Matches iFollow next season - prices

No one would pay £20 per game.
Its a lot - but I would - Living in Cornwall I only get to about 15 games a season - have enjoyed the non saturday games on ifollow this season - not the greatest quality but much better than nothing at all - though obviously prefer a live match would happily pay this as cant afford the money and time to get to each game (costs me at least 100 with petrol, beer etc). Also means more money for the club for the games I can't get to. I think all games should be screened for anyone who lives say over 100 miles away from Oxford whatever
 
If you want to sit at home and miss all the real experience! ?

I know what you mean but, we haven't reached that point just yet. I would say that it should be a privilege exclusively for season ticket holders and not available to others.
You should not be able to pick and choose when to support your club. (that'll get someone on their soapbox!)

just for clarity, if someone pays on the day are they not supporting the club?...if i'm understanding you correctly you feel that ifollow should be for season ticket holders only?

if a person obtains a season ticket via installment plan or credit card that equates to paying per game does it not? (unless pay the credit card bill in one hit)
 
just for clarity, if someone pays on the day are they not supporting the club?...if i'm understanding you correctly you feel that ifollow should be for season ticket holders only?

if a person obtains a season ticket via installment plan or credit card that equates to paying per game does it not? (unless pay the credit card bill in one hit)
Good luck to anyone turning up to pay on the day for a match with no spectators allowed to attend. Season ticket holders will have already paid, in advance so, yes, the privilege of watching the game via iFollow should be exclusive. The game would not be available otherwise in the UK. (and without a change in contract still won't be available, exclusive or not)
Paying by credit does not equate to paying per game. You have obtained a loan to purchase the season ticket, you don't have the option to not pay simply because you cannot attend.
 
If they put the prices up then surely that’s going to cause more people to just watch illegally... £10 is a lot already really to watch just one match. People just won’t pay £20, this is proved with the amount of illegal boxing streams
 
A ST works out at £13.59 per match (East Stand adult) or £17.72 for an adult North stand. iFollow, imo, should be £20 a game.

You run the risk of ST holders paying more per game.
 
Last edited:
just for clarity, if someone pays on the day are they not supporting the club?...if i'm understanding you correctly you feel that ifollow should be for season ticket holders only?

if a person obtains a season ticket via installment plan or credit card that equates to paying per game does it not? (unless pay the credit card bill in one hit)

Good luck to anyone turning up to pay on the day for a match with no spectators allowed to attend. Season ticket holders will have already paid, in advance so, yes, the privilege of watching the game via iFollow should be exclusive. The game would not be available otherwise in the UK. (and without a change in contract still won't be available, exclusive or not)
Paying by credit does not equate to paying per game. You have obtained a loan to purchase the season ticket, you don't have the option to not pay simply because you cannot attend.

an on the day person has as much right to ifollow as a season ticket holder, not everyone can shell out in advance and my point was if a st is paid by credit card or installment you have not paid cash you are paying the cc company or finance company per month so that's what i meant by it equates to the same thing as someone paying on the day.
it's hard enough getting people to attend without creating a them and us scenario, they are all fans of the club and should be treated as such...if ifollow could be streamed are you really advocating denying much needed income just because some people cannot pay a whole season up front, for which there will be many reasons by the way.
 
A ST works out at £13.59 per match (East Stand adult) or £17.72 for an adult North stand. iFollow, imo, should be £20 a game.

You run the risk of ST holders paying more per game.
That’s the risk you take if you buy it at the discounted price. If you are that concerned hold out and pay more once the government make the next announcement I guess
 
That’s the risk you take if you buy it at the discounted price. If you are that concerned hold out and pay more once the government make the next announcement I guess
I've already renewed, but can see some not taking it well.
 
I've already renewed, but can see some not taking it well.
Yeah, I agree but I think that’s why they’ve made it such a short deadline for the lower price because they know people will pay it and be willing to take the risk
 
Yeah, I agree but I think that’s why they’ve made it such a short deadline for the lower price because they know people will pay it and be willing to take the risk
It will probably be those who asked for a rebate that will take exception to the cost.
 
an on the day person has as much right to ifollow as a season ticket holder, not everyone can shell out in advance and my point was if a st is paid by credit card or installment you have not paid cash you are paying the cc company or finance company per month so that's what i meant by it equates to the same thing as someone paying on the day.
it's hard enough getting people to attend without creating a them and us scenario, they are all fans of the club and should be treated as such...if ifollow could be streamed are you really advocating denying much needed income just because some people cannot pay a whole season up front, for which there will be many reasons by the way.

There would not be any "on the day" tickets sold for a game where the ground was closed to supporters. Season ticket holders would have already paid for a seat.

Paying by credit card or instalments to a finance agreement means that the season ticket has been purchased by borrowing the total amount due from a third party in order to pay the club. It does not equate to paying on the day. The club will have been paid, in advance, in full.

This is not "creating a them and us scenario" it is differentiating between someone who has entered into a contract with the club to gain access to multiple games by advance payment for a designated seat and someone who wishes to purchase, on an ad hoc basis, game by game, a seat. That does in no way diminish their enthusiasm to support the club, it merely demonstrates that one has purchased in advance and the other has not. The one has placed their faith in there being a match to which they will gain access, the other has decided to attend when it is physically possible.

Nobody is advocating a denial of income, merely a realistic way of dealing with the possibility that season ticket holders will not be able to attend games despite having paid in advance.

Apologies if this comes across as condescending but, I cannot really understand how anything I posted could be misunderstood?
 
Paying by credit card or instalments to a finance agreement means that the season ticket has been purchased by borrowing the total amount due from a third party in order to pay the club. It does not equate to paying on the day. The club will have been paid, in advance, in full.

I'm sure the club have said before that this is not the case.
 
Paying by credit card or instalments to a finance agreement means that the season ticket has been purchased by borrowing the total amount due from a third party in order to pay the club. It does not equate to paying on the day. The club will have been paid, in advance, in full.

I'm sure the club have said before that this is not the case.
Given that the finance option involves a "retail credit agreement" I am also sure that this is the case. Entering into an agreement involves a contract with a finance company, in this instance V12, and not OUFC.
 
Given that the finance option involves a "retail credit agreement" I am also sure that this is the case. Entering into an agreement involves a contract with a finance company, in this instance V12, and not OUFC.

Yes, agree re the retail credit agreement.

I'm not sure it's necessarily the case with credit card purchases though.
 
Lets hope they find a solution.:cautious:
The complete horlicks, in Australia, of Optus sports attempt at serving up the last World Cup by internet only should make any mass provider worry. They basically had to give the whole rights to their main competitor SBS who could broadcast for free on tv. And Optus are a proper telecoms company. Ifollow etc better be prepared for some high expectations !
 
The complete horlicks, in Australia, of Optus sports attempt at serving up the last World Cup by internet only should make any mass provider worry. They basically had to give the whole rights to their main competitor SBS who could broadcast for free on tv. And Optus are a proper telecoms company. Ifollow etc better be prepared for some high expectations !

Good luck with high expectations and iFollow in the same sentence!
 
There would not be any "on the day" tickets sold for a game where the ground was closed to supporters. Season ticket holders would have already paid for a seat.

Paying by credit card or instalments to a finance agreement means that the season ticket has been purchased by borrowing the total amount due from a third party in order to pay the club. It does not equate to paying on the day. The club will have been paid, in advance, in full.

This is not "creating a them and us scenario" it is differentiating between someone who has entered into a contract with the club to gain access to multiple games by advance payment for a designated seat and someone who wishes to purchase, on an ad hoc basis, game by game, a seat. That does in no way diminish their enthusiasm to support the club, it merely demonstrates that one has purchased in advance and the other has not. The one has placed their faith in there being a match to which they will gain access, the other has decided to attend when it is physically possible.

Nobody is advocating a denial of income, merely a realistic way of dealing with the possibility that season ticket holders will not be able to attend games despite having paid in advance.

Apologies if this comes across as condescending but, I cannot really understand how anything I posted could be misunderstood?

The person who would "normally" pay on the day will still wish to see his/her team play no? so why should they be denied that opportunity (via ifollow ) just because they did not/could not purchase a season ticket?
i repeat a season ticket bought on finance is paid by the finance company and the st holder pays monthly for the privilege, to clarify my point let's assume 2 home games in a month where the st holder pays the finance company £40 for a month and the on the day of match person pays £20 per game that is the same £40 per month .Both are still paying for those games in the same month...

if a person decides to still buy a season ticket as they can afford to then that is the choice they make but that does not mean that a person who could not buy a season ticket for which there could be many reasons should be denied the opportunity to watch their team.
 
Back
Top Bottom