EFL new TV deal

[europia]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Fewer 3pm kick offs may be of interest/concern to you.

It would annoy me, but football is about money, not supporters. 

[angieram]

BTW, you can immediately tell people who don't go to games on here.

Don't ever moan again about the atmosphere at games because we already put ourselves out big time to provide the atmosphere for your entertainment. That's going to get even more difficult,  whichever division we find ourselves in next season.

[ram59]

21 minutes ago, angieram said:

Read the Q and A.

Despite getting sucked into more live tv matches, League One teams get proportionately less of the increase, percentage- wise.

They justify this by saying there is more interest in Championship Clubs. 

 

This is a disgrace for lg1 and lg2 clubs. Proportionately, they are going feature more on tv and with that suffer more game kick off changes for a proportionately less increase in income. 

So lg1 and lg2 clubs will be further away from the championship clubs as a result of this deal. Doesn't this sound familiar regarding the championship and the Premier league? Where is the extra money going to go, the players and their agents, that's where. This deal just increases the gaps in income between the various divisions, when what is really needed, is for the gaps to decrease.

[therealhantsram]

3 hours ago, rad1919 said:

Virtually no Saturday 3.00pm games if we’re in the Championship, fair chance not many if we’re in League 1 as we’re likely to be chosen as one of the 5 games more often than not. Sounds horrible to me.

This is a crap deal.

The DAZN offer of all matches streaming at 3pm Saturday would have been so much better for football.

The EFL are idiots.

[Will the Ram]

3 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Find it hard to believe but have become even more disenfranchised with football after this announcement.

Didn't think that was possible until read this. 

A pittance of money for even more games and the right to meddle even further in kick off times. 

Sky have been an absolute abomination for football. 

It’s not all down to Sky, it’s mainly the EFL’s incompetence and the blackout rule still being in place. In this day and age it’s ridiculous. Sky will of course get around this by showing more matches at different times instead. As others have said the DAZN deal would’ve been better as for fans in the main.

It’s like the EFL have taken the safe option with Sky rather than going for a better deal with someone else.

[Inverurie Ram]

Hence why the big teams will remain as the big teams and teams like Brighton will eventually be back down fighting for their Premier League survival as Leicester and Forest currently are.

Sky want to see Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal etc leading the way and the football bodies protect it, because it’s good for business.

Unfortunately it’s a Sky Sports Monopoly and so many football teams can’t even get on to the board game, never mind stay on it.

Even if the small team fans, don’t pay for it, don’t watch it, the big teams carry on regardless and the moaning paying fans of Sky Sports, BT etc either of the big teams and small teams, still remain not bothered about the traditions of the game, like 3pm kick offs, because they will always selfishly do what’s best for themselves,  because that is what suits them best.
 

So they become just like Sky Sports, BT etc, without a duty of care for the football fan, that chooses to travel over land and sea all around the world, to follow their beloved football club in real life, in the flesh, in any kind of weather, paying for match tickets, instead of sat on their lazy backsides, in the comfort of their living rooms or on occasions in their dying local pub, because they’ve become too lazy to even visit that or spend money on anything else but themselves.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/24/sky-sports-bt-sport-people-switching-football-off

[uttoxram75]

4 hours ago, strawhillram said:

I don’t give sky any of my money. So nothing of interest to me.

I've occasionally paid to watch the Rams on Now TV as a last resort but thats it. Never had a Sky subscription and never will.

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why? Seriously. We're not in the 1930s/50s/70s whatever, why does it need to be 3pm Sat? Oh or 7.45pm Weds.

It doesn't, in principle, apart from being traditional, which is probably not much reason at all other than traditions are, imo, important in that you shouldn't change them without either some thought or some considerable gain. There used to be matches on Christmas Day - different social times.  But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. The changes have often  come about because, largely, they suit television (and one channel mainly) and the TV audience first and foremost.  The matchday customer comes a distance behind.  So too the clubs and players. The pendulum has swung far too far

But where the time is important, where it matters, is not whether it's 3pm or 745pm or even 12 noon per se.  It is that it can be all of those times, and others, with no thought as to the practical consequences for those that might wish to plan to go to the event.  And they give no thought, the TV companies and the EFL authorities, because they're really not bothered.  The money is what is important, the TV spectacle is what is important when what should be important is the club, the players and (most of all, imo) the paying customer, or fan as we used to be known.

In League 1 or Championship terms we are a TV draw.  Our kick off times will vary home and away often with relatively little notice and probably happen to us more than most.  There will be fans who buy tickets who won't be able to go; fans whose travel arrangements made months in advance that have to miss out; away games impossible to get back from on public transport; times when we have to play matches closer together than will be ideal.  No thought will be given to players or fans; every thought will be given to TV company scheduling and TV audience. 

There's a girl who sits near me who has had a season ticket since PP opened who comes up from Essex.  So too does my son, coincidentally.  They both buy a season ticket knowing that they won't be able to get to all the matches - other than sitting in the same place with people they know and enjoying that, what will be the point of their renewing if they know that the real likelihood is that they will have to miss even more matches?  It's already not financially worth their while to buy a ST.  This just makes it worse.  And how does that help Derby County if they don't renew and Derby can't resell their tickets?

The benefits such that they are, are the wrong way round for very little gain.  And that's why timing is important. Some traditions are worth trying to keep.

[Ramchop]

2 hours ago, Steadybreeze said:

So the season's about 10 months long and there's A THOUSAND EFL games being shown live? I'm as thick as a castle wall but i make that out at 100 games a month live, or 25 games a week, that's over 3 games every day 🤨

Midweek games will all be broadcast so that's 12 simultaneously streamed games

Ive tried to do the maths on how many games would be moved per team on average, but I can't be bothered. But it's probably something like 52 games a month moved, if every week has a weekday match (based on your working out above), so on average that's 2 or 3? So every other weekend game will be moved

[Ramchop]

6 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

But, let's face it, football generally since the advent of the EPL and the input of Sky's millions, has steadily had its traditions kicked out of it often with no, or very little, reference to the paying customer and what they may think. 

Sky subscription probably costs more than a season ticket so arguably they are the paying customer. Let's face it, the fans who go to games don't pay the players wages, the armchair experts do

Hopefully that swings more towards them and we get cheaper tickets as a result of this...

[jimtastic56]

46 minutes ago, Inverurie Ram said:

Hence why the big teams will remain as the big teams and teams like Brighton will eventually be back down fighting for their Premier League survival as Leicester and Forest currently are.

Sky want to see Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal etc leading the way and the football bodies protect it, because it’s good for business.

Unfortunately it’s a Sky Sports Monopoly and so many football teams can’t even get on to the board game, never mind stay on it.

Even if the small team fans, don’t pay for it, don’t watch it, the big teams carry on regardless and the moaning paying fans of Sky Sports, BT etc either of the big teams and small teams, still remain not bothered about the traditions of the game, like 3pm kick offs, because they will always selfishly do what’s best for themselves,  because that is what suits them best.
 

So they become just like Sky Sports, BT etc, without a duty of care for the football fan, that chooses to travel over land and sea all around the world, to follow their beloved football club in real life, in the flesh, in any kind of weather, paying for match tickets, instead of sat on their lazy backsides, in the comfort of their living rooms or on occasions in their dying local pub, because they’ve become too lazy to even visit that or spend money on anything else but themselves.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/24/sky-sports-bt-sport-people-switching-football-off

Man Utd are said to have a Billion fans worldwide and you can see how they have built up their “Brand” over the years. They are an easy sell for Sky . However Brighton are a very well run club and could upset the apple car simply by having a superb recruitment dept. They have 2 players worth £80 mill each , picked up cheaply. We spanked them not long ago but boy have they turned it round.

[ilkleyram]

12 minutes ago, Ramchop said:

Sky subscription probably costs more than a season ticket so arguably they are the paying customer. Let's face it, the fans who go to games don't pay the players wages, the armchair experts do

Hopefully that swings more towards them and we get cheaper tickets as a result of this...

Well you say that but.........

Ignore the fact that a sky subscription buys you more than just football (so not all your subscription pays for football, just part of it), the important figure is what Sky is paying for EFL football, not the subscription that you or I might pay to Sky.

What Sky are paying is £895m over 5 years.  They are also paying £40m for 'marketing', whatever that means (probably paying for the EFL to advertise games in their divisions on Sky, but that's me being cynical)

£895m works out as £179m per year.  Presuming (and it won't work out that way) that all 72 clubs get an even share of that £179m, each club will get £2.5m per year.  What will actually happen is that the EFl will top slice a large chunk of it for their own uses, some will go to the players' union and other projects the EFl will want to fund, including their cup etc etc, so the net effect is that £179m will be significantly reduced before it gets anywhere near being distributed to the clubs.  Some will be lucky to see anything like £2.5m; some may see more; most will see less.

Then take our club.  20,000 season ticket holders this season at (my guess) an average of £400 per ticket.  £8m in season ticket income before the away fans are counted or those who buy on a match by match basis (and we haven't had many gates below 20,000 this year).

I think that we are contributing far more to our players' wages bill than this poxy shambles of a TV deal

[ram59]

32 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Man Utd are said to have a Billion fans worldwide and you can see how they have built up their “Brand” over the years. They are an easy sell for Sky . However Brighton are a very well run club and could upset the apple car simply by having a superb recruitment dept. They have 2 players worth £80 mill each , picked up cheaply. We spanked them not long ago but boy have they turned it round.

That's the same Brighton who like most of the clubs who got promoted to the premier, broke FFP rules. Excluding promotion bonuses, they lost over £50M over the 2 seasons leading to promotion, whilst being subsidised to the the tune of an extra £8m by their owner renting the ground to them at a massive loss. So, not a well run club, just a lucky club, who after we spanked them, spent heavily beyond their means. threw the dice and unlike Derby, won the big prize.

[Rammy03]

15 minutes ago, ram59 said:

That's the same Brighton who like most of the clubs who got promoted to the premier, broke FFP rules. Excluding promotion bonuses, they lost over £50M over the 2 seasons leading to promotion, whilst being subsidised to the the tune of an extra £8m by their owner renting the ground to them at a massive loss. So, not a well run club, just a lucky club, who after we spanked them, spent heavily beyond their means. threw the dice and unlike Derby, won the big prize.

Wonder what that Kieran Maguire has to say about it. He is a Brighton fan

[secretsquirrel]

Sky surrounding themselves in EFL games in response to the proposal that the Premier League will form their own channel and not invite tenders when this deal runs out

[Sparkle]

7 hours ago, Ramchop said:

Sky subscription probably costs more than a season ticket so arguably they are the paying customer. Let's face it, the fans who go to games don't pay the players wages, the armchair experts do

Hopefully that swings more towards them and we get cheaper tickets as a result of this...

Apparently in the new stand built at Fulham the season tickets are going to be £3000 per season

[Tamworthram]

Am I missing something?

We are all, rightly in my opinion, complaining about Sky and the EFL not caring about the impact on the fans who attend the games but didn't the clubs vote unanimously in favour of the deal as well?

I know it wouldn't have stopped the deal but a club could have voted against as a matter of principle if they'd wanted to. Sadly, it emphasises what is the worse thing about football - not VAR, not the standard of officials and not players cheating - but the influence of money. 

[maydrakin]

9 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why does the time matter so much?

For me, my son plays football on Saturday morning (which I also coach), and rugby on Sunday morning.

I take him to that, followed by home for lunch and a shower and then on to the match.

As the EFL Q&A expressly suggests that kick offs will be “five weekend matches at Sat 12.30” of the 10 games selected, and this occurring on average 16 times a season (for L1, for Championship it could be every other week), this will be massively inconvenient to me and many more people involved in grassroots football.

Additionally, the share of the pot means that the EFL are trying to shorten the gap by awarding 80% of the money to the championship teams, which will actually a drop in the ocean for the Prem, so all it actually does is widens the gap between League One and the Championship, making it much harder for the Plymouths, the Wigans and eventually the Derbys to compete should we get there…

[maydrakin]

Additionally, as the split is 80% to the Championship, 12% to L1 and 8% to L2, this means if all of the £179m per year is split between the clubs without the EFL having a cut, in this division we will benefit from £895,000 per year, compared to £6m per Championship team.

Edited May 6, 2023 by maydrakin

[alexxxxx]

There is some research that EFL did was that by removing 3pm blackout they'd lose 30/40 million in revenue. So I guess that for all the games they'd want a much bigger deal than they were offered to offset that.

I think sky will do very well out of this because I think they'll pick up/retain a lot of subscribers for their championship teams if most of their games are on TV. 62% of championship games will be on TV with all midweeks included.

They need to up the quality of the coverage though it often seems amateur in comparison to prem coverage.