Jump to content

Morris Leading Rebellion Against Football League


therealhantsram

Recommended Posts

Just now, StivePesley said:

What does that mean? 50-50 split of tickets between Leeds and Derby? If it's free to Derby ST holders - do we not have way more than 50% of the stadium capacity in ST holders already? I'm confused

First come first served, you will still need to collect a ticket using your fan ID

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 minutes ago, Ramshankered said:

The rise of Netflix and other streaming services is a clear indicator that you're in the minority here. It's enormously popular - and there's a clear gap in the market when it comes to sports. 

Someone (be it Sky, DCFC or whoever) WILL step in eventually - providing a service where customers can watch the games THEY want to watch (not the one's chosen by a Sky panel of experts). 

 

I stand by my original post on this when it was first announced. You can't run from the future, you have to embrace it.

We're not really a million miles from the day where four (or more) fans could sit in each stand of the ground and live stream the game from high quality mobile devices to a website that lets you switch camera angle at will. Thats the sort of thing that will end up happening if the clubs don't get in there first

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those that will benefit from this sort of scheme. Not all of us can get to one, let alone all, of the games. I assume this particular game will be used to demonstrate the technollogy that is currently available. I imagine lots of tests have already been carried out, probably using the under 21 games, and that the club are convinced that they can provide a product that will appeal to enough supporters for whom a match day experience isn't an option. I would love to be able to get down to PP every other week. It's not an option for me and many more. Others like @wixman1884 have said that they would take advantage of the scheme. I personally would need to look closely at cost because of financial restrictions, but that applies also to fans living close enough to be able to buy season tickets or having to pick and choose also. I think it's great that my club is at the forefront of this. In the 70s we were the first club to suggest shirt sponsorship, but the idea was thrown out by the FA. We were relegated and originally missed out on huge income due to being in the lower divisions when it was finally approved. Let's not miss out again! As for those that say that they wouldn't go to a friendly even if free, fine. Don't go. But if the game is streamed free of charge please take advantage and at least let clubs know that the demand COULD be there. At least then I and others like me who love this club as much as those who follow the team home and away will be able to get our "fix". Well done DCFC and well done Mel Morris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David said:

Wouldn't go as far as hate but there is a rivalry there and 2 of the biggest clubs in this league which would generate possibly the largest viewing figures you can expect from the Championship.

I am in the know that this game will be free for ST holders to attend, won't be played behind closed doors, 50/50 split of tickets will be made available, first come first served, the game will also be free to watch online, so won't cost a penny.

Also only 3 clubs were not represented at the meeting yesterday, wasn't an empty room, over 100 in attendance, very good response from all clubs in support.

 

Do you know which 3 clubs weren't represented ? Wonder if they don't want to be seen opposing Sky TV ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SamUltraRam said:

Do you know which 3 clubs weren't represented ? Wonder if they don't want to be seen opposing Sky TV ?

I don't, wouldn't be surprised if Forest were one, nobody around to even turn the lights off at the ground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding regarding what Mel is trying to do/highlight.

As I understand it Sky pay a fee for 'exclusive' rights to the football league as they do with the Premier League, albeit the numbers differ greatly obviously.

There are a high number of Premier League games televised and you would have to say that Sky do a superb job with it, on demand goals on twitter, match choices on a Saturday evening, Ultra HD etc etc.

However with the EFL, we are locked in an 'exclusive' TV deal with Sky, yet it isn't anywhere near as prominent. They are only televising a small number of the games, I think I've seen a figure of 8% for Championship fixtures being screened live, and obviously it would be far lower for League 1 and League 2 clubs.

I don't think that the complaint is with Sky, or for the remuneration of the existing deal, the issue is that revenue is only being realised for a small percentage of the fixtures. Because of the nature of the deal, EFL clubs can't exploit media revenue streams for non Sky games also.

In short Sky is the only place that you can watch a small minority of EFL games. The Premier League gets a huge deal because of the high number of games televised. For Sky, more EFL games would dilute the Premier League product.

I watch Premier League football because I like football and because its basically on a lot. If the EFL was televised as much I would watch that more as I have a vested interest as a Derby fan. If we all thought the same, Premier League viewing figures reduce and the product isn't so sexy.....

Its a bit like having a really fit girlfriend who likes you but not that much. She only wants to see you once a month as the rest of the time she is hanging out with your older, richer brother. Yet in order to see her you aren't allowed to see any of the other hotties that are queuing up to see you!

What Mel is trying to do is to question the exclusivity of the current deal and highlight to other clubs that there are alternatives now that probably weren't an option previously. Perhaps the way forward will be to stick with Sky at a reduced cost but not to be completely exclusive.

The Championship is after all the 4th most supported league in Europe or so we are told. 

There are clearly other ways of showing live football now without needing an expensive TV crew, commentator and studio. RamsPlayer currently shows the full 90 mins of a match, albeit 24 hours after the match is played. I mean any of us with a modern smartphone can go Live from the ground now, the sands are shifting all the time.

I for one am glad that a tech savvy owner like Mel is standing up for the EFL and hopefully will drag it into the future with him. It can only be good for our club in the future, although I don't expect to see us on Sky much for the rest of this season!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that a major provider like Sky gives stability to an industry. There is a symbiotic relationship. The problem for us fans is that a we get shut out of the simple need to watch our team on TV when we can't get to the ground. And the huge gulf in funding between the leagues via the sky/BT Prem millions.  

For me we should be able to buy a streaming ticket to any match for a modest sum (  5-10 quid ) which would be shared between the licensed provider and the club along with a cut of the advertising revenue.  The issue for smaller clubs would be how do you protect your home crowd hence the "no live 3.00 Saturday football law"

 So how do we get live access for a reasonable price and keep a fairly full stadium ? Crack that conundrum and the lower leagues will prosper hugely and in turn add spice to the Prem as promoted teams would be better funded. 

The gulf really annoys me .. 100 million difference ... How can the established teams in the champ hope to compete with a newly relegated team ... They do .. But on a wing, a prayer, and the result of others mismanagement rather than fair dabs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/01/2017 at 13:59, SamUltraRam said:

Do you know which 3 clubs weren't represented ? Wonder if they don't want to be seen opposing Sky TV ?

Perhaps the same 3 clubs who have a board member also on the football league board?

I seemed to remember reading that 21 of 24 clubs in the championship were open to the possibility of a better Tv deal.

The 3 which didnt even want to entertain the idea where the ones where a senior figure at that club was also on the football league board. Norwich, blackburn and one other i seem to recall (maybe brentford)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting that the new Leeds co-owner, who might be full owner come the summer, made his name selling media rights, tv deals etc. And that he comes on board and very early scotches an idea of this friendly.

He might have his own plans that don't necessarily tally with Mel's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VulcanRam said:

Interesting that the new Leeds co-owner, who might be full owner come the summer, made his name selling media rights, tv deals etc. And that he comes on board and very early scotches an idea of this friendly.

He might have his own plans that don't necessarily tally with Mel's. 

That could he a good call. Might just have been as simple as Monk not wanting the extra fixture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/01/2017 at 17:05, jono said:

The gulf really annoys me .. 100 million difference ... How can the established teams in the champ hope to compete with a newly relegated team ...

If only they'd adopt my proposition that whoever wins the Premier League gets relegated to League 2 and has to start again. Sort of like what they did with Rangers in Scotland  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

Interesting that the new Leeds co-owner, who might be full owner come the summer, made his name selling media rights, tv deals etc. And that he comes on board and very early scotches an idea of this friendly.

He might have his own plans that don't necessarily tally with Mel's. 

This is no coincidence, The guy who has bought 50% of Leeds has history in the sports media world. There is no way he would want to take them on. It would be like going and fighting with your parents after they brought you into the world. He knows this would be madness from him as the sports media world is how he made his millions and can afford to buy a club at the age of 42. 

Crazy money he made from them. So he's not going to want to take them on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

If only they'd adopt my proposition that whoever wins the Premier League gets relegated to League 2 and has to start again. Sort of like what they did with Rangers in Scotland  :lol:

It's genius Stive.

Expanding this interesting theme ... what about a points handicap based on the wage bill 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jono said:

It's genius Stive.

Expanding this interesting theme ... what about a points handicap based on the wage bill 

Not so sure about points deduction, that doesn't directly restrict teams financially.

Once back in L2 I think they should only be allowed to sell the number of tickets for home games as the average attendance of  league 2 games the previous season (which I think is about 5000?)

Then their revenue drops, so they have to drop wages and cut their cloth accordingly. Then it's a true competition :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...