@mooneyman said: @StrongestTeam - I suggest you give up arguing with Mr (I am always right") Parry!
Yeah, I think you can understand the commercial realities whilst still holding out hope that away fans could be treated better. It's almost as if the £ is what we follow for these days, surely if Sky couldn't make any concessions to fans without withdrawing all funding (because everything has to be black and white) you have to also consider impact on fans willingness to pay at the turnstile on an ongoing basis. It's clear in the Prem now that TV funding massively outweighs tickets, I'd imagine not at our level. There's surely some PR goodwill in schemes like Virginmedia subsidising £20 cap.
As a man who has received a wage from Sky in the past, I believe that Mr @glasshalffull might be slightly biased. But fair enough, what he says about us signing the contract is true.
On a personal basis, I was looking forward to Tranmere away, but now I can't go. As well as the 12PM being inconvenient for the match-goer, it's also a tad too early for the TV viewer if you are watching at the pub, with a lot of places opening at 12 - ideally, you'd want to be settled down with a pint ready for all the preview stuff.
Whilst having sympathy for those disrupted by these changes, just imagine what it’s like being a supporter of a PL club when your original fixture list changes month by month.
Surely a compromise has to be opening up the Vere suite and watch it live there. A token entry fee of say £3, (contributions towards paying staff), sales of food & beverage, (the Thai green chicken curry was delicious at the Q&A recently), a bit of togetherness amongst the attendees & a payout from Sky. Win win surely.
@glasshalffull said:
Whilst having sympathy for those disrupted by these changes, just imagine what it’s like being a supporter of a PL club when your original fixture list changes month by month.
True, but at least those changes are expected. No one would have expected Tranmere - Wycombe to be moved for tv.
Yep, every Premier league match goer knows not to book anything, until the tv changes are announced 5-6 weeks before hand.
I guess our fans, who have got used to the international break issue in this league with a few teams, now have to be cautious for as long as we're going well.
Just a couple of problems with doing that, Sky is now owned by Comcast not Murdoch, and our club would be around £600k worse off if the TV money was withdrawn.
That apart, a very sensible and mature suggestion Dr.Congo.
However, given there's a wealthy benefactor in town who's trying to generate enough goodwill among fans to be given the right to take over the club, it seems an easy win if he were to compensate out of his own pocket anyone who's already purchased travel / accommodation that can't be refunded. It's not as if there won't be a clear paper trail in place for anyone needing to claim nor will it break the bank - we're probably talking 50 or so people max.
Assuming the travel and accommodation comes to about £100 each, and I suspect that might be conservative, that's £5000 for 50 people. How much did someone say we were getting for the match? If we're going to give it away every time we're on the box, doesn't seem much point...
@glasshalffull said:...
Isn’t a disruption once every couple of years (in our case) a price worth paying for the amount of revenue it provides?
£10,000?? With all the money sloshing about in the game these days the figure quoted seems risible considering the inconvenience caused to so many.
I do sympathize with those who’ll be inconvenienced by this switch, but let’s not forget that the majority of our regular supporters don’t travel to distant away games and I’m sure they’ll be pleased that this is a game they’ll now be able to watch.
"...the majority of our regular supporters don't travel to distant away games..." may be true; but what about those who do? A considerable number of people do, in fact, follow the club away from home. You only need attend the odd away game to see how much energy the players absorb from our very vocal away following in order to understand the difference that "away support" makes to the performance if the team. But these important people are being screwed by the authorities. Just remember... this season we will end up playing Fleetwood and Blackpool on Tuesday evenings, Accrington, kick off on a Sunday at 12 noon; and now Tranmere - the same.
The obvious message is that the supporters are irrelevant.
£10000 may or may not be a lot of money to WWFC but &1,400,000 certainly is, and that is the amount of TV money the club gets (roughly half from the premier, the rest from the EFL deal). That equates to over £11 per attendee per match.
In exchange WWFC play the last match of the season at an unusual time (sometimes at home sometimes away) and every few seasons one other game (home or away).
Up to the individual to judge whether that is a good or bad deal.
Incidentally re Tuesday night games, these were swapped a few years ago at the clubs request. Theory goes that some games have to be on Tuesdays, they are inconvenient by their nature for away fans, less away fans go to the very distant games anyway, so making those the ones on Tuesdays inconveniences the fewest fans. Again your choice whether to buy the argument - I suppose better for some, worse for others. Nothing to do with TV though.
“Complacent” is an odd word to use as I simply invited each person to judge for themselves whether an income of £11 per fan per home match is worth disrupting the kickoff of one or two matches a season for.
Hard to see how you could have one without the other.
As you say it matters little to me - I don’t get to many matches I don’t have sky.
Up to the individual to judge whether that is a good or bad deal.
Complacent and, of course, easy for you to say since you don't watch the team home or away.
After a reasonable contextualisation of the position, it seems a fair summary and the criticism you offer appears unfair and unnecessarily (and irrelevantly) personal.
Given the amount of money the club gets annually in TV revenue, this, the first such moving of a fixture for tv broadcast reasons I can recall in a long while (and I am willing to stand corrected), seems a small price to pay though, naturally, one regrets that forward thinkers such as the unfortunate @eric_plant have been penalised for their admirable forethought.
The question to be pondered (or not) is whether if there was no football money at all we would be better off as a club and supporters.
It would mean a lot lower wages at all levels of the game so we may actually be better off financially (in relative terms) than we are now.
That may need to be balanced though by a slightly lower quality of footballer at each level as the high earners ply their trade elsewhere leaving a void that the likes of Blackman (as an a mole) would fill.
The question to be pondered (or not) is whether if there was no football money at all we would be better off as a club and supporters.
It would mean a lot lower wages at all levels of the game so we may actually be better off financially (in relative terms) than we are now.
That may need to be balanced though by a slightly lower quality of footballer at each level as the high earners ply their trade elsewhere leaving a void that the likes of Blackman (as an a mole) would fill.
I'm with you apart from the bit at the end in brackets!
If the sky coup hadn't happened in 92 WWFC would be better off.
The top few clubs in the 1st division (now ridiculously called Premier league... fault sky/sugar) wouldn't have been flooded with money
Wages wouldn't have been inflated to a ridiculous degree. No problem for the greedy big six.. But detrimental to the thousands of other clubs across the country
Wycombe Town centre wouldn't have now been full of idiots watching once proud clubs {fault.. sky) from cities they had no idea about and clapping goals they scored in a pub (an unfathomable phenomenon).
More importantly player wages would not have been inflated resulting in the constant struggle our Club has.
So forgive us Mr Parry for blaming Sky for the Tranmere move but I'm afraid 10k is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost that Australian has imposed on our football club and will continue to do so long after you are passed.
In Germany the above is illegal (genuinely). When people attempt to play fast and loose with this law the fans take action through unsavoury means. And they generally win.
.@glasshalffull now tell me why we should be thankful for sky"s money. Money which has decimated our culture, our country"s biggest fa cup winners, and humiliated a founder member
Quite the most delusional posts that I’ve read in a long time. A rant unsurpassed in its assumptions, opinions and inaccuracies. By the way, we get £10k for the disruption in moving the fixture, circa £600k of TV money per season even if we never have a game broadcast live. I await your ideas of how a supporter owned club could raise £600k per season from alternative sources.
Not delusional, @glasshalffull, just highly emotive (morning @LX1 - I'll get the aspirin again).
If you treat it as an emotional version of @bookertease's previous one, you'll see an arguable proposition in there, namely that we wouldn't need the Sky money if Sky hadn't wrecked the football economy with its money, the vast majority of which stays in the top tier. I think I don't agree but it's not irrational because there are other considerations.
Though Mr Murdoch did offer gold to be stuffed in mouths...lets remember the greedy premier league clubs and their chairmen who split from the league and took the shilling. It's capitalism folks! We are gods and we deserve more than them poor clogging lower league bastardos...tell me how we can get it!!! Take it off poor man's telly and have Friday and Monday and Sunday games like the yanks?? Done! The efl is playing catch-up and needs whatever they can grab. Obviously I was not travelling to the Tranmere game so l can afford not to be too pissed off by the move.
Comments
So in the pub (or in the Vere?) at midday on a Sunday.......don't think the honey-do list will be reducing that day.
Yeah, I think you can understand the commercial realities whilst still holding out hope that away fans could be treated better. It's almost as if the £ is what we follow for these days, surely if Sky couldn't make any concessions to fans without withdrawing all funding (because everything has to be black and white) you have to also consider impact on fans willingness to pay at the turnstile on an ongoing basis. It's clear in the Prem now that TV funding massively outweighs tickets, I'd imagine not at our level. There's surely some PR goodwill in schemes like Virginmedia subsidising £20 cap.
As a man who has received a wage from Sky in the past, I believe that Mr @glasshalffull might be slightly biased. But fair enough, what he says about us signing the contract is true.
On a personal basis, I was looking forward to Tranmere away, but now I can't go. As well as the 12PM being inconvenient for the match-goer, it's also a tad too early for the TV viewer if you are watching at the pub, with a lot of places opening at 12 - ideally, you'd want to be settled down with a pint ready for all the preview stuff.
Bit rich to expect Mr Couhig to compensate people!
If anyone is coming down or already booked to be staying in Liverpool the Saturday I could take you to a local non league game.
I'd prefer the game to be on a Saturday myself but...
The club should definitely host it on a big screen at AP
We'll have to get used to these tv switches when we go up next season...
Whilst having sympathy for those disrupted by these changes, just imagine what it’s like being a supporter of a PL club when your original fixture list changes month by month.
Surely a compromise has to be opening up the Vere suite and watch it live there. A token entry fee of say £3, (contributions towards paying staff), sales of food & beverage, (the Thai green chicken curry was delicious at the Q&A recently), a bit of togetherness amongst the attendees & a payout from Sky. Win win surely.
True, but at least those changes are expected. No one would have expected Tranmere - Wycombe to be moved for tv.
Yep, every Premier league match goer knows not to book anything, until the tv changes are announced 5-6 weeks before hand.
I guess our fans, who have got used to the international break issue in this league with a few teams, now have to be cautious for as long as we're going well.
Good points made by Floyd and Malone.
The only sensible way to deal with this is for the Wycombe fans to unfurl a giant tifo with “FCK MURDOCK” live on TV.
Just a couple of problems with doing that, Sky is now owned by Comcast not Murdoch, and our club would be around £600k worse off if the TV money was withdrawn.
That apart, a very sensible and mature suggestion Dr.Congo.
Also very annoying for those of us involved in youth football as Sundays are spent imitating GA - worst case won't even be able to catch it on telly
Assuming the travel and accommodation comes to about £100 each, and I suspect that might be conservative, that's £5000 for 50 people. How much did someone say we were getting for the match? If we're going to give it away every time we're on the box, doesn't seem much point...
£10,000?? With all the money sloshing about in the game these days the figure quoted seems risible considering the inconvenience caused to so many.
"...the majority of our regular supporters don't travel to distant away games..." may be true; but what about those who do? A considerable number of people do, in fact, follow the club away from home. You only need attend the odd away game to see how much energy the players absorb from our very vocal away following in order to understand the difference that "away support" makes to the performance if the team. But these important people are being screwed by the authorities. Just remember... this season we will end up playing Fleetwood and Blackpool on Tuesday evenings, Accrington, kick off on a Sunday at 12 noon; and now Tranmere - the same.
The obvious message is that the supporters are irrelevant.
£10000 may or may not be a lot of money to WWFC but &1,400,000 certainly is, and that is the amount of TV money the club gets (roughly half from the premier, the rest from the EFL deal). That equates to over £11 per attendee per match.
In exchange WWFC play the last match of the season at an unusual time (sometimes at home sometimes away) and every few seasons one other game (home or away).
Up to the individual to judge whether that is a good or bad deal.
Incidentally re Tuesday night games, these were swapped a few years ago at the clubs request. Theory goes that some games have to be on Tuesdays, they are inconvenient by their nature for away fans, less away fans go to the very distant games anyway, so making those the ones on Tuesdays inconveniences the fewest fans. Again your choice whether to buy the argument - I suppose better for some, worse for others. Nothing to do with TV though.
Complacent and, of course, easy for you to say since you don't watch the team home or away.
Ifollow is an interesting addition to the midweek games situation.
Bit of a scandal that the home club doesn't get the £8 of the £10 though (as opposed to it going to the club whose platform you watch on)
“Complacent” is an odd word to use as I simply invited each person to judge for themselves whether an income of £11 per fan per home match is worth disrupting the kickoff of one or two matches a season for.
Hard to see how you could have one without the other.
As you say it matters little to me - I don’t get to many matches I don’t have sky.
After a reasonable contextualisation of the position, it seems a fair summary and the criticism you offer appears unfair and unnecessarily (and irrelevantly) personal.
Given the amount of money the club gets annually in TV revenue, this, the first such moving of a fixture for tv broadcast reasons I can recall in a long while (and I am willing to stand corrected), seems a small price to pay though, naturally, one regrets that forward thinkers such as the unfortunate @eric_plant have been penalised for their admirable forethought.
Not quite as simple as that.
The question to be pondered (or not) is whether if there was no football money at all we would be better off as a club and supporters.
It would mean a lot lower wages at all levels of the game so we may actually be better off financially (in relative terms) than we are now.
That may need to be balanced though by a slightly lower quality of footballer at each level as the high earners ply their trade elsewhere leaving a void that the likes of Blackman (as an a mole) would fill.
I'm with you apart from the bit at the end in brackets!
If the sky coup hadn't happened in 92 WWFC would be better off.
The top few clubs in the 1st division (now ridiculously called Premier league... fault sky/sugar) wouldn't have been flooded with money
Wages wouldn't have been inflated to a ridiculous degree. No problem for the greedy big six.. But detrimental to the thousands of other clubs across the country
Wycombe Town centre wouldn't have now been full of idiots watching once proud clubs {fault.. sky) from cities they had no idea about and clapping goals they scored in a pub (an unfathomable phenomenon).
More importantly player wages would not have been inflated resulting in the constant struggle our Club has.
So forgive us Mr Parry for blaming Sky for the Tranmere move but I'm afraid 10k is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost that Australian has imposed on our football club and will continue to do so long after you are passed.
In Germany the above is illegal (genuinely). When people attempt to play fast and loose with this law the fans take action through unsavoury means. And they generally win.
.@glasshalffull now tell me why we should be thankful for sky"s money. Money which has decimated our culture, our country"s biggest fa cup winners, and humiliated a founder member
Quite the most delusional posts that I’ve read in a long time. A rant unsurpassed in its assumptions, opinions and inaccuracies. By the way, we get £10k for the disruption in moving the fixture, circa £600k of TV money per season even if we never have a game broadcast live. I await your ideas of how a supporter owned club could raise £600k per season from alternative sources.
Not delusional, @glasshalffull, just highly emotive (morning @LX1 - I'll get the aspirin again).
If you treat it as an emotional version of @bookertease's previous one, you'll see an arguable proposition in there, namely that we wouldn't need the Sky money if Sky hadn't wrecked the football economy with its money, the vast majority of which stays in the top tier. I think I don't agree but it's not irrational because there are other considerations.
Though Mr Murdoch did offer gold to be stuffed in mouths...lets remember the greedy premier league clubs and their chairmen who split from the league and took the shilling. It's capitalism folks! We are gods and we deserve more than them poor clogging lower league bastardos...tell me how we can get it!!! Take it off poor man's telly and have Friday and Monday and Sunday games like the yanks?? Done! The efl is playing catch-up and needs whatever they can grab. Obviously I was not travelling to the Tranmere game so l can afford not to be too pissed off by the move.