Premier League wins anti-piracy court order

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Such a sense of entitlement amongst the armchair fans. Why do you expect to be spoon fed all the coverage you want, whilst proper fans actually make an effort to get to games?[/quote]Not sure if you''re trolling or just being a cnut HHS.I''m also not sure where you own sense of entitlement comes from, although you''re doing a great job of enforcing the stereotype that NCFC is a "local club for local people - you''re not welcome here".We live in a digital age, why shouldn''t people expect to be able to get the content they want and which is easily available, instead of having to make a 300 mile round trip to watch 90 mins of football at an often prohibitive cost???PS, I really don''t give a flying f**k about comments such as "plastics" or "proper fans", I live within my means, and if you think that makes someone a worse or lesser fan than others, that''s your problem, not mine.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Not trolling at all. Most of our regular away fans have to do 300 mile round trips every away trip, it''s great dedication for sure and will cost them many hours and pounds. I do only a handful of away games a year, but I don''t expect to have it available to me if I''m not there. Instead I listen on the radio or follow on Twitter and don''t whinge. The whole point of football is to support your team and be there, and whilst it doesn''t make you less of a fan if you''re not there, I expect away followers would dwindle if all were available on TV, and we must be wary of not allowing that to happen.

Now there, I''ve written a reasoned response, without obscenity and abuse, maybe you could do the same next time? Xxx

[Indy_Bones 441]

We''re not talking about fans who live in Norwich and the surrounding area who can easily get to each home game, and can then choose which away games (if any) they will attend, we''re talking about fans who find that pretty much EVERY game is an away game, and thus face larger costs and bigger logistical problems than the average local fan.Are you saying that fans shouldn''t watch the World Cup matches unless they''ve got off their backside and possibly travelled halfway around the world to do so? What about any other sport where we have excellent coverage such as Formula 1, can we not watch that any more because we''re not willing to travel all over the globe following each race as it happens???Seriously, just WTF are you thinking here? We''re not stuck in the dark ages any more, the bloody footage and live coverage is already happening at each game - regardless of attendances or any other factors, so why shouldn''t fans be able to pay to watch this coverage instead of being told "if you can''t attend, then get stuffed", especially when people outside the UK can seemingly get as much coverage as they like for a sensible price to boot!?!?!?

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Advantage Indy

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

In your words Indy, I don''t give a "flying f uck", I see every home game anyway 😊😊😊

[SwindonCanary 455]

But wouldn''t you like to see some away games?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]We''re not talking about fans who live in Norwich and the surrounding area who can easily get to each home game, and can then choose which away games (if any) they will attend, we''re talking about fans who find that pretty much EVERY game is an away game, and thus face larger costs and bigger logistical problems than the average local fan.Are you saying that fans shouldn''t watch the World Cup matches unless they''ve got off their backside and possibly travelled halfway around the world to do so? What about any other sport where we have excellent coverage such as Formula 1, can we not watch that any more because we''re not willing to travel all over the globe following each race as it happens???Seriously, just WTF are you thinking here? We''re not stuck in the dark ages any more, the bloody footage and live coverage is already happening at each game - regardless of attendances or any other factors, so why shouldn''t fans be able to pay to watch this coverage instead of being told "if you can''t attend, then get stuffed", especially when people outside the UK can seemingly get as much coverage as they like for a sensible price to boot!?!?!?[/quote]Your examples of sold-out international events such as the World Cup and F1 are hardly relevant. If you got the blanket live TV coverage of Norwich City you seem to want, and attendances at Carrow Road (plus those of our away contingent) started to decline, would you still argue for that coverage to continue?

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Your examples of sold-out international events such as the World Cup and F1 are hardly relevant.[/quote]Sorry PC, but they are completely relevant.I could use almost anything as an example, be it coverage of the NFL, NHL, NBA, Ashes cricket, Any grandslam tennis event, in fact any sporting event that takes place outside the UK where we either get full or excellent coverage of said sport or event. [quote]If you got the blanket live TV coverage of Norwich City you seem to want, and attendances at Carrow Road (plus those of our away contingent) started to decline, would you still argue for that coverage to continue?[/quote]Even if that was the case, who''s fault actually is it PC?Is it mine (and everyone else who wants the coverage), or is it the fans who have now decided not to attend in favour of watching at home or in the local pub?I''ve not seen ANY substantiated figures which demonstrate there would be a noticeable effect on attendances should this happen, and if this is a genuine concern, then you simply put in place a system like they do in the USA whereby if you live within a certain distance of the team, you can''t receive coverage, everyone outside of this area can subscribe and watch if they wish. Clearly we''re nowhere near as large geographically as the US, so our coverage area would be smaller than theirs, but the principle is exactly the same and would work exactly the same.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

So the majority of your argument is that you can''t be bothered to get off your a rse and you''d rather watch on TV? Imagine if many did this if all games were available on TV, crowd numbers would drop, clubs would lose out on vital income from both ticketing and catering etc and some might struggle. The FA rules regarding screening of 3pm games are there for a reason.

Comparisons between world cups, tennis etc are completely ludicrous when looking at the effect on Norwich City and smaller clubs.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]So the majority of your argument is that you can''t be bothered to get off your a rse and you''d rather watch on TV?[/quote]No, the majority of my argument is that myself and many other fans who don''t live in the near vicinity of Norwich, often can''t afford to attend many games, and also don''t want a massive road trip almost EVERY SINGLE WEEK just to watch our team play. I''m sure you consistently spend most Saturday''s with a 7 hour road trip don''t you HHS...[quote]Imagine if many did this if all games were available on TV, crowd numbers would drop, clubs would lose out on vital income from both ticketing and catering etc and some might struggle. The FA rules regarding screening of 3pm games are there for a reason.

Comparisons between world cups, tennis etc are completely ludicrous when looking at the effect on Norwich City and smaller clubs.[/quote]WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS???I keep getting told that fans like myself are ''plastics'' or ''armchair fans'', but now you''re claiming that if the coverage was available, suddenly all those loyal fans who aren''t ''plastics'' will leave Carrow Road in droves. What happened to ''proper fans'' if that''s the case then???At least I have a fair and genuine reason for why I can''t attend often, and would like access to coverage, what would be the excuse for someone who lives 10 mins from the ground then?From a purely financial perspective, even if a few hundred, or even a thousand fans don''t attend if coverage is available, we have to ask if the ticket price shortfall would be covered by the potential subscription costs of fans like myself who are happy to pay a fair amount, but can''t afford £100 a week to watch us play.Apparently now I have to apologise for not having a high level of disposable income, and for not having willingness to make long-distance journeys all the time to watch my team play, despite us living in a digital age where I could easily get the coverage and would pay a fair price to do so. Guess what? I''m not apologising, and frankly you''re getting to the point now where you are essentially trying to shame people with less available income to pay for entertainment, and that''s pretty shi**y tbh...

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]I don''t expect to have it available to me if I''m not there. Instead I listen on the radio or follow on Twitter [/quote]So what''s the difference between listening to the radio or watching, you''re still not there, are you?

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

An average NCFC home ticket will be £30 to £35. And there''s also other cash spent at the ground on merchandise, refreshments etc to factor in. All that would be lost to the club if a fan decided to watch on TV instead. This would be OK, but what if the numbers were more in their thousands if it was available to people at home. Where would NCFC make up the shortfall? They certainly wouldn''t get a 100% cut of any broadcasting income.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

im not there but I''m not whingeing about it and expecting football clubs to bend over backwards to provide live TV coverage.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]im not there but I''m not whingeing about it and expecting football clubs to bend over backwards to provide live TV coverage.[/quote]But they already ARE HHS FFS!It''s not like I''m suggesting that clubs spend additional money on providing live coverage, they are already doing so with this coverage being sent overseas for consumption there, so how are they bending over backwards? They''d simply be providing the same coverage they are already doing, but for UK customers as well as those overseas.Let me put it this way, if I attended 2 home games a season at £30-35 a ticket, I''m providing the club with £60-70 a year, if instead they give me the option to pay for each game at a price of between £5-7 each, I''d be paying £20-35 per month, which by the end of the season would be between £160-280. Which do you think is better for the club, my £60-70 or my £160-280??? Even if they only got HALF of the subscription charge, they''d still be getting more from fans like myself than before, so what are they actually losing?

[hogesar 9,657]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="hogesar"]I don''t agree that fans in this country should get to watch every one of our games either on TV or on demand. They should be encouraged to attend games etc instead. Maybe exiles in this country should have an option to watch 5 games a season via ifollow or something but nothing more.[/quote]Nice attitude to take Hog, basically f**k every fan that can''t afford to attend many games or deal with the necessary travelling to do so...For reference, it would cost me over 2k a year to attend every home game (roughly £100 per match to account for fuel, ticket price and a simple bit of food for the day), with a 7 hour+ round trip journey each time. Frankly I don''t have a spare 2k in cash each year to spend on attending games, nor would I likely spend it if I did, nor do I relish a day where I spend a significant time on the road in exchange for 90 minutes of football. All of which means I rarely get to Carrow Road, and instead rely on away games in the near vicinity (Sheff Wed, Barnsley, Derby etc), or tv footage.[/quote]

That''s not my attitude Indy, but you have to consider some balance. The club needs, more than ever in this league, our ticket revenue and food sales, merchandise sales in the ground, not to mention the other push-marketing that goes on once you''re in and around the club on matchday which we receive large income for. 

You''ve already said you quite like watching football on tv in the comfort of your own home. IF you''re then given every single home game to watch on top of that, where''s the desire for someone like you to actually visit carrow road? And how many of you are there? There''s plenty of fans around me with season tickets that travel well over a couple hours one way to get to every game, would they still show? If not, who takes their place?

I think giving UK based exiles 5 games or so to watch a season is a pretty good mid-way offering. You get some games you wouldn''t otherwise be able to watch - but at the same time there''s a reason to go to Carrow Road for you too.

I know it''s easy for me to say being a Norwich resident but just as an example to get to one of our home matches a couple of seasons ago I was away in Cornwall and left at 4am to make the trip. Whenever I go to away matches it''s always a minimum 6 hour round trip. I don''t expect to get every away game available to me at home just because I can''t be bothered or can''t afford to make the trip myself! 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="hogesar"]You''ve already said you quite like watching football on tv in the comfort of your own home. IF you''re then given every single home game to watch on top of that, where''s the desire for someone like you to actually visit carrow road? And how many of you are there?[/quote]If I had every game available, then aside from those local to me (Barnsley, Sheff Wed etc), then I wouldn''t go to ANY of them, I''d watch at home instead. The truth is that I personally prefer it that way, however the fact is that I''m somewhat of an anomaly amongst football fans in this respect, and the vast majority would rather watch it in the stadium than on the TV, so I don''t see myself as being particularly representative in this aspect of my football consumption.[quote]There''s plenty of fans around me with season tickets that travel well over a couple hours one way to get to every game, would they still show? If not, who takes their place?[/quote]Surely that''s up to them either way?

[quote]I think giving UK based exiles 5 games or so to watch a season is a pretty good mid-way offering. You get some games you wouldn''t otherwise be able to watch - but at the same time there''s a reason to go to Carrow Road for you too.[/quote]That''s exactly the same pathetic level of coverage we got in 13/14 from SKY in exchange for around £250 a season, even worse is that if I''d been a Liverpool fan, I''d have got 16 games instead of 5 for the same money...

[quote]I know it''s easy for me to say being a Norwich resident but just as an example to get to one of our home matches a couple of seasons ago I was away in Cornwall and left at 4am to make the trip. Whenever I go to away matches it''s always a minimum 6 hour round trip. I don''t expect to get every away game available to me at home just because I can''t be bothered or can''t afford to make the trip myself! 

[/quote]But I''m not talking about one-off scenarios Hog, nor am I particularly referencing Home/Away games per se, but the fact is that almost every game for me is an ''away'' game, doesn''t matter if we''re playing at Carrow Road or if we actually are away, the games are ALL away for me from where I live.You CAN get to each home game easily, and the cost to you is far less than it is to me, as you''re simply paying the ticket price, and maybe a small amount for parking/public transport, whereas I''ve got a pretty hefty fuel bill and a long journey each and every time, so in fact, each of my games is the same as your away games.And can we please stop this "can''t be bothered" approach, there''s a big difference between being 20 mins from Carrow Road and not going to a match, than there is being 150 miles and 3.5 hours away (and paying twice the price in the process), and even if I did have the inclination to make that trip on a regular and consistent basis - I don''t have the finances to be able to anyway, so it''s really not down to lack of effort on my part for the vast majority of the time.On a final note, we had the 2nd highest home attendance in the league last season with us filling 96.7% of the capacity (behind Newcastle on 97.5% of their 52k seating!), now compare this to clubs like Cardiff (49.8%), Blackburn (40.4%), and Wigan (46.8%), and it''s clear to see that they have far more issues with attendance than we do (in fact we were one of only 3 clubs to hit over 90% of capacity on average last season, with Brighton being the remaining one), so in truth we can theoretically afford to lose a few attendees financially in relation to the league, especially if this is more than compensated for by subscription prices.

[Badger 2,405]

Somebody spoke of getting a good VPN and subscribing through this. I know (roughly) what a VPN is - how do I know if it is a good one?

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

A drop in attendance doesn''t just affect revenue. It''ll affect the atmosphere too. I can''t for the life of me think why actually being at the match and part of the atmosphere and experience would ever be inferior to tv coverage but each to their own.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]I can''t for the life of me think why actually being at the match and part of the atmosphere and experience would ever be inferior to tv coverage but each to their own.[/quote]In my case it''s because I really don''t like large crowds of people, be this in a stadium, at a festival, in a cinema, or even a crowded pub.I''m also relatively slow to adapt to people I don''t know, have limited patience for idiocy, and prefer being comfortable to uncomfortable. I also don''t like being forced to stand every 2 minutes because the people in front of me can''t/won''t sit down, don''t like the occasional outbreak of violence (one thing we''re lucky not to get a lot of), and basically am fairly anti-social half the time [;)]I also genuinely see more of the game via TV coverage, which also often gives me the chance to pause and rewind sections as and when I choose.I do fully appreciate that this is NOT representative of most football fans, but I''d rather give an honest explanation for how I am personally than false impressions be made.

[Making Plans 936]

Surely the answer to this issue is for Sky/BT to make individual games available "on demand" say from 8pm on a Saturday night when the late kick off has finished. If they charged on a "per game" basis then they would get a lot of takers and there would not be so much need for people, who can''t afford a monthly subsciption, to watch illegal streams. The technology is there and most programmes/films etc, whether free or paid for, are now available on demand so really there''s no reason why it couldn''t be done.But of course we have this stupid rule whereby the BBC are not allowed to put MOTD on iPlayer until a Monday even though you can watch it live on a Saturday night. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Sky is - slowly - heading in the direction of pay on demand.  You can now buy a day pass for when a match is on that you want to see.  It is the only kind if subscription that Sky will ever get out of me - a pass to watch something I want to see.  Their latest attempt is to separate out sports, so individual sports can be subscribed to for £18, I think.  This is a step on the way to what many people want - the ability to pay to watch every match their team play. So the logic is to make all games available, charge a set rate - say £8 - and low and behold they would get my subscription - 46 games x £8 = £368.   What would Sky prefer, £40 from me for the four or five games they might show live at the moment....or £368?   I would even pay that much for a decent highlights show, where a good part of the match - or even all of it - is played on the same day after the event. Whatever. A decent subscription service for a decent product would get me to hand over my hard earned money.  And if local people who go to matches now and who would stay away and watch it on TV rather than travel to CR, then they weren''t exactly committed fans in the first place.  We may get full houses now and we may lose a few to the TV, but then that would put the pressure on the club to treat the fans a bit better than they sometimes appear to....and maybe charge them a bit less too. I mean, if you live in or near Norwich and go to matches now, would you stop and stay at home and watch it on telly?  If the game was on a subscription service, live and with highlights available afterwards, then imo many season ticket holders/regulars would want to watch the match again, to see in more detail what they saw live. So Sky - and the club, if they get a proportion of the money - win on both counts.  And everyone gets the kind of coverge they want.

  

[SwindonCanary 455]

On the down side, if every game was available through a subscription service, here''s one fan that would give up his season ticket.

[hogesar 9,657]

Which the club can''t afford and doesn''t want either Swindon. Yet I completely understand why you''d make the decision.

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]On the down side, if every game was available through a subscription service, here''s one fan that would give up his season ticket.[/quote]And if was £10 to get in, like it is in Germany, there would be plenty of takers for the seats vacated by ex Season Ticket holders.