Niall Quinn and his thoughts....

kippy

http://breakingnews.ie/sport/pub-fans-are-damaging-clubs-progress-quinn-492273.html

Sunderland chairman Niall Quinn has taken a swipe at supporters who watch games beamed in illegally to pubs and clubs rather than make the effort to attend matches.

Quinn said he “despises” those who spend enough money when watching on a screen to be able to afford a match ticket – and claims there are thousands of Black Cats fans who are snubbing the Stadium of Light in favour of doing just that.

The former striker defended the current rules which make it illegal to show live matches via foreign channels.

He also revealed how a covert investigation had exposed evidence of the numbers who were viewing Sunderland games on Saturday afternoons without setting foot inside the club’s stadium.

A non-binding legal opinion offer to the European Court of Justice earlier this week by Advocate General Juliane Kokott suggested EU citizens should not legally be stopped from using foreign equipment and subscriptions to view the matches.

But Quinn has pleaded with his own club’s stay-away fans to watch their team at the Stadium of Light.

He said: “I would never criticise anyone who doesn’t come to the stadium because of financial constraints, but I despise those who spend far more than the price of a ticket watching some overseas commentator describing the action at the nearby Stadium of Light.”

Quinn added: “Contrary to the opinion of the Advocate General, the illegal showing of Saturday 3pm fixtures involving Sunderland has an extremely detrimental effect on our attendances at the Stadium of Light.

“I can point to the evidence uncovered by an agency who covertly visited pubs and clubs in our catchment area and witnessed thousands watching the illegal broadcasts.

“My belief is a significant number of these people are taking the easy option of spending their money in the pub watching their team as opposed to supporting their team and helping to create a better atmosphere at the Stadium.

“Our attendances are down for a couple of reasons and the economic uncertainty right now is a factor.

“All clubs thrive on full stadiums. Loud, passionate support is the backbone of football and when our stadium is full, we are a force to be reckoned with.”

Quinn suggested supporters who take the TV option are harming the club, after more than 10,000 seats were empty for Tuesday’s visit of champions Chelsea.

He added: “To anyone watching the game illegally in the pub, I will continue to say by doing so, you are not supporting your team, you are actually damaging the progress of the club.

“We have a real chance here to make this club feel great again, but to do it, we need everyone behind us. I would urge these people in the pubs and clubs to come back to the Stadium of Light.”

Okay, first of all to the mods, this is not intended to be a discussion about web streaming of matches, nor a discussion of any illegal practices however if if you feel it goes against the charter apologies. As you can see it is based on Sat channels.

Okay, so Quinn is moaning about these guys who watch the match via non UK broadcasters (since they cannot broadcast UK matches at three) and the pubs who provide these services - I think you can watch almost any PL match live on one of many stations via foreign sat and many pubs in the UK have these systems (more and more of them getting them in over here as well) and looking at the non binding EU ruling it doesnt seem to be illegal.
So, my issues with Quinn.
1. The makes the point that if the fans can go on the beer and watch the match in the pub they should be able to afford the ticket. Forgetting of course, that the ticket price (I would assume costs between 20 and 30 sterling, may be less) would easily pay for a good few pints in the pub while watching the match. That ticket price adds a lot to a day out in these times and some prefer to spend it in the pub than on the ticket. I think this is fair enough.
2. Quinn and I suspect more like him seem to forget that a large portion of the clubs income is from TV rights. These TV rights have been sold not just to Sky but resold to other foreign broadcasters. Without these monies I doubt the PL would be as profitable/sunderland would be able to exist as they are.
So these fans watching the matches on non UK sat TV are in fact adding to the audiences that watch it via TV (even if on a foreign sat) thus ensuring broadcasters pay top dollar for rights.

So while Sunderland may be losing on matchday attendances (they may not, these people might not have gone to the match anyway) they are gaining far more, I suspect, in hard to measure TV income.

I like Quinn and can understand the position, gates are down and he is wondering why/trying to get them up again, but there are changing economic times in a city of just over a quarter of a million people, criticising fans isnt going to help.
In fairness to Sunderland they are usually very good with fan initiatives.


What do others think - are these things impacting on other clubs and are clubs a bit "cheeky" to criticise fans for this, despite the clubs making significant income from the very TV stations that are showing these matches?

flahavaj

Barstoolers, something something......

Here's a suggestion Niall.

Give out free pints at the Stadium of Light

PiE

Saying you "despise" local fans who've probably been supporting the team for decades, albeit from their barstools, probably isn't the best way to go about getting them to buy tickets.

They probably all have jersies, kits, dvds etc. Pretty silly comment; won't earn him many friends.

ctrl-alt-delete

To combat this I think all games screened live in the UK should be played at neutral venues, with a preference for Sky to build their own new stadiums.

Sky Sports Stadium 1
Sky Sports Stadium 3D and so on!

Paully D

The man is spot on, simple as that.

I'll post my full thoughts after today's football.

That_Guy

They've got 27,000 empty seats. Sunderland's a massive club.

Wolfe Tone

If you live down the road would it not be a billion times better to go to the stadium?

Nalz

Paully D wrote: »

The man is spot on, simple as that.

I'll post my full thoughts after today's football.

Looking forward to it

Dozen Wicked Words

Sunderland fans are some of the most fickle out there, along with Middlesbrough fans. Newcastle seem to me, to be the only club in the North East which retains a decent support regardless of performance/league position.

ShamoBuc

I gave up being bothered about what he says a long time ago.

Oat23

If you have 27,000 empty seats you have bigger problems than the few that watch at the pub my friend. He's doing nothing but pi**ing off the people who pay his clubs bills when he comes out with crap like this.

Blatter

Haha this is rich coming from Quinn who owns a pub in Clonmel that has shown games through foreign channels.

kippy

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Haha this is rich coming from Quinn who owns a pub in Clonmel that has shown games through foreign channels.

Well, in all fairness, I dont think thats too relevant.
Its not like lads in clonmel can head over to Sunderland matches at the same expense that those watching the game in pubs around sunderland can do.
If he had a pub in sunderland showing the matches then yes, it would be relevant.

JJJJNR

Easy solution Niall, get a web site, couple of web cams, do the commentary yourself and charge 5 euros a match over the internet.

kippy

JJJJNR wrote: »

Easy solution Niall, get a web site, couple of web cams, do the commentary yourself and charge 5 euros a match over the internet.

We are not talking about streaming here, that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

JJJJNR

Just a thought like.....

dsmythy

Do they really have 27,000 empty seats on average?

ctrl-alt-delete

dsmythy wrote: »

Do they really have 27,000 empty seats on average?

No they don't,

This season the average attendance is 10,000 less than official capacity.

The last two seasons before this were 9,000 less than official capacity for the full season.

The first season back up after being relegated was 6,000 less.


Their fans are by no means fickle as some would have you believe.

Paully D

Right, the man is not criticising those fans who can't afford to go to the game. Lets get that out of the way for a start. He's criticising those fans who'll go the pub and spend £25-£30 on alcohol in a pub rather than spending it on a match ticket. He's said before that if someone can afford to spend say £10 of their disposable income in the pub but not the extra £15-£20 in costs for a match ticket then he can't criticise those people. I think we'd all agree that's fair enough? With the help of an agency he has conducted research by getting ''spotters'' to count the amount of people in the town watching the games, and he's come up with figures totally thousands.

He's put plenty of time, effort and money into this club and by finding decent investors such as Drumaville and more recently Ellis Short, has dragged the club from the brink of administration to challenging for the Europa League spot. He's tried numerous offers to get those pub viewers back into the ground £19 season tickets for kids and our ticket prices are some of the lowest in the Premier League for a start, but he doesn't feel he's getting the response he deserves and I can't disagree.

As for the fickle fans comments? I'd say 90% of the posters on here are supporters of what is known as ''Top 4'' clubs and I'd include Liverpool as being up with that too due to the success they've enjoyed over recent seasons. It's easy to say Sunderland have fickle fans when you're club is enjoying decent crowds because they're challenging for and usually winning things every season. Try watching your team embarrassed by gaining the lowest ever points total two Premier League seasons in a row (after we came back up), try watching your team hit bottom place in the Championship, try watching your team battle it out in the old third division year, after year, after year with only one piece of proper silverware won since 1973, and then tell me that crowds of 37,000 are fickle.

There's no doubt that we can and should be getting more than 37,000 and that's what Quinny isn't happy about, it's not a bad crowd (and Quinny has never said it is), but the scope is definitely there to get more, and if some of the pub viewers who are spending more than the price of a match ticket on alcohol rather than getting to the stadium and getting behind the team, then we'd hit an much bigger average than 37,000.

If Quinn was to get sick of it all and decide to pack it in then he couldn't be blamed and the pub viewers would be the first to complain about the inevitable downward slope we'd be heading down.

All he wants is a near full stadium in return for what he has done for the club. That's just simply not too much to ask, especially if those spending their money in pubs bought match tickets instead.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

Right, the man is not criticising those fans who can't afford to go to the game. Lets get that out of the way for a start. He's criticising those fans who'll go the pub and spend £25-£30 on alcohol in a pub rather than spending it on a match ticket. He's said before that if someone can afford to spend say £10 of their disposable income in the pub but not the extra £15-£20 in costs for a match ticket then he can't criticise those people. I think we'd all agree that's fair enough? With the help of an agency he has conducted research by getting ''spotters'' to count the amount of people in the town watching the games, and he's come up with figures totally thousands.

He's put plenty of time, effort and money into this club and by finding decent investors such as Drumaville and more recently Ellis Short, has dragged the club from the brink of administration to challenging for the Europa League spot. He's tried numerous offers to get those pub viewers back into the ground £19 season tickets for kids and our ticket prices are some of the lowest in the Premier League for a start, but he doesn't feel he's getting the response he deserves and I can't disagree.

As for the fickle fans comments? I'd say 90% of the posters on here are supporters of what is known as ''Top 4'' clubs and I'd include Liverpool as being up with that too due to the success they've enjoyed over recent seasons. It's easy to say Sunderland have fickle fans when you're club is enjoying decent crowds because they're challenging for and usually winning things every season. Try watching your team embarrassed by gaining the lowest ever points total two Premier League seasons in a row (after we came back up), try watching your team hit bottom place in the Championship, try watching your team battle it out in the old third division year, after year, after year with only one piece of proper silverware won since 1973, and then tell me that crowds of 37,000 are fickle.

There's no doubt that we can and should be getting more than 37,000 and that's what Quinny isn't happy about, it's not a bad crowd (and Quinny has never said it is), but the scope is definitely there to get more, and if some of the pub viewers who are spending more than the price of a match ticket on alcohol rather than getting to the stadium and getting behind the team, then we'd hit an much bigger average than 37,000.

If Quinn was to get sick of it all and decide to pack it in then he couldn't be blamed and the pub viewers would be the first to complain about the inevitable downward slope we'd be heading down.

All he wants is a near full stadium in return for what he has done for the club. That's just simply not too much to ask, especially if those spending their money in pubs bought match tickets instead.

You missed point 1 in my original post perhaps,
but yourself and Quinn make a couple of assumptions that are totally wrong.

Some people only have so much money to spent.
Some cant justify paying 30 odd quid + the money for a few pints and would rather spend the 30 off quid on beer instead while perhaps bringing their kid/a couple more of their family with them to the pub. That money goes a lot further in the pub to be fair.
Its not a case of " if the can afford to go to the pub, they can afford to go to the game" - they may be able to go to the game, but thats it.
The second point, do you not agree that its a bit "rich" coming from clubs who make a lot of their money via TV rights? Havent the clubs "sold out" already to the TV money?

GLaDOS

kippy wrote: »

Some cant justify paying 30 odd quid + the money for a few pints

Why is drinking at the match necessary?

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

You missed point 1 in my original post perhaps,
but yourself and Quinn make a couple of assumptions that are totally wrong.

Some people only have so much money to spent.
Some cant justify paying 30 odd quid + the money for a few pints and would rather spend the 30 off quid on beer instead while perhaps bringing their kid/a couple more of their family with them to the pub. That money goes a lot further in the pub to be fair.
Its not a case of " if the can afford to go to the pub, they can afford to go to the game" - they may be able to go to the game, but thats it.
The second point, do you not agree that its a bit "rich" coming from clubs who make a lot of their money via TV rights? Havent the clubs "sold out" already to the TV money?

I haven't missed point 1 at all though, I said, in response to your first point:

He's criticising those fans who'll go the pub and spend £25-£30 on alcohol in a pub rather than spending it on a match ticket. He's said before that if someone can afford to spend say £10 of their disposable income in the pub but not the extra £15-£20 in costs for a match ticket then he can't criticise those people.

As for your second point, well he's not complaining about people watching the game's on Sky Sports or anything, is he? He's complaining about people watching what he refers to as illegal broadcasts.

kippy

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Why is drinking at the match necessary?

I never said it was, but I assume for these people in the pub, they like a drink or three with their matches.

GLaDOS

kippy wrote: »

I never said it was, but I assume for these people in the pub, they like a drink or three with their matches.

Well I think part of his point is if you'd rather have your drinks then actually get to the game it says a lot about your loyalty to the club.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

I haven't missed point 1 at all though, I said, in response to your first point:



As for your second point, well he's not complaining about people watching the game's on Sky Sports or anything, is he? He's complaining about people watching what he refers to as illegal broadcasts.

He (and indeed myself) is making the assumption that these fans spend 30 quid on beer.
They may only have two/three pints during the match in the pub.
These "illegal" broadcasts are perfectly legal in their "home" countries (and looking at the EU judgement, may not be "illegal" at all in the UK).
Anyway, these broadcasters have paid for the rights to these games and the pubs that display them have (usually) paid the subscription for these games to the broadcaster. Funding Sunderland in much the same was as Skysports do.

kippy

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Well I think part of his point is if you'd rather have your drinks then actually get to the game it says a lot about your loyalty to the club.

It says a lot about your finances and priorities to be honest. A few pints with your mates down the pub while you watch the match is nothing anyone should hammer a person for, especially if the alternative is a 20-30 quid ticket.

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

He (and indeed myself) is making the assumption that these fans spend 30 quid on beer.
They may only have two/three pints during the match in the pub.
These "illegal" broadcasts are perfectly legal in their "home" countries (and looking at the EU judgement, may not be "illegal" at all in the UK).
Anyway, these broadcasters have paid for the rights to these games and the pubs that display them have (usually) paid the subscription for these games to the broadcaster. Funding Sunderland in much the same was as Skysports do.

Wrong. They (usually) use card-sharing to get these games, which is illegal.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

Wrong. They (usually) use card-sharing to get these games, which is illegal.

Have you evidence of this?

Yakult

When your team is performing above expectations I would have assumed more fans would be flocking to see them and give them the support to push them further, not the opposite.

ctrl-alt-delete

kippy wrote: »

He (and indeed myself) is making the assumption that these fans spend 30 quid on beer.
They may only have two/three pints during the match in the pub.
These "illegal" broadcasts are perfectly legal in their "home" countries (and looking at the EU judgement, may not be "illegal" at all in the UK).
Anyway, these broadcasters have paid for the rights to these games and the pubs that display them have (usually) paid the subscription for these games to the broadcaster. Funding Sunderland in much the same was as Skysports do.

Not a chance, it would side towards the majority not paying and would be unusual for a pub in the Sunderland area to have a valid subscription card, it is pretty easy for pubs to set up an illegal system, with the laws being that loose and misunderstood that the local authority's don't enforce anything.

Quinn has no problem with pubs showing Skysports, as the money they get from the deal far outweighs any negative effect it may have.

What he does have a problem with, is that you can go to your local now and watch any protected Sunderland game, by these i mean the games that take place at 3' o clock of a Saturday that are not allowed be screened in the UK for the very reason Quinn complains about - protecting attendances.

Oat23

Paully D wrote: »

Wrong. They (usually) use card-sharing to get these games, which is illegal.

proof please. 5 pubs I've been to in Sligo. 4 have OFFICIAL foreign subs and 1 pays Sky €700 p/m. Never seen card sharing in a pub and you shouldn't accuse MOST pubs of something so illegal without proof(?)

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

Have you evidence of this?

Only verbal evidence as I know of people who have worked in three of the largest pubs around the vicinity of the Stadium of Light and they all use card sharing.

ctrl-alt-delete

Oatesy23 wrote: »

proof please. 5 pubs I've been to in Sligo. 4 have OFFICIAL foreign subs and 1 pays Sky €700 p/m. Never seen card sharing in a pub and you shouldn't accuse MOST pubs of something so illegal without proof(?)

This is Sky no?

We are not talking about Sky subscriptions here, we are talking about showing games that should not be on TV in the UK.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

Only verbal evidence as I know of people who have worked in three of the largest pubs around the vicinity of the Stadium of Light and they all use card sharing.

Fair enough - if that is the case then one cannot condone it the practise by the pubs, but I still wouldnt hammer the fans for trying to save some money.

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

Fair enough - if that is the case then one cannot condone it the practise by the pubs, but I still wouldnt hammer the fans for trying to save some money.

These will be the first lads to complain when the money stops being splashed around by the club though, trust me I know this, and so does Quinny.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

These will be the first lads to complain when the money stops being splashed around by the club though, trust me I know this, and so does Quinny.

Maybe quinny and a few of those involved in the club would be better cutting costs than complaining about fans.
Listen, if ever chairperson of every club went moaning about fans who dont "contribute" to the bottom line of the clubs finances the newpapers would be full.
You know this and quinn knows this, a pair of Einsteins the two of ye, fans will do that and blame anything and everything on it.

Any fan here who backs quinn in his stance should make sure they've never bought any unofficial club mercendise or viewed an illegal broadcast of the clubs games. I dont think theres many that could say they would fit that bill.

ctrl-alt-delete

kippy wrote: »

Maybe quinny and a few of those involved in the club would be better cutting costs than complaining about fans.
Listen, if ever chairperson of every club went moaning about fans who dont "contribute" to the bottom line of the clubs finances the newpapers would be full.
You know this and quinn knows this, a pair of Einsteins the two of ye, fans will do that and blame anything and everything on it.

Any fan here who backs quinn in his stance should make sure they've never bought any unofficial club mercendise or viewed an illegal broadcast of the clubs games. I dont think theres many that could say they would fit that bill.

Your last paragraph is true, and Quinn is fighting a losing battle with this i feel. However I think it is affecting him more because he has gave a lot to the fans the past few seasons in terms of deals for coming to the games.

They have put a lot of money into doing up the food and bar areas in the ground too. A couple of seasons ago you could get your child a season ticket for £18 pound when bought with yours.

This season there have been a few deals where a season ticket holder can buy another 4 tickets for certain games for just £10 pound each - I myself am going to the Liverpool game for £10.

I'd say that is what is annoying him, is that his good work is being undone by the illegal showing of these games in pubs around the area. ( I'm aware of the recent case and how things may change in that regard soon)

Oat23

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

This is Sky no?

We are not talking about Sky subscriptions here, we are talking about showing games that should not be on TV in the UK.

I'm not talking about sky either. The poster said that most pubs are showing the games using card sharing and I just said that most of the pubs I've been in have official foreign subs.

ctrl-alt-delete

Oatesy23 wrote: »

I'm not talking about sky either. The poster said that most pubs are showing the games using card sharing and I just said that most of the pubs I've been in have official foreign subs.

Yeah but it is still very much a grey area with a lot to be sorted out considering recent developments.

While it was not illegal to view the games, it was illegal to show the 3 O'Clock games to a public audience in the UK whether you had an official subscription card or not.

With the recent overturning of fines in the courts I think when the dust settles we will see a big change in the way these things work.

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

Maybe quinny and a few of those involved in the club would be better cutting costs than complaining about fans.
Listen, if ever chairperson of every club went moaning about fans who dont "contribute" to the bottom line of the clubs finances the newpapers would be full.
You know this and quinn knows this, a pair of Einsteins the two of ye, fans will do that and blame anything and everything on it.

Any fan here who backs quinn in his stance should make sure they've never bought any unofficial club mercendise or viewed an illegal broadcast of the clubs games. I dont think theres many that could say they would fit that bill.

Costs have been cut though and the fans haven't responded. As I mentioned earlier, our ticket prices are some of the lowest in the Premier League, and he has put on season tickets for kids for £19 to encourage more families to the ground, etc.

I can't say I'm beyond criticism here either, I view Sunderland's games on streaming sites, but then again I do live in Ireland and I'm not watching broadcasts of them game in the same city as the match is actually taking place but I'm not saying that's right either.

If something was done so that I could buy a season ticket of streams from the club for a fee each season I would certainly do that, but as that option is not available I either have the choice of watching a stream or not seeing my team play at all as I can't get back to Sunderland every weekend.

Perhaps with the court cases coming up and stuff, we'll see something like the above put into action in which people can purchase streams from the club with the club making money from it?

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

If something was done so that I could buy a season ticket of streams from the club for a fee each season I would certainly do that, but as that option is not available I either have the choice of watching a stream or not seeing my team play at all as I can't get back to Sunderland every weekend.

Perhaps with the court cases coming up and stuff, we'll see something like the above put into action in which people can purchase streams from the club with the club making money from it?

Clubs cannot do that because of their deal with Sky and other broadcasters.
I would think that the clubs outside the top few (who have very little foreign support) would get shafted big time if they were to break the change broadcasting deals as they wouldnt have enough fans for this paid online streaming to make money, as opposed to the "fair split" of broadcasting money that is done now.


I am not talking about cost cutting in terms of ticket prices (I do realise they are relatively cheap), I am speaking about club costs, staff wages, contract costs.

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

Clubs cannot do that because of their deal with Sky and other broadcasters.
I would think that the clubs outside the top few (who have very little foreign support) would get shafted big time if they were to break the change broadcasting deals as they wouldnt have enough fans for this paid online streaming to make money, as opposed to the "fair split" of broadcasting money that is done now.


I am not talking about cost cutting in terms of ticket prices (I do realise they are relatively cheap), I am speaking about club costs, staff wages, contract costs.

How would you propose he cuts club costs, staff wages and contract costs, because if you could come up with a way to do that whilst staying competitive in the Premier League then you'd probably be the best football chairman in the league?

What exactly are you referring to when you say club costs, because to me that refers to ticket prices, merchandising etc, all of which are at the lower end of the scale in comparison to other clubs.

We have a wage structure of £50,000 and the reason Darren Bent left is because we wouldn't break that for him, and rightly so. He has also inserted a 40% wage decrease for each and every player at the club if we went on to to be relegated, along with many performance related incentives in the contracts so he has got that pretty much spot on.

I'm in no position to talk about staff wages as I don't personally know anyone on the staff, but I'd imagine, given the financial acumen of our owner and chief executive, that they're on a wage competitive with the rest of Premier League clubs' staff.

It's seems to me you think we should just say ''ah sure **** it we'll half the price of this, this and this'', when in reality it's just not feasible.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

How would you propose he cuts club costs, staff wages and contract costs, because if you could come up with a way to do that whilst staying competitive in the Premier League then you'd probably be the best football chairman in the league?

What exactly are you referring to when you say club costs, because to me that refers to ticket prices, merchandising etc, all of which are at the lower end of the scale in comparison to other clubs.

We have a wage structure of £50,000 and the reason Darren Bent left is because we wouldn't break that for him, and rightly so. He has also inserted a 40% wage decrease for each and every player at the club if we went on to to be relegated, along with many performance related incentives in the contracts so he has got that pretty much spot on.

I'm in no position to talk about staff wages as I don't personally know anyone on the staff, but I'd imagine, given the financial acumen of our owner and chief executive, that they're on a wage competitive with the rest of Premier League clubs' staff.

It's seems to me you think we should just say ''ah sure **** it we'll half the price of this, this and this'', when in reality it's just not feasible.

And its just as unfeasible to expect all Sunderland fans, even those locally to come to the ground to support the team when they believe they can support it in other ways.

Trampas

American football do it well. Unless a game is sold out 72 hours before hand there is a blackout of the game on tv within x miles of the stadium.

kippy

Trampas wrote: »

American football do it well. Unless a game is sold out 72 hours before hand there is a blackout of the game on tv within x miles of the stadium.

Interesting, and how do they manage to enforce this?

Paully D

kippy wrote: »

And its just as unfeasible to expect all Sunderland fans, even those locally to come to the ground to support the team when they believe they can support it in other ways.

That's why he doesn't expect all Sunderland fans to come to the ground. He only expects those spending more than the price of a match ticket in the pub to go to the game instead of watching it in the pub. That's certainly not unfeasible mate.

Also, there's no better way to support the club than by getting to the ground and getting behind the team.

kippy

Paully D wrote: »

That's why he doesn't expect all Sunderland fans to come to the ground. He only expects those spending more than the price of a match ticket in the pub to go to the game instead of watching it in the pub. That's certainly not unfeasible mate.

Also, there's no better way to support the club than by getting to the ground and getting behind the team.

How does Quinn know how much a guy watching a match in a pub is spending on that? Really?

I agree with the supporting aspect, but you cannot "despise" anyone for doing what they want with their money......
Quinn is obviously frustrated but alienating a certain section of the fanbase isnt going to help.

Trampas

kippy wrote: »

Interesting, and how do they manage to enforce this?

Example would be chelsea vs liverpool tomorrow. if game wasn't sold out sky sports would black out the game within x miles of stadium.

probably works better in usa since you don't have many teams within same city

kippy

Trampas wrote: »

Example would be chelsea vs liverpool tomorrow. if game wasn't sold out sky sports would black out the game within x miles of stadium.

probably works better in usa since you don't have many teams within same city

Sky isnt the problem that Quinn has pointed out though and while I am sure they could probably black out a game to cards based on postcodes etc (not sure how feasible it would be - is this how it is done in the US - ie the supplier is responsible for the blocking)
The problem is the signals available via international sats - which sky have little or no control over.

Paully D

A 10 minute radio interview with the big man on his comments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/s/sunderland/9395083.stm