Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Scott Minto / Charlton TV - 2024-5 season info p3
Comments
-
Not really, as every club gets the money!shirty5 said:
Well the club could tell Sky to poke the £450,000 per season from this deal but then again our football club is not a charityct_addick said:As an international fan I don’t know if I want to stump up 200 quid to just watch the games without Minto, Brownie and Curbs…..I fcuking hate Sky….Murdoch is a cnut
That money could see the difference between promotion and another a year in League One0 -
Hence the word Couldkillerandflash said:
Not really, as every club gets the money!shirty5 said:
Well the club could tell Sky to poke the £450,000 per season from this deal but then again our football club is not a charityct_addick said:As an international fan I don’t know if I want to stump up 200 quid to just watch the games without Minto, Brownie and Curbs…..I fcuking hate Sky….Murdoch is a cnut
That money could see the difference between promotion and another a year in League One0 -
Charming though Scott Brownie Curbs and others are, I personally don’t subscribe to Charlton TV for punditry or waffle, but for the actual football.
Anyway I always go to home matches.
I want to know that it is worth renewing my Charlton TV subscription in order to access development games, and most especially get to watch a stream for £10 on my regular weekend trips to Andorra.2 -
Absolutely, CAFCTV with its studio format was great, but the real value was in being able to watch the games.Essex_Al said:
As another international fan, I am more than happy to stump up 200 pounds to watch my beloved Charlton over 46 games, incredible value!ct_addick said:As an international fan I don’t know if I want to stump up 200 quid to just watch the games without Minto, Brownie and Curbs…..I fcuking hate Sky….Murdoch is a cnut0 -
Even if Curbs couldStu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely, CAFCTV with its studio format was great, but the real value was in being able to watch the games.Essex_Al said:
As another international fan, I am more than happy to stump up 200 pounds to watch my beloved Charlton over 46 games, incredible value!ct_addick said:As an international fan I don’t know if I want to stump up 200 quid to just watch the games without Minto, Brownie and Curbs…..I fcuking hate Sky….Murdoch is a cnut
now be on holiday every weekend ?0 -
I've found the studio chat very entertaining and more watchable than the game more times than not last season, will miss that part of the coverage if gone for good now as seems...Stu_of_Kunming said:
Absolutely, CAFCTV with its studio format was great, but the real value was in being able to watch the games.Essex_Al said:
As another international fan, I am more than happy to stump up 200 pounds to watch my beloved Charlton over 46 games, incredible value!ct_addick said:As an international fan I don’t know if I want to stump up 200 quid to just watch the games without Minto, Brownie and Curbs…..I fcuking hate Sky….Murdoch is a cnut17 -
-
glad theyre keeping them involved in some form2
-
Better than nothing I guess and probably the best we could have hoped for given the stranglehold Sky have nowadays1
-
All sounds ok, and my trips to Paris will not be in vain...🙄
Like the sound of the monthly resume program with Curbs & Co, that sounds like it could be an interesting and entertaining idea...
Glad that the club have finally got round to letting the fans know the long term plans for CATV, better late than never...
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc8
-
Some people are so dim they can't digest two different pieces of information at the same time.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc10 -
Being a faceless username makes idiots believe being offensive makes them look cool. You cardigan wearing numpty.Henry Irving said:
Some people are so dim they can't digest two different pieces of information at the same time.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc16 -
Henry Irving said:
Some people are so dim they can't digest two different pieces of information at the same time.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc
Toc-H Lamps spring to mind...0 -
That made me giggle 🤣cfgs said:
Being a faceless username makes idiots believe being offensive makes them look cool. You cardigan wearing numpty.Henry Irving said:
Some people are so dim they can't digest two different pieces of information at the same time.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc0 -
That monthly programme sounds good.
It will interesting if UK viewers are still able to VPN the overseas Charlton TV coverage, or whether Sky and EFL will try and crack down on this more.0 -
I am relieved that at least we have an extended monthly show with the holy trinity-I am aware that a number of fans have been lobbying the club and others on this point-so well done to them, and in the circumstances of the Sky deal, the monthly episode will do for me. I am assuming it is £7 a month for that as well as other stuff like audio commentary etc?0
-
Jesus, the state of those replies. Twitter really is a cesspit.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc
For me, cafc tv has been the highlight of the last 3/4 years so I am really pleased it is staying in some capacity. 👍8 -
Pretty good outcome, imo. The pre and post-match coverage has been great, but always seemed like a Roll Royce product for a Toyota Corolla market. The 7:15 am start on a Saturday (in my time zone) also meant I often missed a lot of it in favour of an extra half-hour, or so, in bed. A monthly show I can watch "on-demand" is a solid compromise, although the challenge will be keeping it fresh as, in today's instant media age, month old news could feel very dated by the time the show goes to air.
Biggest thing is there will still be a decent standard of footage for the actual match coverage - the early days of iFollow were definitely better than nothing, but some of the single-camera angles and resolution of the pictures, especially at some of the smaller grounds you travel to in this league, meant you couldn't always get a good look at all of the action.
With a busy life with work, kids, and other commitments for the rest of the week, my two hours of Charlton, miserable as it has been recently, on a Saturday is one of the few bits of "me-time" I get and a focal point for my week so I'm just happy the service is still continuing in some form.6 -
Don't worry about Scott.
He's sitting with me next season ....
18 -
Sponsored links:
-
Shut it short-arsecfgs said:
Being a faceless username makes idiots believe being offensive makes them look cool. You cardigan wearing numpty.Henry Irving said:
Some people are so dim they can't digest two different pieces of information at the same time.cfgs said:Being met on social media with the predictable "Who cares, just f#£king sign someone". Etc
😉0 -
Thank fcuk for that, my many weekends in Paris will be greatly enhanced...I hope.1
-
Good response by the club. The monthly show is an excellent idea to retain the guys, and it's great that Terry and Greg will still be doing commentary.
Sometimes the pre and post match was much more fun than the dross in between - and the post-match was particularly good for the soul after a shit performance - and I was going to really miss it, but the monthly show will do nicely. If I'm really honest I'd have to concede that Curbs especially has the habit of coming out with the same talking points each week, such as the importance of the Valley and a big noisy crowd. Monthly show gives them more material to work with. Good stuff!7 -
The monthly show is no different to the regular monthly vhs tapes you could back in the 1991/1992 season which the club sold with highlights of games that past month and club interviews
From memory I think they were a tenner each1 -
Credit the club, whoever is behind this decision, with responding to feedback in a positive way. Decent camera coverage and an extra show for those that like that, which is most of us. They've done well.5
-
As I mentioned on the Dobbo thread, on May 10 I ran both that and the Charlton TV situation past a well-respected journo. I didn't hear back from him for a week or so but today I discovered that on May 25th, having done some digging, he had replied re both. Here is what he said, verbatim:
" I'm told its audience was 3-4,000 a game, with an annual budget of £450k. The new Sky deal means fans in UK and US can't watch it so its audience will fall to 800-900. Will carry on but without the Minto/Curbs bells and whistles. Club seemed genuinely confused that anyone would question this."
Re the last line, five days after he replied to me, the club announced the monthly show. I just wonder whether as a result of his enquiry somebody had a look on here to see what the "customers" were saying. And I'm only half-joking.
The numbers are useful I think. If I recall correctly £450k is exactly what each club gets from the Sky deal, isn't it? Perhaps with small add-ons for featured games?
The annual subscription was £220. What we don't know is what % of the 3-4k audience (quite a decent figure IMO) paid anything. A lot of talk about Firesticks et al but equally a lot of people on here using VPNs which means they also paid the match-day rate of £10.0 -
Those numbers will be a paying audience. Firesticks etc. won't show up as viewers to the club, no way of them getting numbers on the amount watching by those meansPragueAddick said:As I mentioned on the Dobbo thread, on May 10 I ran both that and the Charlton TV situation past a well-respected journo. I didn't hear back from him for a week or so but today I discovered that on May 25th, having done some digging, he had replied re both. Here is what he said, verbatim:
" I'm told its audience was 3-4,000 a game, with an annual budget of £450k. The new Sky deal means fans in UK and US can't watch it so its audience will fall to 800-900. Will carry on but without the Minto/Curbs bells and whistles. Club seemed genuinely confused that anyone would question this."
Re the last line, five days after he replied to me, the club announced the monthly show. I just wonder whether as a result of his enquiry somebody had a look on here to see what the "customers" were saying. And I'm only half-joking.
The numbers are useful I think. If I recall correctly £450k is exactly what each club gets from the Sky deal, isn't it? Perhaps with small add-ons for featured games?
The annual subscription was £220. What we don't know is what % of the 3-4k audience (quite a decent figure IMO) paid anything. A lot of talk about Firesticks et al but equally a lot of people on here using VPNs which means they also paid the match-day rate of £10.0 -
Fire sticks won’t be included simply due to how the technology works.PragueAddick said:As I mentioned on the Dobbo thread, on May 10 I ran both that and the Charlton TV situation past a well-respected journo. I didn't hear back from him for a week or so but today I discovered that on May 25th, having done some digging, he had replied re both. Here is what he said, verbatim:
" I'm told its audience was 3-4,000 a game, with an annual budget of £450k. The new Sky deal means fans in UK and US can't watch it so its audience will fall to 800-900. Will carry on but without the Minto/Curbs bells and whistles. Club seemed genuinely confused that anyone would question this."
Re the last line, five days after he replied to me, the club announced the monthly show. I just wonder whether as a result of his enquiry somebody had a look on here to see what the "customers" were saying. And I'm only half-joking.
The numbers are useful I think. If I recall correctly £450k is exactly what each club gets from the Sky deal, isn't it? Perhaps with small add-ons for featured games?
The annual subscription was £220. What we don't know is what % of the 3-4k audience (quite a decent figure IMO) paid anything. A lot of talk about Firesticks et al but equally a lot of people on here using VPNs which means they also paid the match-day rate of £10.
Why wouldn’t someone using a VPN also buy the annual pass? It’s a massive saving.That massive drop seems somewhat unlikely as those using a vpn are going to carry on next year.1 -
Don't visits via a Fire stick show up on online analytics? Maybe they don't, curious how, if so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Fire sticks won’t be included simply due to how the technology works.PragueAddick said:As I mentioned on the Dobbo thread, on May 10 I ran both that and the Charlton TV situation past a well-respected journo. I didn't hear back from him for a week or so but today I discovered that on May 25th, having done some digging, he had replied re both. Here is what he said, verbatim:
" I'm told its audience was 3-4,000 a game, with an annual budget of £450k. The new Sky deal means fans in UK and US can't watch it so its audience will fall to 800-900. Will carry on but without the Minto/Curbs bells and whistles. Club seemed genuinely confused that anyone would question this."
Re the last line, five days after he replied to me, the club announced the monthly show. I just wonder whether as a result of his enquiry somebody had a look on here to see what the "customers" were saying. And I'm only half-joking.
The numbers are useful I think. If I recall correctly £450k is exactly what each club gets from the Sky deal, isn't it? Perhaps with small add-ons for featured games?
The annual subscription was £220. What we don't know is what % of the 3-4k audience (quite a decent figure IMO) paid anything. A lot of talk about Firesticks et al but equally a lot of people on here using VPNs which means they also paid the match-day rate of £10.
Why wouldn’t someone using a VPN also buy the annual pass? It’s a massive saving.That massive drop seems somewhat unlikely as those using a vpn are going to carry on next year.
I'd be delighted if many of those using a VPN also bought an annual pass but I doubt it's anything like a majority, after all they include people on here who otherwise seem to go to a fair few games, so they'd pick and choose. If 80% of the original audience were on the annual sub then the club was looking at a clear and chunky operating profit, and if that had been the case I don't think they'd have chucked the studio content out so quickly. And I suppose a lot of people previously using VPNs have Sky subs, so will use that to watch.0 -
They won't show up in clubs official views. Effectively the firestick provider pays for 1 subscription/finds a way to steal it and then streams it to all the sticks.PragueAddick said:
Don't visits via a Fire stick show up on online analytics? Maybe they don't, curious how, if so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Fire sticks won’t be included simply due to how the technology works.PragueAddick said:As I mentioned on the Dobbo thread, on May 10 I ran both that and the Charlton TV situation past a well-respected journo. I didn't hear back from him for a week or so but today I discovered that on May 25th, having done some digging, he had replied re both. Here is what he said, verbatim:
" I'm told its audience was 3-4,000 a game, with an annual budget of £450k. The new Sky deal means fans in UK and US can't watch it so its audience will fall to 800-900. Will carry on but without the Minto/Curbs bells and whistles. Club seemed genuinely confused that anyone would question this."
Re the last line, five days after he replied to me, the club announced the monthly show. I just wonder whether as a result of his enquiry somebody had a look on here to see what the "customers" were saying. And I'm only half-joking.
The numbers are useful I think. If I recall correctly £450k is exactly what each club gets from the Sky deal, isn't it? Perhaps with small add-ons for featured games?
The annual subscription was £220. What we don't know is what % of the 3-4k audience (quite a decent figure IMO) paid anything. A lot of talk about Firesticks et al but equally a lot of people on here using VPNs which means they also paid the match-day rate of £10.
Why wouldn’t someone using a VPN also buy the annual pass? It’s a massive saving.That massive drop seems somewhat unlikely as those using a vpn are going to carry on next year.
I'd be delighted if many of those using a VPN also bought an annual pass but I doubt it's anything like a majority, after all they include people on here who otherwise seem to go to a fair few games, so they'd pick and choose. If 80% of the original audience were on the annual sub then the club was looking at a clear and chunky operating profit, and if that had been the case I don't think they'd have chucked the studio content out so quickly. And I suppose a lot of people previously using VPNs have Sky subs, so will use that to watch.
I would imagine a large number of the sales are midweek games which consolidate the average per game up to 3-4k. I doubt a Saturday 3pm game actually had 3-4k people paying for the match.1
