Jump to content

Accy Chairman’s letter to EFL about ifollow


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

 

The travesty here for me is that someone who is CEO of a football club doesn't know that this should be were and not was. LOL

Seriously though, if he thinks Accrington can make more money by supplying their own service, they shouldn't be forced into it. Sunderland had their own streaming service and didn't use iFollow, so it must be possible, 

 

image.png

Edited by Daizan10
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


If he wanted to gain support he needs to publish the financials of the deal for his club


Show us what the other companies make from selling his streams and then show us what his club gets etc


Without figures nobody can either agree or disagree with his stance because he's not made it clear what he's against at all financially.

Nobody on this site can read that letter and say 'Yeah!! i agree with that' because there's simply no detail at all

 

Yeah, on reading the letter, I agree with him.

 

If our game v them away is on a midweek night and is therefore on ifollow he wants swfc ifollow subscriptions to go to them (or split) whereas currently they go to us. Clubs like ours with large followings benefit from the arrangement whereas clubs like his with small followings don't. ie if we have 5,000 watch on ifollow that is £50,000 if they have 50 then that is £500.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed there doesn't appear to be a video subscription option available for the coming season on iFollow. They being forced to scrap it or just not launched yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, ifollow is dogshit. 

 

Thinking about us, there is so much more that can be done with regard to content, than the lazy, overpriced output provided by ifollow. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rotherham Owl said:

 

Yeah, on reading the letter, I agree with him.

 

If our game v them away is on a midweek night and is therefore on ifollow he wants swfc ifollow subscriptions to go to them (or split) whereas currently they go to us. Clubs like ours with large followings benefit from the arrangement whereas clubs like his with small followings don't. ie if we have 5,000 watch on ifollow that is £50,000 if they have 50 then that is £500.

 

I'm not sure, if I agree with him.

 

We don't get enough away tickets to meet our demand. Many clubs rather have empty seats instead of selling us "to many" tickets.

Accrington are great - they made as many tickets available as possible, but that's not the general rule.

 

So why should any owl supporter, who could not get away tickets, pay money to the host club, which didn't give us enough seats?

 

This would mean that the small host clubs would benefit from giving us even less tickets.

 

(I do like Accrington and the way they run their club, but I still prefer that my ifollow money goes to The Wednesday!)

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:



I don't understand which part of it he's arguing against?
 

 

He's arguing against ASFC intellectual property (IP) rights, and he has a very fair and valid point.

 

For anyone who doesn't understand this, essentially the football that ASFC play, is their own creation. It is their property. They own it and have the right to charge for its use. It's a little bit like going to a gig and live streaming that gig to others for free. The band or singer performing will lose out on revenue, and that is what ASFC feel is happening.

 

However, it's a two way street. iFollow are making profit from this, because they are the platform that is generating the sales. ASFC will be being paid for this, as will all clubs, but I guess they feel they are not getting a fair deal.

 

Whether or not they can make more money by offering their own service remains to be seen. Perhaps they can but either way, they should have the right to decide, without coercion as it seems, to sell their I.P. they way they want.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Swfcsi said:

It's all about money and greed and I myself take my hat off to him it's about time people stood up against it ,I mean £10 a game is a rip off ,I pay £160 a month for sky plus internet phone ect then Bt want £25 extra for there football plus the £10 a game with ifollow is a rip off ..(rant over lol

 

I pay 166 EURO this season, which makes roughly 3,10 Pound per game

(of course that works only for us abroad)

 

Edited by GermanBird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Daizan10 said:

 

 

The travesty here for me is that someone who is CEO of a football club doesn't know that this should be were and not was. LOL

Seriously though, if he thinks Accrington can make more money by supplying their own service, they shouldn't be forced into it. Sunderland had their own streaming service and didn't use iFollow, so it must be possible, 

 

image.png

His 16 year old 'secretary' on £4.81/Hr be getting sacked for that !

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is something in the rules about having to sell a certain number of streams before you get a penny.

 

Some League 2 club tweeted about it during the pandemic. They weren't hitting the number so they weren't getting anything whilst Bolton, a very big club in the division was hitting the number and therefore was.

 

That's probably part of the issue.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Swfcsi said:

It's all about money and greed and I myself take my hat off to him it's about time people stood up against it ,I mean £10 a game is a rip off ,I pay £160 a month for sky plus internet phone ect then Bt want £25 extra for there football plus the £10 a game with ifollow is a rip off ..(rant over lol

 

£160 a month for Sky?!?

 

Mate get them on the phone!

 

You've either got the best special channels ever lol or you're being bent over by them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

He's arguing against ASFC intellectual property (IP) rights, and he has a very fair and valid point. 



Yeah I get that

What I'm saying is that he's spouted out this pretty immature letter and ranted without giving any specifics that anyone else could support.

If he'd have laid out the real problems saying 'Look - when we play a game we get 90 people streaming so we only get £9000 and out of that £4000 goes to I-Follow leaving us £5000 before tax which I just dont' think is fair or worth it' etc


 

  • Like 2

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Swfcsi said:

 I pay £160 a month for sky plus internet phone ect  



WHAT THE ACTUAL

I am seriously considering starting a business where I get people like you to give me their personal details and sky account details so I can call Sky on your behalf pretending to be you, and get your bill down from that much (which is absolutely RIDICULOUS by the way) to around £50 per month for the exact same package (and maybe even more like more boxes for other rooms etc), and charging just one month's difference

So if I got your bill from £160 to £50 per month you pay me £110 for my time and service

Would be like printing money


Easiest thing in the world is calling Sky and getting them to drop their price

 

Anyone paying more than £75 (and that's a lot) needs to be seriously thinking about calling Sky and getting that right down immediately as you're literally just giving money away 

  • Like 5
  • Love 1

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GermanBird said:

 

I'm not sure, if I agree with him.

 

We don't get enough away tickets to meet our demand. Many clubs rather have empty seats instead of selling us "to many" tickets.

Accrington are great - they made as many tickets available as possible, but that's not the general rule.

 

So why should any owl supporter, who could not get away tickets, pay money to the host club, which didn't give us enough seats?

 

This would mean that the small host clubs would benefit from giving us even less tickets.

 

(I do like Accrington and the way they run their club, but I still prefer that my ifollow money goes to The Wednesday!)

 

 

That isnt true, most clubs would and do give us as many tickets as they can, why would they restrict their income.

 

As a small home team, you probably lose money on it, by a cost of putting it on, loss of actual ticket sales, only income maybe a handful of out of area home fans watching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...