Accrington/iFollow....



This is the sort of shite will will see from Donald when he can't afford to pay his 19%.

Owners that can't afford to run a football clubs is the exact reason why we had that daft spending cap a few year back.
 
The poor bloke was marooned thousands of miles away, in er Majorca.

There must be about 50 flights per day to over a dozen mainland UK airports from Majorca. For example there's 4 different companies operating out of Manchester. TUI, Jet2, Easy Jet and Ryan Air. 2 companies operating out of Liverpool 😂
 
I am unaware of the comments he made about us and will certainly look them up - but before I do so, while I still have some objectivity, I think this makes an interesting argument about IP.

This is kind of laughably written in parts, but putting myself in the shoes of a Stanley fan I can see myself agreeing with this stance.

I think the argument that people aren't streaming it to watch Accrington Stanley, they are watching their club play against them doesn't quite hold water - if their club is playing against Accrington, at Accrington's ground then that demand isn't just to watch their team, it is clearly to watch both. The demand is essentially for an event hosted by Accrington Stanley.

For home fixtures, the streaming may be currently be taking their IP, underpaying for it, and using it to devalue the tickets. Particularly with that boxing day home fixture being suddenly taken up for streaming without consultation, I can totally understand how this can hurt the club.

I think the club have every right to step in and question the highly profitable EFL in such trying financial times.

Putting the bloke there aside, I do think this is an interesting point raised.
 
LadsFanfromNorfolk said:
Side note - does it not make people shudder to think that someone representing us (Methven, who part of this twitter thread is about) would talk to smaller club owners in this way?
Click to expand...
What do you expect? Methven is a complete cock.

So glad he's gone. Absolute stain on our club and its history.

And yes - I was taken in by him at the beginning. Hold my hands up to that!
 
I agree to a certain extent with him but not to the level he is suggesting. Certainly a percentage of each sale could go towards the hosting club, but to suggest half or more is ridiculous imo. The cost to set up the equipment is the same no matter the away team, and the people buying the stream are doing so because the away end is generally full and is the only way for fans to watch the game. Not another teams fault that they have more fans that may wish to watch the game.
 
LadsFanfromNorfolk said:
Side note - does it not make people shudder to think that someone representing us (Methven, who part of this twitter thread is about) would talk to smaller club owners in this way?
Click to expand...
In this case , no. He is fighting our clubs corner in this one. Holt basically wants Sunderlands income to drop from 21% to about 1.5% of I follow income. Who is right is a decent debate but he is right to fight out corner on this one I think.
 
halfpast3 said:
In this case , no. He is fighting our clubs corner in this one. Holt basically wants Sunderlands income to drop from 21% to about 1.5% of I follow income. Who is right is a decent debate but he is right to fight out corner on this one I think.
Click to expand...
Holt is absolute desperate to level the playing field as he knows they can’t compete which is fair enough. He’s absolutely thick as mince though. Why would we agree to a massive hit on income generated through our support to benefit other clubs that have deliberately tried to shaft us with the curtailing of the season and the vote on the salary cap.

Thank fuck we’re out of it all.
 
Who bears the cost of filming/streaming the game? If its the home team then he is within his rights, if its the EFL then he's wanting the best of both worlds.
 
Kevsgreat said:
There's that paragraph on the second page.

"If the proceeds were split equally as the collective TV deal is or, as with physical match day tickets, the home club got the income, my club would happily participate."

That to me sounds like the club selling the stream get the income.

I don't think there's anything wrong with requesting proceeds are split or given to the home team.
Click to expand...

So if visiting teams in his league brought 4K fans against their own fan base of 1500 you think this is a fair split of 50-50?

Or if their 50 bought the passes when playing away at Sunderland and we sold say 30k streaming passes you think it’s fair a 50-50 split?

The man has a club that are sandwiched between Blackburn and Burnley and have exhausted the fan base and there for his like a little jealous neighbour.

Horrible little fukker if you ask me.
 
If Sunderland fans go on and order through the Sunderland website then we should get the revenue IMO. We’re bringing the traffic.
 
bowers2 said:
So if visiting teams in his league brought 4K fans against their own fan base of 1500 you think this is a fair split of 50-50?

Or if their 50 bought the passes when playing away at Sunderland and we sold say 30k streaming passes you think it’s fair a 50-50 split?

The man has a club that are sandwiched between Blackburn and Burnley and have exhausted the fan base and there for his like a little jealous neighbour.

Horrible little fukker if you ask me.
Click to expand...
If visiting fans bring 4,000 to a game at Accrington, Accrington would get 100% of the revenue.

If visiting fans brought 0 fans but sold 4,000 streaming passes Accrington would get 0% of the revenue.

That's where I think he has a point.

As for a 50/50 split, that's pretty much how TV deals work, only it's split between however many teams it covers. For years the big clubs have wanted to negotiate their own deals and for years the Premier League has sold rights as a package to make sure all the teams that make up the league get a share.
 
Last edited:
Kevsgreat said:
If visiting fans bring 4,000 to a game at Accrington, Accrington would get 100% of the revenue.

If visiting fans brought 0 fans but sold 4,000 streaming passes Accrington would get 0% of the revenue.

That's where I think he has a point.

As for a 50/50 split, that's pretty much how TV deals work, only it's split between however many teams it covers. For years the big clubs have wanted to negotiate their own deals and for years the Premier League has sold rights as a package to make sure all the teams that make up the league get a share.
Click to expand...
Yup and rightly so. The likes of Southampton are needed to compete in the premier league just as much as Man Utd or Arsenal. Just because those teams have a much greater fan base shouldn't matter one bit.
 
Having considered this slightly more, the purpose of ifollow was to allow clubs to supplement their income whilst no fans in wasn’t it? If so then imho the fair way to do this would be to look at the allocation of tickets a home team would provide a club, and look at the revenue that would have generated for them, and claim up to that amount.

So as an example, if we would have been given 2000 tickets at £30 per ticket, then the maximum they can claim from us is £60,000. If we make £100,000 in revenue from the match then we keep the surplus. They haven’t lost any money, but they haven’t profited from our fans either. If our fans we’re allowed in the ground influencing the outcome of the match then they would have turned down the money (as was the case in the playoffs with us vs Wycombe, and Wycombe vs MK Dons) because it’s not all about money and they want to give themselves the best chance of winning. They can’t now claim it’s all about winning when the fan effect on a match is diminished.
 

Back
Top