£14.95 for Non-TV Premier League Game Streams

[SevernWolf]

I pay £10 for Sky games through NowTV and can just about stomach that. If they don't reduce the price of Friday's match to £10 or below, though, it will be the first one I will have missed since the lockdown.

 

[Jonzy54]

I don’t really think £15 is particularly outrageous.
The price of a plastic bottle of warm beer in the ground maybe is! Or the programs now days! The price of parking near the ground on match days! Or that damn toll road.

But £15 to watch a premier league game I think is reasonable ish.
That said I’ll probably just listen to it on the radio anyway as it’s on btsport and still don’t like mcmanamon!!

I currently pay over £100 per month for both Sky and BT .There is no way I will be paying an additional £14.95 on Friday .
For those that choose to fair enough, I will just listen to it

 

[JOSWolf]

I currently pay over £100 per month for both Sky and BT .There is no way I will be paying an additional £14.95 on Friday .
For those that choose to fair enough, I will just listen to it

Yep. No way we are paying that ridiculous price on top of the money spent on Sky and BT either.

 

[AntonusKlesk]

More people need to be encouraged to boycott at the current pricing. Buying at this ludicrous price will encourage the PL lock us into ridiculous pricing when the PL shift to a direct streaming solution down the road: £500+ for a season pass per team.

I imagine it's the money-is-no-object section of fans that are buying at the current prices, for whom that won't matter anyway.

 

[Direwolf]

Really would like to watch it but as others have said £10 is my cut off point. Especially as I am paying monthly subscriptions already to avoid the one day passes.

 

[Ironfistedmonk]

You can pay like £6 a month in some countries and watch every single premier league game, £15 is not reasonable

 

[Deleted member 4099]

IPTV if that's down its the radio

 

[Bugsy911]

IPTV is the answer and you get every game on that with the right supplier....for the cost of a years subscription it pays for itself in 1 month compared to sky and bt subscriptions.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Enough streams out there these days .

 

[AntonusKlesk]

The discussion of IPTV and streams illustrates how wrong the pricing is currently.

Music and Movies/TV spent years going through the same thing and settled on a profitable model based on huge user numbers paying a relatively low price for high quality service that outweighs the demand for illicit means, and eventually eclipses it as a result of the price and service quality reaching a good position. Trim down the offering, there's no need for punidts - just give us the match with commentary like most other countries get.

The lessons have already been learned here by directly comparable industries, so it's frustrating to see the PL treading well-trodden ground on the off chance their product might somehow be different. Entirely driven by greed.

 

[JonahWolf]

I wouldn't. Id pay if it was a fiver.

I paid the fiver for the Europa qualifiers with pleasure. I grudgingly stumped up the tenner for the league cup game rather than use ‘alternatives’. I wouldn’t have done if I’d known it was such poor production.

There is a price point where a lot of people will pay for a quality product than risk an inferior one for less. £15 is not it.
A fiver? All day long. I’d even pay that for a non-Wolves game if I particularly wanted to watch a match at that time.

The £15 a month I pay for family package amazon music usually annoys me when it comes out the bank, but considering there’s at least 2 people in the house using it constantly, I don’t begrudge it.
Makes the £15 for 90 mins of football look particularly ridiculous, same for Netflix.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

View attachment 18132

Not sure about the authenticity of this but hope it's true as that will be a loss made by sky as 74 people probably doesn't cover their costs.

Don't be so foolish as to think they would reduce the price. They'll simply stop showing the games.

This is simply a chance for fans to watch games they otherwise won't see. Some money will go to clubs to offset gate revenue losses.

Sky and BT won't lower the prices so much as to hurt their own business and employees. Why would they?

I fully understand that in current times there are people struggling and 14.95 seems high but there is the option not to watch. It sucks but thats the world we live in right now.

I guess wolves expect that people will use the money they would have spent on ST's to fund Sky, BT and PPV. Thats what I'll be doing but everybody will have their own approach.

Regardless of if people choose to watch i sincerely hope that everybody here is healthy and secure and will be ready to return to Molineux and roar on the boys when the time comes. All the best everyone.

 

[WickedWolfie]

I pay £10 for Sky games through NowTV and can just about stomach that. If they don't reduce the price of Friday's match to £10 or below, though, it will be the first one I will have missed since the lockdown.

My plan is to find a boozer and spend the money there... Even in the Smoke l should get three pints minimum...

 

[JR WAS KING]

It's a tough one and I understand why people don't want to pay.

However, from my point of view I usually pay over £600 a year for my season ticket and go to most away matches which by the time you add in beer and transport etc means approx £75 per match. Since going to Spurs in March, I haven't paid out a penny to watch a match (I already had Sky & BT) so if I have to I will shell out £14.95 to watch the game.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

It's a tough one and I understand why people don't want to pay.

However, from my point of view I usually pay over £600 a year for my season ticket and go to most away matches which by the time you add in beer and transport etc means approx £75 per match. Since going to Spurs in March, I haven't paid out a penny to watch a match (I already had Sky & BT) so if I have to I will shell out £14.95 to watch the game.

How is this ever going to end then? Take a stand, you seem to understand it's not right, so don't pay. It's the only way we can possibly get change. Go to the pub, ask around for a stream, there are ways to watch without having to pay that.

 

[SuperGran]

It's a tough one and I understand why people don't want to pay.

However, from my point of view I usually pay over £600 a year for my season ticket and go to most away matches which by the time you add in beer and transport etc means approx £75 per match. Since going to Spurs in March, I haven't paid out a penny to watch a match (I already had Sky & BT) so if I have to I will shell out £14.95 to watch the game.

It’s your money but this in a nutshell is why they’ll continue to charge

 

[Warrington_Wolf]

Donate the £14.95 and listen to the game on the radio.

Take a stand. The only way they listen is if they get hit in the pocket.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

I won’t be paying (even though I could).

Making a stand, innit.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

How is this ever going to end then? Take a stand, you seem to understand it's not right, so don't pay. It's the only way we can possibly get change. Go to the pub, ask around for a stream, there are ways to watch without having to pay that.

Take a stand against what though? A business charging for a service? We don't have a right to watch for low prices or free and these are games that wouldn't normally be available. We arent paying for season tickets this year so its not like double dipping. They don't have to do it at all. Given that they are, however, they need to make money. They have staff to support too.

Its tough at the moment but regardless of price there are those (thousands i would wager) who will still seek a free illegal stream. Neither Sky or BT are going to try and attract people with that mindset. They'll leave them to suffer poor quality or prosecution if caught.

I dont really want to pay 14.95 to watch but I will. Its the tier 2 restriction thats messing it up. Under rule of 6 it would be fine with a few mates or family together.

 

[Lawley Wolf]

I think it's a joke, but I will not risk missing the game using IPTV lottery of a good stream or through stubbornness so I will end up paying, regrettably.

 

[Warrington_Wolf]

Take a stand against what though? A business charging for a service? We don't have a right to watch for low prices or free and these are games that wouldn't normally be available. We arent paying for season tickets this year so its not like double dipping. They don't have to do it at all. Given that they are, however, they need to make money. They have staff to support too.

Its tough at the moment but regardless of price there are those (thousands i would wager) who will still seek a free illegal stream. Neither Sky or BT are going to try and attract people with that mindset. They'll leave them to suffer poor quality or prosecution if caught.

I dont really want to pay 14.95 to watch but I will. Its the tier 2 restriction thats messing it up. Under rule of 6 it would be fine with a few mates or family together.

A couple of points:

1. The £14.95 fee is massively higher than the monthly charge in most other countries for access to all games. Proportionally, it is a rip off.

2. There are several sets of supporters for whom it would be 'double dipping'. I believe Leeds and tomorrow's opponents Palace have taken at least a proportion of ST money from supporters.

 

[WolfInSheep'sClothing]

I want to watch the game. It would be a no-brainer at a fiver. A tenner i would pay the fee and have a bit of a moan. £15? Hmmm. I don't know. Maybe.

 

[JR WAS KING]

How is this ever going to end then? Take a stand, you seem to understand it's not right, so don't pay. It's the only way we can possibly get change. Go to the pub, ask around for a stream, there are ways to watch without having to pay that.

I normally would go to the pub to watch with my mates, but I can't even bloody well do that now.

 

[Trojmiasto]

I for one won’t be shelling out £15 to watch what appears on the surface to be a glorified practice match, void of fans in a sterile atmosphere with fake noise.
Plus the added bonus of VAR endlessly deliberating on a so called clear and obvious decision, no, sorry not for me.
I’ll tune into the radio for free and just use my imagination.

There is a goal which when added after hes in a dot com world may very well bring you a bit closer to the action that that!

That is assuming that you can avoid the various temptations for Russian women who desperately want to meet men over fifty as well as the new, fascinating positions that you must try with your other half...

 

[wanderer24]

If you don’t pay it, they won’t charge it. It’s basic supply and demand. They rely on you relentlessly giving away your money. They prey on your addiction. If nobody signs up they will drop the price until the demand reaches the level they can maximise profit. The longer you hold off, the better we will all be.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Take a stand against what though? A business charging for a service? We don't have a right to watch for low prices or free and these are games that wouldn't normally be available. We arent paying for season tickets this year so its not like double dipping. They don't have to do it at all. Given that they are, however, they need to make money. They have staff to support too.

Its tough at the moment but regardless of price there are those (thousands i would wager) who will still seek a free illegal stream. Neither Sky or BT are going to try and attract people with that mindset. They'll leave them to suffer poor quality or prosecution if caught.

I dont really want to pay 14.95 to watch but I will. Its the tier 2 restriction thats messing it up. Under rule of 6 it would be fine with a few mates or family together.

A few things - whilst I agree with your post to an extent.

What are the additional costs involved.? The cameras/production etc will already be in place for overseas coverage. They may have to supply a commentator and/or pundits to drivel on inanely - but those are not absolutely necessary.
So the only cost would be in the actual 'arranging' of the PPV service - which I'd imagine is relatively minimal.

You are right in that these are games that would not - under normal circumstances - be shown live. However why then are they being moved? Should not all games not scheduled for the normal TV slots, be at the normal appropriate time (15:00 Saturday, 14:00 Sunday if Euro Team). I would argue that moving the games so they don't overlap is an attempt to double dip - but in reality would anyone other than the supporters of the teams involve actual pay anyway - I don't think so.
So moving the games is either an attempt at a bit of a double dip and/or a way of limiting broadcast costs.

I made a decision a couple of years ago to cancel sky sports, due to the cost and me not watching enough to justify it, same with movies.
I have an IPTV subscription for a fraction of the price and I can watch any game I chose in Full HD and excellent quality. I don't watch every game (other than Wolves) and what I have is cheaper and as good as sky, and I can pick and chose what I watch (for £6 a month).

If however they offered a reasonable season package - I would pay - just as I do for Spotify. I have a family Sub for £14.99 a month, and as the kids constantly use it, as do Me and the Mrs, and I see that as pretty good value.

Whichever way you cut it - £14.95 for one match is a bloody rip off.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

A couple of points:

1. The £14.95 fee is massively higher than the monthly charge in most other countries for access to all games. Proportionally, it is a rip off.

2. There are several sets of supporters for whom it would be 'double dipping'. I believe Leeds and tomorrow's opponents Palace have taken at least a proportion of ST money from supporters.

I don't deny that such a fee is high. I would rather pay less for sure. Interested to know how much our club makes from this. They get income already for the games shown by Sky and BT but surely its only fair that our club get some revenue from these games if we get to watch them.

As for other teams and double dipping then yes, purely a disgrace. Admittedly I'm commenting based on my own situation as a Wolves fan.

 

[Beeches wolf]

PPV was tried some years ago without real success. Generally fans didn't like it. This new approach is a smoke screen , reintroduce it through the back door under the "wouldn't normally be available " banner. If successful how long before most of the fixtures between the top teams become PPV? Fans across the country have long been used as a cash cow and in this current climate fans have simply had enough of being ripped off.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

I wouldn't. Id pay if it was a fiver.

All this does is push more people to the "dark side". Normal law abiding saintly citizens will be led to a life of crime.

This is a gateway crime, most will be too scared to move on to other more serious indiscretions.

Some will enjoy the thrill though, leading to dodgy DVD's, tobacco off of "crazy eyes" Pete from the pub and the creation of Quango's syphoning money off the tax payer.

Where will it end though? Stolen cars? cocaine smuggling? tax evasion?

Or dealing in arms? People trafficking? Murder?

One minute you're inviting your neighbour over for the Burnley match, the next you're in a seedy nightclub with Hunter Biden. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

A few things - whilst I agree with your post to an extent.

What are the additional costs involved.? The cameras/production etc will already be in place for overseas coverage. They may have to supply a commentator and/or pundits to drivel on inanely - but those are not absolutely necessary.
So the only cost would be in the actual 'arranging' of the PPV service - which I'd imagine is relatively minimal.

You are right in that these are games that would not - under normal circumstances - be shown live. However why then are they being moved? Should not all games not scheduled for the normal TV slots, be at the normal appropriate time (15:00 Saturday, 14:00 Sunday if Euro Team). I would argue that moving the games so they don't overlap is an attempt to double dip - but in reality would anyone other than the supporters of the teams involve actual pay anyway - I don't think so.
So moving the games is either an attempt at a bit of a double dip and/or a way of limiting broadcast costs.

I made a decision a couple of years ago to cancel sky sports, due to the cost and me not watching enough to justify it, same with movies.
I have an IPTV subscription for a fraction of the price and I can watch any game I chose in Full HD and excellent quality. I don't watch every game (other than Wolves) and what I have is cheaper and as good as sky, and I can pick and chose what I watch (for £6 a month).

If however they offered a reasonable season package - I would pay - just as I do for Spotify. I have a family Sub for £14.99 a month, and as the kids constantly use it, as do Me and the Mrs, and I see that as pretty good value.

Whichever way you cut it - £14.95 for one match is a bloody rip off.

A balanced and honest post you make.

I couldnt tell you what additional costs are involved. There will be some for sure. Also, don't Wolves and Palace get some of this too? Isn't that the point? If it was 5 quid to cover sky costs and then 5 quid each to wolves and palace to offset lost gate revenue then is that so bad?

Moving KO times actually means that supporters who shell out the 14.95 to watch their team can still watch games shown on Sky and BT (live) to which they might already be subscribed without missing any. Seems fair. Doubt they expect fans to pay multiple PPV for other teams.

I have only subscribed to Sky and BT since lockdown and dip in and out based on Wolves coverage. Prices are high but I choose this over illegal streams. I dont agree with breaking the law to save a few quid. Same reason I pay for what I buy in a shop and don't seek out stolen goods for less. No offence meant but its breaking the law however you look at it. Overseas rights etc seem unfair but the law is the law.

Also, worth noting that illegal streams mean less genuine subscribers meaning a higher cost for everyone. Thats the theory anyway, if all illegal streamers joined sky would they reduce prices? Probably not.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

I think it's a joke, but I will not risk missing the game using IPTV lottery of a good stream or through stubbornness so I will end up paying, regrettably.

IPTV lottery lol. There's no lottery, it's a winning ticket every time.

 

[Trojmiasto]

A couple of points:

1. The £14.95 fee is massively higher than the monthly charge in most other countries for access to all games. Proportionally, it is a rip off.

2. There are several sets of supporters for whom it would be 'double dipping'. I believe Leeds and tomorrow's opponents Palace have taken at least a proportion of ST money from supporters.

That doesn't just end with football. Netflix in Turkey works out at about £2.50 a month as opposed to the £9 we pay for exactly the same service.

In Vietnam, the SIM.cards you get on arrival give you 6GB of data every day for a month (circa 180GB) for about £7 all in.

We're stupid enough to pay it - it's always been the problem.

 

[Trojmiasto]

Also, worth noting that illegal streams mean less genuine subscribers meaning a higher cost for everyone. Thats the theory anyway, if all illegal streamers joined sky would they reduce prices? Probably not.

Nonsense - if there was no fee,the viewing audience would be far higher and thus attract greater revenue from potential advertisers/sponsorship deals. Imagine advertising to millions as opposed to the 32,000 who've paid the gate in down the Molineux - vastly different captive audience and far more money to be made.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

A balanced and honest post you make.

I couldnt tell you what additional costs are involved. There will be some for sure. Also, don't Wolves and Palace get some of this too? Isn't that the point? If it was 5 quid to cover sky costs and then 5 quid each to wolves and palace to offset lost gate revenue then is that so bad?

Moving KO times actually means that supporters who shell out the 14.95 to watch their team can still watch games shown on Sky and BT (live) to which they might already be subscribed without missing any. Seems fair. Doubt they expect fans to pay multiple PPV for other teams.

I have only subscribed to Sky and BT since lockdown and dip in and out based on Wolves coverage. Prices are high but I choose this over illegal streams. I dont agree with breaking the law to save a few quid. Same reason I pay for what I buy in a shop and don't seek out stolen goods for less. No offence meant but its breaking the law however you look at it. Overseas rights etc seem unfair but the law is the law.

Also, worth noting that illegal streams mean less genuine subscribers meaning a higher cost for everyone. Thats the theory anyway, if all illegal streamers joined sky would they reduce prices? Probably not.

its my understanding that it is not illegal to watch a stream, It is however illegal to do the actual streaming or to show it (in pubs etc).
I think the only people ever prosecuted are those involved in creation of the stream and/or 'screening' it in public venues (I recall pubs being prosecuted for having legally bought Swedish sports packages - or something like that anyway.
Its semantics I know.

as others have pointed out the music industry went through this with Napster and pirate bay and the like - years ago. They now have multiple apps that they have embraced and work with and subs worldwide must be massive.

I think the point I was trying to make was that If I could buy a Football only Subscription for £10 a month from Sky or direct from PL or Wolves, then I would. I wouldn't need or bother with IPTV, because I would have a product that I want and at a reasonable price point .

However having sky sports & BT (probably £40-50 a month now) and then having to top up with £14.95 for games that they are not showing, it just smacks of profiterring.

I do take your point about the money (or some of it) going to the clubs - but they haven't really been forthcoming with those details, hence the scepticism of many.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Let's be honest. If Wolves had turned around and said STH's were entitled to pay a one off fee this season for access to all non televised UK matches, most would have parted with their money if it was reasonable.

If they announced Molineux would be closed this season but you could buy a TV pass for £200, they'd have coined it in.

 

[WickedWolfie]

All this does is push more people to the "dark side". Normal law abiding saintly citizens will be led to a life of crime.

This is a gateway crime, most will be too scared to move on to other more serious indiscretions.

Some will enjoy the thrill though, leading to dodgy DVD's, tobacco off of "crazy eyes" Pete from the pub and the creation of Quango's syphoning money off the tax payer.

Where will it end though? Stolen cars? cocaine smuggling? tax evasion?

Or dealing in arms? People trafficking? Murder?

One minute you're inviting your neighbour over for the Burnley match, the next you're in a seedy nightclub with Hunter Biden. It's a slippery slope.

Think that l'd rather be in the seedy nightclub with Ivanka as long as politics is not up for discussion lol...

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

A balanced and honest post you make.

I couldnt tell you what additional costs are involved. There will be some for sure. Also, don't Wolves and Palace get some of this too? Isn't that the point? If it was 5 quid to cover sky costs and then 5 quid each to wolves and palace to offset lost gate revenue then is that so bad?

Moving KO times actually means that supporters who shell out the 14.95 to watch their team can still watch games shown on Sky and BT (live) to which they might already be subscribed without missing any. Seems fair. Doubt they expect fans to pay multiple PPV for other teams.

I have only subscribed to Sky and BT since lockdown and dip in and out based on Wolves coverage. Prices are high but I choose this over illegal streams. I dont agree with breaking the law to save a few quid. Same reason I pay for what I buy in a shop and don't seek out stolen goods for less. No offence meant but its breaking the law however you look at it. Overseas rights etc seem unfair but the law is the law.

Also, worth noting that illegal streams mean less genuine subscribers meaning a higher cost for everyone. Thats the theory anyway, if all illegal streamers joined sky would they reduce prices? Probably not.

They don't need the revenue. It's exploiting fans. If we were in the Championship (where they charge £10 btw) then fair enough, as the money would actually be helping the club. Do you honestly think this helps the club and that's why they're doing it? Of course not. They said the transfer market would collapse and those same clubs spend over £1.2bn. It's the greed that's the problem.

Also your point about moving kick-off times is completely wrong. They don't show a 3pm Saturday game on Sky or BT. At worst, every box office should be Saturday 3pm (or Sunday 3pm if Europa League team involved). The moving the times around is designed to do exactly what you said they don't want; they're trying to get more people to buy, which is another greedy move. There's absolutely no justification for our game being Friday 8pm tomorrow.

The whole point is that it's needless greed.

If nobody bought these games what would happen?

IMO it would be one of two things;

Most likely: The prices would have been reduced to a more acceptable rate such as £5.

If not: They would make them free again like they did before or worst case they go back to normal and 3pm games aren't shown and there then would be a bigger push to let fans in and they'd agree quicker IMO.

Either way, the fans stood to win from it if we didn't pay. So whilst you and others mean well, you're helping to take the game further away from the fans than it already is. Nuno's already talking about a lost generation and a set of fans who watch from TV and don't understand what football really is and this is helping that grow.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

Nonsense - if there was no fee,the viewing audience would be far higher and thus attract greater revenue from potential advertisers/sponsorship deals. Imagine advertising to millions as opposed to the 32,000 who've paid the gate in down the Molineux - vastly different captive audience and far more money to be made.

Nonsense?! Said the guy who thinks showing the games for free will make Sky and BT far more money. If that was the case then they'd be doing it. They are in business to make money. End of.

I agree that more viewers would of course attract more advertising but its not exponential. Sky and BT know their numbers and would 100% exploit advertising in this way if they could.

Ask yourself why ITV can't compete for PL games if the advertising revenues alone would far outweigh subscription charges.

In all honesty I understand the sentiment of your post but I thinks its idealistic and not realistic.

 

[Bilston paul]

Although I agree £14.95 is a bit of a ****take but the option is there if people want to watch it. We've been quite lucky as most of our games since lock down have been on the normal sky / BT package. Plus BBC showed the Burnley game. I'm a season ticket holder and average 4 or 5 aways a season as well but the away games I don't attend aren't always on TV so I generally would listen on WM so that's what I will be doing tomorrow night. Like a lot on here I can afford to pay it but it's the principle as with a lot of other fans. I fork out for sky and BT as it is. Plus the goals / highlights will be on SSN at 10pm.

 

[Wolowolf6]

All this does is push more people to the "dark side". Normal law abiding saintly citizens will be led to a life of crime.

This is a gateway crime, most will be too scared to move on to other more serious indiscretions.

Some will enjoy the thrill though, leading to dodgy DVD's, tobacco off of "crazy eyes" Pete from the pub and the creation of Quango's syphoning money off the tax payer.

Where will it end though? Stolen cars? cocaine smuggling? tax evasion?

Or dealing in arms? People trafficking? Murder?

One minute you're inviting your neighbour over for the Burnley match, the next you're in a seedy nightclub with Hunter Biden. It's a slippery slope.

I watched a stream once.

Now I'm doing hard years in the clink for all of the above.