Mowgli
Striker
Nah, ifollow was around long before covid. Just not for UK people and everybody bought using a vpn... which I think is the case again now.
Accrington/iFollow....
- Thread starter GordonMuchallNo1Fan
- Start date
Lucky1985
Winger
Ah well in that case fuckem! They don’t get half of our shirt sales proceeds, they don’t get half of the money we generate from concerts, why should they get half of the money we make selling a streaming service to our international fans?
NorthumberlandMackem
Full Back
Seems to love Kyril mind, but can't take this man seriously as charged our fans twice.
AndrewP
Striker
I thought we opted out of ifollow?
Are we (fans in the UK) able to officially buy streaming passes this coming season. Won't almost all our games that don't kick off on a Saturday be live on Sky anyway?
Edit..
It looks like sky don't show all the midweek games anymore.
Are we (fans in the UK) able to officially buy streaming passes this coming season. Won't almost all our games that don't kick off on a Saturday be live on Sky anyway?
Edit..
It looks like sky don't show all the midweek games anymore.
Last edited:
Kevsgreat
Striker
Because we're also selling his team playing.
I absolutely get the point that people are paying through the Sunderland website to see Sunderland play, but there's more than one team plays in a football match.
Rip Van Fish
Striker
Same bloke that charged us full price for the rearranged date after the abandonment in 2018/19
He wouldn’t have done that against a club bringing 100 on a Tues night
Doberman
Striker
if Man City fans were buying their 'ifollow' stream (im aware ifollow doesn't exist in the prem) then I wouldn't expect a penny from that tbh. TV money is a different argument as that comes from a neutral company (Sky/BT) so naturally that money should be distributed based on who gets on the tele the most.
Nelson!
Striker
Should Accrington get half of our home gate receipts against them as well?
Money from our supporters should go to our club for any service SAFC provides (match ticket for home games or access to the stream).
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
Even if, as in the case of streaming, we produce 20% of that income? He basically wants to tap into our international streaming income, from fans who could never get to Accrington, because he hasn't got the same fanbase.
Sporty
Midfield
This!
Can you imagine if the Premier League had a similar setup to ifollow and the team that sold the stream got the money. You'd end up with an even bigger gap at the top regarding revenue. As you mention, the big teams have wanted a bigger share of the TV revenue in the past.
Aye the 'big 6' may well generate more interest but it's a 20 team league and at one time pre sky there was a decent rotation of teams who'd be challenging in the top half. Yet since the financial boom in football starting with Sky's money, the 'big' 6 get at least double the revenue of any of the other 14 clubs. I think the big 6 also get more combined than the other 14 combined also. They have also taken the top 6 spots most seasons, apart from the odd few when Leicester, West Ham, Everton have got in there. I think it's less than 10 times over the last decade one of the big 6 hasn't finished top 6.
It's simply because we have more fans that some may have a different view but to help maintain more of a competition then I can understand why the chairman is raising this concern.
Should that mean the likes of the 'big 6' get more of the PL TV money rather than an equal share given they get the highest viewing figures globally due to their larger fan bases? Given our larger fan base then it's obvious we'd generate more income via streaming no matter how it was set up in League One.
Thankfully the way the PL distribute money isn't one of the negative things regarding the obscene money in the game, though it's still not even shares. Teams still get more if they get more games shown though the difference is still only £1.2m per live match. Although it's around £20m between top and bottom, it's nowhere near the difference it would be if it was based on fan base subscription using a system like ifollow.
Logon or register to see this image
I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that it was in the EFL terms. A quick google and it seems a people could have got a 40% refund on their original ticket also.
6.3 Where a Match is postponed after you have entered the Ground, but before the Match has kicked-off, entry to the Ground or any substitute Ground for the re-arranged Match shall only be permitted on presentation of the ticket and subject to compliance with any other requirements announced by the EFL at the time. In the event of the abandonment of a Match after kick-off you will be entitled to either (i) a sixty per cent (60%) refund where abandonment occurs before the start of the second half of the Match or (ii) a forty per cent (40%) refund where abandonment occurs after the start of the second half of the Match but before the final whistle. In these circumstances you would need to purchase a new Ticket if the Match was rearranged.
Last edited:
Lucky1985
Winger
There are, but their overseas fans can pay them and our overseas fans can pay us. I’m not interested in Accrington, if we were playing the Dog and Duck I’d pay to watch it.
As a non-season ticket holder who lived in the north west for a long time, I found it really difficult to get tickets to our away games that were local to me, because our opponents would rather have empty seats in their end than allow us more tickets than they had to.
Our support is vast and so we would usually sell out our allocation long before bottom of the barrel schmucks like me got a look in (not complaining about how good our support is btw before anyone reads that wrong.)
So my view is if they don’t want to take my money to allow me to sit in an empty seat then, why do they get to be precious about what our overseas fans do with their money now?
Either you want to make as much money as you can, in which case allow our vast fan base into your empty stadia. Or you aren’t interested in our fans on which case, continue to turn is away from your empty stadium but stfu about trying to make money off us.
burro nunn
Winger
Can't really compare tv rights.
People pay to watch all of the games.
So for premier league, equal share plus extra for number of games shown sort of makes sense.
Safsee/ifollow i'm paying to watch us.
People pay to watch all of the games.
So for premier league, equal share plus extra for number of games shown sort of makes sense.
Safsee/ifollow i'm paying to watch us.
Lucky1985
Winger
The flaw with this is that we don’t get to pick the games sky show.This!
Can you imagine if the Premier League had a similar setup to ifollow and the team that sold the stream got the money. You'd end up with an even bigger gap at the top regarding revenue. As you mention, the big teams have wanted a bigger share of the TV revenue in the past.
Aye the 'big 6' may well generate more interest but it's a 20 team league and at one time pre sky there was a decent rotation of teams who'd be challenging in the top half. Yet since the financial boom in football starting with Sky's money, the 'big' 6 get at least double the revenue of any of the other 14 clubs. I think the big 6 also get more combined than the other 14 combined also. They have also taken the top 6 spots most seasons, apart from the odd few when Leicester, West Ham, Everton have got in there. I think it's less than 10 times over the last decade one of the big 6 hasn't finished top 6.
It's simply because we have more fans that some may have a different view but to help maintain more of a competition then I can understand why the chairman is raising this concern.
Should that mean the likes of the 'big 6' get more of the PL TV money rather than an equal share given they get the highest viewing figures globally due to their larger fan bases? Given our larger fan base then it's obvious we'd generate more income via streaming no matter how it was set up in League One.
Thankfully the way the PL distribute money isn't one of the negative things regarding the obscene money in the game, though it's still not even shares. Teams still get more if they get more games shown though the difference is still only £1.2m per live match. Although it's around £20m between top and bottom, it's nowhere near the difference it would be if it was based on fan base subscription using a system like ifollow.
Logon or register to see this image
I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that it was in the EFL terms. A quick google and it seems a people could have got a 40% refund on their original ticket also.
6.3 Where a Match is postponed after you have entered the Ground, but before the Match has kicked-off, entry to the Ground or any substitute Ground for the re-arranged Match shall only be permitted on presentation of the ticket and subject to compliance with any other requirements announced by the EFL at the time. In the event of the abandonment of a Match after kick-off you will be entitled to either (i) a sixty per cent (60%) refund where abandonment occurs before the start of the second half of the Match or (ii) a forty per cent (40%) refund where abandonment occurs after the start of the second half of the Match but before the final whistle. In these circumstances you would need to purchase a new Ticket if the Match was rearranged.
If I had a choice we would be on every week.
With ifollow, we aren’t just choosing to watch football, we are choosing to watch Sunderland.
Kevsgreat
Striker
You're supporting Sunderland. You're choosing to watch Sunderland vs another team.
Mackem00
Striker
Yes. Everyone in the league gets the same. Otherwise it'll get even more skewed against us (if possible) the higher up the league's we go.
You are paying to watch Sunderland play against another team. Might aswell just stream the training sessions if that's all you are bothered about.
That whole post has baffled me.
Last edited:
Lucky1985
Winger
What’s baffling about it? When people pay for a Sky sports football subscription they’re paying to watch [FOOTBALL]. They don’t get to choose the matches that are displayed, it’s just pot luck, Sky sports show matches from all teams and so when people pay for the subscription they are paying to watch [FOOTBALL].Yes. Everyone in the league gets the same. Otherwise it'll get even more skewed against us (if possible) the higher up the league's we go.
You are paying to watch Sunderland play against another team. Might aswell just stream the training sessions if that's all you are bothered about.
That whole post has baffled me.
When people use ifollow they are paying for an individual game to watch a specific team.
Mackem00
Striker
Completed the sentence for you there.
Just watch them train if you aren't bothered about any competition or owt. It's only FOOTBALL when it's 2 teams playing.
Lucky1985
Winger
We definitely won’t agree on this one.
They can make their money off hosting our home fans in their stadium.
I could accept them taking part of our streaming sales for matches played in their stadium to cover their costs on hosting it if they had any, but they dont, the football league supply the camera man.
Accrington want 100% of our sales for a match played in their stadium. To me their chairman comes across like bellend and always argues for what’s best for his club with no integrity whatsoever.
Mackem00
Striker
We definitely won't tbf.
I'm thinking if the same thing happens if/when we get back to the top division then we and the rest of the also rans will be left even further behind. No harm done pal.
