Club's Accounts ending June 2023

[denzel]

Presumably the highlights money is in the 'football league' payment alongside the main payment from Sky?

Definitely an argument on either side. I just think if the principle was applied consistently so the home club got the money it would be of more benefit to the smaller clubs and have a (ableit limited) levelling effect.

I suspect we'll have sold a four figure number of iFollow passes for our game at SJP in December. Think it would be far fairer for you to get the money for that - and for us to have taken money for any ECFC passes sold for the game at FP in August. End result would have been in ECFCs favour. I'm a bit of an outlier though, as I'd split gate receipts to some extent in order to level things up a bit.

Fair enough, though there weren't any passes sold in August as it was on Sky and therefore not ifollow. I got a day pass for that one, I guess neither club benefits from that..

 

[sign of the chimes]

If you buy an iFollow pass for an ECFC away match, my understanding is that the home club keep the cash. Which is AH’s issue.

(But maybe I am very confused)

The money goes to the club who sell the pass (i.e. if you purchase through your own club site it's they who get the share of the pass that goes to the clubs).

I think if a couple of thousand Derby/Bolton/Pompey fans are watching a game broadcast from The Crown Ground/SJP/wherever the home club should get some of that revenue; and the same arrangement for the reverse fixture - it works in the 'smaller' clubs favour in most cases but I think that's probably a good thing.

 

[sign of the chimes]

Fair enough, though there weren't any passes sold in August as it was on Sky and therefore not ifollow. I got a day pass for that one, I guess neither club benefits from that..

That's a fair point. I guess offset by the payments by Sky to the participating clubs (though, again, as per earlier post think those are skewed in favour of the home club - which seems inconsistent as we'll have got the lion's share from the additional TV money for the FP fixture plus the money from the iFollow passes sold via the PFC site for the December game).

I do completely see/get your stance - one of those where I guess we're both seeing the same thing just from a very different perspective. Always find it interesting to hear those of others.

 

[Oldsmobile-88]

Isn't there also the money for the TV highlights, I know it's gone downhill but surely ITV paid a pretty penny for it.

Not sure I agree with Andy Holt, if Accrington play Bolton 90% of the sales are going to be from Bolton so they should take most of the money. When I pay for an ifollow away game it's nice to know the money is going to ECFC, I'd be less inclined if it went to someone else

Holts main issue is the club hosting the match can get a disproportionate small amount of I follow income from their product on show.
The home club should be entitled to a % of away sales purely from hosting the game is what his ‘beef’ is about, which is a fair argument. I think that happened during the Covid season.

With the amount of modified Amazon Firesticks about that can access any games for free, the argument on I follow share will soon be redundant.

 

[sign of the chimes]

Holts main issue is the club hosting the match can get a disproportionate small amount of I follow income from their product on show.
The home club should be entitled to a % of away sales purely from hosting the game is what his ‘beef’ is about, which is a fair argument. I think that happened during the Covid season.

With the amount of modified Amazon Firesticks about that can access any games for free, the argument on I follow share will soon be redundant.

He also made the point that if it discourages away fans from attending, then the home club are also missing out on other matchday income. There's lots I don't agree with Andy Holt on but I think he's spot on with this.

On the hooky Firesticks - you're right that these are a real threat to the model at the moment. They were previously a bit niché, but there seems to have been a recent proliferation; so I do wonder if we're about to see a massive crackdown from the authorities given the risk to IP they pose.

 

[denzel]

Holts main issue is the club hosting the match can get a disproportionate small amount of I follow income from their product on show.
The home club should be entitled to a % of away sales purely from hosting the game is what his ‘beef’ is about, which is a fair argument. I think that happened during the Covid season.

With the amount of modified Amazon Firesticks about that can access any games for free, the argument on I follow share will soon be redundant.

But whereas when Accrington hosted Bolton (or Derby or Sheff Wed etc) they benefited from substantial income from the travelling fans (minus any police costs) which they can justifiably keep as they were physically putting on the match, showing it on ifollow costs them the same as when they played Burton or Cheltenham, so why should they be entitled to the lions share of the money?
And like I said above, if we were playing Argyle away I would be less inclined to watch if 70% of my cash was going to them.
But like chimes said, the argument will be redundant from next season.

 

[denzel]

He also made the point that if it discourages away fans from attending, then the home club are also missing out on other matchday income. There's lots I don't agree with Andy Holt on but I think he's spot on with this.

On the hooky Firesticks - you're right that these are a real threat to the model at the moment. They were previously a bit niché, but there seems to have been a recent proliferation; so I do wonder if we're about to see a massive crackdown from the authorities given the risk to IP they pose.

Was there any evidence that showing on ifollow dented attendances though? Look at yesterday's game (and Monday's) for us. Both clubs sold out despite the fact that it was available for streaming, whereas we have had many games on a Saturday where we only had 6000.

 

[sign of the chimes]

But whereas when Accrington hosted Bolton (or Derby or Sheff Wed etc) they benefited from substantial income from the travelling fans (minus any police costs) which they can justifiably keep as they were physically putting on the match, showing it on ifollow costs them the same as when they played Burton or Cheltenham, so why should they be entitled to the lions share of the money?
And like I said above, if we were playing Argyle away I would be less inclined to watch if 70% of my cash was going to them.
But like chimes said, the argument will be redundant from next season.

If you'd made this argument originally... ;-)

Tbf - if we were paying saints away I'd definitely find someone with a hooky Firestick so I could consciously pirate the money off them ;-)

 

[sign of the chimes]

Was there any evidence that showing on ifollow dented attendances though? Look at yesterday's game (and Monday's) for us. Both clubs sold out despite the fact that it was available for streaming, whereas we have had many games on a Saturday where we only had 6000.

I probably misrepresented Holt. If I recall correctly (I'm going off something I read a year or two ago and my memory is brought to you in association with a few glasses of Cab Sauv), he was talking about the longer-term impact of iFollow on away attendances, rather than claiming he was already seeing an impact.

I don't think there's an immediate existentital threat - like you say, sell out at SJP yesterday. The impact will be on those who haven't attended before and got in to those rituals/habits - so won't be immediate. Perhaps I'm being alarmist.

 

[SEA Grecian]

Bearing in mind there was a threefold increase in the operating loss, it emphasises the absolute need to continue to produce players who can be sold on. We don’t seem to have the quality coming through from the academy that we have previously had, so the ability to spot a player from another club, who could be developed into a saleable asset becomes more important…

For example, a player like Reece Cole.