| The iFollow debate 11:42 - Jul 18 with 3289 views | STYG |
I know Andy Holt was respected a lot on here, but may have lost a fair bit of that good will with his antics last year, but am interested to see what people think on this.
I have an opinion that I have not seen anyone else state yet that seems fair, so wondered what TWTD thought of this.
We got all the money for out iFollow purchases because our fans were paying to see our club. So I get why we feel we should have the money. What Holt is saying is that, if Accrington are at home, they should get the money as this would be fairer.
I hate parachute payments and think there should be a lot more equality but for me, this would be the fairest system.
Give the home club the revenue up to the amount of unsold away tickets that were being made available (caps for away fans to be put in place at the start of the season to avoid abusing this)
So if Ipswich play at Accrington, who give us 1,200 tickets and we sell 900, then they get the first 300 iFollow sales, after which ITFC get all the profit.
Ultimately these people are paying to watch Ipswich or Derby or Wednesday and not Accrington or Fleetwood or Burton. So I don't see why this should be shared equally. It is a direct revenue based on the clubs own relationship with its fans and how many are willing to pay to watch THEIR team.
The only argument for the smaller team is fans may not buy tickets and may stay at home to watch it. Hence making them whole from the figures, or even giving them iFollow money equivalent to the unsold tickets, so if 200 Ipswich seats at Accrington are unsold at £20 each (£4,000) and Ipswich sell 6,000 iFollow passes at £10 each (£6,000) then Accrington take £4k and we keep the £2k. If we sell out the away seats, we keep all £6k.
A version of this seems fair to me as a compromise. Make smaller clubs whole and allow bigger clubs to keep the revenue that they have ultimately generated. [Post edited 18 Jul 2022 11:45]
|  | | |  |
| The iFollow debate on 15:45 - Jul 18 with 683 views | mutters |
| The iFollow debate on 15:14 - Jul 18 by STYG |
It has too because there's no promotion or relegation.
I'm a big NFL fan, but if they didn't have the salary cap, draft and so on then the same few teams would likely win it.
No doubt years ago the Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Bears would have scooped up all the investment and the smaller market teams would be cannon fodder. |
Completely agree, without the salary cap the bigger teams would have all the glory, not that different from the Premier League / top-flight football. It's even worse now due to the huge amounts of money.
When i was a kid the likes of Tampa Bay and New Orleans were just awful and now they both have won the Superbowl at least once. It's not the perfect model but it does at least try to give some sort of parity to the teams that play. |  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 15:56 - Jul 18 with 658 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 15:45 - Jul 18 by mutters |
Completely agree, without the salary cap the bigger teams would have all the glory, not that different from the Premier League / top-flight football. It's even worse now due to the huge amounts of money.
When i was a kid the likes of Tampa Bay and New Orleans were just awful and now they both have won the Superbowl at least once. It's not the perfect model but it does at least try to give some sort of parity to the teams that play. |
Then there are teams like the Titans that have got to the big game, the Bills almost did, Green Bay are a small market side that have been at the top of the tree for decades that would likely have been one of those out of it. Bengals last year, Jags have had their moments over the last decade reaching playoffs.
That's the beauty of the NFL. You can dominate a team for years and then the tables turn. As someone else said, it's crazy that it's the USA given that everything else they'd just sell out to the highest bidder.
It makes American sports fascinating but it's the most un-American thing ever! | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 18:04 - Jul 18 with 598 views | shady |
Interesting Debate; on how to bring about fairness in sport.
Right now it's horribly biased in favour of the 'big' clubs.
But is this sport?
Historically two major abominations happened in 60's football:
The wage cap went.
Gate money stopped being shared 50:50.
This was a knee jerk reaction to the sporting ability of Burnley and Ipswich
winning the first division.
Big clubs did not like that. |  | | |
| The iFollow debate on 21:43 - Jul 18 with 528 views | southnorfolkblue |
I thought that I read somewhere that we were looking to set up our own streaming service which would take us out of IFollow? If that were to happen the only way that we are going to be able to stream games at places like Accrington is on their terms. | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 02:33 - Jul 19 with 474 views | BondiBlue |
| The iFollow debate on 12:35 - Jul 18 by jeera |
But on the opposing fixture the other team will be fronting any costs.
Holt's problem isn't ifollow's distribution, it's that some other clubs have a larger following than his.
I'm not sure those clubs should be penalised for building that base or that any other club should benefit from it.
Our aspirations are higher than say those of AS and as such need to be funded accordingly. It's up to them to get more people through their own gates, be it in the real sense or the virtual. [Post edited 18 Jul 2022 12:36]
|
Hang on, our aspirations are higher than Accrington Stanley's? Do we want to win football matches more than they do? | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 02:34 - Jul 19 with 474 views | bournemouthblue |
| The iFollow debate on 21:43 - Jul 18 by southnorfolkblue |
I thought that I read somewhere that we were looking to set up our own streaming service which would take us out of IFollow? If that were to happen the only way that we are going to be able to stream games at places like Accrington is on their terms. |
Do the teams that offer their own services get away games, surely that's part of iFollow's network arrangement or do these other services having to buy the away game coverage off iFollow?
Surely away games are more profitable than home games with more home fans not able to make the game?
If we made £750k from iFollow last year, what on earth were we making during the CoVid seasons
I appreciate this would pale into insignificance with the loss in match ticket revenue |  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 12:43 - Jul 19 with 384 views | southnorfolkblue |
| The iFollow debate on 02:34 - Jul 19 by bournemouthblue |
Do the teams that offer their own services get away games, surely that's part of iFollow's network arrangement or do these other services having to buy the away game coverage off iFollow?
Surely away games are more profitable than home games with more home fans not able to make the game?
If we made £750k from iFollow last year, what on earth were we making during the CoVid seasons
I appreciate this would pale into insignificance with the loss in match ticket revenue |
I don’t know the answer, which is in part why I posted what I did. My understanding is that the current IFollow contract with the EFL ends at the end of next season, so I’d imagine at that point clubs will go off and do their own thing. In the case of Stanley they may not bother. If we wanted to stream a game at their place we’d have to make it worth their while. | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 15:22 - Jul 19 with 346 views | jeera |
| The iFollow debate on 02:33 - Jul 19 by BondiBlue |
Hang on, our aspirations are higher than Accrington Stanley's? Do we want to win football matches more than they do? |
I'm sure that sounded brilliant in your head. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The iFollow debate on 11:28 - Jul 20 with 272 views | BondiBlue |
| The iFollow debate on 15:22 - Jul 19 by jeera |
I'm sure that sounded brilliant in your head. |
Doesn't sound too bad written down either. I know what you were saying but the argument that "we have a chance of winning the league whereas you don't" shouldn't really come into this debate, especially if we're accusing holt of only looking out for himself in the same breath. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
