08 Jun 2018 15:12:01
Remember whe you only had sky sports showing footy costing the average jo about Â£30 a month now we have sky Â£30 bt sports Â£30 then amazon Â£10 a month so now we spend Â£70 a month that's Â£840 a year that's a bloody season ticket getting rediculous all this should have lfc tv shows every liverpool match home or away Â£40 a month ecery liverpool evertonian and manc will subscribe.

1.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:37:52
We need some sort of petition, and need the vast majority of fans in the country to sign it, Regardless of what club they support.
Itâ€™s turning into exploitation these days, the sooner everyone takes a stand against the greed the better.

2.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:44:19
When they first gave part of the Sky package to Setanta they said it was good for the consumer as it gave them more choice. No it didnâ€™t! All it did was make them pay more. Now this Amazon thing is a joke. I wasnâ€™t to watch footy on my telly, not on my laptop or phone. I donâ€™t want to have to connect it my phone to stream it to the telly. I just want to sit down, seitch the telly on and watch the match.

The Premier League are a disgrace. No wonder Scudamore is doing a runner.

To make matters worse, when I checked my statement this month I was charged Â£7.99 for Amazon Prime Time and I havenâ€™t even asked to join. Itâ€™s s nightmare trying to get in touch with them to cancel and ask for my money back.

{Ed002's Note - You need to stop whining about a couple of games a season. If you havenâ€™t asked to join Amazon Prime then take it up with them rather than trolling this page.}

3.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:52:13
Why pay Â£70 a month when you can stream?

4.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:54:09
Iâ€™ve been a prime member for over ten years. Do I get the games or is it extra?

5.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:54:24
redmersey, FYI if you have a smart TV then Amazon Prime Video is an app same as, for example, Netflix. Me and Mrs Zed share an Amazon Prime membership (purely from the PoV of getting loads of stuff from Amazon and returning it etc) which now costs Â£79 for an annual membership. The Football (for now) will be added to this for free, so any Amazon Prime members won't pay any more (I stress, for now, who knows what their future plan is) .

So, if you already have Amazon Prime, you pay nothing more and can watch it on yoru TV directly (if you have a smart TV which *most* people will do) .

If you're an Amazon user who doesn't have Prime, it may be worth it anyway for you as it covers unlimited next day delivery or even same day delivery.

From memory, Amazon Prime BEFORE they had the VoD service was around Â£49, so getting the TV channels on top is Â£30 per annum, Â£2.50 per month.

Just wanted to clarify.

6.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 15:54:40
P. S. I DO NOT work for Amazon, lol!

7.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 16:16:36
Its a bit ironic complaining about the cost of football on TV. I don't remember anyone complaining about all the extra funds we were going to be getting for transfers at the time.

8.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 16:26:19
If you have a PlayStation, it has the Amazon App under the TV tab, you can therefore watch the matches on your t. v. That was how I watched the final which was streamed on YouTube.

9.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 16:38:22
I think the most annoying thing here is that the breaking of Sky's monopoly to give us all more choice has ended up costing everyone more money - I think we have the government to thank for that from a few years ago now. They think it's doing us a favour but it wasn't really. And I know the extra TV money helps buy players but you do wonder if the player prices would be so insane if there was less of that money available.

10.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 16:36:54
Nafe, to be fair, there is an argument to say that the extra cost has driven up the extra revenue received by EPL clubs and therefore, ultimately, the extra earnings of players and the vastly ballooning transfer fees.

This is probably terribly simplistic (Ed002, on standby! ), but if we wound the clocks back 20 years, we would still have excellent players playing the game, with wages around Â£10-Â£20k per week (still not a bad wage, lol) and transfer fees around Â£15-Â£20m at the top end.

We (the club) only need the extra money now because players cost more because teams have extra money - a circular argument!

A genuine question to the Eds, if I may. I'm sure its terribly more convoluted than this, but has the extra money being pumped into (specifically) the EPL essentially ended up in the players pockets? The clubs may get higher transfer fees, but they have to pay higher fees too. So the players (and their agents) appear to the ones who have benefited from much more money in the game?

{Ed002's Note - No, the money has not gone to the players. Clubs are constrained by FFP on wages as well as transfers in order to curtail runaway wages. Two EPL sides were picked up in January and had to agree corrective action as they had broken the FFP rules on wages. The additional funds have gone in to buying more expensive players, improving grounds, clearing debt etc..}

11.) 08 Jun 2018
08 Jun 2018 19:02:23
@ zeddicus. No doubt the extra money has had an impact on transfers at least in someway. However, my point was more to do with the fact that people were more than happy to celebrate all the extra money the Premier League was recieving believing it would not have a knock on effect. People celebrate companies paying hundreds of millions in tv rights and then complain whem they have to pay those same companies to watch there service. You can't have it both ways hence the irony.