General 3pm "blackout" Yes, No or Maybe?

Saturday 3pm "blackout" yes, no or maybe

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 30.0%

  • No

    Votes: 37 52.9%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Total voters
    70
  • Poll closed .
MarkG said:
2 years ago who would have through that working from home would be the new normal for office workers, or that many people would be WFH 2 or 3 days a week and/or only calling in at the office on occasion, and that even after the pandemic is "over", WFH would still be the norm for many people.

The danger of people getting out of the habit of going to matches in person is that they get used to it and never come back. I've seen it many times on here. Some of our fans stopped coming for whatever reason and actually enjoyed whatever else they did on a Saturday.
Click to expand...
TBH if you lose the habit of going you probably aren't going to spend your time holed up watching the game on a little screen at home
 
werthersoriginal said:
TBH if you lose the habit of going you probably aren't going to spend your time holed up watching the game on a little screen at home
Click to expand...
Personal experience for me as an Exile in the Midlands.
I already pick and choose home games even with a ST, and have done for many years. I probably only attended an average of 4 a season thanks to "life" in the last decade.
As an exile a home game for me is leaving at 9.00am, arrive Oxford at 10.30ish, pop in & see Sister, free parking in the exclusion zone.
Maybe pop to the Bird for a pint. Leave after 6.00pm when traffic has dispersed a bit. Home by 7.30-8.00pm. 11 hours and £60+ in fuel, food etc.

Since iFollow arrived I`ve watched more games, and on the Smart telly not a little screen, taking 90 minutes out of a Saturday.

I doff my hat to those Exiles that travel consistently every weekend when easier options are there to be had. (y)
 
werthersoriginal said:
TBH if you lose the habit of going you probably aren't going to spend your time holed up watching the game on a little screen at home
Click to expand...
What I meant was that if people get used to watching a Saturday game on the screen at home, they may decide that actually they prefer that to going to matches. In the same way that quite a lot of people actually enjoy working from home, and don't particularly want to return to the office even though they can.

During lockdown, I could go shopping and do whatever and get back at 2:30 ready for a 3pm kick-off on the screen. The iFollow picture quality was actually good, and for me it was better than for instance listening purely to radio commentary.
 
When the kids were younger we simply couldn't afford 5 tickets more than once per season. However I'm sure we could have managed a match pass per month, got the kids hooked and there's the next generation of fans.
 
MarkG said:
What I meant was that if people get used to watching a Saturday game on the screen at home, they may decide that actually they prefer that to going to matches. In the same way that quite a lot of people actually enjoy working from home, and don't particularly want to return to the office even though they can.

During lockdown, I could go shopping and do whatever and get back at 2:30 ready for a 3pm kick-off on the screen. The iFollow picture quality was actually good, and for me it was better than for instance listening purely to radio commentary.
Click to expand...
For me it’s no effort to go to the game as I live round the corner. I appreciate some distant people may not always make the effort if they can use iFollow instead, but I still think that online will generally be used to watch games people wouldn’t otherwise have seen.
 
Essexyellows said:
Can anyone in that earning bracket or less afford to "walk up" on the day?

I`m liking the streaming season ticket idea.

Would save the owners having to build a new stadium...... could have 20k every week with 7 or 8k "bums on seats".
Click to expand...
Quite possibly not, which sort of enforces the idea that a streaming service could be beneficial. To use my situation as an example. I'm in that bracket currently, and for myself, my partner and our lad to all go to a game it's a £80-100 commitment for one game and to be blunt that money is needed for bigger priorities. Last season having £10 a game was manageable. With no streaming options that's money lost from the match pass, but as well as that if we could make it a family tradition to watch every game on the TV as a family, the chances of inducting two new fans into the Yellows is much higher, which would result in £380+ in streaming fees, as well as three new kits every Christmas/birthday instead of one or less. All hypothetical but relevant in my opinion. The issue around less abled people is relevant too in that a parent could make a routine with an autistic child for example and they can have the joy of their team without the difficulties that a live environment might present.

The reason I said to make the streaming season ticket the same price as an actual season ticket was because if you can go to the games, and a season ticket for either option is the same price, obviously people will take the live ticket every time. Don't want the new 20k seater OUFC Arena going to waste 😉
 
Left Wing Cross said:
It's the letting the genie out of the bottle mentality.

The impression I get is that the Football league clubs are scared of having Premier League games available through TV/streaming at the same time as "local" matches and should the PL clubs have an increase in revenue, at the detriment of the lower league clubs, that this would not reversed.
Click to expand...
There’s an interesting conversation here - the actual viewing figures on Sky are often very low, often 200,000 or less for the Burnley/Brighton, Palace/Watford type games and obviously topping out with Man U and Liverpool where the ‘fan’ bases are nationally widespread. Of course, subs costs are high and advertising and sponsorship are easy to sell because of targeted, predominantly male audiences (gambling, booze, takeaway services, erectile dusfunction, etc).

Given that the ’big’ games are moved so as they are not up against other matches and those are Sky’s money makers, perhaps the 3pm kick-offs wouldn’t have such a detrimental effect on attendances and iFollow figures. I’m not a great watcher of Premier League and I can’t imagine casual fans falling over themselves to watch Norwich, Palace, Burnley, Brentford, etc.

Just a thought.
 
MarkG said:
2 years ago who would have through that working from home would be the new normal for office workers, or that many people would be WFH 2 or 3 days a week and/or only calling in at the office on occasion, and that even after the pandemic is "over", WFH would still be the norm for many people.

The danger of people getting out of the habit of going to matches in person is that they get used to it and never come back. I've seen it many times on here. Some of our fans stopped coming for whatever reason and actually enjoyed whatever else they did on a Saturday.
Click to expand...

I think it goes both ways. I've been stuck working at home for so long and I miss the daily interaction around the office, it just makes me even more desperate to get out to football on the weekend.
 
Last edited:
If the club decide to do an in house channel then as a compromise they could show the full game on Saturday evening for a fee (ie. £5-£10). People who want to watch as live then would have to avoid the result for a few hours but that is doable, whereas less so the longer it goes on.
 
Marked Ox said:
If the club decide to do an in house channel then as a compromise they could show the full game on Saturday evening for a fee (ie. £5-£10). People who want to watch as live then would have to avoid the result for a few hours but that is doable, whereas less so the longer it goes on.
Click to expand...
a compromise of sorts, but.... wouldnt some not avoid the result , with more watching a win than a draw or defeat under those circumstances- whereas if ifollow available live , its likely more unable to go would watch?
 
Sarge said:
a compromise of sorts, but.... wouldnt some not avoid the result , with more watching a win than a draw or defeat under those circumstances- whereas if ifollow available live , its likely more unable to go would watch?
Click to expand...

As I said a compromise but at least it finds a sort of middle ground.
 
Scotchegg said:
There is an excellent twitter feed that explained why the 3pm blackout protects clubs like ours.

It's fairly long but does touch on a number of points that make more sense than we may initially think.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1435189141440974854
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting tweets..

As with most things maybe there could be a half way house? What about when a home or away end sells out. Could they not then allow fans to watch on Ifollow. It might have been a bit last minute but had they done that for Wimbledon then I reckon they'd have sold a few thousand Ifollow passes. There might even be a safety argument for doing it; stopping away fans going in the home end etc. I think Wimbledon & Oxford would have made more money last week if it had been on Ifollow, if it had been confirmed once the away end had sold out etc

I've got family stuff on tomorrow that I can't get out of, I just don't have the time to get to Oxford and back. However I probably will have a couple of hours to myself around 3pm, so I'll head off to watch my local non-league team for my football fix. They'll benefit from my gate and burger money, but I'd rather have given my money to Ox via an Ifollow pass.

I also get the argument that allowing 3pm games to be broadcast may harm attendances, and cost the club overall. However why not give it a trial? Let's see what happens. If it does then they can stop doing it / increase the price of Ifollow or if they were being really radical clubs could see if they could improve the live match day experience!

It just seems a bit prehistoric to me that in todays world we haven't got the choice.
 
I actually think each club is different which is perhaps a separate and more complex argument in terms of how well a club can translate each supporter into paying customers. I would, for example imagine that Accrington Stanley has a higher ratio of ardent supporters against casual fans than say, OUFC. For which the model perhaps better serves OUFC in this scenario because they have a greater casual audience to tap into should the opportunity allow.

In the case of OUFC, there are likely a number of lapsed supporters (higher than most may think) who would pay for a service at short notice (the responses to the original post evidences this) and the missed opportunity to earn additional revenue isn't being executed all that well across the leagues. If introduced, it likely represents a fairly low-risk strategy and the club would likely pocket a few extra thousand per fixture.

I myself watch each game through iFollow by virtue that work commitments prevent me from going and thus the club achieves roughly £200 per season from my support which it otherwise wouldn't see. I'd be restricted to BBC Radio Oxford coverage otherwise.

You only have to look at a Wembley visit; 30k+ supporters suggest there is more than a justified casual audience to serve a live 3 pm KO match stream (even 1,500 viewers would represent revenue (before iFollow costs) of £15,000 per fixture. Irrespective of the reasons previously stated (those who either can't be bothered to go to each game, can't get there, can't afford it or just want to watch their local club at short notice to kill a few hours), the drop off from someone that may not value the in-person live match experience against the ease of watching online would likely be smaller than the sum of those taking advantage of the opportunity to watch their club online. The benefits outweigh the negatives and would likely favour a club like OUFC.
 
what an absolute load of guff, When a British boxer was fighting for a world title abroad did the fans not travel as they could sit on their backside and save a fortune watching on ppv or did they still go?

as i've said before it's not "just" the price of Sky Bt etc do the powers that be not understand that?

please somebody explain what difference it makes when a game kicks off at 12:30 for Tv or 3pm, if you're going to your clubs game you go, if the thought process is people wont go if a game is on at 3pm then having a game at 12:30 could have the same impact surely- not forgetting 5:30 Kick offs, not everyone is a stones throw away from a stadium.

if you stay at home normally or go to a game it's exactly the same.

Are they really saying they will ignore the potential extra income because the odd few may decide not to go, how about counter that with hundreds/thousands that could and would pay for Ifollow as they cannot attend and times that across the leagues.

let's say 20-30 Sunderland fans suddenly wouldn't go to Accrington, how about the 20-30k that might just pay to watch their team.
 
Reading Mr. McWilliam's comments it's interesting to note that the 3pm blackout was apparently brought in sixty years ago to protect small clubs.

There was no Internet, no means to charge per view and a tiny range of broadcast options (2). People lived far closer to their place of birth, travel was slower. Outside of the top half dozen teams football was played in shitholes on mud for half the season and was a pretty dire spectacle outside Division 1, outside of which players enjoyed the working conditions and remuneration of pit ponies. It was watched by hardy devotees who would put up with insanity facilities, risk of violence (more in the 70s and 80s I guess) and general boisterousness.

None of these (except the last on good days) apply today.

As an exile who rarely missed a home game for 10 years, and probably spent more last season on iFollow as my season ticket the previous season.

I believe there are now loads of people displaced across the country who still will watch their team either through home membership or going to away games with their mates (see u at 'Nam). Outside the P's**t and Champeenship we struggle to watch the games we don't go to. Which loses a source of revenue and visibility our div 3 and 4 clubs need. It obviously also disadvantages oufc in attracting day trippers from the geographical hinterland too, who would know the players better when they don't go to their 4 seasonal matches.

I suspect this is why Plymouth are in favour, for one.

It's disappointing that oufc has backed the medieval blackout when the club is supposedly moving to a new stadium that will provide a better all-round experience, investing in an exciting team that will rise up the pyramid.

There is a world of media, of ways of enjoying football, of revenue, that can be explored with membership, videos, live-streaming that can be used to retain and reward fans. Supporting or facilitating the next Ultras, allowing fans to watch online when they want.

I'd be for that.
 
Paul Cannell said:
Reading Mr. McWilliam's comments it's interesting to note that the 3pm blackout was apparently brought in sixty years ago to protect small clubs.

There was no Internet, no means to charge per view and a tiny range of broadcast options (2). People lived far closer to their place of birth, travel was slower. Outside of the top half dozen teams football was played in shitholes on mud for half the season and was a pretty dire spectacle outside Division 1, outside of which players enjoyed the working conditions and remuneration of pit ponies. It was watched by hardy devotees who would put up with insanity facilities, risk of violence (more in the 70s and 80s I guess) and general boisterousness.

None of these (except the last on good days) apply today.

As an exile who rarely missed a home game for 10 years, and probably spent more last season on iFollow as my season ticket the previous season.

I believe there are now loads of people displaced across the country who still will watch their team either through home membership or going to away games with their mates (see u at 'Nam). Outside the P's**t and Champeenship we struggle to watch the games we don't go to. Which loses a source of revenue and visibility our div 3 and 4 clubs need. It obviously also disadvantages oufc in attracting day trippers from the geographical hinterland too, who would know the players better when they don't go to their 4 seasonal matches.

I suspect this is why Plymouth are in favour, for one.

It's disappointing that oufc has backed the medieval blackout when the club is supposedly moving to a new stadium that will provide a better all-round experience, investing in an exciting team that will rise up the pyramid.

There is a world of media, of ways of enjoying football, of revenue, that can be explored with membership, videos, live-streaming that can be used to retain and reward fans. Supporting or facilitating the next Ultras, allowing fans to watch online when they want.

I'd be for that.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone isn’t a TRUE fan.
 
Not sure if it’s the same now, but was the case that AFL (Aussie rules) games being played in Perth would only be shown on free-to-air locally if the game was sold out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom