They play at home to Blackpool on Tuesday 6th November.
The fixture has been moved due to the work that is being carried out on the pitch at Priestfield, which will take between two and three weeks to complete.
Gaz is far from tactically naive, to come as far as we have on free transfers and loans suggest otherwise.
Also where are the Bayo not good enough for league 1 brigade this morning. arguably best player last 2 games and if we stay up he will be a big part of it.
COYB
Well said on both counts. The usual suspects on the FB page were pouring scorn on Gaz and Bayo during the first half but were made to eat their words. I wonder why people feel the need to post during games instead of waiting till they’re over and then making considered comments.
@OxfordBlue I thought Harriman played well. There were a couple of times when it would have been helpful if he was more left-footed for the position he was asked to play in, but that'snot really his fault, and his extra pace compared to JJ was useful against a pacy attack.
It's strange right now, as our ability to draw with pretty much anyone shows that we belong, but too many draws would be disastrous. I do think that we are capable of going on a run and reeling off two or three wins on the bounce, as I have seen nothing in this division for us to fear, except fear itself.
@shev We should go back to the pre-1981 system of 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, instead of this new-fangled 3 points for a win nonsense. Under the old points system we would currently be in 19th position (8pts, GD-5), with Bradford (7pts) and Wimbledon (8pts, GD-6) below us.
Andy Holt at Accrington has been complaining today on Twitter about the live matches on iFollow. He says that the away club gets 80% of the £10, the EFL 20%. For the home team to get nothing seems very unfair, and it makes me feel differently now about watching it on iFollow last night. Perhaps the club can confirm if this is the arrangement.
Or as Lawrie Sanchez suggested, we increase the away win points to 4. To be fair it must be difficult to think of things to say in the programme notes but it did make me think he was losing the plot a bit.
Andy Holt is always sounding off about something and usually on Twitter. Accrington will have 23 away games to collect their 80% share so what’s his problem?
Yes but the same applies in reverse when Accrington play away, albeit with much smaller numbers, of course.
If the FL insist on sending clubs on such long midweek away trips like Wycombe at Fleetwood then it’s difficult for travelling fans to attend and I think it’s great that you can still watch a game that you can’t actually get to.
Very interesting on the 80% - 20% breakdown.
What we also need for full disclosure, is how much (if anything) does each club get as a bulk payment for this whole set up? It must be a decent figure, as otherwise you'd surely refuse to let them in to film, and it'd surely not be legal for the league to impose this?
@glasshalffull , I'm surprised you can't see what his problem is! Even before the very helpful shot above.
As a tiny attendance club, as well as being one heck of an outpost, Fleetwood could get really shafted by this.
Certainly does make you consider watching anything on ifollow at home again - but it actually benefits the club more in away games then it does you going up there!
According to the EFL, it was the clubs who asked for the long distance away games to be scheduled midweek. I think it was intimated at a Fan's Council meeting that Wycombe prefer it that way.
For a long time now, the home club keeps most of the receipts. It will be the smaller clubs who lose out on the iFollow match passes. If course it's great to watch a match online if you can't get there but I assumed that most of my £10 went to the home club.
I'm sure that the club were just being helpful when they encouraged fans to watch online, if they couldn't make it to Fleetwood, but it could be construed otherwise.
There is a pot of TV money received by the FL that is divided evenly between every club in League One and the contract states that clubs must provide a minimum of single camera coverage for every game. This is mainly to facilitate edited highlights for the likes of Sky and Quest. The ifollow deal is relatively new and was always likely to divide opinion. I enjoy it, others may not.
Don't get me wrong, I love the ability to watch extra games. No argument with that.
Just seems a little bit strangely setup with the breakdown of fees.
There should be some money goes to the home club because they will surely lose some attendance. I am not sure but I was tempted to go to Fleetwood, it is difficult to know if watching on ifollow made a difference in my decision. Knowing that the money goes to Wycombe might make a difference as well.
But I don't agree with Andy Holt's complaints about things always going the way of the clubs with more fans. Maybe in this situation he has a some point that the home team might lose some revenue but in general if a club has more fans then surely they should get more money because they are more sustainable. Isn't it people like him pumping money into clubs with few fans that skews the playing field and makes it difficult for fan owned clubs like ours even though we have more fans/revenue? Has his supposedly generous act for the community of Accrington contributed to other communities suffering from their better supported football club going out of the football league?
It would make more sense that way. Imagine the reverse fixture - Fleetwood AT Bradford. Say it was a horrible cold wet night and 2000 Bradford fans stay in and watch on iFollow. Fleetwood would pick up a handy £16000 from Bradford fans
And I would imagine for our game at Plymouth - who have a fairly wide spread supporter base outside Devon, there would have been more Plymouth fans watching than Wycombe
My understanding is that is exactly how the revenue is allocated @OxfordBlue . Effective split from the platform sold is
selling club £6.66
FL £1.66
VAT £1.66
Not sure how many games are available - we know tues nights are plus international weekends, I suspect we may find that Boxing day, New years day and easter weekend games may well be too.
Nobody will ever know whether this was revenue enhancing for clubs or not as no one knows how many people would have shown up live but decided not to to watch online instead. Obviously we don't (but the clubs do) know how many people sign up for each game.
Its hard to see how this can be a major revenue enhancer though.
If
_500 people watch online for 5 away games per season through WWFC of which 100 would have gone to game), total revenue (5*500*6.66) = £16650
200 people watch online for 5 home games of which 100 would have otherwise gone to the game = Total revenue (20056.66) = £6660
Lost revenue 100 * 5*15 (ex vat terrace) = -£7500
Lost revenue from away support staying at home 100515 = -£7500
Total net revenue earned over season - £8310_
Obviously real numbers will be different from those wild assumptions (and some figures no one will ever know) but hard to see how the net revenue can ever be huge.
On the other hand hard to see how clubs can lose a lot either, so then you are in balancing advantages for fans seeing games they would otherwise miss against potential loss of atmosphere from less people attending.
Comments
Thanks Alan.
Why? Not everyone can travel to away games in midweek because of work or like myself because of ill health.
@fame_46 said:
Well said on both counts. The usual suspects on the FB page were pouring scorn on Gaz and Bayo during the first half but were made to eat their words. I wonder why people feel the need to post during games instead of waiting till they’re over and then making considered comments.
Those who were there, how did Harriman play last night out of interest?
For the record I don't think Gaz is naive at all just plenty of people accusibg
Post match Gaz interview:
https://philcatchpole.com/2018/10/03/fleetwood-town-1-1-wycombe-wanderers/
@OxfordBlue I thought Harriman played well. There were a couple of times when it would have been helpful if he was more left-footed for the position he was asked to play in, but that'snot really his fault, and his extra pace compared to JJ was useful against a pacy attack.
It's strange right now, as our ability to draw with pretty much anyone shows that we belong, but too many draws would be disastrous. I do think that we are capable of going on a run and reeling off two or three wins on the bounce, as I have seen nothing in this division for us to fear, except fear itself.
@shev We should go back to the pre-1981 system of 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, instead of this new-fangled 3 points for a win nonsense. Under the old points system we would currently be in 19th position (8pts, GD-5), with Bradford (7pts) and Wimbledon (8pts, GD-6) below us.
I like it @Uncle_T. We could also have 5 point for an away draw at the league leaders!
Andy Holt at Accrington has been complaining today on Twitter about the live matches on iFollow. He says that the away club gets 80% of the £10, the EFL 20%. For the home team to get nothing seems very unfair, and it makes me feel differently now about watching it on iFollow last night. Perhaps the club can confirm if this is the arrangement.
Or as Lawrie Sanchez suggested, we increase the away win points to 4. To be fair it must be difficult to think of things to say in the programme notes but it did make me think he was losing the plot a bit.
Andy Holt is always sounding off about something and usually on Twitter. Accrington will have 23 away games to collect their 80% share so what’s his problem?
@glasshalffull, this tweet probably sums up his argument:
Yes but the same applies in reverse when Accrington play away, albeit with much smaller numbers, of course.
If the FL insist on sending clubs on such long midweek away trips like Wycombe at Fleetwood then it’s difficult for travelling fans to attend and I think it’s great that you can still watch a game that you can’t actually get to.
Very interesting on the 80% - 20% breakdown.
What we also need for full disclosure, is how much (if anything) does each club get as a bulk payment for this whole set up? It must be a decent figure, as otherwise you'd surely refuse to let them in to film, and it'd surely not be legal for the league to impose this?
@glasshalffull , I'm surprised you can't see what his problem is! Even before the very helpful shot above.
As a tiny attendance club, as well as being one heck of an outpost, Fleetwood could get really shafted by this.
Certainly does make you consider watching anything on ifollow at home again - but it actually benefits the club more in away games then it does you going up there!
According to the EFL, it was the clubs who asked for the long distance away games to be scheduled midweek. I think it was intimated at a Fan's Council meeting that Wycombe prefer it that way.
For a long time now, the home club keeps most of the receipts. It will be the smaller clubs who lose out on the iFollow match passes. If course it's great to watch a match online if you can't get there but I assumed that most of my £10 went to the home club.
It seems to be a massive presumption that it is only away fans paying to watch it.
I'm sure that the club were just being helpful when they encouraged fans to watch online, if they couldn't make it to Fleetwood, but it could be construed otherwise.
There is a pot of TV money received by the FL that is divided evenly between every club in League One and the contract states that clubs must provide a minimum of single camera coverage for every game. This is mainly to facilitate edited highlights for the likes of Sky and Quest. The ifollow deal is relatively new and was always likely to divide opinion. I enjoy it, others may not.
Don't get me wrong, I love the ability to watch extra games. No argument with that.
Just seems a little bit strangely setup with the breakdown of fees.
There should be some money goes to the home club because they will surely lose some attendance. I am not sure but I was tempted to go to Fleetwood, it is difficult to know if watching on ifollow made a difference in my decision. Knowing that the money goes to Wycombe might make a difference as well.
But I don't agree with Andy Holt's complaints about things always going the way of the clubs with more fans. Maybe in this situation he has a some point that the home team might lose some revenue but in general if a club has more fans then surely they should get more money because they are more sustainable. Isn't it people like him pumping money into clubs with few fans that skews the playing field and makes it difficult for fan owned clubs like ours even though we have more fans/revenue? Has his supposedly generous act for the community of Accrington contributed to other communities suffering from their better supported football club going out of the football league?
I’m assuming that any Wycombe fans who bought through Wycombe’s IFollow portal, 80% would go to Wycombe
If any Fleetwood fans had bought the game through Fleetwood’s IFollow, they would have got 80%?
@PrinceOfCrowell why do you presume that now it's come to light the away team get 80%?
It would make more sense that way. Imagine the reverse fixture - Fleetwood AT Bradford. Say it was a horrible cold wet night and 2000 Bradford fans stay in and watch on iFollow. Fleetwood would pick up a handy £16000 from Bradford fans
And I would imagine for our game at Plymouth - who have a fairly wide spread supporter base outside Devon, there would have been more Plymouth fans watching than Wycombe
The club who’s platform recorded the sale should get the revenue. No Wycombe fan is going to register through Fleetwood ifolllow and vice versa.
It should @OxfordBlue and I assume it does. But it would be nice to know for sure
My understanding is that is exactly how the revenue is allocated @OxfordBlue . Effective split from the platform sold is
selling club £6.66
FL £1.66
VAT £1.66
Not sure how many games are available - we know tues nights are plus international weekends, I suspect we may find that Boxing day, New years day and easter weekend games may well be too.
Nobody will ever know whether this was revenue enhancing for clubs or not as no one knows how many people would have shown up live but decided not to to watch online instead. Obviously we don't (but the clubs do) know how many people sign up for each game.
Its hard to see how this can be a major revenue enhancer though.
If
_500 people watch online for 5 away games per season through WWFC of which 100 would have gone to game), total revenue (5*500*6.66) = £16650
200 people watch online for 5 home games of which 100 would have otherwise gone to the game = Total revenue (20056.66) = £6660
Lost revenue 100 * 5*15 (ex vat terrace) = -£7500
Lost revenue from away support staying at home 100515 = -£7500
Total net revenue earned over season - £8310_
Obviously real numbers will be different from those wild assumptions (and some figures no one will ever know) but hard to see how the net revenue can ever be huge.
On the other hand hard to see how clubs can lose a lot either, so then you are in balancing advantages for fans seeing games they would otherwise miss against potential loss of atmosphere from less people attending.