Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Andy Holt, the owner of Accrington Stanley - and someone who is very active on Twitter - has raised the EFL's ruling that the club who's fans pay for iFollow match passes receive the revenue. Apparently the EFL made this ruling without consultation.

 

So, the tenner I paid to watch that abomination at Mansfield t'other night, less whatever iFollow take as their share, makes it way to Latics. On the one hand this is good.

 

However, the issue Andy Holt raises - which I think a fair one - is that's great for the likes of Sunderland, who could conceivably have 2,000 people pay a tenner to watch their game at Stanley - should it be on a Tuesday - whereby none of that money makes it way to Stanley who are putting the game on / carrying the costs. When the boot on the other foot, Stanley will receive their share of the money for the 10 people who couldn't make it to Sunderland - should it be on a Tuesday - which means the larger/richer clubs have found yet another way of hoarding all the cash.

 

This is particularly galling when you consider - until the 1980's - gate receipts for all league games were shared between both clubs. This was changed so the home team kept all the money - thereby ensuring the bigger clubs benefited.

 

It seems only reasonable that the gate receipts - for those whom attend & watch on iFollow are either;

a) Shared equally

b) Kept by the home team

 

It's an interesting point worth raising I feel and one I wonder whether the commercial minds at Latics have pondered?

Edited by lookersstandandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2018 at 10:40 AM, rudemedic said:

I'd be interested to know how much the club gets for every new subscriber and every time someone pays to watch a mid-week (or international week) game online. 

 

If its nothing, or very little, then the cynic in me suggests the club does a streaming of those games when we are away and charges entry. If that becomes the consensus amongst the league then it would force iFollow and the EFL to rethink their strategy and/or improve their service. 

 

The club also should look to limit the content they put on iFollow as if the content is on YouTube then the club should at least get some ad revenue. Not this season as that would be unfair for those who've paid but maybe something to consider for future. 

 

I know iFollow is not mandatory and whilst most of the clubs that don't use it are Championship, so can afford the man-power for decent content, Accrington don't use it either. 

Someone on radio Manchester a few weeks ago said that it costs £10 a game and Latics get £8 of that 

could be hearsay, could be fact 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

Andy Holt, the owner of Accrington Stanley - and someone who is very active on Twitter - has raised the EFL's ruling that the club who's fans pay for iFollow match receive the revenue. Apparently the EFL made this ruling without consultation.

 

So, the tenner I paid to watch that abomination at Mansfield t'other night, less whatever iFollow take as their share, makes it way to Latics. On the one hand this is good.

 

However, the issue Andy Holt raises - which I think a fair one - is that's great for the likes of Sunderland, who could conceivably have 2,000 people pay a tenner to watch their game at Stanley - should it be on a Tuesday - whereby none of that money makes it way to Stanley who are putting the game on / carrying the costs. When the boot on the other foot, Stanley will receive their share of the money for the 10 people who couldn't make it to Sunderland - should it be on a Tuesday - which means the larger/richer clubs have found yet another way of hoarding all the cash.

 

This is particularly galling when you consider - until the 1980's - gate receipts for all league games were shared between both clubs. This was changed so the home team kept all the money - thereby ensuring the bigger clubs benefited.

 

It seems only reasonable that the gate receipts - for those whom attend & watch on iFollow are either;

a) Shared equally

b) Kept by the home team

 

It's an interesting point worth raising I feel and one I wonder whether the commercial minds at Latics have pondered?

Mr Holt wouldn't be making the same point if he were the owner of a big club.Nor would he if his club were one of the better supported.

We know it's not an even playing field with regard to FFP etc but it is what it is, get on with it in League 1 Mr Holt and think yourself extremely lucky not to be back in the shithole that you were promoted from :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...