The Accrington Chair is fair enough right. Is it now definitive that the game won't be available anywhere on a stream? Or is there a decision to await?
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Trying to stop streaming is like trying to hold back the tide, clubs should embrace it and start to produce a quality product presentation wise that will attract more viewers.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
I wonder what the figures for Accrington have been over the last couple of seasons:
2019/20: Their season was cancelled after 35-games, completely missing out on five games of revenue 2020/21: They had no fans at any home games... iFollow will have helped massively 2021/22: Fans allowed back into Stadiums.
What I can see from one website is their average attendances in their last two full seasons, where fans have been allowed into Grounds every game:
2021/22: Their average was - 2915 2018/19: Their average was - 2763 (Its worth noting that Accrington didnt allow iFollow this season either).
So ironically - When Accrington have had iFollow in use, their attendances have gone up... Not down.
Maybe this'll even hurt them
With the cost of living / cost of travel going up, surely its better to get £10 from a fan through iFollow, than it is to get £20 (or however much a ticket is), especially when its not just the entry fee a visiting supporter will have to pay (I found ten years ago when I used to do away games, that one trip can cost at least £50 once everything is factored in) - After all, despite League One having mainly Northern teams, there are only three sides that are within an hours journey of Accrington.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Do you think so? The letter is prompting me to go to Accrington, at a cost of probably over £100, rather than be reduced to the highly unsatisfactory audio only commentary. So in that respect the Accrington man is right. Isn’t one answer to charge more, maybe £20/25 for people to watch the game? (How much does a big boxing match cost?). £25 would still be a cheaper option than schlepping to Accrington.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
No because they've made the decision not to attend since COVID whether that is home or away. It shows that no matter if you're young or older, the demand is growing for streams and if it legal or not, most people will find a way if they want to.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
And yet there's people on here who think that ending the 3pm blackout wouldn't hurt attendances.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
And yet there's people on here who think that ending the 3pm blackout wouldn't hurt attendances.
Does it really matter if you are paying the same price as a season ticket? The club has got extra income from me that I would have never spent if streaming wasn't an option.
Can't make many home games. Equally, having the stream doesn't stop me going to roughly 10 northern away games a season.
Personally, I just like having the option to watch my team every game and I'm willing to pay for it.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
No because they've made the decision not to attend since COVID whether that is home or away. It shows that no matter if you're young or older, the demand is growing for streams and if it legal or not, most people will find a way if they want to.
Still a bit lost here. Stanley should allow ifollow in to cover games so that people can watch hooky streams of it for free? Or are you saying something else?
In the end you have to be a very sad person to make a decision not to go and do something simply because it's on TV.
Why go to Glastonbury when it's on TV. Why go to the Phantom of the Opera. Watch the DVD. Why is anyone going to Old Trafford tonight. It's free on TV. Why ever go out for a meal. Just stay at home. Why go to your best mate's wedding. Watch it on Zoom.
It's only people who have no intention of going out in the first place that might enjoy doing these things at home.
You may be put off going out because there's something better on TV but that's a different story.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
No because they've made the decision not to attend since COVID whether that is home or away. It shows that no matter if you're young or older, the demand is growing for streams and if it legal or not, most people will find a way if they want to.
Still a bit lost here. Stanley should allow ifollow in to cover games so that people can watch hooky streams of it for free? Or are you saying something else?
I think you might be overestimating how many people watch the streams for free. Less than 5% of viewers will know what IPTV is, let alone how to use one.
Using a VPN on a Saturday means you still have to pay the full price of the stream.
In the end you have to be a very sad person to make a decision not to go and do something simply because it's on TV.
Why go to Glastonbury when it's on TV. Why go to the Phantom of the Opera. Watch the DVD. Why is anyone going to Old Trafford tonight. It's free on TV. Why ever go out for a meal. Just stay at home. Why go to your best mate's wedding. Watch it on Zoom.
It's only people who have no intention of going out in the first place that might enjoy doing these things at home.
You may be put off going out because there's something better on TV but that's a different story.
Interesting. I'm 56 and struggle to walk. I go to the Sat aft games to watch them. I could go to evening games and get home about 12.30am with work the next morning. Last season I didn't. If this season we have top of the table clashes and cup games and all that in the evening I'll go. if we are knocking around in mid table I won't. I'd pay more to watch streamed games in the evening and I think it's best that they are not streamed until a percentage of tickets have been sold.
That's just me, but I suspect things are a bit more nuanced than you suggest. But mostly, good team = higher attendance, which is something I think we all agree on.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
And yet there's people on here who think that ending the 3pm blackout wouldn't hurt attendances.
Does it really matter if you are paying the same price as a season ticket? The club has got extra income from me that I would have never spent if streaming wasn't an option.
Can't make many home games. Equally, having the stream doesn't stop me going to roughly 10 northern away games a season.
Personally, I just like having the option to watch my team every game and I'm willing to pay for it.
Indeed there will be people who effectively pay TWICE to see a game, having a ST but watching a few home games on streams instead, such as winter midweek games or where they're feeling a bit poorly and don't fancy the travelling.
Yep, absolutely no idea why its either or. I have a ST but never attend midweek games as its a massive faff, happily watch those games at home though. Flip that around and I wouldnt want to sit and watch a 3pm kick off from home on a saturday, its either go to that game or be with the family.
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
No because they've made the decision not to attend since COVID whether that is home or away. It shows that no matter if you're young or older, the demand is growing for streams and if it legal or not, most people will find a way if they want to.
Still a bit lost here. Stanley should allow ifollow in to cover games so that people can watch hooky streams of it for free? Or are you saying something else?
I think you might be overestimating how many people watch the streams for free. Less than 5% of viewers will know what IPTV is, let alone how to use one.
Using a VPN on a Saturday means you still have to pay the full price of the stream.
I guess what you are suggesting is that Stanley's income from people using the service illegally via VPN would outweigh the loss from people illegally streaming a hooky service? You may well be right.
In the end you have to be a very sad person to make a decision not to go and do something simply because it's on TV.
Why go to Glastonbury when it's on TV. Why go to the Phantom of the Opera. Watch the DVD. Why is anyone going to Old Trafford tonight. It's free on TV. Why ever go out for a meal. Just stay at home. Why go to your best mate's wedding. Watch it on Zoom.
It's only people who have no intention of going out in the first place that might enjoy doing these things at home.
You may be put off going out because there's something better on TV but that's a different story.
the wife and I are retired pensioners, there is no point in buying season tickets as we can't attend evening matches as the last train back to Dorset leaves to early unless we wish to be home at 1 in the morning. I also have a disability which makes the trip more difficult. The cost of buying match tickets and train fare is over £100 which we cannot afford for very Saturday game so we watch on CTV - if that makes us sad people so be it
However, he’s also only saying about the distribution of money from streams because they’ll never ever get close to what we would or others in the league. If they weren’t so small they would not be complaining.
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
I would hope that because our service is not iFollow, even if they use iFollow cameras, we could still have our own stream for the game.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
Even if Charlton TV were to stream the match, it is still only for fans based overseas, elderly or not. I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
The majority would be watching it via a VPN, people will find a way whether it is legal or not.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Am I missing something, or are you actually citing an example of exactly why Stanley are resisting? Your OAPs are putting precisely nothing into the club now. If one of them went three times a season, because he can't see any games on TV, the club will have sold three more tickets than they are now?
No because they've made the decision not to attend since COVID whether that is home or away. It shows that no matter if you're young or older, the demand is growing for streams and if it legal or not, most people will find a way if they want to.
Still a bit lost here. Stanley should allow ifollow in to cover games so that people can watch hooky streams of it for free? Or are you saying something else?
I think you might be overestimating how many people watch the streams for free. Less than 5% of viewers will know what IPTV is, let alone how to use one.
Using a VPN on a Saturday means you still have to pay the full price of the stream.
I guess what you are suggesting is that Stanley's income from people using the service illegally via VPN would outweigh the loss from people illegally streaming a hooky service? You may well be right.
While viewing a stream through a VPN is against the terms of use, it certainly isn't illegal. Much like watching a pirate video isn't but distribution is. Plus there are a number of reasons you could be using a VPN beyond just masking your location.
In the end you have to be a very sad person to make a decision not to go and do something simply because it's on TV.
Why go to Glastonbury when it's on TV. Why go to the Phantom of the Opera. Watch the DVD. Why is anyone going to Old Trafford tonight. It's free on TV. Why ever go out for a meal. Just stay at home. Why go to your best mate's wedding. Watch it on Zoom.
It's only people who have no intention of going out in the first place that might enjoy doing these things at home.
You may be put off going out because there's something better on TV but that's a different story.
the wife and I are retired pensioners, there is no point in buying season tickets as we can't attend evening matches as the last train back to Dorset leaves to early unless we wish to be home at 1 in the morning. I also have a disability which makes the trip more difficult. The cost of buying match tickets and train fare is over £100 which we cannot afford for very Saturday game so we watch on CTV - if that makes us sad people so be it
Sorry! I'm not suggesting that you are sad because you are unable / cannot afford / don't want to attend games!
People are only sad if they would normally go but decide not to just because it's on TV.
I am trying to say that I believe 90% of those paying to watch a stream on TV would not have been at the game anyway! So it's extra revenue and publicity.
But I admit to having been one of that sad 10% myself on a couple of occasions!
Isn't it a simple way to resolve the issue to charge more for the stream? If it would cost me north of £100 to go to Accrington, I personally would happily pay Accrington £25 for the stream.
Comments
Is it now definitive that the game won't be available anywhere on a stream?
Or is there a decision to await?
What this does do though is limit those fans who rely on the streaming service for Accrington Stanley, such as the elderly.
What they will now also find is that rather than supporters using Accrington’s iFollow, they’ll pay for the opposition’s and still get the game streamed but financially, Accrington do not benefit so they’re no better off.
There is nothing better as a fan and for the club to have people attending matches, but you have to recognise the way the game and people’s behaviours and habits have changed and the need for streaming has, and will continue to grow.
Being creative with the streaming service whilst pricing match tickets at the right point to attract fans in attendance is the way forward. Otherwise you’ll price people out of attending and others will find a way somehow, be it legal or not.
I would imagine most of the people who watch the streams are young people, some for free via illegal means & most living in this country.
2019/20: Their season was cancelled after 35-games, completely missing out on five games of revenue
2020/21: They had no fans at any home games... iFollow will have helped massively
2021/22: Fans allowed back into Stadiums.
What I can see from one website is their average attendances in their last two full seasons, where fans have been allowed into Grounds every game:
2021/22: Their average was - 2915
2018/19: Their average was - 2763 (Its worth noting that Accrington didnt allow iFollow this season either).
So ironically - When Accrington have had iFollow in use, their attendances have gone up... Not down.
Maybe this'll even hurt them
With the cost of living / cost of travel going up, surely its better to get £10 from a fan through iFollow, than it is to get £20 (or however much a ticket is), especially when its not just the entry fee a visiting supporter will have to pay (I found ten years ago when I used to do away games, that one trip can cost at least £50 once everything is factored in) - After all, despite League One having mainly Northern teams, there are only three sides that are within an hours journey of Accrington.
Also, you would be surprised the amount of people who now watch games on the stream instead of attending. I know of a group of OAPs where they all have decided they watch the game on a stream instead of coming to The Valley now. It's cheaper, more convenient, and many more factors that contribute to their decision.
All Stanley are doing are cutting their nose off to spite their face.
The letter is prompting me to go to Accrington, at a cost of probably over £100, rather than be reduced to the highly unsatisfactory audio only commentary. So in that respect the Accrington man is right.
Isn’t one answer to charge more, maybe £20/25 for people to watch the game? (How much does a big boxing match cost?).
£25 would still be a cheaper option than schlepping to Accrington.
Why go to Glastonbury when it's on TV.
Why go to the Phantom of the Opera. Watch the DVD.
Why is anyone going to Old Trafford tonight. It's free on TV.
Why ever go out for a meal. Just stay at home.
Why go to your best mate's wedding. Watch it on Zoom.
It's only people who have no intention of going out in the first place that might enjoy doing these things at home.
You may be put off going out because there's something better on TV but that's a different story.
That's just me, but I suspect things are a bit more nuanced than you suggest. But mostly, good team = higher attendance, which is something I think we all agree on.
People are only sad if they would normally go but decide not to just because it's on TV.
I am trying to say that I believe 90% of those paying to watch a stream on TV would not have been at the game anyway! So it's extra revenue and publicity.
But I admit to having been one of that sad 10% myself on a couple of occasions!
If it would cost me north of £100 to go to Accrington, I personally would happily pay Accrington £25 for the stream.