Pay per view friendlies

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

The numbers have been crunched and I’m pleased to announce the club made £60 on those who paid to watch today on this message board alone. Well done all and enjoy a guilt free sleep tonight. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Midlands Yellow

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

3 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

You get 4 more games in the Championship than Premier so your ST has gone down this season 

Yeah sound logic I suppose 

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

8 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

The numbers have been crunched and I’m pleased to announce the club made £60 on those who paid to watch today on this message board alone. Well done all and enjoy a guilt free sleep tonight. 

I have a guilt free sleep every night 👍

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

5 minutes ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

I have a guilt free sleep every night 👍

Marvellous isn’t it? People on here are not tempted to watch City matches for free. 

[Peanuts 150]

I refuse to watch the friendlies. Mrs Peanuts dutifully pays her (my) 10 pounds or whatever it is, but I won't be drawn into it. Pre season is always ****. There's inevitably at least 3 players who look fantastic and are then sold/loaned and never seen in a yellow shirt again. That being said the bits of football I've glimpsed through my fingers have been **** but plus ca change etc.

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

10 hours ago, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Yeah sound logic I suppose 

Not often I get accused of that on here 🤣

[essex canary 609]

A huge problem with TV football is that Sky and BT subscribers pay out their hard earned money all over the country then it gets sucked back disproportionately into London, Liverpool and Manchester. Norwich haven’t done too badly either with the yo-yo model though more precarious for us because we have to earn a place back in the Premier League.

It would be much better to see the subscription money paid back into the regions it came from. The football levelling up project.

How much are people willing to pay in total for TV football?  Will they cut back? 

 

[SwearyCanary 1,339]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

A huge problem with TV football is that Sky and BT subscribers pay out their hard earned money all over the country then it gets sucked back disproportionately into London, Liverpool and Manchester. Norwich haven’t done too badly either with the yo-yo model though more precarious for us because we have to earn a place back in the Premier League.

It would be much better to see the subscription money paid back into the regions it came from. The football levelling up project.

How much are people willing to pay in total for TV football?  Will they cut back? 

 

So it’ll mostly go to the most populated regions with the most subscribers like say, erm London, Manchester and Liverpool. Chuck in Birmingham and it’s not likely East Anglia will be quids in under this plan I’d wager 

[Greavsy 2,636]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

How much are people willing to pay in total for TV football?  Will they cut back? 

I think you only have to look at the number of people who expect a free stream to answer that. 

[essex canary 609]

8 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

So it’ll mostly go to the most populated regions with the most subscribers like say, erm London, Manchester and Liverpool. Chuck in Birmingham and it’s not likely East Anglia will be quids in under this plan I’d wager 

Scotland and Wales would do very well. Should give some indication as to what would happen in East Anglia. 

Given the last 10 years we may be worse off overall but the Club's income level would likely be far more stable and promote better planning.

[essex canary 609]

6 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I think you only have to look at the number of people who expect a free stream to answer that. 

Another tradition in football is the money going to the home team. On that basis why shouldnt the TV receipts go to the home team? On that basis Norwich would probably do better overall with a home game against Celtic balancing out an away one as we would bag all the Celtic subscribers.

Equally the same logic applies to someone who only wants to watch away games in the Midlands. The Club still makes money from away game only visitors to Carrow Road so why shoukd they effectively charge twice? Maybe such people are in some respects the justification for the away members charge? It is then dubious logic to charge the same to people coming from Norwich who already pay a huge fee for their season ticket in addition to far more travel costs than someone living in the Midlands. Why not charge the latter a 'sense of belonging' fee similar to international membership in principle. Could make that £100 or £200 per year.

Interesting that you think that maybe you should get some credit for paying your season ticket up front. In other words some reward for the time value of money. Not quite the logic you recommend for shareholders is it?

[Greavsy 2,636]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Another tradition in football is the money going to the home team. On that basis why shouldnt the TV receipts go to the home team? On that basis Norwich would probably do better overall with a home game against Celtic balancing out an away one as we would bag all the Celtic subscribers.

Equally the same logic applies to someone who only wants to watch away games in the Midlands. The Club still makes money from away game only visitors to Carrow Road so why shoukd they effectively charge twice? Maybe such people are in some respects the justification for the away members charge? It is then dubious logic to charge the same to people coming from Norwich who already pay a huge fee for their season ticket in addition to far more travel costs than someone living in the Midlands. Why not charge the latter a 'sense of belonging' fee similar to international membership in principle. Could make that £100 or £200 per year.

Interesting that you think that maybe you should get some credit for paying your season ticket up front. In other words some reward for the time value of money. Not quite the logic you recommend for shareholders is it?

Yes again essex you put words in my mouth. I suggest you read my post again. 

My point was I knew what I was getting when I paid my money, I can't complain afterwards for not getting something that wasn't offered at the time. 

I did used to get a discount for being an N&P account holder, but that stopped with the cessation of their sponsorship. It's called progress / evolution. Things change. 

Im sure you're not as dim as you're coming across, but you do seem to very consistently proving otherwise. You make EVERY topic about your shareholding. BORING & TEDIUS! 

[essex canary 609]

5 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Yes again essex you put words in my mouth. I suggest you read my post again. 

My point was I knew what I was getting when I paid my money, I can't complain afterwards for not getting something that wasn't offered at the time. 

I did used to get a discount for being an N&P account holder, but that stopped with the cessation of their sponsorship. It's called progress / evolution. Things change. 

Im sure you're not as dim as you're coming across, but you do seem to very consistently proving otherwise. You make EVERY topic about your shareholding. BORING & TEDIUS! 

There are some organisations that charge no extra for DDs. Fair enough. There are others that charge quite considerably for DDs because they recognise the time value of money and that processing 12 transactions costs them much more than 1. Nothing wrong with that either.

Curious though that inheritor owners of 4 shares still get their membership rights whilst those owning 250 times as much don't. In current circumstances especially it could be interpreted as life of the shares and unlikely to be an issue for MY offspring just for others who I feel had a raw deal.

Consistency NCFC style. Still maybe there is progress. At least they may have picked up on your Birmingham ticket issue of last week. Maybe the Americans are already in the driving seat.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

Another tradition in football is the money going to the home team. On that basis why shouldnt the TV receipts go to the home team? On that basis Norwich would probably do better overall with a home game against Celtic balancing out an away one as we would bag all the Celtic subscribers.

You do realise that the away team in a friendly often gets a fixed fee for playing in it right? That is negotiated when its arranged.

Take Rayo Vallenco. Their pre-season schedule takes in away fixtures at Freiburg (Germany), Saletrnitana (Italy), Sheffield Wednesday (England), Birmingham (England), Leganes (Spain), Man Utd (England). No home fixtures. 

They are a very small club, capacity 14700, average attendance 7000 last season, their total wage bill is mooted as being below 10 mlllion euros a year with their highest earner on about £20k a week (and that's Falcao so their marquee). They aren't taking their entire squad across five countries on a month long tour on their own money for fun, they are getting paid. 

Its likely that we'd have got a fee for playing Marseille and Celtic. 

[Greavsy 2,636]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

There are some organisations that charge no extra for DDs. Fair enough. There are others that charge quite considerably for DDs because they recognise the time value of money and that processing 12 transactions costs them much more than 1. Nothing wrong with that either.

Curious though that inheritor owners of 4 shares still get their membership rights whilst those owning 250 times as much don't. In current circumstances especially it could be interpreted as life of the shares and unlikely to be an issue for MY offspring just for others who I feel had a raw deal.

Consistency NCFC style. Still maybe there is progress. At least they may have picked up on your Birmingham ticket issue of last week. Maybe the Americans are already in the driving seat.

 

And again. 

Tedious, groundhog day. 

[ncfcstar 342]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

There are some organisations that charge no extra for DDs. Fair enough. There are others that charge quite considerably for DDs because they recognise the time value of money and that processing 12 transactions costs them much more than 1. Nothing wrong with that either.

Curious though that inheritor owners of 4 shares still get their membership rights whilst those owning 250 times as much don't. In current circumstances especially it could be interpreted as life of the shares and unlikely to be an issue for MY offspring just for others who I feel had a raw deal.

Consistency NCFC style. Still maybe there is progress. At least they may have picked up on your Birmingham ticket issue of last week. Maybe the Americans are already in the driving seat.

 

I have never come across an organisation that actively discourages their customers from setting up a regular payment, by charging them for the convenience.  In fact when it comes to energy companies (appreciate it's not the best example in the current climate!) their best tariffs are always for DD customers.  I'd love for you to point out a business who would rather have a customer randomly pay X at any moment than being able to budget for payments made on the same date each month.

Loans and credit are different.

Edited July 25, 2022 by ncfcstar

[Greavsy 2,636]

12 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I have never come across an organisation that actively discourages their customers from setting up a regular payment, by charging them for the convenience.  In fact when it comes to energy companies (appreciate it's not the best example in the current climate!) their best tariffs are always for DD customers.  I'd love for you to point out a business who would rather have a customer randomly pay X at any moment than being able to budget for payments made on the same date each month.

Loans and credit are different.

Different rules for shareholders - and their offspring.