Both.The Saturday 3pm tv restriction is about maintaining home gates, not travelling supporters.
Both.The Saturday 3pm tv restriction is about maintaining home gates, not travelling supporters.
Both.
Attendances fluctuate for a variety of reasons. a) whose the opposition ? b) How bad is the weather ? c) How far do I need to travel ? e) What are the facilities like ? ( public transport to the ground, parking, nearby pubs, safety, pitch visibility, comfort, family facilities) f) Entry price ? g) What day of the week is it ? h) What time's kick off ? i) what other commitments do I have that may prevent me from going ? (on vacation, kids function at school, missus/hubby wants to go shopping, have to work today/tomorrow)...ad infinitum !Fans will travel irrespective if they want. The fact it is on live doesn't matter to them.
Newcastle filled the away end at Nottingham Forest for a midweek game in a meaningless cup which meant taking time off work and getting back in the early hours of the morning. More of them than were at the KCOM.
Attendances fluctuate for a variety of reasons. a) whose the opposition ? b) How bad is the weather ? c) How far do I need to travel ? e) What are the facilities like ? ( public transport to the ground, parking, nearby pubs, safety, pitch visibility, comfort, family facilities) f) Entry price ? g) What day of the week is it ? h) What time's kick off ? i) what other commitments do I have that may prevent me from going ? (on vacation, kids function at school, missus/hubby wants to go shopping, have to work today/tomorrow)...ad infinitum !
The 3 p.m. k.o. on Saturday afternoon's is historic, and still today is the most convenient time for the majority of supporters/fans (home or away) to conveniently get to the match. Sunday k.o.'s run second.
If 3.00 p.m. Saturday games are televised it increases the risk of a drop in attendance given any of the factors mentioned. It is far more likely to negatively impact clubs lower in the League hierarchy. They are damaged the most.
Hence TV blackouts.
Some fans will still go regardless. Many may be swayed into watching the match on TV anytime.
They are the "floating fans", of which there are many.
Lets not forget the questions like 1) How **** is our team playing these days and 2) how destruction is our club ownership and team management.
Not disagreeing one little bit with you Barca. Just supporting what probably is the rationale for the original 3pm Sat TV blackout by the football powers, and Andy Holt's and the FSF's position on the iFollow decision which seems to be eroding the principle of protecting weaker clubs in the pyramid. Money may be talking here with this decision - but clearly without consultation or an analysis of the broader picture.And, as I said, some fans will go irrespectively. Some may decide to watch one of the big clubs rather than one of their own club's games. Something I can't understand myself.
The UK is the only country to prohibit the broadcast of 3pm Saturday kick-offs.
[...]
Major European leagues in France, Spain, Germany and Italy do not observe such a blackout, and there has been sufficient evidence to prove that closed periods do not affect the outcome of lower league football match attendance.
It is a major irony that you are able to watch more Premier League games based in North America or Asia rather than England, who have prided themselves as a nation who are the home of football.
Naturally, UK-based football fans don't always have the resources or financial ability to always attend the game on matchday, only able to follow their game on television – and not being able to watch your team at 3pm can be frustrating.
There has been research about the impact of televised football on matchday attendees, with the consensus being that there is little to no correlation (if you are a local supporter, you would attend your home game regardless of who played at 3pm on television).
In February 2011, Advocate General Kokott of the European Court of Justice launched an investigation into the "closed periods" and concluded that they did not affect match attendance at lower league games.
"It is, in fact, doubtful whether closed periods are capable of encouraging attendance at matches and participation in matches," she said in a statement.
"Both activities have a completely different quality to the following of a live transmission on television. It has not been adequately shown to the Court that the closed periods actually encourage attendance at and participation in matches.
"No closed periods were adopted in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, or in Northern Ireland, that is to say, within the sphere of influence of English football."
Holt sounds like a bit of a tit there. It's an experiment. If it's a disaster then they'll re-assess.
Seems pretty obvious they are trying to make the game more accessible to more people. Considering the cries of poverty yesterday I'm surprised at the silver spoon attitude towards that can't afford to go but still support their team. Pretty disheartening to see.Why are they hoping to achieve from the experiment? What’s their hypothesis?
Should they have held discussions with the stakeholder businesses they represent prior to the experiment?
Should the have agreed a compensation package with the affected businesses to cover any losses, prior to the experiment?
Why haven’t they disputed the accusation of mis-leading their stakeholders?
Have they considered & discussed the variables that their experiment may throw up with those that the variables may affect?
How will they analyse the data from their experiment without the goodwill & help of the stakeholder businesses that are affected?
I think the owner of any business owner would, quite rightly, be pissed off if the body representing them made maverick decisions & ran experiments that could potentially cost the businesses income & profit.
By not consulting with the stakeholders the EFL represent prior to this decision being made it screams of a money making scheme for the EFL to the potential detriment of the 72 businesses they answer to.
Football without supporters is nothing.
Shabby.
Seems pretty obvious they are trying to make the game more accessible to more people. Considering the cries of poverty yesterday I'm surprised at the silver spoon attitude towards that can't afford to go but still support their team. Pretty disheartening to see.
I thought the clubs earned money from their streaming services? My mistake.More accessible? Discussions & subsequent action regarding affordable pricing would achieve this, obviously that could potentially cost the EFL money.
Nothing should appear anything. Planned with clear objectives. It should all be transparent & open. Especially to the businesses their decisions affect. It should not be a surprise to the business owners it affects.
Do you think they’d stream the EFL Cup Final to make it more accessible if Sky or whoever dumped it?
It’s about the EFL making money, nothing more.
Fans will travel irrespective if they want. The fact it is on live doesn't matter to them.
Newcastle filled the away end at Nottingham Forest for a midweek game in a meaningless cup which meant taking time off work and getting back in the early hours of the morning. More of them than were at the KCOM.
My stepson 'travelled' to that game from Leicester with his Newcastle supporting mate who lives in Melton Mowbray.
Less per capita per match than the turnstile price. Not good business without consultation & agreement.I thought the clubs earned money from their streaming services? My mistake.
I thought the clubs earned money from their streaming services? My mistake.
A small amount I believeI thought the clubs earned money from their streaming services? My mistake.