Uncle Albert Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Not on TV? What the fuck. Have to pay a fiver to watch it on the internet.
Unit Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 or find a streaming site as it'll be free and probably better picture quality than on normal streaming days...
hairy Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Commentary will come from David Pleat and Tony Jones. There is no way I am paying then!
davieG Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 If you're planning on paying make sure you do it early. From the BBC The cost of watching the game was being advertised on Monday in the Daily Express as £4.99 if viewers signed up before midnight on Wednesday. Charges rise to £9.99 for those who subscribe on Thursday and Friday, and £11.99 on Saturday. Similar prices were advertised on the website of the Daily Telegraph, which promised a "high-quality stream available on Mac and PC". Sounds like something we may have to get used to; "We have a huge marketing effort behind us with the various newspaper groups that will promote the match on their websites," he said. "Commercially this will work and genuinely offers an exciting opportunity for us. We wouldn't embark on this project if we didn't feel it had strategic long-term value, this isn't a one-off shot." Silverstone said Kentaro would take a maximum of one million subscribers for the match - which he said equates to about 2.5 million viewers - because this would be the "safe number to stop at to ensure the optimal broadcast". The Odeon cinema chain will show the game live throughout the country, including at their flagship cinema at Leicester Square, but the match will not be available in pubs. And how is it 'choice' when it's the only option! And Andrew Croker, executive chairman of Perform, insisted England fans would "embrace" the internet broadcast. "I think consumers are pretty sophisticated now, particularly in the UK, where we have been in the vanguard of adopting new technology," he told BBC Sport. "I think people want a choice - the chance to watch football in a different way. This is pioneering, very exciting and I think people will enjoy it."
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Like I'm going to pay a penny to watch a game which in the grand scheme of things, has fuk all importance.
Dr The Singh Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Like I'm going to pay a penny to watch a game which in the grand scheme of things, has fuk all importance. Agreed, stupid idea!!!
StanSP Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 People are still gonna find a way to watch it without paying. Stupid. And totally agree with what was said in that why would people pay to watcfh a match which means nothing?
FilboFox Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Something we'll have to get used to? I find it hard to believe that they'll get much support. The poll on the BBC site says that 97% of nearly 10,000 people have said they won't pay to watch the game online... not a good start for that idea then.
Part Of The Crowd Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 ****s sake, it's always the matches that mean most to me that they make harder to watch COME ON UKRAINE!
Webbo Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Someone on TB says you can watch it for free if you've got a BET365 account. Is that true and would paddy power be the same?
Tommeh Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Anyone paying for this is a fu cking moron. Shambolic. Although at least it's a complete nothing game.
Sparky Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Some streaming sites will be showing this surely ? Talking of the national team im going against Belarus following wednesday
Part Of The Crowd Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 This is not a nothing game, we need to win to be in pole position for second place ahead of Croatia. I'm fooking livid at this.
TrickyTrev Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 The only thing the company is going to get out of people's interest in this game is their content security breached. Be all over the streaming sites in about 2 seconds. The complete disabled of a PR guy saying that people want 'choice' doesn't really understand the concept does he?
Matt Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 As if there was any proof needed that money was killing football this is it. In all honesty though, fook international breaks and let me watch my club team anyday. Obviously this is a qualifier, but unless its the world cup (Which obviously you need to qualify for) and there is no club football on at the time i'm really not interested in international football and would choose my beloved Leicester anyday. I have always said if you want to best players you have to deal with it when they play for their country - They do in Rugby, Do you ever see Leicester Tigers moaning their best players are off playing for England? I don't know I don't take much notice of the Tigers or Rugby but i've never seen them making a big fuss they just get on with it. Besides Premiership game were always cancelled when Internationals were on but why did they start cancelling Championship/Division 1 games? It always used to be if you have 3 or more players playing in an international you're game was cancelled. Club > Country.
Simi Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Everyone apart from the England fan that commented on the article on the BBC website is an absolute moron. Including Rio Ferdinand. England defender Rio Ferdinand said he thought the broadcasting of the match marked "a good step forward"."I read that online advertising has taken over from TV, so that tells you something about where it's going in terms of the digital world," he told BBC Sport. "So I'm sure it'll be the way forward and in the future it'll probably be the reality. I think it's a good way to gauge how many people are interested." Tosser.
Part Of The Crowd Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 It's not pricing people out of the game but it is discouraging them from following it. To be charged over half as much as it would of cost to get into the game is ridiculous, HD isn't that good.
Simi Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 It's not pricing people out of the game but it is discouraging them from following it. To be charged over half as much as it would of cost to get into the game is ridiculous, HD isn't that good. Of course it's pricing people out of the game. Not only have a lot of people forked out for Sky to be able to watch these matches, they're now being told they've got to pay upto £11 more to see a one off game if they're keen to watch.
dandannieldanok Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 I couldn't give a crap personally, as a non-subscriber to the likes of Sky and Setanta/ESPN I miss these games anyway. Radio 5live will do me just fine.
Part Of The Crowd Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 Of course it's pricing people out of the game.Not only have a lot of people forked out for Sky to be able to watch these matches, they're now being told they've got to pay upto £11 more to see a one off game if they're keen to watch. It is the first step towards pricing people out but this one individual act in itself isn't. It's still ridiculous though.
Simi Posted 5 October 2009 Posted 5 October 2009 It is the first step towards pricing people out but this one individual act in itself isn't.It's still ridiculous though. Sadly, it doesn't seem a "one off" is something they're considering. Silverstone insisted the project was "commercially viable"."We have a huge marketing effort behind us with the various newspaper groups that will promote the match on their websites," he said. "Commercially this will work and genuinely offers an exciting opportunity for us. We wouldn't embark on this project if we didn't feel it had strategic long-term value, this isn't a one-off shot."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.