games tues 29th jan.

[Chris Clapham]

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/epsomandewellfc/news/epsom-ewell-football-club-official-statement-regarding-guernsey-football-club-tv-847061.html

[ormering]

Our view on Tuesday's match. http://ormering.com/Match_EandE_prem_cup.php

 

[VPCTFC]

I am sure you understand what I mean. Vance has the choice of the best Guernsey Island players, yet taking Farnborough as your example, how many clubs are there within a 30 mile radius of Farnborough for clubs/managers to get players. We already know of the Camberley area merry-go-round of players as they move from season-to-season to who is prepared to pay the most. CCL Premier clubs do not have the pleasure of having the attraction of the best players within a 30 mile radius wheras Guernsey do.

 

Wha? Within a 30 mile radius of Farnborough there are probably a million people to chose from.

Within a 30 mile radius of Guernsey there are 60 odd thousand.

 

There are more teams but more people to chose from. Saying Guernsey have an advantage in that way doesn't make sense in my opinion.

[BAD GUY]

Wha? Within a 30 mile radius of Farnborough there are probably a million people to chose from.

Within a 30 mile radius of Guernsey there are 60 odd thousand.

 

There are more teams but more people to chose from. Saying Guernsey have an advantage in that way doesn't make sense in my opinion.

 

Missing the point VP. Guernsey have the cherry pickings of Guernsey Island players. No matter what team you are in the CCL those cherry pickings are not available withing the clubs local area as there are better/higher clubs and more clubs to choose from. Whilst there maybe more players to chose from the mainland (millions), I cannot see a player travelling down from Newcastle to play for lets say Camberley..

 

You of all people know the local talented players in your area, as Camberley fight every season to get them, but money dictates nowadays, so players go to the highest bidders who seem to be Badshot Lea and Frimley at the moment (I stand corrected).

[lazarus]

"Maybe this discussion might even force the league into having to make a proper decision on this"

 

What do you mean by a "proper" decision? Guernsey put the proposal to the League. We checked to make sure that there were no FA rules that governed the situation at our level, following which the Management Committee decided to give their approval, subject to the permission of the home clubs. This decision was then conveyed to every club in the League, who have the right to say yes or no.

 

What do you think the League might have done differently?

[Smudge]

Negiotiated a standard Fee for all Clubs to receive,home and away.GFCTV has certainly had an effect on all gates this season where Guernsey have been involved.The plus side for CCL Clubs is that when they decline GFCTV to be shown,in one form or another,they have won both games to zip.TAKE THE HINT.

[ormering]

Cobblers. A complete coincidence. As well as E&E played on Tues, this was a GFC team with the majority playing with each other for the first time in a competitive match. If it had been televised, we'd have lost anyway.

[Green Lion]

Negiotiated a standard Fee for all Clubs to receive,home and away.GFCTV has certainly had an effect on all gates this season where Guernsey have been involved.The plus side for CCL Clubs is that when they decline GFCTV to be shown,in one form or another,they have won both games to zip.TAKE THE HINT.

 

Surely that's not the case smudge? Please provide concrete proof to prove me wrong but from my experience at being at games gates have been higher when GFC have been in town.

 

RYE - 290, far more than they usually get. GFCTV was there.

 

Guessing your comment about GFC only losing when clubs have refused TV is tongue in cheek

[VPCTFC]

 

You of all people know the local talented players in your area

 

I haven't got a clue about talented players. I only go to games for the beer and chips. What happens on the pitch is secondary. We used to have what I considered a completely average player playing for us called Matt Pattison. After leaving us he played for Farnborough, Woking and Rushden & Diamonds. I was happy to admit I was wrong about him and it shows what I know about talent.

[E&E Rich]

"Maybe this discussion might even force the league into having to make a proper decision on this"

 

What do you mean by a "proper" decision? Guernsey put the proposal to the League. We checked to make sure that there were no FA rules that governed the situation at our level, following which the Management Committee decided to give their approval, subject to the permission of the home clubs. This decision was then conveyed to every club in the League, who have the right to say yes or no.

 

What do you think the League might have done differently?

 

I didn't mean to suggest that the matter hadn't been discussed properly in the first place. I suppose what I meant was another discussion may be required with the possibility of an updated decision, bearing in mind what has recently happened and whether other clubs now take similar measures.

 

I think it's fair to say that Smudge was the only one who raised this issue on here back at the start of the season and rightly or wrongly it has been brought more into focus with the recent discussions. Maybe some clubs have been happy to do it in the past, but maybe some clubs felt pressured to go alng with it too.

 

Bearing in mind that it is not impossible for another club or two in our league to do this sort of thing in the future, maybe it is just worth getting some rules in place. St Neots Town had a tv station and they were step 5 at the time but they didn't come to us with a request to record when we met in the Vase. If they had, we'd have done the same thing, and maybe more clubs might do this in future, especiially if others spring up.

 

Would GFCTV be as viable if half of their away games weren't covered because half of the clubs in the league chose to follow the same stance that Epsom did? Probably not, but I would bet this wasn't considered when the matter was first considered by the League and this is why I said that it might need to be discussed again with a view to updating the position.

 

GL I think Smudge was referring to League attendances this year against last year, both home and away. Vase attendances are not comparable and using them as an example weakens any argument you have against it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by E&E Fred

[Green_Fingers]

I didn't mean to suggest that the matter hadn't been discussed properly in the first place. I suppose what I meant was another discussion may be required with the possibility of an updated decision, bearing in mind what has recently happened and whether other clubs now take similar measures.

 

I think it's fair to say that Smudge was the only one who raised this issue on here back at the start of the season and rightly or wrongly it has been brought more into focus with the recent discussions. Maybe some clubs have been happy to do it in the past, but maybe some clubs felt pressured to go alng with it too.

 

Bearing in mind that it is not impossible for another club or two in our league to do this sort of thing in the future, maybe it is just worth getting some rules in place. St Neots Town had a tv station and they were step 5 at the time but they didn't come to us with a request to record when we met in the Vase. If they had, we'd have done the same thing, and maybe more clubs might do this in future, especiially if others spring up.

 

Would GFCTV be as viable if half of their away games weren't covered because half of the clubs in the league chose to follow the same stance that Epsom did? Probably not, but I would bet this wasn't considered when the matter was first considered by the League and this is why I said that it might need to be discussed again with a view to updating the position.

 

GL I think Smudge was referring to League attendances this year against last year, both home and away. Vase attendances are not comparable and using them as an example weakens any argument you have against it.

 

I don't think GFCTV revenues would be affected Fred. The vast majority of followers would be island-based paying £2.99 per month subscription irrespective of the number of matches streamed in that month. January has been relative poor value (albeit the Rye game was worth the months fee ). GFCTV probably saved money by not having to travel & set up at E&E in the week - it was just the subscribers that lost out

[HKP]

One thing I wouild say is that the perception that Guernsey are making a profit on this is a false one IMO. The figures really do not stack up. It is more of a service for Guernsey based fans to watch UK based matches and vice-a-versa.

The idea of limiting as previously mentioned is not a bad idea.

 

I agree that some of the reactions has been way over the top. E&E have always been very respectful and supportive of GFC. It was just a shame that the request for payment was made so late in the day. But I understand that this was because it was only very recently that they held a meeting to discuss the matter.

Edited February 1, 2013 by HKP

[Green Lion]

I didn't mean to suggest that the matter hadn't been discussed properly in the first place. I suppose what I meant was another discussion may be required with the possibility of an updated decision, bearing in mind what has recently happened and whether other clubs now take similar measures.

 

I think it's fair to say that Smudge was the only one who raised this issue on here back at the start of the season and rightly or wrongly it has been brought more into focus with the recent discussions. Maybe some clubs have been happy to do it in the past, but maybe some clubs felt pressured to go alng with it too.

 

Bearing in mind that it is not impossible for another club or two in our league to do this sort of thing in the future, maybe it is just worth getting some rules in place. St Neots Town had a tv station and they were step 5 at the time but they didn't come to us with a request to record when we met in the Vase. If they had, we'd have done the same thing, and maybe more clubs might do this in future, especiially if others spring up.

 

Would GFCTV be as viable if half of their away games weren't covered because half of the clubs in the league chose to follow the same stance that Epsom did? Probably not, but I would bet this wasn't considered when the matter was first considered by the League and this is why I said that it might need to be discussed again with a view to updating the position.

 

GL I think Smudge was referring to League attendances this year against last year, both home and away. Vase attendances are not comparable and using them as an example weakens any argument you have against it.

 

He didn't specify CCL in that sentence, and why should it weaken the arguement? Same principle. Same level of football (Step 5). the fact being despite GFCTV being there, their attendance went up. While I don't agree with the boycott that some Guernsey fans chose to do, you would have had around a dozen more people at the game, which would have been a further £70+ entry fee plus programe sales.

 

Have goalposts been moved by the way. A statement was made from Epsom earlier on this thread about them needed the money to survive, indicating that GFCTV paying to be there would have gone to the club, yet Smudge posted that the money would have been donated to MENCAP, so why has the stance seemingly changed on this?

 

Infact, regarding my response to Smudge, he is incorrect as attendances when GFC are in town have gone up on the average, making his point about GFCTV affecting attendances, completely wrong. Here are GFC's away games in the CCL so far. I haven't included camberley because it was not streamed in the UK, but attendance was still higher than their average when they played Guernsey. Average stats from CCL site, up to 8th December. Obviously i've had to use GFC site for their attendances as CCL site does not specify particular games, just the max. These stats prove Smudge's statement incorrect. In fact it has been the opposite. The one exeption is Hartley Wintney being lower than the average but apart from that one game v seven others, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. For Molesey which was after the 8th December cut off I have gone on their site and worked it out based on their attendances, not including the last game against Ash because there is no attendance listed for that game.

 

Ash, average - 54, v GFC - 102

Chess & Hook, average - 81, v GFC - 107

Dorking, average - 56, v GFC - 107

Sandhurst, average - 61, v GFC 160

Wembley, average 40, v GFC 115

Horley, average 82, v GFC 120

Hartley Wintney average - 85, v GFC 80

Molesey, average - 75, v GFC - 102 (according to Molesey's site)

 

 

So Smudge, please explain to me how you have come to the conclusion of GFCTV having a negative affect of attendances? Perhaps you are playing devil's advocate but at least check the facts

[HKP]

I think Smudge means compared to last season.

[arp]

So what was the official attendance at Epsom & Ewell on Tuesday? Perhaps the chap taking money at the gate should have asked every paying spectator if they would have stayed at home to watch on GFCTV had that been an option?

 

I wonder how many CCL spectators are even aware of GFCTV, bar GFC fans and people who use this forum?

[E&E Rich]

Now you're weakening your own argument again GL..

 

Quite clearly through Smudge and through my quote that you even copied, we are saying that attendances involving Gernsey have gone down compared to last year, even though they are playing at a higher level. It has nothing to do with average gate.

 

As for our comment about a donation, let me make it clear as I'm getting a bit bored with it now.

 

We asked for a donation. When they said no we refused coverage, as we felt that coverage would have affected the attendance, which is what we can't afford to lose. Many neutrals were present in the crowd of 107 which we are grateful for and so everything was good at High Road. Everything else is covered in our official club statement. I recommend that it you read it before further uninformed comment is placed. Our club will be making no further comment as the matter is finished.

 

arp there are some quite intelligent CCL spectators. They've got internet and everything these days. They know what a web site is and most of them can read too. I would say that at a rough guess 99.99% (although it could be higher) are aware of GFCTV.

[Smudge]

So what was the official attendance at Epsom & Ewell on Tuesday? Perhaps the chap taking money at the gate should have asked every paying spectator if they would have stayed at home to watch on GFCTV had that been an option?

 

I wonder how many CCL spectators are even aware of GFCTV, bar GFC fans and people who use this forum?

 

This game had a very poor turnout from Guernsey Fans,not even 10 would be my guess.This would be well below average judging by last years attendances.If Guernsey Guru's rant is too be taken seriously,shame on the stayaways.Seems many Guernsey Fans throw their toys,out the pram when things are not done their way.Which is harsh on other CCL Clubs,I Honestly hope other Clubs follow Camberleys and Epsom and Ewells stance and boycott GFCTV.Someone mentioned Hartley Wintney as an example,their crowd last year was 245 this year 80.Yet the vase games highest gate is only 290 in the 4th Round.Last year Westfield had over 300.Your home attendances this year are down 20%,yes they put the price up 40%,which may be part of the reason,but Islanders can go to Kings/the Dog and watch for FREE.Now if that is not stupid,I am a Dutchman

[Guernsey Guru]

This game had a very poor turnout from Guernsey Fans,not even 10 would be my guess.This would be well below average judging by last years attendances.If Guernsey Guru's rant is too be taken seriously,shame on the stayaways.Seems many Guernsey Fans throw their toys,out the pram when things are not done their way.Which is harsh on other CCL Clubs,I Honestly hope other Clubs follow Camberleys and Epsom and Ewells stance and boycott GFCTV.Someone mentioned Hartley Wintney as an example,their crowd last year was 245 this year 80.Yet the vase games highest gate is only 290 in the 4th Round.Last year Westfield had over 300.Your home attendances this year are down 20%,yes they put the price up 40%,which may be part of the reason,but Islanders can go to Kings/the Dog and watch for FREE.Now if that is not stupid,I am a Dutchman

 

My rant? Dont you mean my choice? I can do what I like when I like and give my money to who I like. No shame on me, I do what I want. If GFC hadnt joined your league this discussion would not be happening as you would not have seen the increase in income on gates in any case. Toys out of the pram when things are not done our way? Harsh on other CCL clubs? My choice was my personal choice, I was not following anyone else or being led by anyone. I know an awful lot of people who are not as fortunate as me to be able to afford to travel with my team. GFCTV keeps them involved, we havent had a home game for so long that it would be easy for our club to lose these people and therefore lose the income that facilitates the survival of our club in this league. You are cutting your nose off to spite your face here because GFCTV has absolutely no detrimental effect on the gate size from a GFC point of view and therefore as you keep asking for clubs to follow E&E's stance to stop GFCTV the more games will not be attended by some of our normally travelling fans. Call me what you like, prima dona, selfish etc but in my view you are the selfish one who should realise that without GFC the gates on most of these games would be two thirds less. The current average for home games does not reflect correctly because we have hardly had any!

[Guernsey local]

Personally I don't think that the streaming of a match would affect attendances that much, certainly not as much as smudge seems to think.

 

But to boycott games because they aren't allowing streaming is a baffling way to go about things.

 

And I think GFC must make money out of gfctv in general otherwise they wouldn't do it. They certainly don't lose money that will be for sure.

[Guernsey Guru]

Personally I don't think that the streaming of a match would affect attendances that much, certainly not as much as smudge seems to think.

 

But to boycott games because they aren't allowing streaming is a baffling way to go about things.

 

And I think GFC must make money out of gfctv in general otherwise they wouldn't do it. They certainly don't lose money that will be for sure.

 

I respect your comments but again I say it is my choice to do whatever I want and I want GFC to be able to pay their way so that I can continue to follow, support and enjoy non league football. Any revenue stream that GFC choose to make helps keep them alive and able to continue with this project and should be supported and not knocked. Guernsey's overheads are probably more than all of the other clubs in this leagues added together and to fund this we need all of the support we can get. I support GFC, no other club, I pay my way when I attend away games and therefore help other CCL clubs but my main concern continues to be GFC. I have said before that I do not subscribe to GFCTV as I prefer to attend games and if GFC are to be denied by any other club any form of fund raising that they would not have had in the first place and does not affect the other club in any way I will continue not to travel but to give the funds I would have used to GFC to help to replace the funds they are being denied