How much would you pay for a Spurs 'TV season ticket'?

[Wsussexspur]

Not even that, match tickets for a family or a group of mates is seceral hundred.

Instead, someone pays £15 and all their mates come around to watch it. In that context, I can see why they've tried with £15.

It's way too expensive as a one-off, especially as they're still getting their Sky money.

remember most of country is under lock down rules where not allowed to mix with other house holds in your own house.

would think if anything this will encourage people to go to pubs etc to watch games.

 

[spursfan77]

They really think a lot of themselves, regardless of the pandemic, £15 per game is absurd.

Just means more people will watch illegal streams.

I actually hate watching us on tv compared to being in the stadium so it suits me just fine. I won’t watch the games!

 

[Rob]

remember most of country is under lock down rules where not allowed to mix with other house holds in your own house.

would think if anything this will encourage people to go to pubs etc to watch games.

I meant more as a "testing the waters" price for something more long term (you know, what this thread is about )

There's no way they could have gone cheap now and then tried to do something 3x the cost at a later date. However low they go now sets the baseline of expectations for any future service.

 

[tommo84]

I actually feel ok about the price point from the pov that, in normal circumstances, if I wanted to watch these games (legitimately) I’d have to spend £20 on travel and c£50 on a ticket.

My only criticism is that there is absolutely no way I’ll pay £15 to watch anything other than Spurs games so I wonder if they would have been better off doing more of a ‘package’ deal - eg £25/mth and you get everything not on Sky/BT. In this current offering I don’t know why fans of Liverpool or Utd (who are on Sky/BT every game) would want to spend a penny extra - and that’s potentially a big audience and a lot of £££s.

Will be interesting to see how successful it is.

 

[ernie78]

remember most of country is under lock down rules where not allowed to mix with other house holds in your own house

This is it. Fair enough if they tried this last year but to suggest that now this season when you aren’t allowed to go to others houses (well it changes every bloody week) is a bit daft. I couldn’t justify £15 a match on top of what we already pay as my wife’s been made redundant especially at the rate we’ve played matches recently.
I’ll stick to streams for the time being

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I don’t overly see the issue. Right now I can’t go to matches that would ordinarily cost me an average of roughly £50 per match-ish. So, if a home game is not selected for main coverage by I can watch it glitch free for £15, which will probably only be 5/6 league matches anyway, then at least I get to watch it. Not ideal but on the premise that the bulk of this is going into the clubs pocket, I think it’s fair. That’s before you look at the fact that my dad who’d usually also be going with me may also come over to watch it, I may have my best mate who never goes to matches come round to watch it, and because I live in north Hants my petrol to get to spurs usual costs a good £15 too for the round trip anyway.

In a world where I’d usually be spending a fortune that I don’t really have to watch matches that aren’t televised mainstream, this seems more than palatable.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I actually feel ok about the price point from the pov that, in normal circumstances, if I wanted to watch these games (legitimately) I’d have to spend £20 on travel and c£50 on a ticket.

My only criticism is that there is absolutely no way I’ll pay £15 to watch anything other than Spurs games so I wonder if they would have been better off doing more of a ‘package’ deal - eg £25/mth and you get everything not on Sky/BT. In this current offering I don’t know why fans of Liverpool or Utd (who are on Sky/BT every game) would want to spend a penny extra - and that’s potentially a big audience and a lot of £££s.

Will be interesting to see how successful it is.

Nor would I pay to watch anything other than spurs, but there’s more than enough top football available through the normal subscription service, I can’t imagine anyone is going to miss watching Burnley v Wba because all of a sudden it’s not free other than those teams own fans.

 

[tommo84]

Also, I hope this reduces the staggered kick-offs. Really not a fan of 6pm kick offs midweek and (even though we won’t be involved due to Europa League) I’d like there to be more than one EPL game kicking off at 3pm on a Saturday.

 

[Maxtremist]

I actually feel ok about the price point from the pov that, in normal circumstances, if I wanted to watch these games (legitimately) I’d have to spend £20 on travel and c£50 on a ticket.

My only criticism is that there is absolutely no way I’ll pay £15 to watch anything other than Spurs games so I wonder if they would have been better off doing more of a ‘package’ deal - eg £25/mth and you get everything not on Sky/BT. In this current offering I don’t know why fans of Liverpool or Utd (who are on Sky/BT every game) would want to spend a penny extra - and that’s potentially a big audience and a lot of £££s.

Will be interesting to see how successful it is.

That's fully where I fall with these. These games weren't gonna be made available here beforehand and no-one was really making that big a fuss.

 

[Gassin's finest]

I thought they were doing a deal with ST holders this season anyway, for all the home games on Sky?

 

[SandroClegane]

It's crazy to me I only pay $60 in the US and I can watch every single Spurs match over here, yet those of you that live next door to the stadium are getting price-gouged like this. Ridiculous.

 

[$hoguN]

Fuck them and their £15 per game

 

[Japhet]

The big clubs are on Sky all of the time so is this not a bit unfair on the Burnley, WBA fans etc who would presumably be shelling out more to see their games?

 

[spursfan77]

Being condemned by all the journalists on twitter.

According to the Athletic Ed Woodward was against it but they don’t say if he was the only one.

 

[JCRD]

I have a feeling the uproar will force them to revert back to free viewing.

Either that or this is a way to force the governments hand to allow fans back in but not sure how

 

[BringBack_leGin]

The big clubs are on Sky all of the time so is this not a bit unfair on the Burnley, WBA fans etc who would presumably be shelling out more to see their games?

I don’t see how. Something which wasn’t legally available at any price will now be available to them at £15 a pop, which they can take or leave, and everything that previously available to each one of them at whatever price will continue to be at that same price.

 

[teedee]

I actually feel ok about the price point from the pov that, in normal circumstances, if I wanted to watch these games (legitimately) I’d have to spend £20 on travel and c£50 on a ticket.

My only criticism is that there is absolutely no way I’ll pay £15 to watch anything other than Spurs games so I wonder if they would have been better off doing more of a ‘package’ deal - eg £25/mth and you get everything not on Sky/BT. In this current offering I don’t know why fans of Liverpool or Utd (who are on Sky/BT every game) would want to spend a penny extra - and that’s potentially a big audience and a lot of £££s.

Will be interesting to see how successful it is.

According to SportsProMedia the most televised clubs 2018/2019 were:

Liverpool 29 games
Man Utd 27
Spurs 26
Man City 26
Chelsea 25
Arsenal 25

Although I cannot find the figures for 2019/2020, I found that TV earnings for the above clubs were virtually identical for 2nd to 6th, only Liverpool's income exceeding the other clubs.

 

[wrd]

It's incredible to me, that Netflix gave the blueprint of overcoming illegal streaming by offering an easy to use cheap service and the prem in it's infinite wisdom thought "OR...."

 

[Trotter]

Being condemned by all the journalists on twitter.

According to the Athletic Ed Woodward was against it but they don’t say if he was the only one.

Will have needed 14 to pass.
I can guarantee you one chairman that wouldn't have been against it.
No actually he would have been all for charging £50 per game if could get away with it.
That is the same chairman by the way that was one of only 2 (along with Arsenal's) that voted against the £30 maximum price for away fans.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

If we look at this in terms of cost per game, it's clearly a complete rip-off compared to the standard subscription cost. The difference is significantly bigger than the cost per game for a season ticket vs. individual tickets.

Sky charges the same for a one-week pass - which would allow someone to watch multiple football matches plus other sport, instead of a single game. No use for 3pm KOs though.

Sky and BT will obviously be trying to hit that sweet spot where enough people are willing to pay that it more than compensates for the people who won't. They are taking advantage of the fact that many of us would normally have spent more to go to the game, so will have the necessary cash-flow. A pure act of capitalism, rather than a show of goodwill to the fans.