Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton TV - free end of season show Tues 18th May 7pm (p7)
Comments
-
Interesting stuff. Imagine Quest would have a view too if they have paid out to show highlights.0
-
The point is, it may not be much more expensive, but much cheaper to get into the ground depending on the numbers and maths. They may or may not work, but it would seem foolish not to fully explore the possibilities rather than adopt a closed mind.valleynick66 said:
Can’t agree with this. It shouldn’t be more expensive than being at the ground in my opinion. Whilst that would be good value still when more than 1 person watching it wouldn’t be attractive for a single view. It’s a lesser product than in person / at the ground after all.MuttleyCAFC said:
I do think that is a possibility if the numbers work and clubs benefit from it.HarryHutchens said:I've long wondered if the future for lower league clubs might be to set the match ticket price at whatever level is required to fill the stadium, and then on top of that charge a premium price for a live stream for anyone who wants to watch it - particularly away supporters. The people in the ground would then be part of the product, helping to enhance its value and in doing so helping to increase sales of the stream.The reason it’s popular now is partly price related.0 -
If they kept it on i don't personally see it affecting the actual numbers who would go to the Valley that much. After not being able to go stadiums for so long i'd say most fans will be desperate to get back there to see live football. Those who choose to watch it on a stream probably either live too far away/abroad or wouldn't have had much intention of going to the game anyway.
Of course you'll get a few people who on a cold, rainy night in February who would prefer to watch Charlton v Cheltenham at home but then they'll be paying (probably at least 15 quid) for a stream so the club still gets some revenue.
Where i would see it affecting things would be with away numbers and we have historically rubbish away numbers anyway. It's a lot easier to pay 15 quid for a stream and give up 2 hours than spend 100+ on a train, match ticket and food/drink and your entire day to go to somewhere like Rotherham.3 -
How many people tune into the highlights on Quest just to see their own team?BrentfordAddick said:Interesting stuff. Imagine Quest would have a view too if they have paid out to show highlights.
At the very least I'd imagine that people would be wanting to see the goals and highlights from their own division so in that respect people watching a stream of their own club earlier in the day would be no different to having been at the ground and watching live.
A further comment about Sky's contract that I forgot to say yesterday: we've had some instances since the restart of competition last year of our matches being shown live on Sky; on those occasions Charlton TV wasn't allowed to broadcast properly - for away matches it was a limited overseas service in those countries not covered by the international broadcast agreement and for home games only season ticket-holders were allowed to purchase a streaming pass. I would expect that arrangement to continue if streaming were to be allowed next season.
Those that can and want to go to away matches will carry on. For those in the far-flung corners of the kingdom it might be the only chance they get to see the side live; others will want to tick off more grounds from the ever-changing "92"; some will just want a good day/weekend away (albeit one spoilt by the football!); and there are those who will want to keep a consecutive attendance run going.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Where i would see it affecting things would be with away numbers and we have historically rubbish away numbers anyway. It's a lot easier to pay 15 quid for a stream and give up 2 hours than spend 100+ on a train, match ticket and food/drink and your entire day to go to somewhere like Rotherham.
As long as the home club gets an adequate proportion of the "away" streams I think they'll be happy. Fewer people in the away end may result in lower gate receipts and takings from the food/drink kiosks but the flip side to that is it will make it easier for the home fans to make their voices heard to support their team and there may be reduced costs for policing/stewarding etc.
Every club is different: different levels of support, management, business model. Some clubs will see streaming in the future as viable and will vote in favour, others will see it as too costly and will be against it.
I think streaming will become a reality, if not this coming season then certainly in the next couple of years, but maybe not every club will embrace it to the same extent as, for example, us and Sunderland with "proper" match-day productions i.e. pre- and post-match shows, multi-camera coverage.
0 -
These are very quick basic calculations to give an idea what could be possible and won't stand up to minute scrutiny I'm sure. I am just trying to get a feel of how viable this all is. Let's imagine at some point we could fill our home allocation of @ 24k with season tickets amounting to £5 per game (no concessions, just £5 a game). That would give us £2,760,000. If the current average season ticket is around the £450 mark, that gives us £5,650,000, If we sell @ 10k, £4,500,000 plus about 2.5k match day ticket sales at an average of £20 giving us an additional £1,150,00.
The discount season tickets leaves us with a potential shortfall of £2,890,000. I'm not sure what the difference would be between a full Valley and a half full one in terms of matchday sales and that would need quantifying. But forgetting that, If the club sold 7k Charlton TV passes at £10 a pass, over a season this would amount to @£3,220,000. Of course that includes away games, and there would need to be a consideration payed to our opponents, but with these rough and ready figures, you can see the pathway for profit isn't totally pie in the sky.
An advantage going forwards is that the Valley capacity will always limit earnings, but there isn't a capacity on streaming. If you could build the club, doubling streams to 14k would bring in £6,440,000 and reaching 20k would bring in £9,200,000.
Now there is a strong possibility my quick and rough maths are totally wrong. And I am assuming a lot, like filling the Valley makes the streaming product more attractive. A cynical approach might be to forget the East Stand (which won't appear on the stream).1 -
MuttleyCAFC said:These are very quick basic calculations to give an idea what could be possible and won't stand up to minute scrutiny I'm sure. I am just trying to get a feel of how viable this all is. Let's imagine at some point we could fill our home allocation of @ 24k with season tickets amounting to £5 per game (no concessions, just £5 a game). That would give us £2,760,000. If the current average season ticket is around the £450 mark, that gives us £5,650,000, If we sell @ 10k, £4,500,000 plus about 2.5k match day ticket sales at an average of £20 giving us an additional £1,150,00.
The discount season tickets leaves us with a potential shortfall of £2,890,000. I'm not sure what the difference would be between a full Valley and a half full one in terms of matchday sales and that would need quantifying. But forgetting that, If the club sold 7k Charlton TV passes at £10 a pass, a season long pass would amount to @£3,220,000. Of course that includes away games, and there would need to be a consideration payed to our opponents, but with these rough and ready figures, you can see the pathway for profit isn't totally pie in the sky.
An advantage going forwards is that the Valley capacity will always limit earnings, but there isn't a capacity on streaming. If you could build the club, doubling streams to 14k would bring in £6,440,000 and reaching 20k would bring in £9,200,000.
Now there is a strong possibility my quick and rough maths are totally wrong. And I am assuming a lot, like filling the Valley makes the streaming product more attractive. A cynical approach might be to forget the East Stand (which won't appear on the stream).
Whether or not your soggy beer mat calculations are wrong or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be researched, league-wide and in-depth.
It's not just the gate receipts v streaming income that needs testing but the additional match-day income and expenses such as catering and policing.
On top of the pounds/shillings/pence number-crunching there also needs to be an investigation into the potential impact on the intangible things such as the "atmosphere" at matches: will streaming reduce the attendance to the extent that every match seems like an Arsenal home game at The Library, or will it actually enhance the atmosphere because those in the ground are the "die hards" who would make most of the noise anyway and so the sound is more concentrated?
Lots of questions to be answered ...1 -
That is why I built in heavily discounted season tickets. Surely empty stadiums will not promote the product and nurture the conditions for growth. In theory, you could make entry to the Valley free and make a profit if enough people buy streams. I would be amazed if clubs are not looking at this.1
-
One of the things that people have enjoyed most are the memory lane segments, often far more so than the games!
It's certainly shows how the standard Valley Pass service can be upgraded, even if they aren't able to show the games live. You could have a regular show with Minto and Curbs, reviewing the action and previewing the next game with special guests, a memory lane show and a weekly show with highlights of the U18, U23 and women's team action
I'd certainly be very tempted to subscribe to Valley Pass if it had those features5 -
I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.1
-
At a low figure of just 3k purchases, £20 a stream would bring in £2,760,000. The price point of streams is important as if you want to grow past a certain point, you run out of people willing to pay a higher price and potentially create a lower ceiling.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
If the pre-match show currently adds @1k streamers, it could earn £10k a game. Not sure how much they are paying Curbs, Minto and the guest plus production costs, but it feels like a clever move.0 - Sponsored links:
-
And a Valley Pass - After Dark show for some of the stories from Curbs, Browny, Big Bad Bob Bolder, Morts etc that can't be broadcast on a Saturday afternoon!killerandflash said:One of the things that people have enjoyed most are the memory lane segments, often far more so than the games!
It's certainly shows how the standard Valley Pass service can be upgraded, even if they aren't able to show the games live. You could have a regular show with Minto and Curbs, reviewing the action and previewing the next game with special guests, a memory lane show and a weekly show with highlights of the U18, U23 and women's team action
I'd certainly be very tempted to subscribe to Valley Pass if it had those features
2 -
The danger here is that £20 / £400 might just put some people off and / or encourage the use of illegal streams.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.1 -
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.1 -
Having this conversation, in this environment, is a bit circular because I think all things being equal we would all rather watch the game at the ground, home or away, come rain or shine.
Some us can and do. Some of us can't so don't and some of us do a bit of both.
The exercise you need to undertake is how many people regularly go to to Charlton and aren't season ticket holders that would see streaming as a rival product?
I actually don't it would be many at all. You don't to Charlton because it the best/easiest place to watch football. You go to Charlton because its the best/easiest place for you to enjoy live football, as an event. It's not a comparable product to sitting in front of your TV at home. If it was gates be well down since sky/BT started showing lunch time and tea time kick offs. They aren't, they are actually up.
Is there a significant number of people that identify as Charlton fans and never regularly attend games for what ever reason? I would suggest there is because we see it at Wembley, at play off semi finals, discounted home games etc.
To a lot of these people streaming would be attractive for dozens of reasons.
TV, streaming, YouTube etc should be a gate way to the live event, if used properly. The biggest criticism I would have of Charlton TV is the free bit so actually quite hard to find/watch unless you have already bought the stream or are watching it on social media.
Used correctly not only could it provide a revenue stream from those that can't attend games through geography, health, time etc it could/should act as a gate way to hook more casual fans into the "live event".5 -
The streams cannot be cheaper than a match day ticket otherwise the risk of damaging attendances is too great, 20 quid seems reasonable enough.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.2 -
All depends upon whether you are trying to discourage people streaming so they go to the games or whether you are trying to build-up a new revenue stream. You need to decide your objective and then price accordingly.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The streams cannot be cheaper than a match day ticket otherwise the risk of damaging attendances is too great, 20 quid seems reasonable enough.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.
0 -
It also depends on what makes you the most money. It is definitely an option to decrease season ticket prices as streams take off (if they do). There are ifs in all this. There may also be an element of decisions that need to be right to maximise the potential. I wouldn't be surprised if all the data collected from last season is being collated and interrogated.0
-
Most wouldn't pay it Covered End.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
I'd hazard a guess and say if the club tried to charge £20 + a few people would kick off saying it's too dear and try to get the prices dropped.
Some might say theyd pay £25 to £30 for a stream but when push comes to shove wont.2 -
So you want to pay less than someone going to the game.?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.
0 -
But surely that is the point mate. That's why I'm saying dont make it cheaper than the game. As I keep saying there are alot of people that cant get to every game due to distance. Someone living in Northern France is nearer to the Valley than alot of us. You say people wouldnt pay £20-£30 well i beg to differ mate i know i would but it still woukdnt reduce the number of games i get too just means i could follow every gameclb74 said:
Most wouldn't pay it Covered End.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
I'd hazard a guess and say if the club tried to charge £20 + a few people would kick off saying it's too dear and try to get the prices dropped.
Some might say theyd pay £25 to £30 for a stream but when push comes to shove wont.0 - Sponsored links:
-
As I have already said I think you leave it as if is for next season and see what transpires. Assuming of course broadcast contracts allow.0
-
I agree, when push comes to shove, people won't pay.clb74 said:
Most wouldn't pay it Covered End.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
I'd hazard a guess and say if the club tried to charge £20 + a few people would kick off saying it's too dear and try to get the prices dropped.
Some might say theyd pay £25 to £30 for a stream but when push comes to shove wont.3 -
That’s a no brainer imo, the aim should be to protect attendances whilst still offering an alternative to fans that can’t get to the ground.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
All depends upon whether you are trying to discourage people streaming so they go to the games or whether you are trying to build-up a new revenue stream. You need to decide your objective and then price accordingly.Stu_of_Kunming said:
The streams cannot be cheaper than a match day ticket otherwise the risk of damaging attendances is too great, 20 quid seems reasonable enough.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.0 -
Clearly you need to look at the cost of match tickets and streaming holistically. And that is a piece of work that requires some serious market research and economic modelling in the light of your objectives and the fact that the 2 experiences - live in the ground and watching on computer - are very different, not 2 blokes throwing some figures around on the internet.clb74 said:
So you want to pay less than someone going to the game.?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
To go from £10 to £20 in one go is too big a step. All you will do as @ShootersHillGuru says is drive people to use illegal streams. And whereas this year l have bought a stream no bad how we were playing, I'd start picking and choosing a bit more next year if it goes to £20.Covered End said:I would charge £20 for a stream or let's say £400 for a streaming S/T and see what happens, then take it from there.
A small increase next year, maybe to £12, would probably be acceptable to most. A yearly increase after that will let you get to a price more in line with your thoughts.
If you were around then, cast your mind back to 1983 when ITV first got the rights to show about a dozen live games. The papers carried article after article saying it would be the death of people going to games. Can you imagine if sites like this had existed then - they would have gone into freefall! 40 years later attendances have actually boomed despite blanket live coverage of games. Streaming is just the next step in the chain and if handled properly can provide another valuable financial resource for the club that can maybe mean we will be able to sign a Stockley rather than a Bogle in future.2 -
Agreed except that we can afford to sign a Stockley rather than a Bogle now.1
-
And if every club gets the same revenue boost from streaming, then that'll translate into even higher wages and transfer fees...MuttleyCAFC said:Agreed except that we can afford to sign a Stockley rather than a Bogle now.0 -
Take your point. Maybe I should have said a Kane not a Stockley! :-)MuttleyCAFC said:Agreed except that we can afford to sign a Stockley rather than a Bogle now.0 -
We will need to sell a lot of streams to be in the market for a Kane
0 -
As my old Chairman used to say to me, no point aiming unless you aim high!
0 -
Like Nicky Bailey's playoff penalty?Fortune 82nd Minute said:As my old Chairman used to say to me, no point aiming unless you aim high!8
