Would you donate?

Let me know what question you want asking and the options to select and I'll set it up for you.

 

But its not just in sport though. At a point where Netflix were basically the only Streaming service around their originals were consistently at the top of weekly piracy charts. And this wasn't in countries they hadn't launched in yet we are talking about the likes of the US, Canada and UK when the price was 6.99 or under in that countries currency.

There could be a single sports service at £4.99 a month for everything and not only would people pirate content but they would go on the account seller sites or over to the dark web and be happy to pay £10 a year to people committing a crime by obtaining other peoples logins via hacking and phishing to get access.

 

Way back around 2000, maybe even before we were promoted, the club sold a few shares to fans. I don't recall the precise % which were on sale but was a lot less than 1%. There wasn't a huge take up - about 350 fans took up the offer (I still have a copy of the share list from that time) - and they even received a dividend in a couple of years. Of course, they then all lost their investment during the administration.

Let's suppose for a moment that Rupp would agree to sell shares in the club to fans. Apart from the warm and cosy feeling of owning some shares in the club, with no likelihood of a dividend being paid in the foreseeable future, what would attract fans to buy the shares?

 

First of all there just isn't enough Ad Revenue around for subscription fees to drop. It's like people calling for the licence fee to be stopped and the BBC to be ad funded. The UK market wouldn't see more ad money come in, it would just see it split between more channels with the BBC taking a massive chunk of the money that used to goto others (Its why the likes of ITV and C4 are opposed to removing the licence fee as they would be the biggest losers)

And needing ads on sub-services is a case of keeping prices down for the customers. If you look at Netflix as an example while through some creative accounting they are able to show a profit each year they actually spend $4bn a year MORE than they make.

 

The problem is you are paying criminal organisations for the service which is worse than just finding a free stream as you end up increasing the costs for legit users as the outlets need to charge more to cover their costs. And the people 'producing' the content be it a sports team or a tv/film production company don't see a penny and if it becomes enough of a problem can the reason something you enjoy consuming stops existing.

It's like those people who pay for a subscription-based adblocker. Some of them charge £10 a month and they just pocket that money for removing ads from other peoples sites. They don't redistribute that income to the sites in any way and it removes vital income streams for the sites these people consume when the user could just pay the sites themselves for ad-free. As someone who owns a few sites while I would rather users weren't running ad blockers if they are going to I would always prefer they are using free ones that aren't using their data in some malicious way than to pay a company for an adblocking subscription