| The iFollow debate 11:42 - Jul 18 with 3288 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 11:54 - Jul 18 with 2512 views | earlsgreenblue |
As football is never a level playing field, & if you as a director think your not getting your share, opt out & do your own tv thing, as Ipswich are doing next year!
The next argument could be for equality on gate ticket prices…….ain’t going to work, just because team “a” only has an average 9000 attendance & team “b” is 20000.
If you want it to be more equal then deduct points for poor playing surfaces…….. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:06 - Jul 18 with 2439 views | Kievthegreat |
I understand Andy Holt's and other small clubs issues. It's no different to Man United/City, Liverpool, Chelsea, etc... turning round and saying they need double the share of everyone else in the premier league because the majority if TV customers are paying to watch them, not Brighton or Bournemouth.
I imagine the resolution will be that the home club gets some share of revenue, and that doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. |  | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:07 - Jul 18 with 2424 views | Dennyx4 |
I don't think your suggestion, would necessarily help the smaller clubs. Most of the bigger clubs in the league will sell out at Accrington.
The bigger clubs (Sheff Wed etc) could say there are 6/7000 tickets available for away fans every game, to ensure they picked up all of the revenue from Ifollow for their home games.
Even Milton Keynes could state there are 7000 away tickets available for every game.
Andy holt is looking after Andy Holt - no shock there, but I lost any respect for him, after his reaction at Ipswich last year. |  | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:09 - Jul 18 with 2388 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 12:07 - Jul 18 by Dennyx4 |
I don't think your suggestion, would necessarily help the smaller clubs. Most of the bigger clubs in the league will sell out at Accrington.
The bigger clubs (Sheff Wed etc) could say there are 6/7000 tickets available for away fans every game, to ensure they picked up all of the revenue from Ifollow for their home games.
Even Milton Keynes could state there are 7000 away tickets available for every game.
Andy holt is looking after Andy Holt - no shock there, but I lost any respect for him, after his reaction at Ipswich last year. |
This is it though.
If we would take 7,000 to MK and they offer us 7,000 then they get that money.
If we'd take 3,000 to Accrington for a big match and they can only offer us 1,500 seats then any lost away fans are not something they should financially benefit from.
That's just how it is. I've got no issues with bigger clubs than us having a bigger share than us if we go up or reach the Premier League. It is quite simply fair. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:13 - Jul 18 with 2343 views | Dennyx4 |
| The iFollow debate on 12:09 - Jul 18 by STYG |
This is it though.
If we would take 7,000 to MK and they offer us 7,000 then they get that money.
If we'd take 3,000 to Accrington for a big match and they can only offer us 1,500 seats then any lost away fans are not something they should financially benefit from.
That's just how it is. I've got no issues with bigger clubs than us having a bigger share than us if we go up or reach the Premier League. It is quite simply fair. |
Just don't think it helps the smaller clubs.
In my opinion, you either need to give the Home club all of the revenue from Ifollow or keep as it is - Too many loop holes, to get the suggestion to work | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:17 - Jul 18 with 2296 views | Kievthegreat |
| The iFollow debate on 12:13 - Jul 18 by Dennyx4 |
Just don't think it helps the smaller clubs.
In my opinion, you either need to give the Home club all of the revenue from Ifollow or keep as it is - Too many loop holes, to get the suggestion to work |
Why not just share a set percentage? 10% or 20% for instance? No complicated Maths involved. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:19 - Jul 18 with 2283 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 12:13 - Jul 18 by Dennyx4 |
Just don't think it helps the smaller clubs.
In my opinion, you either need to give the Home club all of the revenue from Ifollow or keep as it is - Too many loop holes, to get the suggestion to work |
On what basis should the home club benefit though?
It's not supposed to help the smaller clubs. It's supposed to be fair.
It's doesn't help Accrington that we get 28,000 and they get 2,000. But it's fair.
If 7,000 Town fans buy iFollow and 100 Accrington fans why should they get all the revenue as the home team? That's what gate receipts are for. They get to keep all / the majority of those in league matches.
Believe me. I wish football was more equal and there are some examples where it is not fair, but I don't see fair here being anything other than the club benefitting from what is sold to their own fans.
I've offered something between fair and even to help the smaller clubs a little bit more, which arguably shouldn't be done. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:22 - Jul 18 with 2264 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
He’s saying it should pooled and split equally like other media income. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The iFollow debate on 12:27 - Jul 18 with 2184 views | itfcjoe |
I've just put a Post on The Athletic story saying similar to this, makes sense to me:
There have been games in the last season, like one at Accrington when Ipswich sold more streams than what the capacity of the stadium even is, let alone what the away end can hold - on the flip side there are teams like MK who give huge away allocations to teams and then the streams sold for their games are low.
I think that home clubs should get compensation for unsold seats that are genuinely available for sale, but once you go above that level then the selling team should be able to see the benefits of some of the financial muscle of their fanbase - bigger clubs with bigger fanbases, and more importantly bigger cost bases, are the ones selling these passes - marketing them, having the facilities to take payments etc
A balance is needed, but Andy Holt is more one eyed than any other owner in this league, he was quite happy to end football for covid because the set up at his club is totally different to the rest in the league - the big going concerns lost fortunes whilst he furloughed the whole club. |  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 12:28 - Jul 18 with 2169 views | Kievthegreat |
| The iFollow debate on 12:19 - Jul 18 by STYG |
On what basis should the home club benefit though?
It's not supposed to help the smaller clubs. It's supposed to be fair.
It's doesn't help Accrington that we get 28,000 and they get 2,000. But it's fair.
If 7,000 Town fans buy iFollow and 100 Accrington fans why should they get all the revenue as the home team? That's what gate receipts are for. They get to keep all / the majority of those in league matches.
Believe me. I wish football was more equal and there are some examples where it is not fair, but I don't see fair here being anything other than the club benefitting from what is sold to their own fans.
I've offered something between fair and even to help the smaller clubs a little bit more, which arguably shouldn't be done. |
Should Accrington then have the right to not stream the game? Andy Holt said on twitter a couple of weeks back he'd rather just not stream the game under the current deal. It seems weird that the EFL can force a club to stream a game, potentially affecting live attendance (IMO the jury is still out), and the home club get effectively zero compensation.
To get another example, in the FA cup get receipts are shared. Is it you opinion that if Non-League FC get a tie at Old Trafford which will be televised. Surely 50% isn't their fair share of he revenue from TV and gate receipts? | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:30 - Jul 18 with 2138 views | Illinoisblue |
That’s Holt’s point though, you’re not playing to watch your club in isolation, you’re paying to watch them play another team as part of an EFL league. In your Accrington example Holt is paying to put on the product - the match - so it’s not fair a bigger rival can make money off that. |  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 12:34 - Jul 18 with 2094 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 12:28 - Jul 18 by Kievthegreat |
Should Accrington then have the right to not stream the game? Andy Holt said on twitter a couple of weeks back he'd rather just not stream the game under the current deal. It seems weird that the EFL can force a club to stream a game, potentially affecting live attendance (IMO the jury is still out), and the home club get effectively zero compensation.
To get another example, in the FA cup get receipts are shared. Is it you opinion that if Non-League FC get a tie at Old Trafford which will be televised. Surely 50% isn't their fair share of he revenue from TV and gate receipts? |
You could argue that when Man Utd play Canvey Island that a lot of neutrals are watching the tie.
Whilst 99.9% of the fans of the clubs are United fans, the FA Cup has rules where the revenue is shared by way of gate receipts.
This is not a PL or EFL rule for their own league competitions. If Accrington are picked on TV to play Ipswich or Derby they do get 50% don't they?
This is just Holt arguing for what is best for Accrington, not what is fair, which is fine for him to do. But a bit rich to villify the EFL as he does for doing what is fair.
Holt would rather not stream it because last season one of their games (if I recall correctly) sold less than 20 iFollow passes (read it on Twitter so not sure how real it was but other clubs numbers looked about right). They only get about 1,500 to games.
He probably would be happy to lose £200 if it meant us or Derby or Wednesday losing £6,000. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 12:35 - Jul 18 with 2089 views | jeera |
| The iFollow debate on 12:30 - Jul 18 by Illinoisblue |
That’s Holt’s point though, you’re not playing to watch your club in isolation, you’re paying to watch them play another team as part of an EFL league. In your Accrington example Holt is paying to put on the product - the match - so it’s not fair a bigger rival can make money off that. |
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]
|  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 13:02 - Jul 18 with 1913 views | Kievthegreat |
| 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]
|
Surely his point is that he is being forced to stream his team's games so someone else can make money on them? He's obviously looking out for his team, and I'm sure when stuff is being thrashed out that Ashton will be looking out for us. Not sure why that's viewed as a negative by some on this thread personally.
However as someone who isn't making financial decisions, I can see why he isn't happy with the current arrangements and I agree with him that I don't think they are currently fair. I'm sure he'd love all the revenue for games at Accrington, but I think that would be just as unfair. I think there is a reasonable middle ground where the home club is compensated for potential lost revenue and the large club rewarded for a large and loyal fanbase. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 13:08 - Jul 18 with 1885 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 13:02 - Jul 18 by Kievthegreat |
Surely his point is that he is being forced to stream his team's games so someone else can make money on them? He's obviously looking out for his team, and I'm sure when stuff is being thrashed out that Ashton will be looking out for us. Not sure why that's viewed as a negative by some on this thread personally.
However as someone who isn't making financial decisions, I can see why he isn't happy with the current arrangements and I agree with him that I don't think they are currently fair. I'm sure he'd love all the revenue for games at Accrington, but I think that would be just as unfair. I think there is a reasonable middle ground where the home club is compensated for potential lost revenue and the large club rewarded for a large and loyal fanbase. |
Yeah that's basically what I have proposed.
I am not sure what the actual costs of streaming the match are.
Surely, there's no cost to any club to have one camera streaming live (if above the initial outlay of a camera).
It's not like they are offering five cameras and have to pay Ian Wright and Alan Shearer to analyse is. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 13:41 - Jul 18 with 1790 views | Illinoisblue |
| 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]
|
There’s always disparity in football. Accrington and Colchester are essentially non league clubs who are over performing and find themselves competing against clubs who are literally 10 times bigger than they are. Football’s always had that. The trick is finding the right balance of fairness for everybody. | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 14:16 - Jul 18 with 1723 views | SheffordBlue |
Personally think it would be fairer to split it in the same way that ticket revenue is currently split. Home team get most of the away fans ticket money but away team get a %. | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 14:54 - Jul 18 with 1628 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 14:16 - Jul 18 by SheffordBlue |
Personally think it would be fairer to split it in the same way that ticket revenue is currently split. Home team get most of the away fans ticket money but away team get a %. |
Why would that be fair though?
If the home team can only accommodate 800 away fans and gets 2,000 in the stadium but the away team sells 7,000 iFollow passes.
Why should the home team receive most of that? | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 15:11 - Jul 18 with 1574 views | Veggie |
Andy Holt is a self-serving little tw4t. He was also very vocal in his support of the wage cap which was introduced and then subsequently quashed for being restraint of trade.
He also got Morsy banned for sh1thousery, which is a bit like the Jimmy Savile complaining because he finds someone a bit noncey. [Post edited 18 Jul 2022 15:15]
|  | | |
| The iFollow debate on 15:11 - Jul 18 with 1576 views | mutters |
The NFL simply shares all TV money between the 32 teams that compete. It allows for a more equal playing field and provides a leveler. They also have a salary cap which has to be adhered to.
It's not a perfect league but with respect to trying to create a competitive level playing field, it certainly does more than football does. |  |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 15:14 - Jul 18 with 1565 views | STYG |
| The iFollow debate on 15:11 - Jul 18 by mutters |
The NFL simply shares all TV money between the 32 teams that compete. It allows for a more equal playing field and provides a leveler. They also have a salary cap which has to be adhered to.
It's not a perfect league but with respect to trying to create a competitive level playing field, it certainly does more than football does. |
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. | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 15:22 - Jul 18 with 1534 views | DJR |
| The iFollow debate on 15:11 - Jul 18 by mutters |
The NFL simply shares all TV money between the 32 teams that compete. It allows for a more equal playing field and provides a leveler. They also have a salary cap which has to be adhered to.
It's not a perfect league but with respect to trying to create a competitive level playing field, it certainly does more than football does. |
It's strange that the US, arguably the most capitalistic country in the world, operates such a system, which seems almost socialist in nature. I, for one, would certainly welcome a return to the period, probably prior to the 80s, when gate receipts were much more fairly shared. This meant that teams like Derby, Forest and Ipswich could compete at the highest level, whereas, these days the little clubs have no chance, Leicester being the exception which proves the rule. It would would also benefit teams like Accrington. [Post edited 18 Jul 2022 15:23]
|  | | |
| The iFollow debate on 15:37 - Jul 18 with 1488 views | Veggie |
| The iFollow debate on 15:22 - Jul 18 by DJR |
It's strange that the US, arguably the most capitalistic country in the world, operates such a system, which seems almost socialist in nature. I, for one, would certainly welcome a return to the period, probably prior to the 80s, when gate receipts were much more fairly shared. This meant that teams like Derby, Forest and Ipswich could compete at the highest level, whereas, these days the little clubs have no chance, Leicester being the exception which proves the rule. It would would also benefit teams like Accrington. [Post edited 18 Jul 2022 15:23]
|
Little old Leicester and their multi-billionaire owners | | | |
| The iFollow debate on 15:41 - Jul 18 with 1479 views | SheffordBlue |
| The iFollow debate on 14:54 - Jul 18 by STYG |
Why would that be fair though?
If the home team can only accommodate 800 away fans and gets 2,000 in the stadium but the away team sells 7,000 iFollow passes.
Why should the home team receive most of that? |
The Home club are the one putting on the game and for me it is fair that they receive something for that. There have been entire philosophical treatise written on the concept of fairness so I'm not sure they'll ever find a solution that feels fair to everyone! | |
| |
| The iFollow debate on 15:44 - Jul 18 with 1466 views | Skip_Intro |
| The iFollow debate on 15:41 - Jul 18 by SheffordBlue |
The Home club are the one putting on the game and for me it is fair that they receive something for that. There have been entire philosophical treatise written on the concept of fairness so I'm not sure they'll ever find a solution that feels fair to everyone! |
they would put the game on whether iFollow existed or not...it doesn't cost them any extra for 10,000 iFollow viewers - no extra stewards, tecketing costs, catering costs etc etc. You could argue it might prevent people from travelling but that would be easy to assess from ticket sales vs previous matches against the same opposition... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
