Andy Holt (10 Viewers)

[Liquid Gold]

The thread is bit of s hit to follow but the guy has lost it. He has got his salary cap in and now he wants all of the ifollow revenue for their home games no matter who they're playing.

Put it on this board as it's further evidence that we escaped at the right time.

 

---

[Liquid Gold]

Man literally wants the income from other clubs. Why should he get to keep 20,000 I follow sales when his average attendance is 50 blokes and a whippet

 

[JulianDarbyFTW]

Interesting statement that outlines how iFollow works financially: Club Statement

 

[David O'Day]

Interesting statement that outlines how iFollow works financially: Club Statement

His whole logic though is based on away ifollow purchases being direct replacements for fans who would of attended in person

 

[David O'Day]

Man literally wants the income from other clubs. Why should he get to keep 20,000 I follow sales when his average attendance is 50 blokes and a whippet

Remember when he had a meltdown and it turned out his club had forgot to okay the refunds?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

In fairness, I do agree that the home team should make some cash off of this. Especially the smaller clubs - Bolton made more money off their away fixture than Colchester did.

For us, we’ll have 2 away games the club will make money from, this is good. But, when bigger clubs start playing us, we’re not going to get that income.

This unintended consequence of the iFollow service has opened a new can of worms for clubs to wrangle over.

 

[JulianDarbyFTW]

His whole logic though is based on away ifollow purchases being direct replacements for fans who would of attended in person

Yeah, my post was more of a generic 'this is how iFollow works for clubs' rather than a comment on whether it's the right way or not. I wasn't aware of the methodology behind it, so found it quite interesting - I naively assumed that we'd get 100% of iFollow sales from our website / fans (minus any cut that the EFL and iFollow get, of course)

 

[David O'Day]

The methodology seems to be in the ok but maybe they could allow the home side to keep the money from away sales up to what their away end holds?


Tellingly it's sad that Colchester could only get 478 of their fans to part with a tenner to watch them.

 

[SBAndy]

The methodology seems to be in the ok but maybe they could allow the home side to keep the money from away sales up to what their away end holds?


Tellingly it's sad that Colchester could only get 478 of their fans to part with a tenner to watch them.

That’s my thinking (on both counts). Surely if your away end holds 1500 you should get income from the first 1500, with any more going to the away team. Likewise those with bigger grounds/away ends, they’ve invested in the club’s infrastructure so they can capitalise on ticket sales.

And yes, really poor that Colchester aren’t getting more streaming. What is their average attendance? Suppose you then have to wonder about the demographic of their fan base.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I think in League Two

Yeah, my post was more of a generic 'this is how iFollow works for clubs' rather than a comment on whether it's the right way or not. I wasn't aware of the methodology behind it, so found it quite interesting - I naively assumed that we'd get 100% of iFollow sales from our website / fans (minus any cut that the EFL and iFollow get, of course)

That’s how it works in L2, 500 for the home team then rest away for the away sales, in L1 they’re doing something based on historical away attendances. In the Championship whoever sells the packages gets all the cash.

So for every £10 you spend on ifollow CCFC get £8. No other club is making any money.

What Holt is suggesting is that the home team keeps all the revenue generated for that match. With the wage cap that essentially means they’d be on a level playing field with Ipswich, Pompey, Sunderland, Hull etc. It’s ludicrous.

 

[ccfctommy]

The methodology seems to be in the ok but maybe they could allow the home side to keep the money from away sales up to what their away end holds?


Tellingly it's sad that Colchester could only get 478 of their fans to part with a tenner to watch them.

Because how many are watching illegally down the pub?

 

[David O'Day]

Because how many are watching illegally down the pub?

Not many probably as they are Colchester United not Man United.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The future of this is all matches will be streamed, both teams will have the footage and whichever club a supporter buys it from keeps that money. Bigger clubs always want the lion's share and threaten to throw a paddy if they don't get their way and the authorities will cave in.

Don't agree that home team should get all the revenue.

 

[fernandopartridge]

That’s my thinking (on both counts). Surely if your away end holds 1500 you should get income from the first 1500, with any more going to the away team. Likewise those with bigger grounds/away ends, they’ve invested in the club’s infrastructure so they can capitalise on ticket sales.

And yes, really poor that Colchester aren’t getting more streaming. What is their average attendance? Suppose you then have to wonder about the demographic of their fan base.

I think it should be, although i don't know if capacity is a red herring

Home team
Retains revenue from all home tickets sold
Retains 95% of revenue from away tickets sold within the usual capacity of their away end

Away team
Gets 5% rebate from tickets sold within away end capacity
Gets all revenue from any tickets sold beyond away end capacity

 

[chiefdave]

The future of this is all matches will be streamed, both teams will have the footage and whichever club a supporter buys it from keeps that money. Bigger clubs always want the lion's share and threaten to throw a paddy if they don't get their way and the authorities will cave in.

Don't agree that home team should get all the revenue.

Agreed, its the BCD bit thats causing the issue at the moment. Once grounds are opened back up ticketing arrangements will be as they were previously. When they then allow all games to be streamed, and we all know it will happen eventually, each club will be able to offer their own subscription and keep the money.

 

[Liquid Gold]

You're just going to encourage pirating if you tell people you need to pay for this game but all the money is going to your league rivals.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

You're just going to encourage pirating if you tell people you need to pay for this game but all the money is going to your league rivals.

Absolutely. People are more likely to obtain and pay for the streams lawfully if they think the income is going to the club they support.

 

[JulianDarbyFTW]

I think in League Two

That’s how it works in L2, 500 for the home team then rest away for the away sales, in L1 they’re doing something based on historical away attendances. In the Championship whoever sells the packages gets all the cash.

So for every £10 you spend on ifollow CCFC get £8. No other club is making any money.

What Holt is suggesting is that the home team keeps all the revenue generated for that match. With the wage cap that essentially means they’d be on a level playing field with Ipswich, Pompey, Sunderland, Hull etc. It’s ludicrous.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. I assumed there would be some consistency across the EFL, or at a minimum across L1 and L2. Every day is a school day.

 

[Nick]

He's on one again



Surely he gets that other clubs are selling many more subscriptions which is why they get more money? Is he going to start wanting shares of away kit sponsorship money too?

 

[Liquid Gold]

He ties himself up in knots so much. Remember when we all thought he was good.

 

[fernandopartridge]

He's on one again



Surely he gets that other clubs are selling many more subscriptions which is why they get more money? Is he going to start wanting shares of away kit sponsorship money too?

I don't really get the amnosity towards him, he makes a reasonable point about the loss in revenue (granted he ignores any savings from not actually opening the ground to fans and that ifollow away tickets > in number than match tickets to be sold in many cases). He's on the same side as Cov and all the other clubs in this regard.

 

[fernandopartridge]

He ties himself up in knots so much. Remember when we all thought he was good.

Comparing Rochdale (their closest neighbour in the league) with MK Dons is nonsense so the tweeter should delete that. Rochdale would sell significantly more tickets than MK Dons for a game at Accrington.

 

[Nick]

I don't really get the amnosity towards him, he makes a reasonable point about the loss in revenue (granted he ignores any savings from not actually opening the ground to fans and that ifollow away tickets > in number than match tickets to be sold in many cases). He's on the same side as Cov and all the other clubs in this regard.

Mainly because he chops and changes and isn't consistent.

 

[Skybluemichael]

He just seems pissed off that other teams have more fans, and wants a piece of everyone else’s pie, selling about 1or 2 hundred iFollow passed is piss poor, let’s face it the are a non league team punching well above

 

[Liquid Gold]

He’s already engineered a situation that means teams like Pompey and Sunderland have to pay the same in wages than them and now he wants income from their fans.

 

[fernandopartridge]

He just seems pissed off that other teams have more fans, and wants a piece of everyone else’s pie, selling about 1or 2 hundred iFollow passed is piss poor, let’s face it the are a non league team punching well above

Sounds just like the PL mentality about not sharing income with the FL

 

[Nick]

Sounds just like the PL mentality about not sharing income with the FL

They are pricks too.

 

[Limey]

English game is fucked. Those takings are painful viewing in all honesty.

 

[chiefdave]

Those takings are painful viewing in all honesty.

If I was him I'd be too embarrassed to publish figures showing only 99 of your own fans thought it was worth spending a tenner to watch you play.

 

[Limey]

If I was him I'd be too embarrassed to publish figures showing only 99 of your own fans thought it was worth spending a tenner to watch you play.

True, but the pyramid is sickeningly top heavy with money (as we all know).

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'm all for fair distribution of central income but clubs should be able to make money on their own as well and spend what they make so long as it's sustainable.

Some clubs will naturally have an advantage but bringing everybody down to Accrington's level isn't right. There should be rewards for success.