Closed Doors Live Streaming.

[Sergeant Wilson]

27 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

If clubs have to play matches without fans and it’s a way of A) watching the games and B) a way to generate some money, then I don’t see the problem. It would be a difficult one to implement. If Ayr were playing Arbroath, then I would be under the impression if you’re paying to watch the match, then Arbroath would be the benefactors of the money as it’s their home match. 

It would generate income, but that income would not meet the costs, therefore would be what we in the trade call a loss. Loss making businesses go bankrupt.

Do you understand?

[Homer Thompson]

11 hours ago, diegomarahenry said:

I think it needs a big backer, like Ladbrokes or William Hill to pump advertising during it, plus targeted advertising sold by the clubs to maximise revenue. 

The cost should reflect the production value, if it is one fixed camera at the half way line and no replays or commentary then anything over £10 is taking the piss. 

 

Pretty sure the betting companies have been banned from sponsoring sport

[callum-ayr]

5 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It would generate income, but that income would not meet the costs, therefore would be what we in the trade call a loss. Loss making businesses go bankrupt.

Do you understand?

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

[johnnydun]

15 minutes ago, baw heid said:

The League would lay down the rules to ensure the share was fair. If the home club kept only their home games a team like Hearts could loose out as more of their support will watch away games .  The clubs with larger support would benefit by always receiving the revenue from their own support 

But your team, Queen of the South, would need the large away support  revenue, more than Dundee would need the smaller away support revenue.

[Homer Thompson]

1 minute ago, callum-ayr said:

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

That might have something to do with all of the other income they have.

The point he, and others, are making is that the income from streaming alone would not cover the costs of putting on the matches, mainly paying the players.

They're absolutely right.

[Smurph]

If you're willing to pay £20 for a stream of a football game you can PM me, I can get you Netflix and Spotify (unlimited films and music) for £35 per month.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Smurph
bad grammar

[Junior Pub League]

5 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

Streaming as an additional (very small) cost to a handful of people  is a totally different model than that of streaming being your main income generator which is then being used to pay the player and coaching wages.

[callum-ayr]

Just now, Mr X said:

That might have something to do with all of the other income they have.

The point he, and others, are making is that the income from streaming alone would not cover the costs of putting on the matches, mainly paying the players.

They're absolutely right.

I’m not advocating the re start of games to be streamed online. I’m saying if clubs in our league are told to resume matches behind closed doors for the rest of the year (or until date x) then having the stream would be one way of increasing the income. It’s not an ideal scenario, but it would be something. 

[Homer Thompson]

Just now, callum-ayr said:

I’m not advocating the re start of games to be streamed online. I’m saying if clubs in our league are told to resume matches behind closed doors for the rest of the year (or until date x) then having the stream would be one way of increasing the income. It’s not an ideal scenario, but it would be something. 

Thats my opinion too. However, the post you quoted wasnt talking about that

[callum-ayr]

1 minute ago, Junior Pub League said:

Streaming as an additional (very small) cost to a handful of people  is a totally different model than that of streaming being your main income generator which is then being used to pay the player and coaching wages.

See my reply below. Streaming for me should only be used if we’re told we have to re start behind closed doors. 

1 minute ago, callum-ayr said:

I’m not advocating the re start of games to be streamed online. I’m saying if clubs in our league are told to resume matches behind closed doors for the rest of the year (or until date x) then having the stream would be one way of increasing the income. It’s not an ideal scenario, but it would be something. 

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

That's in addition to paying customers at the gate and associated hospitality, and catering income. They would need to charge a vast number of subscribers a small amount or a few subscribers a vast amount to make up that money.

They need to cover the cost of paying wages and testing, unless you can think of a way of playing the games for nothing or at least very little.

[Monkey Tennis]

12 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

Oh FFS.

Please display some capacity and willingness to think this through.

[callum-ayr]

49 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

If clubs have to play matches without fans and it’s a way of A) watching the games and B) a way to generate some money, then I don’t see the problem. It would be a difficult one to implement. If Ayr were playing Arbroath, then I would be under the impression if you’re paying to watch the match, then Arbroath would be the benefactors of the money as it’s their home match. 

 

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

Thats my opinion too. However, the post you quoted wasnt talking about that

That was my original post. I’ve never stated steaming money could replace gate income. 

[Junior Pub League]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

That's in addition to paying customers at the gate and associated hospitality, and catering income. They would need to charge a vast number of subscribers a small amount or a few subscribers a vast amount to make up that money.

They need to cover the cost of paying wages and testing, unless you can think of a way of playing the games for nothing or at least very little.

Say Ayr have an average home gate of 2000, you'd need all of those 2000 to purchase a streaming ticket for every home game just to get anywhere near this seasons income. Whilst also considering the loss on hospitality, pie sales, half time draws, on the day purchases of things like scarves etc etc etc. 

It may be possible to generate a profit if Ayr and other clubs cull their playing squads and play a team of 16 year olds on a YTS (or whatever it is these days) but who is going to watch that? 

Scotland doesn't have the population or club fanbase to make streaming a realistic full income replacement.

[Homer Thompson]

Just now, callum-ayr said:

 

That was my original post. I’ve never stated steaming money could replace gate income. 

Great, but you then posted this ...

14 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

How do you know the expenditure would outweigh the income? Ayr currently provide this service for those outside the UK with a handful of takers and so far haven’t gone to the wall. 

... which implies the opposite

[callum-ayr]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

That's in addition to paying customers at the gate and associated hospitality, and catering income. They would need to charge a vast number of subscribers a small amount or a few subscribers a vast amount to make up that money.

They need to cover the cost of paying wages and testing, unless you can think of a way of playing the games for nothing or at least very little.

Again, I’ve never said it could replace it. If we’re forced back without fans, 500+ folk paying £10 to watch a match would help a club more than 0. 

[weeredbook]

Its never going to happen , I wouldn't pay 50p to watch that crap from last season .

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, callum-ayr said:

Again, I’ve never said it could replace it. If we’re forced back without fans, 500+ folk paying £10 to watch a match would help a club more than 0. 

Who exactly is going to FORCE clubs to play behind closed doors? 

[Derry Alli]

3 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

Again, I’ve never said it could replace it. If we’re forced back without fans, 500+ folk paying £10 to watch a match would help a club more than 0. 

No, it wouldn't. It would cost more that £5,000 to put the game on, for a start. 

Edit : sorry, I just read this is all if people are at gunpoint. My bad. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Mr. Alli

[callum-ayr]

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

Great, but you then posted this ...

... which implies the opposite

My assumption was they were talking about the cost of streaming. 
 

I believe we will be forced back without fans at some point. I think we’d be better off waiting until fans are allowed in stadiums, but can’t see it happening.