UniFox21 Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 2 hours ago, Adster said: Bang on. There is a reason why most people stream illegally and that's because the prices for subscriptions to these channels are quite frankly ridiculous. It's their own fvcking fault. Like they don't get enough money anyway. Eventually once they finally realise illegal streaming will always be a thing whilst they're so damn expensive, they might lower than prices or offer subscriptions for just matches to a single club. Exactly, the number of films, tv and music streamed illegally has dropped dramatically since netflix and Spotify came out. For a cheap price people get most of what they want. Wouldn't be too much of a loss as feel more people would pay for the service if it was affordable, compared to what it is now for only a handful of games
davieG Posted 27 July 2017 Author Posted 27 July 2017 2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said: Very true - if Sky/BT had their way, of course they'd want to televise all 3pm games, in fact I her they lobby the Govt heavily to do this. Subscription rates and profits would go through the roof and the current TV deal would look like absolute pocket change. By keeping the current amount of televised football as it is (c.40% of PL games I think) the FA is showing it actually still has a backbone and cares about all levels of the game and not just Murdochs back pocket. If people could watch all PL games live - attendances at League 1 and below matches would be virtually zero, who would go and stand on a terrace at Hinckley at 3pm on a Saturday if you could watch 7 live PL games at the pub. Long may the 3pm blackout continue, football exists away from the PL. They don't have to go all the way. They could ban them being shown in pubs or at least only allow them one team STd so a pub in Leicester would have an LCFC one, mind you that would still lead to thousands of pubs picking a top 4 team. Would a Hinckley fan choose to buy an LCFC ST rather than a Hinckley one. You could also restrict STs to away games only. These are not the biggest problem as said earlier the biggest issue would be the top 4+ clubs claiming a massively increased % of the TV money making them even richer at the expense of the rest of the league.
davieG Posted 27 July 2017 Author Posted 27 July 2017 3 minutes ago, UniFox21 said: Exactly, the number of films, tv and music streamed illegally has dropped dramatically since netflix and Spotify came out. For a cheap price people get most of what they want. Wouldn't be too much of a loss as feel more people would pay for the service if it was affordable, compared to what it is now for only a handful of games You can't compare the outcome though to films and music where the revenues don't end up in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.
UniFox21 Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Just now, davieG said: You can't compare the outcome though to films and music where the revenues don't end up in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Agreed there, just a similar sort of situation regarding streaming and pirating for instance. There will always be an issue in football whilst this amount of money is thrown around the place
grobyfox1990 Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 4 minutes ago, davieG said: They don't have to go all the way. They could ban them being shown in pubs or at least only allow them one team STd so a pub in Leicester would have an LCFC one, mind you that would still lead to thousands of pubs picking a top 4 team. Would a Hinckley fan choose to buy an LCFC ST rather than a Hinckley one. You could also restrict STs to away games only. True yes, I understand your point, i guess i'm just dead against any MORE live football on TV, it just means more money in sky's back pocket, £1bn transfers and players on £1m+ a week. I suspect there aren't many Hinckley fans, just LCFC fans that go and watch a live game for the hell of it. Agree I could be completely wrong here and their may be hundreds of dedicated Hinckley fans, but I doubt it. I some times go and watch Dag & Red play, and the crowd is always much bigger when West Ham play away, if all these people could sit and home and watch Burnley v West Ham on tv, there's no way they'd venture out to Dagenham. Invariably an 'away season ticket' covers somebody's home game. So the unlucky LCFC supporting bugger with an LCFC away season ticket would have 1000000 Man Utd fans asking to come round his house to watch Man Utd v Leicester on a Saturday afternoon.
davieG Posted 27 July 2017 Author Posted 27 July 2017 1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said: True yes, I understand your point, i guess i'm just dead against any MORE live football on TV, it just means more money in sky's back pocket, £1bn transfers and players on £1m+ a week. I suspect there aren't many Hinckley fans, just LCFC fans that go and watch a live game for the hell of it. Agree I could be completely wrong here and their may be hundreds of dedicated Hinckley fans, but I doubt it. I some times go and watch Dag & Red play, and the crowd is always much bigger when West Ham play away, if all these people could sit and home and watch Burnley v West Ham on tv, there's no way they'd venture out to Dagenham. Invariably an 'away season ticket' covers somebody's home game. So the unlucky LCFC supporting bugger with an LCFC away season ticket would have 1000000 Man Utd fans asking to come round his house to watch Man Utd v Leicester on a Saturday afternoon. There isn't a perfect solution so coming up with one that allows fans to watch games without resorting to streaming but having the least effect on the lower leagues, those that can actually get to games (eg not moving games away from the 3pm Saturday slot) and not making the PL even more unbalanced financially is a nightmare problem.
foxinsocks Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Face it... the kodi options threaten sky and bt. In the long term the structure will have to change and move to a system where we can live stream what we want for a price... thus more eyes will be watching footy on tv....and paying I dont think this will canibalise live games .. i would rather go to the kp than watch us on tv. It may have big impact on tbe non league gates. Right now i buy sky and bt and dont watch many of the games. .. coz i dont care what happens between say liverpool and spurs. Sky dont care coz they've had my cash .... bu in the long tun they cant have a busiess based on people buying content they dont watch. The fa need to rethink their tv stratergy
WigstonWanderer Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 2 hours ago, davieG said: There isn't a perfect solution so coming up with one that allows fans to watch games without resorting to streaming but having the least effect on the lower leagues, those that can actually get to games (eg not moving games away from the 3pm Saturday slot) and not making the PL even more unbalanced financially is a nightmare problem. Very good points being made about the effects of removing the 3pm ban on lower league football. If it were me I'd be happy with a delayed broadcast, say 7pm to avoid the clash. Not sure if this happens already. I realise this doesn't suit everyone, particularly those betting live or discussing matches over social media, but surely better than nothing. For example, if I had the choice of some dodgy stream vs full HD but delayed I'd go for the delayed broadcast every time.
Dan Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Absolutely pathetic how England is just about the only country in the world where you can't freely watch the Premier League.
Dr The Singh Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Seems Stringer is going to get alot more listeners
foxinsocks Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: Very good points being made about the effects of removing the 3pm ban on lower league football. If it were me I'd be happy with a delayed broadcast, say 7pm to avoid the clash. Not sure if this happens already. I realise this doesn't suit everyone, particularly those betting live or discussing matches over social media, but surely better than nothing. For example, if I had the choice of some dodgy stream vs full HD but delayed I'd go for the delayed broadcast every time. all we have to do is to move all lower league football to sunday and then let folk stream prem 3pm on a pay per view basis.... or a spotify-like all you can eat deal (for about he price of sky and bt sports).... simples... This of course cannot happen until the bt and sky contract are up for grabs again... and because the fa are idiots in blazers who have appalling governance etc etc At an fcc meeting some time ago there was some digital media bloke who had done some research (to help the club drive its digital footprint - the secret of which is content though the club are too stiff to give the fans the controversial content that we want... like here on FT) - I asked if he had any idea how many foxes fans were streaming via kodi. He didn't. Sunan Whelan seem to think this was a PL matter... but if the PL got it right it could means more money for the clubs... and bigger wages for players... but it could mean lower ticket prices and shirt prices... ??? OK perhaps that's going too far - I will get back in my box
foxinsocks Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 1 minute ago, Dr The Singh said: Seems Stringer is going to get alot more listeners which reminds me.... any signs that radio Leicester might revamp the comentary team. Jason B had moved on. I like elliot... but he is to uncontroversial. Fans want strong outrageous opinions that we can agree with or scream at. EG look at Savage.. or the way Wrighty gives it back to the arsenal fans.
FuchingKante Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Stopping people streaming won't create more revenue, thats what I don't understand. Most people don't stream because they won't pay, but because often it is the only way to watch the match when you're unable to attend.
foxinsocks Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 14 minutes ago, FuchingKante said: Stopping people streaming won't create more revenue, thats what I don't understand. Most people don't stream because they won't pay, but because often it is the only way to watch the match when you're unable to attend. Correct... offering a good quality stream with insight vould gain revenue. The streamers are not being catered for... stopping is not the issue... delivering what they want is
CollinsLCFC Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 These TV companies can do one, seriously. Ridiculous high prices for access to games I don't want to watch. So, the only alternative to matches I do want to watch, is streaming. For all it's worth, if Leicester are playing away and it's on Sky/BT, I actually go to a pub to watch it. Could they not license each club to stream matches on their own website? I'd happily pay a fee for this service. It's big corporation greed and power. Majority of people only stream as they can't afford to pay the amounts TV companies charge for exclusive packages, and when they do, about 5% of what they pay for is what they wanted. It's like the cinema, I refuse to go now because of the prices. If it was cheaper, I would go, but spending nearly £40 for me and the Mrs to go watch a film and have a popcorn and drink each is ridiculous .
davieG Posted 27 July 2017 Author Posted 27 July 2017 1 hour ago, foxinsocks said: all we have to do is to move all lower league football to sunday and then let folk stream prem 3pm on a pay per view basis.... or a spotify-like all you can eat deal (for about he price of sky and bt sports).... simples... This of course cannot happen until the bt and sky contract are up for grabs again... and because the fa are idiots in blazers who have appalling governance etc etc At an fcc meeting some time ago there was some digital media bloke who had done some research (to help the club drive its digital footprint - the secret of which is content though the club are too stiff to give the fans the controversial content that we want... like here on FT) - I asked if he had any idea how many foxes fans were streaming via kodi. He didn't. Sunan Whelan seem to think this was a PL matter... but if the PL got it right it could means more money for the clubs... and bigger wages for players... but it could mean lower ticket prices and shirt prices... ??? OK perhaps that's going too far - I will get back in my box Why should the lower leagues be moved to Sunday just to satisfy PL fans? That is not an acceptable solution. If anything they should move the PL games but that then punishes those that actually attend games and let's not forget public transport is shite but it's even worse on a Sunday.
Guest ttfn Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Yet another example of football in this country being light years behind where it should be.
CollinsLCFC Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Out of curiosity, what is the sport matches like in America? For examlle the NFL, are all matches televised? Or do they suffer a similar situation?
FireFox Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Not sure if anyone mentioned this as an option, but how about if in the next TV deal, it was agreed that clubs could sell their season ticket holders a sort of 'away stream package'. The package would allow season ticket holders who do not/cannot travel away to stream their club's away games. Maybe not all of the matches, but all except those that would be shown on Sky, BT, etc. What would be wrong with this? The only problem I see is that people would 'account share', meaning that non-season ticket holders, non-'away package' buyers, and even 'fans' of lower league clubs would watch the stream on a friend's account. Legally though, I'm not sure if this actually would be breaking the 3pm blackout?
GaelicFox Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 Totally unenforceable ... a joke order the horse has bolted this is sky trying to scare the horse back in his box it won't happen ...
Ozwin Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 This'll just make the Kodi add-on creators more determined. If there was a more viable option than paying the extortionate prices Sky etc charge then people would do it. It's not rocket science. There's a reason people who have no technological knowledge jump over to these Kodi boxes which tbf aren't the easiest things in the world to understand. People are sick of the status quo and it's about time these giant conglomerates got hit in the pocket for it, lord knows we have been for years.
Webbo Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 1 hour ago, CollinsLCFC said: Out of curiosity, what is the sport matches like in America? For examlle the NFL, are all matches televised? Or do they suffer a similar situation? America has 330 million people. Some states don't even have a profession sports team. An away match can be a 2 hour flight . slightly different circumstances.
FuchingKante Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 2 hours ago, CollinsLCFC said: Out of curiosity, what is the sport matches like in America? For examlle the NFL, are all matches televised? Or do they suffer a similar situation? Forget even American sports, all PREMIER LEAGUE games are broadcasted in America. One time earlier this year one of our games was shown live in 50+ countries, with the UK not being one of them. Its a joke.
jimmer Posted 27 July 2017 Posted 27 July 2017 This will make no difference whatsoever. Anyone using a professional streaming setup and are sensible with a vpn, sky, bt or your isp don't stand a chance in blocking anything. Serves them right for mugging the British public off for so long, utter wankers in my eyes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.