-> "it’s still a hugely ****ish trick to pull on older generation local supporters who have undoubtedly tipped tens of thousands into the club over the decades, only to be cut off completely now if they don’t have internet access or a spare tenner." -> "I don't have sympathy with those who have now lost the joy of listening to the game on the radio," It really is a ****ish trick. And sorry to say, it really is a ****ish view to have no sympathy. I can imagine how in earlier times it was tough for City fans not having access to the LOCAL radio or any other alternative, but that was just how it was, and for decades. It certainly wasn't the fault of those who had and have now lost the possibility to listen in to City on the LOCAL radio. How anyone cannot see the ****ishness of this move and have some sympathy for those affected, who will typically be fellow supporters now in their later years, is beyond me. I don't just have sympathy, I'm absolutely disgusted with it.
Oh dear, so for all of the years when you had something for nothing, that I never had as an adult, you believe that I should have sympathy, well you are wrong I have empathy, that is a far better understanding of being cut off from the club that you support. The picture painted is that for years, pensioners have been huddled around their Pye radio, warming their hands on the solitary candle as they are transported back to the glory of Boothferry Park, mopping their tears with the hand knitted black and amber scarf that their Mother gave them along with the wooden rattle for Christmas 1952 as they listen to yet another defeat and the latest tale of a pie and pint, from Burnsy. Nothing could be actually further from the truth. Many of 65's use computers at home and the source of BT' info, the ONS, states that 80% of over 65's have access to the internet nationally. That means only 20% have no internet. Not allowing the BBC to broadcast is a poor decision and I think it is not going to drive people towards paying, it will drive people away. My point is that dragging poor old pensioners into the debate is wrong. The people who will suffer loss are, the lass at work, the lad who cares for one of the 42 in Hull who can't access the internet. The managers and coaches, who run teams and listen in on the way back from the games. The patients in Castle Hill, who I helped to provide DAB radios for so they could at least listen to games, whilst getting chemo. So **** off with your view about my lack of sympathy. Just wait until supporters are let back into grounds in numbers, watch how much back tracking gets done when the leagues stop the showing of Saturday 3pm games again. Will you have sympathy for me, when I can't listen to a game without paying for it on a Saturday afternoon? Will you ****, you will say, that's alright you have a computer, you can pay to listen to it. Now thats ****ishness of the first order.
**** me. Really? Get over yourself. Of course it's about 'old pensioners' (as well as many other as you rightly say). Many 65's are more tech savy than me. Think about say 80 year olds who don't have a clue. Of course I have sympathy for any City fan who can't listen in. Why wouldn't I? However, you / they haven't had something vindictively heartlessly taken away. Sounds like it doesn't affect your relative or friend; if it did, you might think differently. Bit by bit the Allams are breaking the bond between people and the club. Please don't respond, you piss me off with your selfish ****ish view on this one.
Yep, I’m selfish. I don’t have sympathy. Sympathy gets you nothing. I don’t do sympathy, I don’t sit on my arse in judgment on others, like you are with me. I will do something about it. I am doing something about it. I can do something about it. And I will do it on a basis of understanding and not sympathy.
Nobody else is getting it, that's the whole point, it's to force everyone to pay a tenner if they want to follow the game.
**** em, i'm outside the broadcast area and haven't been able to listen for free. About time they levelled things up a bit. This post may not be completely serious.
Does anyone know what the clubs get out of the £10? No doubt there are costs involved, money going to the EFL and others. Norwich are doing a deal for overseas fans £140 for the season or £20 a month. Are we doing something similar?
There already is (was) a package for overseas fans, to buy by the match, monthly or annually. The monthly and annual subscriptions have continued throughout summer and continue still (well there's a thing!) I assume they will transfer over from TigersTV to the new iFollow platform, but I haven't seen detail about this. The Sunderland game was for some strange reason not made available to overseas fans at all. Even for those who have been having monthly subs deducted still. The Leicester game is at least being made available to overseas fans ...... but it requires an one off payment (i.e. it doesn't come under the monthly or annual subscription that is being paid). As usual, the comms seem last minute (soon it will be literally last minute) and subscriptions continue to be taken for nothing. Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.
Cheers. Trawling through the forums of other clubs we are not the only one whose fans are not happy with arrangements regarding season tickers or arrangements to broadcast games. Portsmouth seem to have a good arrangement.
There is an option on the current system for £4.99 for audio, which was used for Saturday 3pm starts. Nothing has been said about this. I don’t think this is actually just about £10 per game, it’s to drive memberships up. It will be cheaper in the long run to pay for season membership than to buy each game. The logic behind this is flawed. This is a reactive measure to bring down costs and improve incomes that may solve a current issue but does nothing for the long term. I will not be buying every game. I can’t be arsed. I can afford to but I don’t think it is good value.
Just to clarify for the audience. The current (about to be eliminated it seems) fee is 4.99 quid per month, which covered all home & away audio commentaries (including non 3pm Saturday games - both league & cup matches). The new option is 10 quid per match for video coverage. A couple of days after the actual game was played, the video was available for viewing for anyone paying for the audio 4.99 quid option.
They have got it wrong, both in theory and in practice. The word you use is audience and that is correct. They are missing the fact that broadcasting a game on local radio hardly affects the viewing figures it is a different audience. Only a small proportion of listeners will actually ever spend money supporting the club. They are the folk in the community who buy the scarfs and shirts for the Grandchildren. Not many will ever have been to the KCOM. The negatives will drive more nails into the coffin that is Hull City. Covid plays a significant part in all of this as well. Staffing levels are lower. Not having a club tv coverage will mean less staff on the books. Not having the BBC coverage looks like it will increase sales to iFollow but in effect it will not. So what can be done about it? In the short term nothing. In the long term, I doubt that even getting new owners will change things. The way forward for change is supporter involvement. Turn things on their heads. Set up an alternative. Ring someone who is unable to use the internet and do your own commentary for the game over the phone. It might sound daft, but it would be better than letting them sit there in silence.
The status quo is definitely better for me - both financially and entertainment-wise. Saturday mornings (Canada time) anywhere from 1 to 4 mates come round to my place to watch 2-4 live PL games on the telly and listen to City's audio commentary . Naturally, a couple of beers from the TV room fridge add to the atmosphere. Only one of those mates is from Hull & is a City fan. If 10 quid video streams is all that's available, it would take over 1 of the 2 TV screens which would piss off the other guests who prefer watching the PL matches !
That’s it in a nutshell..The Allan’s are solely money driven and have completely thrown off the cloak of invisibility..not that it took much seeing through..Fans do not come into the equation..we pissed them off early doors and they have not forgotten!
