@BalladMan couple of things on your financial analysis. The revenue from each £10 stream purchased is £8.33 (+VAT = £10)
According to the Colchester chap "the home team receives all the revenue from the home streams plus up to 500 sales from the away streams" We've not been quoted how many streams any of our visiting teams have sold, just how many CAFC have sold
so: Don 2166 = Charlton 18042 (+ maximum 4165 away) - Doncaster unknown Lincoln 3350 = Charton 23740 (it's an away game) - Lincoln 4165 + all their home streams Sund'd 3472 = Charlton 28921 (+maximum 4165 away) - Sund'd unknown Wigan 3765 = Charlton 31362 (+maximum 4165 away) - Wigan unknown
@StigThundercock Good points and thanks for the corrections. I have carried out a little more digging (as the numbers were just not adding up to me, as surely there are some running costs for the streams) and it appears the league two have the distribution as outlined by the Colchester chairman, but league one (and the champ for that matter) differ as follows:
Each division voted on how to split the revenue. In the Championship, home clubs take all the money from streams they sell. In League One, it is split by a formula devising what the attendance might have been. And in League Two, the hosts take the first 500 streams sold by the away team.
So who knows what we make in terms of revenue per game, as the numbers posted above are Valley Pass only streams (not including streams for the away team ifollow streams).
Add in the fact that you could buy a season pass for £140 (now £195) it muddys the waters even further.
I think I will stop guessing and just wait for official word from someone who knows the facts
Interesting. Not sure how they decide what the attendance would have been, especially for club in different divisions last season, as you'd expect (in normal circumstances) our gates to be lower than last season after relegation, and Crewe's to be higher after promotion, of course countered by the boost to "expected" gates from the takeover
Completely agree and makes no sense who they would work it out other than averages. I was equally confused about the 500 away fans rule noted in the opening post as I could not see why Sunderland (who regularly take 3k away) and Pompey would put up with that, but thought they may have been charitable to distribute the wealth (and the wage cap got through also, so I will believe anything can be passed through EFL if they want to).
The odd thing is, the split is completely pointless anyway, as each club runs their own ifollow / Valley Pass equivalent, so why not just let them keep the monies raised by these platforms? I have no need (and I doubt anyone does) go to Blackpools ifollow as a Charlton fan and stream last nights game, I just did it on Valley Pass. Just let the £10 from Valley Pass go to Charlton.
It's funny how everyone wants bigger clubs to share TV revenue with smaller clubs until they become a bigger club!
So Charlton are playing Barcelona at the Valley in the champions league. Maybe 20k Charlton supporters watch the game on TV but 20 million around the world tune in to see Messi and co.
Is it really fair to give Barca 1000 times more revenue than Charlton?
If Barcelona were running a streaming service that their fans signed up via and Charlton did the same, yes, the fair distribution of income would be for the club keep the monies the platform generated. If it was all coming via a central platform (e.g. ifollow.com or TV) then we would need a fairer distribution of the income of course (which is what happens now)
I am a bit of a capitalist bastard, so to say 'it's funny how everyone wants bigger clubs to share TV revenue....' is not entirely true. I think the clubs should be free to keep the revenue generated by their platform as they did the marketing and brought the fans in. I don't agree that the premier league should bail out the lower leagues, it should be the government in the way they have supported all other community industries.
Comments
I am a bit of a capitalist bastard, so to say 'it's funny how everyone wants bigger clubs to share TV revenue....' is not entirely true. I think the clubs should be free to keep the revenue generated by their platform as they did the marketing and brought the fans in. I don't agree that the premier league should bail out the lower leagues, it should be the government in the way they have supported all other community industries.