Football League reveals how much iFollow live streaming benefits Port Vale

[News Feed]

Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey says that Football League clubs receive up to 80% of the revenue from live streaming of games and the League is keen to ensure live attendances are not affected. Harvey says that clubs such as Vale will receive up to 80% of the £10 fee charged. He also revealed […]

The post Football League reveals how much iFollow live streaming benefits Port Vale appeared first on onevalefan.co.uk.

 

 

Click for full article

 

--

 

This is an automated feed from:

 

http://www.onevalefan.co.uk

 

View our home page for our latest features

 

--

[Fozza19]

"Up to 80%".

 

I wonder what the "up to" part depends on, and where the other 20% goes?

[robf]

"Up to 80%".

 

I wonder what the "up to" part depends on, and where the other 20% goes?

 

I can answer those...

 

1. The "up to" is my phrase as the FL said 70-80% goes to the clubs.

2. As I understand it, some years ago the Football League created FLI (Football League Interactive) which was a common company representing all clubs. The idea is that as a collective they have better bargaining power and therefore can get more for rights and so on. I would therefore presume the rest of the money (20-30%) goes to the FLI. There will be costs involved in the live streaming - staffing costs, equipment costs etc. I believe this is broadly the same thing that happens with the money you pay for the audio commentary - the majority goes to the club but a portion of it goes to meet FLI costs. However, I would argue that £8 to the club for each viewer is not too shabby - especially if the person watching is someone who physically can't get to the game as they live too far away.

[toyahw]

According to the Beeb is 70-80%. Radio Stoke, who clearly have a real downer on ifollow were saying 40% during the commentary on Tues. A bit odd considering it is the only way to get the RS commentary legitimately if you are out of signal range, to my knowledge. Maybe someone should ask the club? https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45894676

 

 

There was research done using ip addresses recently that showed over 95% of use came from further than 25 miles from the ground, which would be somewhere around about further than Telford for Vale. I very much doubt it has that much influence on attendance compared to other factors.

 

 

Plus as Rob says not all Vale fans live near Burslem. In fact we know many on here that do not. It helps keep us who cannot usually get there connected to the club and you know we might just buy something from the shop, go out of our way to physically go when possible and so on.

 

Like Rob, I think it is a very good thing, for all concerned. (At least when it works, which it has mainly done since the first few games).

 

 

EDIT Sorry Rob I duplicated some of your points posting at the same time

[rayzer]

I think Radio Stoke were right when they said Vale got 40% i.e. £4.00 out of the £10.00 paid, but what they did not say was that Vale also get £3.00 when they are the away side. At away games the Vale do not get any of the gate money except for F.A. Cup and League cup (not sure about the "Mickey Mouse Cup"). The other £3.00 goes to iFollow.

[robf]

There was research done using ip addresses recently that showed over 95% of use came from further than 25 miles from the ground, which would be somewhere around about further than Telford for Vale. I very much doubt it has that much influence on attendance compared to other factors. Plus as Rob says not all Vale fans live near Burslem.

 

Completely agree.

 

I would also say that even if someone lives close-by they may not always be able to attend.

 

In part what riled me about the "disgrace" comments are it's lazy stereotyping of all Vale fans without any thought of their personal circumstances.

 

There are multiple reasons why fans may not be able to attend whether they live far away or now... they may be short of money, they may live too far away, they may be ill/disabled, they may have to look after kids or be a carer for an elderly relative, they may work shifts and not finish in time to make the game...

 

That said, I guess if it's a disgrace for me to continue to chip in a few quid to the club for fixtures I cannot usually attend then I am very happy to continue to be a disgrace...

 

Yours disgracefully,

 

Rob

[toyahw]

I think Radio Stoke were right when they said Vale got 40% i.e. £4.00 out of the £10.00 paid, but what they did not say was that Vale also get £3.00 when they are the away side. At away games the Vale do not get any of the gate money except for F.A. Cup and League cup (not sure about the "Mickey Mouse Cup"). The other £3.00 goes to iFollow.

 

I very much doubt that this is the case (the split part, not the cut of EFL/ifollow). Ifollow is done on a club basis. You don't ifollow the match you ifollow your club.

 

So ifollow the Vale I expect this goes to the Vale, regardless of home or away, not split 50/50 with the oppo. They have their own ifollowers and get their cash accordingly. That is my understanting at least. In which case RS were being pretty sloppy and disingenuous with the 40%.

 

 

It should all be made clearer though I agree.

[Santa]

It takes the **** a bit that fans of League Two teams have to pay a tenner every time they want to watch a midweek game and yet if you support a Championship side and you've got Sky, all midweek games are on the red button for no extra cost.

[Paul6754]

Good to know that a decent percentage, if true, of the iFollow subscription does go to the Vale. Despite its short comings it's excellent now with audio and video, I can't wait for Saturdays.