm absolutely is) and you can never make enough with the size of the fan base. You are onto a sure fire loser.
Then we have the 3pm kick off issue. We are going to have to give that up because at that level I am going to want every match broadcast. Then we have the issue of cannibalisation where in at present I can subscribe to Sky and yes I can watch these DCFC games, but I also get PL, cricket etc and so me missing DCFC games doesn't impair me, the club or the vendor (Sky). Not so here - i am subscribing to watch DCFC games on Rams TV at £20pcm and then buying an on the day ticket/ST going away. The most passionate supporters (as a general rule, exceptions obviously apply) will not buy as they are probably there. The casual fan who purchases this will go less often or not buy or buy less often.
-
16 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:
No VAT for international sales though, and all sales this season are supposed to be international, right? Place of supply would be considered outside the UK for tax purposes.
Correct, but this Sky deal only affects UK sales. Rams TV would still be available to overseas viewers. So the calculations of what it would take to break even by definition could only be for the UK market - and VAT would need to be charged on all UK sales.
-
56 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said:
How do you factor in the people who pay £20/month for a subscription to Rams TV and then let it roll all year round?
There aren't enough supporters of this club that £20pcm would be even nearly enough. Ignoring that Rams TV would need to pay VAT where as taking Sky money would not, let's look at it from the baseline of no tax.
Sky pay £9,000,000 per season for the rights. 20*12 = 240. 9,000,000/240 = 37,500. We would need to sell 37,500 of those subscriptions to break even.
When the real tax position is taken into account it is actually 240*0.8 = 192. 9,000,000/192 = 46,875 monthly subscribers at £20 per month to simply break even to what Sky is offering with no effort to the club.
This is the reason why every single club accepted the deal.
-
1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:
This is how I feel too. I am a casual user. I probably purchase about 5 games a season to watch live on RamsTV.
Not enough for me to justify paying for Sky Sports.
I'm a lost viewer who won't be able to watch anything this season 😟
You should consider a Now TV day Pass. Can get them for £14 and can get all the Sky Sports for 24 hours. Not great value if buying lots of times (but as a one off give times a year not too bad.
Can get for a tenner if prepared to just watch on your phone.
-
1 hour ago, ilkleyram said:
I don't know enough to challenge your statistics or the tax situation so let us presume that you are correct.
But
Regarding MM I think the point he was making (some years ago now) was that Sky was underpaying for the EFL 'product' in comparison to what they were paying the PL and that the EFL decision makers were incompetent in agreeing the deal that they did with Sky. The vociferousness of his challenge to the EFL and the threat that he would refuse Sky cameras access to PP was one (of a number) of issues that caused the falling out between the EFL and DCFC/Mel. The fact that Sky are only now - if your figures are correct - paying more suggests that maybe Mel had a justifiable point. No doubt you could make a case that they are still underpaying for the amount of football airtime they are gaining - '50% more sport for free' was the banner running around the boundary at Lords last week.
And. RamsTV is probably something of a loss leader to the club with other benefits than 'just' the coverage of matches to an overseas audience. It is effectively the club's communication department for all DCFC fans in the UK and around the world. No longer do we turn to the DET for breaking news of Ebou's arrival, it's announced through X and RamsTV. If the streaming of matches through 'our' channel attracts income from subscribers and sponsors that offset some of the costs as well as helping to build the DCFC brand and build the link between supporters and club - Sky are hardly going to think it's worthwhile to give daily coverage of our training camp in Spain, for example - then that's a 'good' thing. The 'model' is not only the matches, it's wider than that.
It'll be interesting to see how the situation develops. Sky will give this season for 'free' (it's not really) but I doubt there's a contractual commitment to extend that. They'll sucker fans in and then start charging. They might start to find ways of closing the overseas loopholes or developing their own club specific content (a SkyRamsTV for example) in direct competition to the clubs own services. If they think they can increase subscribers they'll consider it. RamsTV will feel the competition and may start to develop/extend their own services - the Podcast, for example - albeit limited by technical and financial reach and audience size especially whilst we are part of the EFL.
There's also a wider battle going on, IMO, for the attention (and money) of the fan that goes v the fan that watches on TV v the fan that sometimes goes and also watches on TV. Once upon a time gate receipts from the fan that went to the match was pretty much a club's sole income. Now not so in the top two divisions at least. The big question regarding this latest deal is whether it eats into the numbers of people that sometimes go - makes them attend less matches overall and watch more on TV. I would bet that there will be a lot of data analysis of TV audiences and matchday attendance figures this season
All good points. Rams TV is really good and I will miss it (for a Tuesday away fixture). Can't be bothered "travelling" as by the time I find my "Pass"port half an hour has passed. Hopefully watch a couple of friendlies on it before season proper starts.
I think MM was valuing the EFL compared to the Premier League and it was unseemly and he lost. I would value EFL more compared to cricket - fills lots of airtime, lots of fans but quite spread out and play off/League Cup excluding (see test matches) very few humdingers (Sky pay the majority of the money just for those events and the rest is a nice big filler bonus).
My aggregation point about Sky is the most important. Amazon tried with PL streaming rights, got them for peanuts as no-one wanted them and still couldn't make it work. Amazon! Sky do this very well as the Sport is subsidised (i.e. they make huge losses on TV sport, but it drives all the other subscriptions they have so bear the loss for the gains). They will put the price up, but they will aggregate it across all the packs and the services so the increase is lots of small rises rather than SKYSports + now £5 pcm.
To make streaming work over simply taking Sky cash, you would need a vast operation. Rams TV is small and you rightly identify is PR. It shows games that previously no one else wanted to show, but you had to pay to watch. EPL PPV was tried in 2001-2004 and it made no money.
Not all that long ago I watched the MUFC Directors call (as they are a stock listed firm). Even Manchester United didn't think they could make more money going it alone than the sweet easy cash from normal TV. We would have no chance.
-
2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:
Maybe I overestiamte how many domestic viewers travel abroad to watch games...
Not 30,000 a game. Or the company accounts would be very different.
DCFC has previously confirmed that the number of overseas viewers is "not great". When you think of the people who have a day trip to wherever (wink) they *technically* count.
-
10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:
I think we received about £300k for the season through RamsTV receipts when we were in admin. You may be able to go through the admin reports to find the figures in there. However, this figure would exclude any money due from advertising - you also excluded this from your calculation.
However, I don't see much difference in the RamsTV revenue for this season as 'overseas' viewers will still be able to subscribe and watch through RamsTV
That was the point I made where I said "domestic subscribers". As this will be available abroad, we would need to make nearly a quarter of a million pounds for every single game (to account for VAT) in the UK only (so would need to either say bye to 3pm kick offs or the restrictions would need to end). We would then need more people subscribing to the game than we get for the biggest fixtures. We would then need not to cannibalise home support.
The Sky deal (which I think they are over paying, but don't care all that much) doesn't depend one jot on whether I go or nor - but the Rams TV part would.
That is why club based streaming does not work at scale (for individual clubs). The people who would pay are more than likely the people who go. With Sky it doesn't matter, so the club gets paid more and it gets paid twice.
NB I didn't account for advertising, but we are talking rounding errors. We may also get more in ground advertising by being available to a wide market on Sky.
-
1 hour ago, Rammie1884 said:
Hi guys, was just wondering what your thoughts are on the new Sky Sports channel and the possible financial loss to the club. I know we will get more out of the coffers for being in the Championship and the extra revenue that will bring but do you reckon that will equal what we lose through Rams TV subscriptions and possible loss in attendance. (Personally I don’t think will affect attendance with us but the lower supported clubs could see them impacted).
I can’t remember the exact number but aren’t they promising at least 21 live games per club with no extra subscription required if you have the Sports package.
just interested to hear views.
I posted this in May. In short: we get millions and millions more through the new deal than we could ever get through RamsTv. We will likely, actually, get more from Sky than gate receipts to the point it would be better to close the ground but accept the Sky money (if it were a choice between them). The question is more whether Sky is getting value for money in what they are paying, but they will have done a cost benefit and gone for it. Please see my May post below.
"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 simply break even to Sky.
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 to Sky, but high to the clubs. We would never have this luxury and can never realistically over come the sheer weight of the numbers I outline".
-
56 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:
I'm guessing we'll see a video of Warne and the coaches addressing the players about something, when they announce "and we've got someone we'd like you to meet". The door opens, in walks a grinning Ebou, and the players go wild.
Someone has been watching reruns of Surprise Surprise.
-
8 hours ago, S8TY said:
Yes the keeper is quite important and can’t help thinking this behaviour from players and agents waiting until end of window exploring all possibilities etc etc does not help teams at all
going on a tour when we are 8 players short ( Warnes numbers ) looks a bit pointless
scrap the transfer window and let players move when they want was and is better imo
I would actually go the other way and eliminate in season transfers altogether. Loans would be allowed, but no paid for fees for permanent moves. And I would move make the restrictions from 48 hours before the season (with all 4 leagues having the same closure date).
Would allow clubs certainty rather than having four weeks where the squad may change - and late interest turning players heads.
-
On 01/07/2024 at 19:03, jimtastic56 said:
None of us should be in any doubt now - No Clowes= No DCFC . Buying the ground for £25 mill was a sound business purchase , with a rent of £1 mill a year coming in . But the price for DCFC of £25 mill looked cheap to us fans . But remember not another soul was prepared to pay that price .
The purchase price was basically the debt. The club was effectively worthless as the debt was going to sink us. He stood in to pay (most) of the debt.
When you are in administration, the priority of management (i.e. Quantum) is to protect creditors. By doing that he allowed us to live on. Most owners buy the club, but do so by effectively putting the loan back onto the club (as leveraged debt). Clearly, this wasn't an option so the purchase was with readies and needed to be done quickly.
In reality, he overpaid massively.
-
On 01/07/2024 at 09:56, Animal is a Ram said:
Happy St. Clowes Day, to all who celebrate.
There really should be a campaign to have him knighted, if not beautified.
-
On 03/07/2024 at 13:00, Chesterfield_Ram said:
I'm afraid I'm one of these. I buy tickets match-by-match as I can't get to midweek games very often and can't make many early or late season games due to commitments.
I didn't feel as bad in previous years as I always bought the Rams tv match pass for the midweek games and I felt like the club were getting something from me, as opposed to nothing.
However, I don't think the club will be making as much with people having to go through Sky for these now. I may be wrong, but I don't see how the tv money will make up for the match tickets and £10 match passes the club will now miss out on.
Sky are paying, from memory, either £8m or £9m for the rights to show DCFC each year. This actually exceeds ground receipts of the last season gone. However, there is no VAT on the TV rights (as it is charged by EFL and Sky reclaim from HMRC).
DCFC income does not change whether or not you subscribe, unlike with a Rams TV pass, but the level of income they receive will be as many many many times more for the rights deal. Hence why it was agreed by all the clubs -the numbers are too good to turn down, even if it creates some fan issues.
-
16 hours ago, Foreveram said:
It’s not 5 weeks though, it’s 9 weeks today since our season finished.
How time flies.
-
Just now, Gerry Daly said:
More than his track record shows obviously. Just look it up for yourself on Wikipedia. 30 years old and played only 2 seasons in the championship
I agree with you. But I am not paid to find footballing diamonds in the rough. Those that are a taking a massive punt on this guy, provided this is confirmed. I am intrigued.
-
2 minutes ago, Gerry Daly said:
We are still shopping in the bargain bucket then
Maybe. But a three year deal doesn't feel bargain bucket. Cheap up front, I grant you.
Again, the key thing is what does management see in him that they are willing to make such a concession to get him (should the news be confirmed).
-
-
Are we sure this is genuine? I have had a look on Sky Sports News and there is no mention of this. The account listed just has a ram on it, but no name.
-
-
38 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:
I hate that December. Merry fricking Christmas.
I'd bet one of those will be on TV too, just to make it even more miserable.
They won't need to be moved necessarily, as so long as it is not a Saturday (which they aren't) the rule doesn't appyl.
-
57 minutes ago, superfit said:
Not wanting to get dragged into a Warne good Warne bad argument I will simply respond to your final point that ‘Warne cares more about winning more than looking good’ I would say every manager out of the 92 league clubs cares about winning more than looking good. Playing football that is easy on the eye is borne out of a manager’s philosophy on how to win games of football, not the other way round.
Up the Rams.
Thanks. I have vacillated wildly in my view of him but I do think he has some good characteristics and values. I think he is about the best we are going to get, notwithstanding there are plainly better, or more established, managers out there (just not in our price bracket).
-
24 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:
Not sure how that ended up as jamming. Was meant to be gambling. When we had 32red yoi could request to have it without.
Thanks; I didn't know that. I know you usually cannot, but I guess they had to create a children's kits without (so had the kit pre-designed for that) - and someone could say my child is too tall for them and has to wear a gambling firm all over the place.
It is why Heineken use the non alcoholic 0.0% version on their advertising.
-
11 minutes ago, superfit said:
Some fair points well made.
Thing is there were a number of factors that led to Wenger’s decline. That period saw the emergence of Barcelona, smaller diminutive players that passed teams of the park and dominated football and Wenger unsuccessfully went down that road, as opposed to the more robust style of Mourinho’s Chelsea.
However there were mitigating circumstances such as the move to the Emirates that meant that Wenger couldn’t spend the money his counterparts were spending on players. Obviously Wenger got things wrong too but his reputation as a winner above everything else is there, truly one of the games great mangers.
So a question if Warne is such a winner why has he failed in both full seasons at championship level?
Don’t say money because you’ve dismissed that argument with reference to Wenger’s demise stating it was his desire to play entertaining football at all costs as opposed to a pragmatic winning mentality.
The team clearly comes into it; but I grant you relatively lowly sides can become great under truly world class managers - see DCFC and NFFC under Brian Clough; alongside Aberdeen under Alex Ferguson.
What I would say is that time plays a big part. Rotherham were fully set up for winning promotion from Lg1, but had no time to adapt (as the players they had were all they could hope to have). I saw on here that the same players, more or less, came up with him. The final (part) season he was there they were high up the league. Without him they then crumbled the next year. My point to you is: had Warne learnt his lesson in that final season with them on what makes a good Championship, as opposed to Lg 1, team? What part of that experience will he take into this season to benefit us?
Being adaptable often involves failure and lots of it. Our team pre October was awful and losing; afterwards was not much better but seemed to win every week.
I am not saying Warne is a winner. But he cares about winning more than looking good - and is open about that. I think that is a step in a good direction.
Financial impact of new SS channel
in Derby County Forum
Posted
There are quite a lot of people who have dodgy sticks and things, but they are usually the people who cannot afford a full subscription (or are too tight) so the effect on broadcasters is smaller than imagined (their strategy is making it a faff). Nowhere near more or level, it is about 10% from memory.
The numbers don't add up because of how it is bundled - that the clubs cannot compete because they have no bundling ability (except for throwing it in with a ST, but then they would lose an entire revenue which exceeds gate receipts). You would need to charge so much to make the business model work that no one would pay.