Tuesday night games on Ifollow. Brilliant or short sighted?

[AFaceInTheCrowd]

Personally I'm no fan of this. Not only will giving £10 match passes decimate midweek away support when it's £20 a ticket home gates will soon begin to suffer. My team Notts took less than 200 last night as people watched online as an alternative to travelling away on a warm August night.

Whilst it's being raved about as a good idea. Should a local derby like Mansfield for us be postponed which it was very close to being last season and gets re arranged on a Tuesday night the club would miss out significantly as £10 match passes online now provide alternatives to going to the game for fans which is scary for lower league clubs.

Before people say I'm slating those who don t or can't travel away on a Tuesday night awaydays and home fixtures which are night kick offs are often non starters for me due to work commitments despite travelling to almost all Saturday away games. I fear this will be incredibly short sighted and will hurt clubs in the long term.

 

[Luke Imp]

They'll be exiles who'll be for it, but for me, I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[valefan16]

Its a good idea in the main, lets be honest 99% of Vale fans wouldn't have gone to Carlisle but got the chance to watch it.

Depending on how the money is distributed from it clubs will likely make more money off it than not... lets look at it this way... say 50 Vale fans at 20 quid a head didn't bother going Carlisle who would have normally...

If the money goes to the club supported - Vale make money out of a game they wouldn't normally see a penny from...

If the money goes to the home team - 1000 people watching on ifollow would see much more made than 2-300 not going.

I personally used to go all home and most away games (and i'm 60 odd miles from Vale Park)

I now have a 3 and 2 year old so don't get to as many anymore, go to 10-15 home games and the odd away one, Crewe and Notts County (which is localish for me) last season were the only games so now I get to watch more games, not costing as much as I now have two kids to support.

To have the option now to watch 6 or 7 more games this season is great! (add another 3 minimum on top for the checkatrade too)

Clubs financially in the main will benefit at our level. I sometimes picked tuesday night games when picking and choosing but will just watch them and go more Saturday games so Vale will benefit from me rather than lose out if anything.

 

[Laker]

Maybe some sort of restriction akin to what they used to do in America would work - is the game is only shown on telly when it’s a sell out. If it’s detrimental to attendances then it’s definitely not a good thing.

 

[Gladders]

Most fans who were going to travel on a Tuesday night will still travel.

It's a good idea, as how many more people who wouldn't have watched it are now paying £10 to watch it? (though not sure how much of that £10 goes to the club)

 

[Bobbin']

If the money goes to the club supported - Vale make money out of a game they wouldn't normally see a penny from...

If the money goes to the home team - 1000 people watching on ifollow would see much more made than 2-300 not going.

There lies the problem.

No-one cares about the fans as long as there is money to be made.

The future of football and especially lower league football is not good when clubs can look to make more money from having half empty stadiums.

 

[Optipez]

I would tweak it to an away match 80 or more miles away. For teams like Carlisle and Exeter whose fans have some massive trips it's good while not adversely affecting actual attendences. For a team like Notts, going to Crewe isn't a bad trip, Newport is a long one , if you don't want to drive the hour and a bit to Crewe, then make do with the radio.
Grounds are empty enough, the EFL shouldn't encourage more of it.

 

[valefan16]

Grounds are empty at this level partly due to the crazy ticket prices across the board in this county. I paid less than half what I’d pay at Vale to watch a top flight Bundesliga game in one of the best stadiums in the world. The people who travel on a Tuesday to far outposts would likely do it regardless. If it went to a case of every game including Saturday matches then I could understand it.

Other option make it the same cost as the home clubs cheapest adult ticket for example to take finance out of the equation to a degree for the locals at least.

 

[northstandexile]

What is wrong is that you could live next door to the ground and still watch on ifollow live.

 

[Vanni]

I don't know if this info is correct, but according to an ex IFollow employee, clubs take 80% of whatever subscribers to the service pay - those living abroad pay a fiver for one game or £110 for a season pass/UK residents pay a tenner for midweek matches and so on.

Secondly, that 80% goes to the club that one follows and not to the club that's playing at home. For example, if Carlisle are at Yeovil and they sell say 800 match passes to their fans (UK/worldwide), those 80% of whatever the total is goes to Carlisle and not to Yeovil.

Basically, the more fans that a club has got the more money they're making out of iFollow, and vice versa of course.

 

[Gladders]

What is wrong is that you could live next door to the ground and still watch on ifollow live.

Yeah but there is no way of getting around that.
This week all Championship games were live on Sky Sports, and by the post above it sounds like clubs get more percentage of takings from ifollow subscribers than if all games were on sky.

As I said above I reckon the amount of people that would have gone to the game but didn't because it was on ifollow is negligible compared to the amount of extra people that could now pay to watch on ifollow that would have just followed it on twitter or whatever.

 

[T.A]

I don't know if this info is correct, but according to an ex IFollow employee, clubs take 80% of whatever subscribers to the service pay - those living abroad pay a fiver for one game or £110 for a season pass/UK residents pay a tenner for midweek matches and so on.

Secondly, that 80% goes to the club that one follows and not to the club that's playing at home. For example, if Carlisle are at Yeovil and they sell say 800 match passes to their fans (UK/worldwide), those 80% of whatever the total is goes to Carlisle and not to Yeovil.

Basically, the more fans that a club has got the more money they're making out of iFollow, and vice versa of course.

Yeah Accy don't do it cause they would lose money. The club has to pay for the equipment and cameraman/woman

 

[valefan16]

Yeah Accy don't do it cause they would lose money. The club has to pay for the equipment and cameraman/woman

Surely all their games are filmed anyway for highlights packages and of course to watch back from a coaching point of view?

 

[T.A]

Surely all their games are filmed anyway for highlights packages and of course to watch back from a coaching point of view?

I’m not sure. I follow Accys chairman on twitter and he’s said they would lose money probably cause not many people would subscribe.

 

[valefan16]

I’m not sure. I follow Accys chairman on twitter and he’s said they would lose money probably cause not many people would subscribe.

In terms of having to pay for camera crew I meant, sorry.

 

[Luke Imp]

Can't vouch for the FL, but in the NL, when BT started their highlight package, they supplied the equipment (unless Club's preferred to use their own) but had to provide the camera crew (or person, I imagine), although they were pointed in the direction of media students who were willing to do it voluntary as part of their studies.

 

[T.A]

Maybe I'm wrong about the reason why they'd lose money but he constantly says when asked that they aren't doing it because they'd lose money - maybe its the commentary side as you'd have to have the equipment for that and either be lucky that you'd get someone to travel everywhere with their own money and do the commentary or you'd have to pay someone. Either way he said its not worth it for a club their size. But they are a small club.

 

[Luke Imp]

iFollow's been covered on other threads, but I thought I'd bring it back to this one after Accrington's Chairman's comments on it earlier in the week.

Long and short of it is that home teams don't get any of the iFollow money - it's split 80% away team and 20% EFL.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1047538687150620672

https://twitter.com/x/status/1047538700303966210

https://twitter.com/x/status/1047538703999127552

https://twitter.com/x/status/1047538706016550913

Maybe worth a read further down his feed where he was answering Q's on it.

https://twitter.com/AndyhHolt

 

[DippyDon]

Is that true for the Checkatrade Trophy too? Because if Home clubs really don't get any of the cash then Luton have really made a massive judgement error in charging us £18 in order for people to not turn up.

 

[Boz]

It’s bad that home clubs don’t get anything. I can see the pitfalls the Accy chair and those on here have highlighted.

 

[Laker]

Yeah that’s not great. I always think of sport as more of a socialist enterprise where the good of the game comes ahead of individual teams. But football at the top shifted away from this mindset a long time ago and it now seems the EFL is following suit more and more.

 

[Luke Imp]

And worryingly, someone, somewhere, genuinely thought it'd be a good idea (and someone else probably signed off) to hand 80% of the income to a team who neither gain or lose financially from ticket sales for an away game yet leave the team who it does impact with nothing!

 

[Davidimp]

This is an awful idea and is all about the bigger/better supported clubs getting richer.
Doesn't help this smaller clubs revenue streams at all.

 

[Moss Rose Silkmen]

From a purely selfish point of view. No way in hell I was dragging myself to Newport on Tuesday so to watch it in HD for £10 was great.

 

[northstandexile]

I think the rules are that the club's website that sells the match pass gets the money.

 

[RebornKirtonRed]

the loss might even be greater as that missing 1,000 would've all paid seperate admission whereas many now can take turns and get together at a mates house, crack open the beers, and watch it for just ONE ifollow £10 pass.

 

[RebornKirtonRed]

and if dads don't go then the future fans of the club, their young children, won't be going either......this complete disruption of the future of football seems to have suddenly happened overnight to the complete suprise of all us match goers......there's got to be something going on in higher circles for it to be such a done-deal so easily, quietly and quickly.

 

[The_Viking_Magpie]

Great points RKR

 

[RebornKirtonRed]

I think the rules are that the club's website that sells the match pass gets the money.

Well, it's 80% of net ( profits ?)..what is the ' net ' - who knows ?..home club still has to provide, accomodate and pay for own cameraman, equipment and commentators although this is often provided free by Uni students as part of a media degree course.

 

[Captain]

In general I think these streams are a positive step but only if the distribution of the cash is weighted in favour of the home side.

If the home club took 80% as the Accrington Chairman suggested you probably wouldn't notice too much difference. The clubs have to film the match/provide commentators etc anyway don't they?

Maybe I'm in the minority but I never gave one seconds thought to going to FGR, Exeter or Newport and I can now pay £10 to access these matches - I think it's great. If the money was distributed "correctly" then these three clubs would benefit from income they were never going to get anyway.