If you do the first you are at least guaranteed decent facilities and there is a good argument that people paying their hard earned deserve that as a minimum.
Lots of clubs choose the latter, but even if they do it right they can't all win leagues or get promoted.
This will not end well. The money will disproportionately go to the ‘bigger’ clubs, which will allow them to throw away even more money on stupid wages to try and get in the Premier.
In the short term we may have more money to offset our losses but we will quickly have to pay much higher wages just to try and stand still and compete.
I guess the business model is that fans of clubs like ours will be more willing to pay the exorbitant fees to sky in the knowledge that they will probably be able to see their club a dozen times or more from the comfort of their homes.
I can’t be bothered to attempt the math to know how many new subscribers they need to pay the difference plus all the associated costs of broadcasting (assuming they do put some effort into it), but I doubt they will get anywhere near the required numbers.
I think most people who follow football regularly already fall into either the ‘already got Sky’ or ‘won’t ever do anything to give them more money to ruin* football’ camps.
*Other viewpoints are available (but of course mostly wrong)
If I'm reading correctly it's only an extra £340M above the current deal so, despite being an eye watering amount to the average man, it's not that much of an increase (sort of).
At £360 a year it's less than an extra 200,000 subscribers a year for 5 years. I'm guessing a Sky Sports package is about £30/m?
I get your points, but often overlooked is that attendances did rise in the 90’s when sky and the PL came along, but in comparison to the 80’s when it wasn’t exact pleasant to attend a football match.
I never understand why we don’t have more around the stadium for kids. Bouncy castle, mini five aside goals, face painting, bubble machines, soft play and so on.
Young kids love all that stuff and it makes them want to come back, even if the football isn’t necessarily that enjoyable for them initially.
As you say, it is a competitive market. If it weren’t for my personal obsession with football there is absolutely zero chance my partner would choose to take our little boy to WWFC rather than, say, Odds Farm.
Comments
If you do the first you are at least guaranteed decent facilities and there is a good argument that people paying their hard earned deserve that as a minimum.
Lots of clubs choose the latter, but even if they do it right they can't all win leagues or get promoted.
Agree @StrongestTeam surviving in League One while they update the stadium would do me. I am not so sure the whole fan base would agree though.
Very true, but they might have some questions should the terrace collapse.
This will not end well. The money will disproportionately go to the ‘bigger’ clubs, which will allow them to throw away even more money on stupid wages to try and get in the Premier.
In the short term we may have more money to offset our losses but we will quickly have to pay much higher wages just to try and stand still and compete.
I guess the business model is that fans of clubs like ours will be more willing to pay the exorbitant fees to sky in the knowledge that they will probably be able to see their club a dozen times or more from the comfort of their homes.
I can’t be bothered to attempt the math to know how many new subscribers they need to pay the difference plus all the associated costs of broadcasting (assuming they do put some effort into it), but I doubt they will get anywhere near the required numbers.
I think most people who follow football regularly already fall into either the ‘already got Sky’ or ‘won’t ever do anything to give them more money to ruin* football’ camps.
*Other viewpoints are available (but of course mostly wrong)
If I'm reading correctly it's only an extra £340M above the current deal so, despite being an eye watering amount to the average man, it's not that much of an increase (sort of).
At £360 a year it's less than an extra 200,000 subscribers a year for 5 years. I'm guessing a Sky Sports package is about £30/m?
I get your points, but often overlooked is that attendances did rise in the 90’s when sky and the PL came along, but in comparison to the 80’s when it wasn’t exact pleasant to attend a football match.
I never understand why we don’t have more around the stadium for kids. Bouncy castle, mini five aside goals, face painting, bubble machines, soft play and so on.
Young kids love all that stuff and it makes them want to come back, even if the football isn’t necessarily that enjoyable for them initially.
As you say, it is a competitive market. If it weren’t for my personal obsession with football there is absolutely zero chance my partner would choose to take our little boy to WWFC rather than, say, Odds Farm.