| Andy Holt in tears again 10:00 - Aug 19 with 11644 views | SitfcB |
|  |
| |  |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:48 - Aug 19 with 1536 views | SE1blue |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:01 - Aug 19 by ibbleobble |
All or Nothing Amazon series on Stanley? |
It'd have to be called 'Who Are They?' |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:51 - Aug 19 with 1517 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 12:45 - Aug 19 by chicoazul |
I do see where he’s coming from. He has a good point and it’s one I hadn’t thought of before. |
Do Accrington not use i-follow for their fans when away from home? |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:52 - Aug 19 with 1520 views | SE1blue |
I might have missed it, but what does he offer as a solution?
What does he want? | |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:52 - Aug 19 with 1513 views | SamWhiteUK |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 12:06 - Aug 19 by xrayspecs |
He has a point though. |
What point does he have? |  | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:12 - Aug 19 with 1440 views | Mookamoo |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 11:37 - Aug 19 by Marshalls_Mullet |
He doesn't have any point.
It didn't affect match day attendance.
Just allows our large fan base to watch and provide revenue. They are Ipswich fans so we bring the audience.
He would love to be in our position!! And would do exactly the same as us. |
He also glosses over the time and expense we have put in to rebuild that fan base. 2-3 years ago we would never have thought we would sell that amount of streaming passes to watch Burton. That hasn't just happened by itself. |  | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:19 - Aug 19 with 1414 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
Not the first time he's crying about us.
Gave out some comments about Morsy last January and subsequently apologised. |  | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 with 1415 views | PhilTWTD |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:52 - Aug 19 by SE1blue |
I might have missed it, but what does he offer as a solution?
What does he want? |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|  | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:32 - Aug 19 with 1389 views | HighgateBlue |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
I totally agree - nobody has really sought to address the argument that internet streaming revenue should be split in a similar manner to TV revenue.
However, Holt is more likely a stroppy kid than someone who is supposed to be making a business case. Have the debate, by all means, but just shouting and getting cross with clubs whose fans are engaging with the game and are simply abiding by the current rules is hardly helpful or mature. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:34 - Aug 19 with 1371 views | HighgateBlue |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 12:12 - Aug 19 by Illinoisblue |
I hate so much that we’re having banter wars with Accrington Stanley. This is not something that should be happening. Time to get the fk out of L1 by any means necessary. Accrington, Burton, Cheltenham and others are over-achieving non-league clubs. It’s a disgrace we’re in their league. |
One means of getting out of this league would be relegation - I think that's the point at which I might disagree with you :)
Although there were some who were so bored with the championship that they actually thought relegation would be a good thing! | | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:47 - Aug 19 with 1335 views | jayessess |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 12:23 - Aug 19 by SaleAway |
but if you don't disassociate fanbase size from achievement, you are by definition preserving the status quo... you're essentially saying that no club should be able to grow. |
I think football always has plenty of scope for clubs to overachieve and underachieve relative to their budgets. But I don't think there's any real need for financial arrangements to forcibly make Accrington's budget more competitive relative to the other teams in their division.
I don't see that leagues with promotion and relegation need to have their playing fields levelled - that happens organically as teams enter and leave the league. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 14:52]
|  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:25 - Aug 19 with 1264 views | tivo |
We should honestly all boycott them when we play them away and just all buy Ifollow! |  | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:37 - Aug 19 with 1234 views | clive_baker |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
I don't see the rationale for splitting it evenly though, which is what he's suggested. If we sold 5,000 passes and they sold 200 why should it be 50:50? I understand the TV rights are split like that but I that's a little different and of course its far less measurable how much each club is contributing to the appeal of the division. iFollow is relatively black & white.
Moving back to the model applied through Covid / behind closed doors games is probably a starting point, whereby the home side get 100% of their sales and the first 500 from the away side. Thereafter the away side take the rest. That would represent a contribution towards the hosting of the game and recognition of that, but I don't see why it should be a variable split when certain clubs have far greater appeal (and far greater cost bases which arguably maintain such appeal). |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:45 - Aug 19 with 1184 views | ITFCBlues |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:37 - Aug 19 by clive_baker |
I don't see the rationale for splitting it evenly though, which is what he's suggested. If we sold 5,000 passes and they sold 200 why should it be 50:50? I understand the TV rights are split like that but I that's a little different and of course its far less measurable how much each club is contributing to the appeal of the division. iFollow is relatively black & white.
Moving back to the model applied through Covid / behind closed doors games is probably a starting point, whereby the home side get 100% of their sales and the first 500 from the away side. Thereafter the away side take the rest. That would represent a contribution towards the hosting of the game and recognition of that, but I don't see why it should be a variable split when certain clubs have far greater appeal (and far greater cost bases which arguably maintain such appeal). |
Agree and its equally unfair that we sold 1500 tickets Tuesday yet Burton will bring 150 to 200 to the reverse game. Should we split the sale of away tickets as well? |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:06 - Aug 19 with 1121 views | jayessess |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:37 - Aug 19 by clive_baker |
I don't see the rationale for splitting it evenly though, which is what he's suggested. If we sold 5,000 passes and they sold 200 why should it be 50:50? I understand the TV rights are split like that but I that's a little different and of course its far less measurable how much each club is contributing to the appeal of the division. iFollow is relatively black & white.
Moving back to the model applied through Covid / behind closed doors games is probably a starting point, whereby the home side get 100% of their sales and the first 500 from the away side. Thereafter the away side take the rest. That would represent a contribution towards the hosting of the game and recognition of that, but I don't see why it should be a variable split when certain clubs have far greater appeal (and far greater cost bases which arguably maintain such appeal). |
The comparative aspects related to broadcast revenue are reasonable.
The EFL sells TV rights for its leagues collectively and then distributes that money to clubs. I think there's a fairly straightforward case that the same should apply to internet streaming for the same reasons (every club contributes to the EFL having something to sell, the league as a whole is the intellectual property, therefore you sell the league as a whole and distribute the money evenly).
Of course that completely contradicts Holt's screeching about Accrington's home games being his "intellectual property". They aren't, they're the EFL's and if they weren't he wouldn't deserve his slice of the TV deal.
And of course Holt and Accrington undermine the (reasonable) first case by pursuing the (unreasonable, wrong-headed) second case and also by generally being the least likeable team in the EFL. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 16:07]
| |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:07 - Aug 19 with 1123 views | SaleAway |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
I guess the devil is working out what is fair... perhaps the EFL should set a fixed fee for the away stream, such that the home team always get the first x Thousand , then the remaining amount goes to the away side.
Or you could get clever, and say that the split after that is done on the percentage of the away allocation that the away team sells. So it encourages away clubs to make sure that they market physical attendance higher than streaming. It also encourages home clubs to allocate as many away tickets as they can. ( nothing more annoying than not being able to get an away ticket, and then seeing the home end half full). | |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:13 - Aug 19 with 1100 views | xrayspecs |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 13:52 - Aug 19 by SamWhiteUK |
What point does he have? |
That his club receive no money from our sales. The match is hosted by AS and they are entitled to a share of revenue from the away online sales.
AS receive the gate money from home and away fans. To not get anything from Town fans attending online does not seem fair to me. | | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:20 - Aug 19 with 1064 views | Metal_Hacker |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:13 - Aug 19 by xrayspecs |
That his club receive no money from our sales. The match is hosted by AS and they are entitled to a share of revenue from the away online sales.
AS receive the gate money from home and away fans. To not get anything from Town fans attending online does not seem fair to me. |
He has two choices |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:24 - Aug 19 with 1056 views | clive_baker |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:06 - Aug 19 by jayessess |
The comparative aspects related to broadcast revenue are reasonable.
The EFL sells TV rights for its leagues collectively and then distributes that money to clubs. I think there's a fairly straightforward case that the same should apply to internet streaming for the same reasons (every club contributes to the EFL having something to sell, the league as a whole is the intellectual property, therefore you sell the league as a whole and distribute the money evenly).
Of course that completely contradicts Holt's screeching about Accrington's home games being his "intellectual property". They aren't, they're the EFL's and if they weren't he wouldn't deserve his slice of the TV deal.
And of course Holt and Accrington undermine the (reasonable) first case by pursuing the (unreasonable, wrong-headed) second case and also by generally being the least likeable team in the EFL. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 16:07]
|
That's where I think there's a clear distinction though. If you're packaging up the TV rights for the league in its entirety to sell, it makes sense that the proceeds are distributed evenly among all the participants. Especially as you don't know who will be the big ticket club in 3 years time when that deal runs to, we could be bottom and they could be top. Sunderland probably played a role in the attractiveness last time it went to tender for example, and now they're not in it. It's hard to quantify that and split it 'proportionately' even if you were minded to. This time next year Morecambe could be flavour of the month, popping it around like peak Brazil and could've found thousands of Tyson Fury fans from somehere, and it's then them that's bumping up the viewing figures, and them that SKY want to put on the TV. There's many unknowns, and ultimately it's 24 clubs contributing to that product.
I think it's different when there's an immediate, incremental revenue stream which is an entirely measurable in its split between clubs / demand. I think the home side should take some sort of fixed fee perhaps, or first 500 away sales, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest the iFollow revenues are split 50:50 (I think he actually suggested all to the home side at one point which is even more ridiculous) when there's such a huge disparity in terms of who is attracting those viewers. | |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:53 - Aug 19 with 987 views | jayessess |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:24 - Aug 19 by clive_baker |
That's where I think there's a clear distinction though. If you're packaging up the TV rights for the league in its entirety to sell, it makes sense that the proceeds are distributed evenly among all the participants. Especially as you don't know who will be the big ticket club in 3 years time when that deal runs to, we could be bottom and they could be top. Sunderland probably played a role in the attractiveness last time it went to tender for example, and now they're not in it. It's hard to quantify that and split it 'proportionately' even if you were minded to. This time next year Morecambe could be flavour of the month, popping it around like peak Brazil and could've found thousands of Tyson Fury fans from somehere, and it's then them that's bumping up the viewing figures, and them that SKY want to put on the TV. There's many unknowns, and ultimately it's 24 clubs contributing to that product.
I think it's different when there's an immediate, incremental revenue stream which is an entirely measurable in its split between clubs / demand. I think the home side should take some sort of fixed fee perhaps, or first 500 away sales, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest the iFollow revenues are split 50:50 (I think he actually suggested all to the home side at one point which is even more ridiculous) when there's such a huge disparity in terms of who is attracting those viewers. |
But I'd say that's also the argument that advocates of pay per view TV football put forward for years - that it would be fairer if you could sell TV rights per fixture with the bulk of the money going to the big draws, rather than distributed amongst everyone.
TV has had the technology to do such things for decades, but the leagues chose to organise their media rights collectively instead and could vote to organise their streaming rights in the same way. I think it'd be fair and consistent if they did, even if I don't see the present system as especially unfair (just fair in a different way!).
The current arrangement might also have some consequences down the line. If the 3pm blackout goes and if the big Premier League decide they want similar exclusive rights to revenue from streaming their games then it has the potential to blow up English football finance entirely. [Post edited 19 Aug 2022 16:56]
| |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:55 - Aug 19 with 979 views | Mookamoo |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 16:24 - Aug 19 by clive_baker |
That's where I think there's a clear distinction though. If you're packaging up the TV rights for the league in its entirety to sell, it makes sense that the proceeds are distributed evenly among all the participants. Especially as you don't know who will be the big ticket club in 3 years time when that deal runs to, we could be bottom and they could be top. Sunderland probably played a role in the attractiveness last time it went to tender for example, and now they're not in it. It's hard to quantify that and split it 'proportionately' even if you were minded to. This time next year Morecambe could be flavour of the month, popping it around like peak Brazil and could've found thousands of Tyson Fury fans from somehere, and it's then them that's bumping up the viewing figures, and them that SKY want to put on the TV. There's many unknowns, and ultimately it's 24 clubs contributing to that product.
I think it's different when there's an immediate, incremental revenue stream which is an entirely measurable in its split between clubs / demand. I think the home side should take some sort of fixed fee perhaps, or first 500 away sales, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest the iFollow revenues are split 50:50 (I think he actually suggested all to the home side at one point which is even more ridiculous) when there's such a huge disparity in terms of who is attracting those viewers. |
A fixed fee as a way to share some revenue is perfectly reasonable for the home team, espcially when some of the teams in this league can't offer the away ticket space. They can't expect a 50/50 split.
There has to be an acknowledgement that targeted streaming is not the same as general broadcast. | | | |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 17:11 - Aug 19 with 951 views | GeoffSentence |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 10:03 - Aug 19 by Kieran_Knows |
We've given that bloke the best part of £3m the last few years, and he's still bleating on. |
He's probably a little narked that we have stopped funding his pet project |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 17:22 - Aug 19 with 931 views | SE1blue |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
Thanks Phil. That seems pretty rational and better than his ranting.
Just wish the guy could praise clubs who sell out his ground too and compliment the level of interest and engagement that other clubs bring to his low-demand outfit. | |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 17:30 - Aug 19 with 911 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
But Burton have already been paid for putting on the game. The 5000 I follow tickets didn't mean Burton had to do anymore work, they didn't lose out on anything either. |  |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 17:39 - Aug 19 with 897 views | SlippinJimmyJuan |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 14:30 - Aug 19 by PhilTWTD |
Proceeds split equally as per the TV deal. I actually don't disagree with him and I think it's a fair argument that Burton put on a game the other night and yet receive nothing from 5,000 or so who paid to watch that event.
|
I'm not sure I see the argument. Tickets are finite, streams are not. Why should my money go to a club that doesn't have space for me to physically attend? If the away allocation is sold out (as ours often will be this season) then why should a club like Stanley benefit from our large support? | |
| |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 17:44 - Aug 19 with 873 views | berkstractorboy |
| Andy Holt in tears again on 15:25 - Aug 19 by tivo |
We should honestly all boycott them when we play them away and just all buy Ifollow! |
We just shouldn't, how would that help our players, time and again they have said how much the excellent away support has helped. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
