Surely if we're being told no fans back in until March at the very least then they could now do a season ticket or even maybe something like a ten game package?
Passing on from a friend...... Get a VPN and buy the season pass for £140. Means 43 games (plus some cup such as EFL trophy) at about £3ish a game.
By the way, a big shout out to Terry Smith and Greg Stubley. I really think they are a good combination to listen to. Greg really knows his football and makes great tactical observations and Terry is brilliantly biased, which is what I expect from a Charlton focused service.
A good idea if you're skint, but bearing in mind TS has saved the club, I would rather pay the correct price than cheat the club.
that is very true. I did purchase at the beginning of the season and have got a physical season ticket for this season also for which I will use the CAFC cash for next years season ticket or club shop.
A good idea if you're skint, but bearing in mind TS has saved the club, I would rather pay the correct price than cheat the club.
that is very true. I did purchase at the beginning of the season and have got a physical season ticket for this season also for which I will use the CAFC cash for next years season ticket or club shop.
A good idea if you're skint, but bearing in mind TS has saved the club, I would rather pay the correct price than cheat the club.
that is very true. I did purchase at the beginning of the season and have got a physical season ticket for this season also for which I will use the CAFC cash for next years season ticket or club shop.
Ahem, you mean your friend has, surely? ;-)
Nah, I live in France and travel over for home games ;-)
So some crude maths means that the clubs (once divided up based on home / away ratio) make £8.40 per stream sold. I did always wonder how much of the £10 goes to the clubs and how much on the service.. It is much higher ratio to the clubs than I thought it would be when you consider apple take 30% of app revenue for doing almost naff all other than providing a shopfront.
Also need to factor in the 'foreign' streams which only pay £7 to watch.
For every £10 stream sold £1.66 of that goes straight to the VAT man. So that leaves £8.34 to be divided up between the home club, away club and whatever costs there are for providing the service in the first place.
Home club keeps all their sales and first 500 sales the away club makes.
Sunderland always bring 3000 to The Valley, maybe after providing proof of that we should get the revenue of 3000?
I think bad experiences with I-follow/Valley Pass may put people off using it but surely there is potential to make the clubs a far amount of much needed money in difficult circumstances. I am certainly buying the service and that includes away games I probably wouldn't have attended.
The sound issues are an irritation, but much less so than buffering or picture issues, which I can't complain about with the service, but it seems some have had these.
I would be interested to know our numbers and whether we are maximising the potential which is surely there. The same way as we try to boost crowds, the club ought to be really pushing the service. I don't think it is bad for a tenner.
I posted it on another thread for some reason but asked Olly after I saw Plymouth's and he said that we had over 3,100 fans tune in for the Lincoln game
Not bad when you consider that iFollow was probably never built for such numbers
3100 streams must mean at least double that were watching the game.
If the money definitely went to your own club would you pay more, say £15-20?
I think bad experiences with I-follow/Valley Pass may put people off using it but surely there is potential to make the clubs a far amount of much needed money in difficult circumstances. I am certainly buying the service and that includes away games I probably wouldn't have attended.
The sound issues are an irritation, but much less so than buffering or picture issues, which I can't complain about with the service, but it seems some have had these.
I would be interested to know our numbers and whether we are maximising the potential which is surely there. The same way as we try to boost crowds, the club ought to be really pushing the service. I don't think it is bad for a tenner.
I posted it on another thread for some reason but asked Olly after I saw Plymouth's and he said that we had over 3,100 fans tune in for the Lincoln game
Not bad when you consider that iFollow was probably never built for such numbers
3100 streams must mean at least double that were watching the game.
If the money definitely went to your own club would you pay more, say £15-20?
But what if only one person was watching? Need an honesty box.
I think bad experiences with I-follow/Valley Pass may put people off using it but surely there is potential to make the clubs a far amount of much needed money in difficult circumstances. I am certainly buying the service and that includes away games I probably wouldn't have attended.
The sound issues are an irritation, but much less so than buffering or picture issues, which I can't complain about with the service, but it seems some have had these.
I would be interested to know our numbers and whether we are maximising the potential which is surely there. The same way as we try to boost crowds, the club ought to be really pushing the service. I don't think it is bad for a tenner.
I posted it on another thread for some reason but asked Olly after I saw Plymouth's and he said that we had over 3,100 fans tune in for the Lincoln game
Not bad when you consider that iFollow was probably never built for such numbers
3100 streams must mean at least double that were watching the game.
I think bad experiences with I-follow/Valley Pass may put people off using it but surely there is potential to make the clubs a far amount of much needed money in difficult circumstances. I am certainly buying the service and that includes away games I probably wouldn't have attended.
The sound issues are an irritation, but much less so than buffering or picture issues, which I can't complain about with the service, but it seems some have had these.
I would be interested to know our numbers and whether we are maximising the potential which is surely there. The same way as we try to boost crowds, the club ought to be really pushing the service. I don't think it is bad for a tenner.
I posted it on another thread for some reason but asked Olly after I saw Plymouth's and he said that we had over 3,100 fans tune in for the Lincoln game
Not bad when you consider that iFollow was probably never built for such numbers
3100 streams must mean at least double that were watching the game.
As per original economics calculated from the original post, £8.40 per game goes to clubs, so Doncaster: £18,194 (£4,200 Doncaster / £13,994 CAFC) Lincoln: £28,140 (£4,200 Lincoln / £23,940 CAFC) Sunderland: £29,164 (£4200 Sunderland / £24,964 CAFC) Wigan: £31,626 (£4200 Wigan / £27,426 CAFC)
I am very surprised that Sunderland viewing figures were lower than Wigan and very near to Lincoln.
The only thing I could think is that tweet only shows the Valley Pass viewing figures, not the overall ifollow figures, which would mean my financial figures above make no sense..
@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
I wish the quality of the coverage (not the commentary) provided by the EFL had improved since the pandemic began. Revenues for iFollow must be significantly higher than they were pre-March but the product is still pretty poor quality.
I wish the quality of the coverage (not the commentary) provided by the EFL had improved since the pandemic began. Revenues for iFollow must be significantly higher than they were pre-March but the product is still pretty poor quality.
I don't get that. In what way do you think the coverage - given the restrictions there must be on it - is poor?
I've watched every game (except the Brighton u-21) one since the restart last year. I've only got basic broadband but my picture has only buffered twice in that time (and that in the same game). Otherwise the picture has been perfect - Ok maybe not the HD quality you might be used to on a large TV - but its a decent quality. (In fact, waiting for the game to start last night I actually thought what a great picture quality it was of Bloomfield Road under floodlights).
There's also now replays of key points in the game - something there wasn't in the old IFollow coverage of a few years ago.
Admittedly, the loss of commentary in one recent game and the "hammerjack drilling" noise in another wasn't great but they have seemed to have sorted that out now.
For a tenner I can't fault the coverage and to be honest I'm happy to pay it.
I think it is pretty good value. I have watched every game since the restart and the quality is pretty good. I like the chance to watch my club every time they play so £10.00 is great. Although I did chuckle to myself last night when I was watching CAFC away at Blackpool for £10.00 when on the other side was Champions League where I pay a monthly subscription to watch but still preferred Blackpool on a Tuesday lol
I think it is pretty good value. I have watched every game since the restart and the quality is pretty good. I like the chance to watch my club every time they play so £10.00 is great. Although I did chuckle to myself last night when I was watching CAFC away at Blackpool for £10.00 when on the other side was Champions League where I pay a monthly subscription to watch but still preferred Blackpool on a Tuesday lol
Me too! And when my Moan Utd mate (who lives in Dorset!) texted me to ask if I was going to watch the football later, he sounded a bit confused when I said I already was - about 30 minutes before United kicked off!
I think it is pretty good value. I have watched every game since the restart and the quality is pretty good. I like the chance to watch my club every time they play so £10.00 is great. Although I did chuckle to myself last night when I was watching CAFC away at Blackpool for £10.00 when on the other side was Champions League where I pay a monthly subscription to watch but still preferred Blackpool on a Tuesday lol
Yes. It's ridiculous to expect to see Charlton for the same price as a game which the whole of Europe watching.
It's like expecting a commissioned film of a wedding or some personal event to cost the same as watching Star Wars on Netflix.
@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
@StigThundercock Good points and thanks for the corrections. I have carried out a little more digging (as the numbers were just not adding up to me, as surely there are some running costs for the streams) and it appears the league two have the distribution as outlined by the Colchester chairman, but league one (and the champ for that matter) differ as follows:
Each division voted on how to split the revenue. In the Championship, home clubs take all the money from streams they sell. In League One, it is split by a formula devising what the attendance might have been. And in League Two, the hosts take the first 500 streams sold by the away team.
So who knows what we make in terms of revenue per game, as the numbers posted above are Valley Pass only streams (not including streams for the away team ifollow streams).
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
@StigThundercock Good points and thanks for the corrections. I have carried out a little more digging (as the numbers were just not adding up to me, as surely there are some running costs for the streams) and it appears the league two have the distribution as outlined by the Colchester chairman, but league one (and the champ for that matter) differ as follows:
Each division voted on how to split the revenue. In the Championship, home clubs take all the money from streams they sell. In League One, it is split by a formula devising what the attendance might have been. And in League Two, the hosts take the first 500 streams sold by the away team.
So who knows what we make in terms of revenue per game, as the numbers posted above are Valley Pass only streams (not including streams for the away team ifollow streams).
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
Interesting. Not sure how they decide what the attendance would have been, especially for club in different divisions last season, as you'd expect (in normal circumstances) our gates to be lower than last season after relegation, and Crewe's to be higher after promotion, of course countered by the boost to "expected" gates from the takeover
@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
@StigThundercock Good points and thanks for the corrections. I have carried out a little more digging (as the numbers were just not adding up to me, as surely there are some running costs for the streams) and it appears the league two have the distribution as outlined by the Colchester chairman, but league one (and the champ for that matter) differ as follows:
Each division voted on how to split the revenue. In the Championship, home clubs take all the money from streams they sell. In League One, it is split by a formula devising what the attendance might have been. And in League Two, the hosts take the first 500 streams sold by the away team.
So who knows what we make in terms of revenue per game, as the numbers posted above are Valley Pass only streams (not including streams for the away team ifollow streams).
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
Interesting. Not sure how they decide what the attendance would have been, especially for club in different divisions last season, as you'd expect (in normal circumstances) our gates to be lower than last season after relegation, and Crewe's to be higher after promotion, of course countered by the boost to "expected" gates from the takeover
Completely agree and makes no sense who they would work it out other than averages. I was equally confused about the 500 away fans rule noted in the opening post as I could not see why Sunderland (who regularly take 3k away) and Pompey would put up with that, but thought they may have been charitable to distribute the wealth (and the wage cap got through also, so I will believe anything can be passed through EFL if they want to).
The odd thing is, the split is completely pointless anyway, as each club runs their own ifollow / Valley Pass equivalent, so why not just let them keep the monies raised by these platforms? I have no need (and I doubt anyone does) go to Blackpools ifollow as a Charlton fan and stream last nights game, I just did it on Valley Pass. Just let the £10 from Valley Pass go to Charlton.
@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
@StigThundercock Good points and thanks for the corrections. I have carried out a little more digging (as the numbers were just not adding up to me, as surely there are some running costs for the streams) and it appears the league two have the distribution as outlined by the Colchester chairman, but league one (and the champ for that matter) differ as follows:
Each division voted on how to split the revenue. In the Championship, home clubs take all the money from streams they sell. In League One, it is split by a formula devising what the attendance might have been. And in League Two, the hosts take the first 500 streams sold by the away team.
So who knows what we make in terms of revenue per game, as the numbers posted above are Valley Pass only streams (not including streams for the away team ifollow streams).
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
Interesting. Not sure how they decide what the attendance would have been, especially for club in different divisions last season, as you'd expect (in normal circumstances) our gates to be lower than last season after relegation, and Crewe's to be higher after promotion, of course countered by the boost to "expected" gates from the takeover
Completely agree and makes no sense who they would work it out other than averages. I was equally confused about the 500 away fans rule noted in the opening post as I could not see why Sunderland (who regularly take 3k away) and Pompey would put up with that, but thought they may have been charitable to distribute the wealth (and the wage cap got through also, so I will believe anything can be passed through EFL if they want to).
The odd thing is, the split is completely pointless anyway, as each club runs their own ifollow / Valley Pass equivalent, so why not just let them keep the monies raised by these platforms? I have no need (and I doubt anyone does) go to Blackpools ifollow as a Charlton fan and stream last nights game, I just did it on Valley Pass. Just let the £10 from Valley Pass go to Charlton.
It's funny how everyone wants bigger clubs to share TV revenue with smaller clubs until they become a bigger club!
So Charlton are playing Barcelona at the Valley in the champions league. Maybe 20k Charlton supporters watch the game on TV but 20 million around the world tune in to see Messi and co.
Is it really fair to give Barca 1000 times more revenue than Charlton?
Comments
edit: cup games not included.
;-)
If the money definitely went to your own club would you pay more, say £15-20?
Need an honesty box.
As per original economics calculated from the original post, £8.40 per game goes to clubs, so
Doncaster: £18,194 (£4,200 Doncaster / £13,994 CAFC)
Lincoln: £28,140 (£4,200 Lincoln / £23,940 CAFC)
Sunderland: £29,164 (£4200 Sunderland / £24,964 CAFC)
Wigan: £31,626 (£4200 Wigan / £27,426 CAFC)
I am very surprised that Sunderland viewing figures were lower than Wigan and very near to Lincoln.
The only thing I could think is that tweet only shows the Valley Pass viewing figures, not the overall ifollow figures, which would mean my financial figures above make no sense..
couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams"
We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown
Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams
Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown
Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
I've watched every game (except the Brighton u-21) one since the restart last year. I've only got basic broadband but my picture has only buffered twice in that time (and that in the same game). Otherwise the picture has been perfect - Ok maybe not the HD quality you might be used to on a large TV - but its a decent quality. (In fact, waiting for the game to start last night I actually thought what a great picture quality it was of Bloomfield Road under floodlights).
There's also now replays of key points in the game - something there wasn't in the old IFollow coverage of a few years ago.
Admittedly, the loss of commentary in one recent game and the "hammerjack drilling" noise in another wasn't great but they have seemed to have sorted that out now.
For a tenner I can't fault the coverage and to be honest I'm happy to pay it.
It's like expecting a commissioned film of a wedding or some personal event to cost the same as watching Star Wars on Netflix.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8800133/Streaming-giving-EFL-clubs-lifeline.html
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
The odd thing is, the split is completely pointless anyway, as each club runs their own ifollow / Valley Pass equivalent, so why not just let them keep the monies raised by these platforms? I have no need (and I doubt anyone does) go to Blackpools ifollow as a Charlton fan and stream last nights game, I just did it on Valley Pass. Just let the £10 from Valley Pass go to Charlton.
Only 99 Accrington fans streamed their game live against Fleetwood?
Even Ipswich are only selling just over 2k streams for their games, whilst we're looking at double that.
So Charlton are playing Barcelona at the Valley in the champions league. Maybe 20k Charlton supporters watch the game on TV but 20 million around the world tune in to see Messi and co.
Is it really fair to give Barca 1000 times more revenue than Charlton?