[Albion] Paul barber q&a matchday thread

[Farehamseagull]

As always, Barber shows he’s a class act. We’re lucky to have him at the club.

 

[clapham_gull]

As someone who did not attend am I correct in the assumption that in relation to PPV the clubs have been stitched up by Sky?

They have no control over the price (legally) since they would be acting as a cartel.

They haven't been stitched up by Sky, since Sky don't really have an interest in a PPV channel. They make their money from subscriptions.

It's a solution initiated by the clubs (and pressure from the Government) to give season ticket holders the chance to watch all home games.

In my opinion, the PR evidently went wrong with the timing. Clubs hadn't firmed up their refund policy, Sky suddenly announced the PPV followed by the price. Club had no idea about the £14.95 for the reasons above.

However (and I know this has been down to death) what's been lost in all this is the reality that watching only the homes games as a STH is now very expensive.

1) Club still taken money (check), albeit as "credit"
2) Having to subscribe to both Sky and BT (check)
3) £14.99 PPV (check)

I know you "get more", but you haven't the choice to get what you had.

I think that got lost along the way (particularly point 2) alongside the reality that the PPV (as explained by Paul) will barely cover the match day revenue for 2 home games.

It's just been a bit of a **** up.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

They have no control over the price (legally) since they would be acting as a cartel.

They haven't been stitched up by Sky, since Sky don't really have an interest in a PPV channel. They make their money from subscriptions.

It's a solution initiated by the clubs (and pressure from the Government) to give season ticket holders the chance to watch all home games.

In my opinion, the PR evidently went wrong with the timing. Clubs hadn't firmed up their refund policy, Sky suddenly announced the PPV followed by the price. Club had no idea about the £14.95 for the reasons above.

However (and I know this has been down to death) what's been lost in all this is the reality that watching only the homes games as a STH is now very expensive.

1) Club still taken money (check), albeit as "credit"
2) Having to subscribe to both Sky and BT (check)
3) £14.99 PPV (check)

I know you "get more", but you haven't the choice to get what you had.

I think that got lost along the way (particularly point 2) alongside the reality that the PPV (as explained by Paul) will barely cover the match day revenue for 2 home games.

It's just been a bit of a **** up.

I also watched the Q & A and you have highlighted a point I hadn't fully considered. I currently have Sky Sports and pick up BT Sport on a £25 monthly pass whenever Albion have a scheduled game. I had assumed PPV would simply be all the other matches available on my Sky package as PPV rather than split out again between Sky and BT Sports. In other words, 8/10 camera coverage of all unscheduled games available as a PPV regardless of which platform I subscribe to. In my head, I don't count my season ticket investment as a cost as I haven't drawn on it to pay for games yet. Sky Sports is my cost of choice, but I'm not sure about having to spend an extra £25 on a BT Sport Monthly Pass to allow me to spend another £14-95 on a PPV game. Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

 

[Icy Gull]

I also watched the Q & A and you have highlighted a point I hadn't fully considered. I currently have Sky Sports and pick up BT Sport on a £25 monthly pass whenever Albion have a scheduled game. I had assumed PPV would simply be all the other matches available on my Sky package as PPV rather than split out again between Sky and BT Sports. In other words, 8/10 camera coverage of all unscheduled games available as a PPV regardless of which platform I subscribe to. In my head, I don't count my season ticket investment as a cost as I haven't drawn on it to pay for games yet. Sky Sports is my cost of choice, but I'm not sure about having to spend an extra £25 on a BT Sport Monthly Pass to allow me to spend another £14-95 on a PPV game. Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

I should pay more attention! This had passed me by, I just assumed I would be paying £14.95 for the game. I have a NOW TV pass for Sky which I have kept, as it also covers F1, but have cancelled BT Sport after the two Albion games on recently. So if the WBA PPV game is on BT Sport I am 100% not paying an additional £25 to watch one game.

Are the details out as to which of SKY and BT will be showing the PPV Albion games yet?

 

[Horses Arse]

To be fair to Barber, he is a superb executive and runs our club very well. I have had a few discussions with him via email and phone once and he gets his point over very well. His only issues are, he is never wrong and will not go back on his initial view, plus he uses phases that we fans do not like, EG 'Customers' and 'Product'.He sees Brighton as a commercial business, which it is, but us fans see it as a community football club first. The term 'Together' is used mainly for the benefit of the club and sometimes that really is lacking between us and them. Would I get rid of him, no way, he is bloody good, but think sometimes he needs to look at things from a fans point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The never wrong and never goes back on his original view are absolutely spot on. They are a major flaw unfortunately.

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

I also watched the Q & A and you have highlighted a point I hadn't fully considered. I currently have Sky Sports and pick up BT Sport on a £25 monthly pass whenever Albion have a scheduled game. I had assumed PPV would simply be all the other matches available on my Sky package as PPV rather than split out again between Sky and BT Sports. In other words, 8/10 camera coverage of all unscheduled games available as a PPV regardless of which platform I subscribe to. In my head, I don't count my season ticket investment as a cost as I haven't drawn on it to pay for games yet. Sky Sports is my cost of choice, but I'm not sure about having to spend an extra £25 on a BT Sport Monthly Pass to allow me to spend another £14-95 on a PPV game. Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

BT Sport website
If you are currently a BT Sport subscriber on Sky, you can purchase the event via your Sky box, or if you can buy online.

If you have Sky but currently don’t subscribe to BT Sport, first you’ll need to register and pay for your first event with BT by credit/debit card. Once you’ve bought your event, you’ll be able to see the event by pressing Box Office on your Sky remote or tuning to the BT Sport Box Office channels 490/494.

 

[Horses Arse]

Very impressive by Mr Barber.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall tomorrow watching him take out the Utd & Liverpool reps at the EPL meeting. He’s going to destroy them.

I remember the Saints fans creaming themselves over their CEO a few years ago. I find it all very strange.

Did he cover the "Unfortunately fans will always want everything for free." ditty?

Hopefully he apologised for that, put it down to annoyance over the mess created by ManUtd and Liverpool and the volume of mails received. I would hope so anyway because that statement was so very clearly wrong and unbecoming of anyone employed by the club, at whatever level.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

As always, Barber shows he’s a class act. We’re lucky to have him at the club.

100% this.

He really is excellent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mwrpoole]

I also watched the Q & A and you have highlighted a point I hadn't fully considered. I currently have Sky Sports and pick up BT Sport on a £25 monthly pass whenever Albion have a scheduled game. I had assumed PPV would simply be all the other matches available on my Sky package as PPV rather than split out again between Sky and BT Sports. In other words, 8/10 camera coverage of all unscheduled games available as a PPV regardless of which platform I subscribe to. In my head, I don't count my season ticket investment as a cost as I haven't drawn on it to pay for games yet. Sky Sports is my cost of choice, but I'm not sure about having to spend an extra £25 on a BT Sport Monthly Pass to allow me to spend another £14-95 on a PPV game. Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

As I understand it, if it’s the same as boxing ppv, then you don’t need to be a sky sports subscriber to watch box office events. Any sky customer can pay & watch.

You also don’t need to be a sky customer, sky box office is available on Now TV.

Failing that you can get the sky box office app on phones/tablets and watch it that way.

Word of warning though, if you purchase it through the app you can only watch it via the app. If you purchase via sky box you can only watch it on sky box.

 

[drew]

They have no control over the price (legally) since they would be acting as a cartel.

They haven't been stitched up by Sky, since Sky don't really have an interest in a PPV channel. They make their money from subscriptions.

How can you say Sky have no interest in PPV when major boxing events are sold on that basis? PPV matches will generate additional income over and above the subscriptions for their normal scheduled games. Say 30k Liverpool fans (probably a conservative estimate) watch on PPV that's revenue of £450k that they wouldn't normally have for a match that is already being broadcast for an overseas market. That's one match. If they aren't showing Utd as well that weekend then I'm sure you can see the attraction to Sky!

 

[Guinness Boy]

Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

A point I've been making repeatedly.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Paying for two platforms plus a PPV feels uncomfortably close to paying three times to watch the same match.

All down to personal choice I guess.

We all cut our cloth accordingly.

 

[chaileyjem]

A point I've been making repeatedly.

Ha ! In December some Albion games will be on Amazon Prime so it will be three platforms + PPV potentially to watch all Brighton matches that month.

 

[drew]

To be fair to Barber, he is a superb executive and runs our club very well. I have had a few discussions with him via email and phone once and he gets his point over very well. His only issues are, he is never wrong and will not go back on his initial view, plus he uses phases that we fans do not like, EG 'Customers' and 'Product'.He sees Brighton as a commercial business, which it is, but us fans see it as a community football club first. The term 'Together' is used mainly for the benefit of the club and sometimes that really is lacking between us and them. Would I get rid of him, no way, he is bloody good, but think sometimes he needs to look at things from a fans point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This continual reference to fans as customers as if it is derogatory is often used as a stick to beat him. If my memory is right, the phrase was something along the lines of that the club should treat their fans as if they are customers, ie that they have choice rather than the fact we are a captive audience. We have one of the best match day experiences, padded seats, quality pies, good choice of beers, interest free DD,

Perhaps if fans were treated as customers back in the 80s we wouldn't have been caged in and the fatal consequences of that might never have happened!

Would I still go if we didn't have the padded seats, pies etc, of course I would but I enjoy it more because we do have them.

 

[Deadly Danson]

This continual reference to fans as customers as if it is derogatory is often used as a stick to beat him. If my memory is right, the phrase was something along the lines of that the club should treat their fans as if they are customers, ie that they have choice rather than the fact we are a captive audience. We have one of the best match day experiences, padded seats, quality pies, good choice of beers, interest free DD,

Perhaps if fans were treated as customers back in the 80s we wouldn't have been caged in and the fatal consequences of that might never have happened!

Would I still go if we didn't have the padded seats, pies etc, of course I would but I enjoy it more because we do have them.

100% this.

 

[dazzer6666]

How can you say Sky have no interest in PPV when major boxing events are sold on that basis? PPV matches will generate additional income over and above the subscriptions for their normal scheduled games. Say 30k Liverpool fans (probably a conservative estimate) watch on PPV that's revenue of £450k that they wouldn't normally have for a match that is already being broadcast for an overseas market. That's one match. If they aren't showing Utd as well that weekend then I'm sure you can see the attraction to Sky!

That’s pretty insignificant though compared to their plan subscriber base which is their overwhelming main source of revenue (c8 million customers).

 

[Deadly Danson]

The never wrong and never goes back on his original view are absolutely spot on. They are a major flaw unfortunately.

Only that's not true. Just as an example, as I recall, when the club decided to allocate seating for away games some of us wrote to him to complain. He wrote back fairly quickly, explained his position but that they would look at it again and within a few hours had sent me a rough outline of a better plan for my comments and after a day or so that became the "pick your own seat" that we have today which most people are happy with. I don't agree with him on everything but it's wrong to say he won't ever change his mind.

 

[drew]

That’s pretty insignificant though compared to their plan subscriber base which is their overwhelming main source of revenue (c8 million customers).

So they dismiss it then! I don't think so.

 

[clapham_gull]

How can you say Sky have no interest in PPV when major boxing events are sold on that basis? PPV matches will generate additional income over and above the subscriptions for their normal scheduled games. Say 30k Liverpool fans (probably a conservative estimate) watch on PPV that's revenue of £450k that they wouldn't normally have for a match that is already being broadcast for an overseas market. That's one match. If they aren't showing Utd as well that weekend then I'm sure you can see the attraction to Sky!

You are wrong and its not "me" saying it.

With football their business model currently revolves around lengthy subscriptions.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

A point I've been making repeatedly.

The PPV games will be ones that weren’t otherwise going to be televised though....so not quite that clear-cut