Fri Nov 13, 2020 10:37 pm
Sat Nov 14, 2020 12:35 am
Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:23 am
worcester_ccfc wrote:Good news.
But I've seen people slating Sky and BT for it, when I really isn't their fault. They are just the hosts and were only taking a small fee to cover their costs of covering these games.
The Premier League does need a long-term solution to this though, as it is unlikely there will be fans at games for the remainder of the season.
Pay-per-view was never going to work, they tried it years ago and not many people used it then.
Perhaps the answer is to do what they're doing for the next two game weeks, which is just show every match through their broadcast partners at no extra cost.
The problem is Premier League clubs are losing money from this. EFL clubs are at least able to stream games to fans for a small cost, with games that are not on Sky.
This situation has nothing to do with helping out EFL clubs by the way, discussions are still ongoing about that.
They are willing to help out clubs in League One and League Two, but are reluctant to help out wealthy Championship owners - which I'm sure many people can understand.
Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:09 am
skidemin wrote:worcester_ccfc wrote:Good news.
But I've seen people slating Sky and BT for it, when I really isn't their fault. They are just the hosts and were only taking a small fee to cover their costs of covering these games.
The Premier League does need a long-term solution to this though, as it is unlikely there will be fans at games for the remainder of the season.
Pay-per-view was never going to work, they tried it years ago and not many people used it then.
Perhaps the answer is to do what they're doing for the next two game weeks, which is just show every match through their broadcast partners at no extra cost.
The problem is Premier League clubs are losing money from this. EFL clubs are at least able to stream games to fans for a small cost, with games that are not on Sky.
This situation has nothing to do with helping out EFL clubs by the way, discussions are still ongoing about that.
They are willing to help out clubs in League One and League Two, but are reluctant to help out wealthy Championship owners - which I'm sure many people can understand.
championship games are pay per view and not much fuss....?
Sat Nov 14, 2020 2:30 am
worcester_ccfc wrote:skidemin wrote:worcester_ccfc wrote:Good news.
But I've seen people slating Sky and BT for it, when I really isn't their fault. They are just the hosts and were only taking a small fee to cover their costs of covering these games.
The Premier League does need a long-term solution to this though, as it is unlikely there will be fans at games for the remainder of the season.
Pay-per-view was never going to work, they tried it years ago and not many people used it then.
Perhaps the answer is to do what they're doing for the next two game weeks, which is just show every match through their broadcast partners at no extra cost.
The problem is Premier League clubs are losing money from this. EFL clubs are at least able to stream games to fans for a small cost, with games that are not on Sky.
This situation has nothing to do with helping out EFL clubs by the way, discussions are still ongoing about that.
They are willing to help out clubs in League One and League Two, but are reluctant to help out wealthy Championship owners - which I'm sure many people can understand.
championship games are pay per view and not much fuss....?
£4.95 cheaper and they are paying their clubs directly.
Premier League fans are paying their money to Sky and BT, and many probably don't even know that most of the money goes to their club.
That's what I mean when the Premier League should allow their clubs to do exactly the same what EFL clubs are doing.