2 hours ago, Steejay said:

Club grossed £500k from iFollow last season.

That’s a fantastic revenue stream for us.

Would be interesting to know the costs involved given most of the infrastructure seems to be there already and whether the EFL take a cut. I do have a sneaking suspicion might want to make a go of doing it themselves though. 

31 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Would be interesting to know the costs involved given most of the infrastructure seems to be there already and whether the EFL take a cut. I do have a sneaking suspicion might want to make a go of doing it themselves though. 

I bet there’s no chance of that, I should imagine all the clubs will be signed up the rights of Quest TV and Sky to show highlights.

32 minutes ago, Breightmet Boy said:

I bet there’s no chance of that, I should imagine all the clubs will be signed up the rights of Quest TV and Sky to show highlights.

I meant doing it in-house instead of using the iFollow platform. Means all the profit would be retained rather than sharing it with the EFL.

A few years old now and refers to specifically foreign streaming but the point remains:

“Q: Which clubs have chosen to not offer iFollow to their supporters around the world?

A: Accrington Stanley, Aston Villa, Bristol City, Derby County, Leeds United, Queens Park Rangers and five other Football League clubs.

Note, however, that for the 11 clubs that haven’t signed up for iFollow, they can still live stream the same games as the other 61 EFL clubs. The only difference is the 11 clubs will do it through their own digital infrastructure and brand rather than iFollow.

All 72 EFL clubs have the ability to live stream games overseas regardless of whether they are in iFollow or not.”

3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Would be interesting to know the costs involved given most of the infrastructure seems to be there already and whether the EFL take a cut. I do have a sneaking suspicion might want to make a go of doing it themselves though. 

Watch this space ....

If we cleared £500k out of iFollow last year, why change it for what might be a small difference?

6 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

If we cleared £500k out of iFollow last year, why change it for what might be a small difference?

That was gross figure, depends what nett figure was. 

36 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

If we cleared £500k out of iFollow last year, why change it for what might be a small difference?

 

34 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

That was gross figure, depends what nett figure was. 

"Who gets the money if I pay for iFollow?

For home League games, the Club receives 70% of the subscription fee with the rest going to pay for the service. For home cup games, the net money is split between both Clubs.

For away League games, the home Club keeps the money from the first 500 away supporters but anything over this number is paid to the away Club, so it does directly benefit Oxford United if significant numbers of our supporters pay to watch away games on iFollow."

Taken from an Oxford forum. Again, a couple of years old so may be out of date but interesting to note that the service costs are a percentage rather than a fixed cost. 

Obviously that suits the smaller clubs, but if for example we're grossing £10k for a home game (only 1,000 subscribers so not beyond the realms of possibility), £3k of that is going to the EFL/iFollow for costs. Over the season that comes to just shy of £70k and you'd have to think the club could do it in-house for that cost given they'll already be filming the game for analysis purposes.

8 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

 

"Who gets the money if I pay for iFollow?

For home League games, the Club receives 70% of the subscription fee with the rest going to pay for the service. For home cup games, the net money is split between both Clubs.

For away League games, the home Club keeps the money from the first 500 away supporters but anything over this number is paid to the away Club, so it does directly benefit Oxford United if significant numbers of our supporters pay to watch away games on iFollow."

Taken from an Oxford forum. Again, a couple of years old so may be out of date but interesting to note that the service costs are a percentage rather than a fixed cost. 

Obviously that suits the smaller clubs, but if for example we're grossing £10k for a home game (only 1,000 subscribers so not beyond the realms of possibility), £3k of that is going to the EFL/iFollow for costs. Over the season that comes to just shy of £70k and you'd have to think the club could do it in-house for that cost given they'll already be filming the game for analysis purposes.

Sounds about right. I recall a small-club chairman or manager during lockdown when Bolton played at their place bemoaning the fact that Bolton selling a few thousand iFollow passes meant Bolton get a bigger slice of the income because of the 500 rule. He argued that a game watched by supporters would generate about 10% commission for the away club for sales and the beneficiary for a big away crowd would be the home club.

Shame!

55 minutes ago, MickyD said:

Sounds about right. I recall a small-club chairman or manager during lockdown when Bolton played at their place bemoaning the fact that Bolton selling a few thousand iFollow passes meant Bolton get a bigger slice of the income because of the 500 rule. He argued that a game watched by supporters would generate about 10% commission for the away club for sales and the beneficiary for a big away crowd would be the home club.

Shame!

Colchester?

2 years since Evatt appointment.

flown by!

 

4 minutes ago, Mantra said:

2 years since Evatt appointment.

flown by!

 

The amount of work and progress made by Evatt, his team and owners is unbelievable, let’s hope he’s here for the long haul. 

On 01/07/2022 at 15:58, Leyther_Matt said:

 

"Who gets the money if I pay for iFollow?

For home League games, the Club receives 70% of the subscription fee with the rest going to pay for the service. For home cup games, the net money is split between both Clubs.

For away League games, the home Club keeps the money from the first 500 away supporters but anything over this number is paid to the away Club, so it does directly benefit Oxford United if significant numbers of our supporters pay to watch away games on iFollow."

Taken from an Oxford forum. Again, a couple of years old so may be out of date but interesting to note that the service costs are a percentage rather than a fixed cost. 

Obviously that suits the smaller clubs, but if for example we're grossing £10k for a home game (only 1,000 subscribers so not beyond the realms of possibility), £3k of that is going to the EFL/iFollow for costs. Over the season that comes to just shy of £70k and you'd have to think the club could do it in-house for that cost given they'll already be filming the game for analysis purposes.

Nay. Developers are not cheap and you'd need to maintain a consumer grade streaming platform with full time staff. 

Easier and cheaper to use the existing infrastructure. 

18 minutes ago, Flannel Truscott said:

Nay. Developers are not cheap and you'd need to maintain a consumer grade streaming platform with full time staff. 

Easier and cheaper to use the existing infrastructure. 

There must be a reason why 11 of the 72 went it alone previously though?

3 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

There must be a reason why 11 of the 72 went it alone previously though?

Yes. 85% of clubs leveraged the existing architecture and 15% thought they could do better themselves.

Keen to see how many of the 15% that had a proven track record of managing complex tech projects consider it to be a profitable success. 

1 hour ago, Flannel Truscott said:

Yes. 85% of clubs leveraged the existing architecture and 15% thought they could do better themselves.

Keen to see how many of the 15% that had a proven track record of managing complex tech projects consider it to be a profitable success. 

The relation I made was that Aston Villa, Leeds and Derby were three of those clubs so obviously was something amongst the bigger clubs. Worth mentioning that a lot of the Scottish clubs manage to do it in-house as well with arguably a much smaller potential audience than us. Hibs do a full studio production and all sorts. 

Wigan have payed the staff late the last 2 months no wages Friday but in the bank accounts for Monday according to the Wigan CEO . All sounding a bit familiar hopefully it’s more than a technical problem with bank 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13161421/filing-history

Parent company injected 8.5m of capital through allotment of shares on June 29. I think they're fine. But is a bit weird that they've paid it late twice in a row.

Edited July 3, 20224 yr by Mantra

8 minutes ago, Mantra said:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13161421/filing-history

Parent company injected 8.5m of capital through allotment of shares on June 29. I think they're fine. But is a bit weird that they've paid it late twice in a row.

They’ve not made any signings yet neither, and they’ll already be losing money hand over fist,  more signings will add to that and the finance director left last week. 

Edited July 3, 20224 yr by Mounts Kipper

Sure I saw something on twitter other day about a local business getting shafted by them for some work on the ground they'd done - or something along those lines.

ANOUGTH about Wigan FFS

Accounts available from today, I'll link a thread I've seen on Twitter. 

I'm not the most well versed in reading them and the exact details of what they mean, but our borrowing appears up, but from what I can tell our yearly losses more than halved? 

In the financial year that includes the majority of the covid issues I'd say the numbers are more encouraging than I thought they'd be. 

https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1544211580333719552

 

 

well done ED, from the grave

A better accountant than me might explain

How we got taxed £41,315 on a loss in 2020

How we got it all back in 2021