ChezGiven Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Its good for our club if we stay in the prem. The revenue from legal streams will keep english football ahead of its competitors. Sorry but i support the authorities on this completely. Its their product and they have a right to sell it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Its good for our club if we stay in the prem. The revenue from legal streams will keep english football ahead of its competitors. Sorry but i support the authorities on this completely. Its their product and they have a right to sell it. What revenue from legal streams? At the moment the only legal streams are those on the websites of the TV broadcasters (ie Sky) and they only show the same match that's being shown on the TV, at the exact same time, and it's restricted to the same audience. That's hardly exploiting the potential revenue stream to it's full potential. They should separate the online rights from the TV rights and do something similar to what I've said above. Otherwise they are going to lose that market to the illegal streamers. TV rights money is going to diminish due to streams anyway, this way they get to keep at least some of that income, rather than lose it all. The music industry's model is flawed it's never going to work, they should use a different strategy before it's gone, never to return. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'd pay for a legal stream. As it is I most of the time use dodgy, very unreliable links from a confusing multitude of places and the quality is obviously lacking. I do try and see games at the pub when I can, and I'd be at far, far more games if I wasn't always so skint. So yeah, I for one would be happy to give the suits my money on a pay-per-view basis, or even for a subscription if I was guaranteed good quality and a decent number of Toon games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 If it is any consolation to the Premier League's lawyers, I get as little pleasure out of watching a tiny, slow, pixelated video stream of Nicky Butt losing possession as they do. At least mp3 downloads are enjoyable. There is an amateur football team near where I'm living at the moment that competes in the USL league. Every USL match is broadcast online via a US cable company for a PPV fee. With video quality that puts most illegal streams to shame (USLlive.com if you are interested). This local team played a pre season friendly against Burnley in the summer and the guys on their fan forum couldn't believe it. Broadcast live, great quality, no bullshit applications with Chinese characters to download. No one even cares in this country, but they can put together a service like that for the minority that do. This is entirely the fault of the Premier League. They fell behind and now they are paying the price. Fuck them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's only the Saturday 3pm games (and those on other channels) that they can't show, and that's for the usual reasons regarding actual match-going crowds. Which I don't get - are they really saying that an appreciable number of people would watch a 3pm KO on TV that they would otherwise have gone to? - if thats the case why are the crowds for televised games not that badly affected. Even worse is the notion that someone would stop in and watch a team other than their own rather than go to a game. Don't ask me. It's been in place for donkey's years. Will never understand. In America, every local team match is shown live on television. I know Television in both countries in very different (spent considerable amounts of time in both), but if the only reason people are going to matches is because they can't watch them on the box, then said club needs to improve its product and matchday experience. I agree that European leagues should sell legal streams online. Watching online is much more convenient for some people. I am a student studying in a foreign country. How else am I supposed to watch Newcastle and Marseille in my dormitory? I certainly wouldn't mind paying a bit of money for good quality and easy access. Probaly would prefer it to watching dodgy streams on sites from Iraq. (Although the free streams have become more numerous and better quality recently tbh) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sittingontheball Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Have to learn from the music industry here. Once upon a time you could only buy albums, not individual tracks, and you couldn't download them. The music industry changed and now makes more money. No point fighting the tide. Like music, Football has to focus on the live product and make it better - all round better experience at matches, better food/drink, matches at proper times not when the fkn tv or police want them, standing (for people who want to), etc. For people who want to watch via a computer, charge them and let them do it. Make sure the licensed streams are much better than the Chinese ones. Do delayed streams so people can watch them on demand on websites with no spoilers. That would be massive for people who have to work or live in other timezones. Football does not need Sky anymore. The clubs could set up their own channels and feed to subscribers via digiboxes, the Internet, consoles like the Playstation and Wii, and mobile phones even. They are just too blind to see it. Digital distribution costs bugger all. Far less than what Sky creams off in profits. Making people fit satellite dishes to get the football even is old-fashioned. There is simply no need any more. It should also be obvious but more viewers means more exposure for shirt and ground sponsors. In that sense, no one gets to watch football for "free", even on the Chinese streams. They expose themselves to a ton of advertising. Giving people a highly sophisticated and equipment-hungry search engine for "free" seems to work very well for Google. There is a business model in there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazeyb Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 ...the reason why clips, streams, etc, are not allowed: Websites that offer access to live unauthorised coverage from PCs, usually sourced from overseas broadcasters in the Far East or around the world, have been popular with a small minority of web users unwilling to pay for a TV subscription for some time. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jan/21/premier-league-cracks-down-on-illegal-broadcasts Its not that we're unwilling to paid for them. I already get raped for Sky and Setanta, and would be willing to be pillaged even more for every Newcastle Match to be legally available live (Other than actually going to a match, I don't have the spare time to travel as well as rip my hair out for 90minutes) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Its good for our club if we stay in the prem. The revenue from legal streams will keep english football ahead of its competitors. Sorry but i support the authorities on this completely. Its their product and they have a right to sell it. What revenue from legal streams? At the moment the only legal streams are those on the websites of the TV broadcasters (ie Sky) and they only show the same match that's being shown on the TV, at the exact same time, and it's restricted to the same audience. That's hardly exploiting the potential revenue stream to it's full potential. They should separate the online rights from the TV rights and do something similar to what I've said above. Otherwise they are going to lose that market to the illegal streamers. TV rights money is going to diminish due to streams anyway, this way they get to keep at least some of that income, rather than lose it all. The music industry's model is flawed it's never going to work, they should use a different strategy before it's gone, never to return. It was future conditional tense I agree with the principle of a legal stream, the problem is how do you stop people who live in Newcastle who would go to the match otherwise from watching it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I agree with the principle of a legal stream, the problem is how do you stop people who live in Newcastle who would go to the match otherwise from watching it? I don't see that as a problem though - surely its a "test of willpower" for the person rather than anything to do with the provider. You could also argue if we do go back to sell out crowds then it would all be extra revenue which would otherwise be untapped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The main point is that everything should be done to protect the matchday experience and make sure people actually go the games. Football played in a half-empty stadium is so much worse off, just look at Boro. They could also make Sky Sports subscriptions more flexible, I would be willing to get it if I could pick and choose what I wanted, but I'm not paying £40 a month for a load of stuff I'll never watch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 It's only the Saturday 3pm games (and those on other channels) that they can't show, and that's for the usual reasons regarding actual match-going crowds. Which I don't get - are they really saying that an appreciable number of people would watch a 3pm KO on TV that they would otherwise have gone to? - if thats the case why are the crowds for televised games not that badly affected. Even worse is the notion that someone would stop in and watch a team other than their own rather than go to a game. I think it's more to do with the fact that people would stop going to support their local teams in the lower leagues if they could watch the premiership instead for less money. It's the grassroots it would hurt more than the top level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen to crowds if 3pm games were on TV... maybe Mowen is right it might affect the lower leagues more. But 'the market' seems to decide everything else, if people would rather watch the game at home then maybe they should be allowed to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 After years of paying for it, I'm finally getting rid of Sky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen to crowds if 3pm games were on TV... maybe Mowen is right it might affect the lower leagues more. But 'the market' seems to decide everything else, if people would rather watch the game at home then maybe they should be allowed to? I've actually got a decent example to back up the lower leagues thing. My missus was teaching at a school in Southampton the year after they'd got relegated. They all went to St Mary's every home game with their dads, but they also called themselves 'Chelsea/ManU/Arsenal and Southampton supporters'. I don't reckon they'd have been spending so much time at St Mays if they had the option of watching a 'big' premiership game instead every week. I've got rid of Sky as well Gol, had it at uni (bill split between 6 didn't seem so much...) but now I'm living with the missus I'll go to the pub if there's a game I want to see. Means I enjoy the games I watch a lot more, and don't find myself watching rubbish I'm not interested in. I'll miss the cricket coverage more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen to crowds if 3pm games were on TV... maybe Mowen is right it might affect the lower leagues more. But 'the market' seems to decide everything else, if people would rather watch the game at home then maybe they should be allowed to? I've actually got a decent example to back up the lower leagues thing. My missus was teaching at a school in Southampton the year after they'd got relegated. They all went to St Mary's every home game with their dads, but they also called themselves 'Chelsea/ManU/Arsenal and Southampton supporters'. I don't reckon they'd have been spending so much time at St Mays if they had the option of watching a 'big' premiership game instead every week. I've got rid of Sky as well Gol, had it at uni (bill split between 6 didn't seem so much...) but now I'm living with the missus I'll go to the pub if there's a game I want to see. Means I enjoy the games I watch a lot more, and don't find myself watching rubbish I'm not interested in. I'll miss the cricket coverage more. Interesting, I definitely wouldn't get Sky until it is properly customisable and I don't have to take loads of stuff I don't want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen to crowds if 3pm games were on TV... maybe Mowen is right it might affect the lower leagues more. But 'the market' seems to decide everything else, if people would rather watch the game at home then maybe they should be allowed to? I've actually got a decent example to back up the lower leagues thing. My missus was teaching at a school in Southampton the year after they'd got relegated. They all went to St Mary's every home game with their dads, but they also called themselves 'Chelsea/ManU/Arsenal and Southampton supporters'. I don't reckon they'd have been spending so much time at St Mays if they had the option of watching a 'big' premiership game instead every week. I've got rid of Sky as well Gol, had it at uni (bill split between 6 didn't seem so much...) but now I'm living with the missus I'll go to the pub if there's a game I want to see. Means I enjoy the games I watch a lot more, and don't find myself watching rubbish I'm not interested in. I'll miss the cricket coverage more. Interesting, I definitely wouldn't get Sky until it is properly customisable and I don't have to take loads of stuff I don't want. You won't be getting it then. It's always been that way, they'll give you hundreds of shit channels for £12 or something, want Sky Sports? £40. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I got rid of Setanta after listening to Craig Burley spouting shite about us during the Arsenal game earlier this season, and am seriously thinking of getting rid of sky sports too. If I want to watch a game I can online (even though its illegal) and the quality is a lot better than it used to be. Just wondering though, if I get rid of sky sports do I still get sky sports news? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Streams are pain in the arse for me, am i doing something wrong?, they keep going off, but compared to paying for Sky, or setanta , ill live with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I got rid of Setanta after listening to Craig Burley spouting shite about us during the Arsenal game earlier this season, and am seriously thinking of getting rid of sky sports too. If I want to watch a game I can online (even though its illegal) and the quality is a lot better than it used to be. Just wondering though, if I get rid of sky sports do I still get sky sports news? I believe so, aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Interesting, I definitely wouldn't get Sky until it is properly customisable and I don't have to take loads of stuff I don't want. You won't be getting it then. It's always been that way, they'll give you hundreds of shit channels for £12 or something, want Sky Sports? £40. Aye I know, I never expect it to happen! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I got rid of Setanta after listening to Craig Burley spouting s**** about us during the Arsenal game earlier this season, and am seriously thinking of getting rid of sky sports too. If I want to watch a game I can online (even though its illegal) and the quality is a lot better than it used to be. Just wondering though, if I get rid of sky sports do I still get sky sports news? Freeview, baby! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I got rid of Setanta after listening to Craig Burley spouting s**** about us during the Arsenal game earlier this season, and am seriously thinking of getting rid of sky sports too. If I want to watch a game I can online (even though its illegal) and the quality is a lot better than it used to be. Just wondering though, if I get rid of sky sports do I still get sky sports news? Freeview, baby! Fabulous, am off to ring sky now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 If Sky broadcasted each match online, with a premium payable for the season or on a per-game basis, they could likely make a small fortune, as I would happily pay a Sky season ticket price, but I don't have a satellite at the moment. The technology exists, so they should put their money where their mouth is and use it. Seems a no brainer to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah but isn't the a law or a rule that means that games can't be televised with a 3pm kickoff? Something that incidentally doesn't apply abroad, hence the likes of en vivo streams with the commentators singing after every goal. ...Apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 fuck that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now