Streaming next season

[king canary 7,651]

No, not another debate about the rights and wrongs of illegal streaming...

But am I the only one who is surprised about how quiet the question of legal streaming has gone? My assumption was the covid days had let the genie out of the bottle somewhat and that fans wouldn't be happy with just being able to legally watch a few games of their team each season. However, unless I've missed something, it seems like we're just returning to the status quo, driving people back to dodgy streaming sites. 

Surely this has to change in the near future?

[Greavsy 2,418]

@keelansgrandad

one for you my friend - with genuine respect. 

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

No, not another debate about the rights and wrongs of illegal streaming...

But am I the only one who is surprised about how quiet the question of legal streaming has gone? My assumption was the covid days had let the genie out of the bottle somewhat and that fans wouldn't be happy with just being able to legally watch a few games of their team each season. However, unless I've missed something, it seems like we're just returning to the status quo, driving people back to dodgy streaming sites. 

Surely this has to change in the near future?

Amazes me that they don't do some kind of away day streaming service.

I'd love to go to away games but I have commitments on a Saturday morning which means I can't, however I'd happily pay to watch the away matches on the telly.

The die hards will still go so there has to be a benefit to all involved with that kind of service.

 

 

[king canary 7,651]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

@keelansgrandad

one for you my friend - with genuine respect. 

I'm assuming you're choosing to ignore the very first line?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,768]

Honestly the ammount of money clubs would make if they invested into a full time one match for a fiver/tenner kind of thing per season would be very good for the smaller clubs who need the money such as us with ten thosuand plus no doubt buying if it were like that every match.. but sadly Sky is king and thereore would never allow it as it would get in the way of their profits

Edited July 20, 2021 by cambridgeshire canary

[Jsim1986 150]

I will be using my usual VPN and paying for a Dazn sports or something equivalent next season. 

[Greavsy 2,418]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I'm assuming you're choosing to ignore the very first line?

not at all - I didnt want to lead anyone  in my response, but in a previous thread he has stated that watching said stream is no longer illegal for the end user. 

Glad i tried to help. 

[Greavsy 2,418]

Once thing I do know is the authorities (not sure if that was EPL / SKY / BT and the like) voted to return the non live transmission  of matches between 3-5 on Saturdays. You can only presume why. 

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

I agree that this is a problem which has been puzzlingly not solved in your end. This is one of the benefits of being an overseas Canary—full access to all matches live via either iFollow (~$120/season) OR ESPN+ (~$6/month). It all works quite well though for the iFollow matches I have to settle for the iPad as it's still seemingly not compatible with Apple TV/Roku/etc.

 

Generally, I'd say, we Americans although poor at so many things are quite good at this stuff ... I can watch all 162 games of my favorite MLB baseball team for ~$150. It's easy and cheap. It's baffling to me that you in the UK seem to have such a difficult time watching matches!?

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

11 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Honestly the ammount of money clubs would make if they invested into a full time one match for a fiver/tenner kind of thing per season would be very good for the smaller clubs who need the money such as us with ten thosuand plus no doubt buying if it were like that every match.. but sadly Sky is king and thereore would never allow it as it would get in the way of their profits

 

Yep. It's just totally insane that overseas supporters actually have MORE and BETTER options for watching! Something needs fixing!

[Greavsy 2,418]

Its because, i assume, we in this country are able to go - and therefore if it was easliy on the TV we would, in theory,  be less likely to, thus impacting attendances and revenue (which has been stated on here as a small % of income compared to TV rights etc) 

[WSM 62]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Its because, i assume, we in this country are able to go - and therefore if it was easliy on the TV we would, in theory,  be less likely to, thus impacting attendances and revenue (which has been stated on here as a small % of income compared to TV rights etc) 

This is true, when Match of the Day started (and only showed one match!) they wouldn't say which they were going to as to prevent a downturn in demand for tickets

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,568]

Until the 3pm blackout rules are changed permanently there will be no streaming of all games in the UK. 

While the Premier League can sell domestic rights for such a large price they will not feel the need to remove the blackout - the relative scarcity of games drives the prices up.

There is also the issue that should all games be streamable, that individual clubs will look to sell their rights individually - this would obviously generate a huge difference in revenue for a team like Man United compared to a team like Norwich. Liverpool have been pushing for the ability to sell their own rights individually in order to get a larger slice of the pie - opening up streaming is probably like opening pandora's box.

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

10 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Its because, i assume, we in this country are able to go - and therefore if it was easliy on the TV we would, in theory,  be less likely to, thus impacting attendances and revenue (which has been stated on here as a small % of income compared to TV rights etc) 

 

But that same logic doesn't really apply here in the US though we do sometimes have "blackouts" where you can't watch a game if it's local to you. This used to be more of a thing, though, and increasingly anyone anywhere can watch virtually anything anytime. There's a bewildering array of sports to watch, even legally, depending on what cable and app services one wants to pay for!

[GenerationA47 758]

17 minutes ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

 

But that same logic doesn't really apply here in the US though we do sometimes have "blackouts" where you can't watch a game if it's local to you. This used to be more of a thing, though, and increasingly anyone anywhere can watch virtually anything anytime. There's a bewildering array of sports to watch, even legally, depending on what cable and app services one wants to pay for!

Was going to suggest that…, i.e. couldn’t they replace the blanket national ban with the same thing here.
 

However, reflecting again  - as you have said succinctly above, things have indeed changed, as with the dawn of smart tv and internet streaming, locality has little or no meaning. It would be logistically fraught to try to restrict even satellite tv by locality… oh hello, Sky.

 Then there are the mega clubs, whose support (well, spectating market) is significantly greater outside than within their geographical area. Many of their local fans (= actual support) would be doubly punished by not being able to afford season tickets AND being the only fans not allowed to watch on TV.

Edited July 20, 2021 by GenerationA47

[Bill 1,788]

12 minutes ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

I agree that this is a problem which has been puzzlingly not solved in your end. This is one of the benefits of being an overseas Canary—full access to all matches live via either iFollow (~$120/season) OR ESPN+ (~$6/month). It all works quite well though for the iFollow matches I have to settle for the iPad as it's still seemingly not compatible with Apple TV/Roku/etc.

 

Generally, I'd say, we Americans although poor at so many things are quite good at this stuff ... I can watch all 162 games of my favorite MLB baseball team for ~$150. It's easy and cheap. It's baffling to me that you in the UK seem to have such a difficult time watching matches!?

It's because of distance. Most US stadia are quite far apart, due to cities being the same, so little revenue is lost through away support.

There is also the fact that US 'sport' is part of a huge amount of razzamatazz so there is not the same focus on the game. A case can be made for Carlisle away to Exeter, but how do you restrict coverage to only Carlisle fans, other than a beam back. A huge number of English games are within a couple of hours drive, how would you decide what games could be streamed without affecting attendance

"would never allow it as it would get in the way of their profits "

eh ! ! !

If sky/BT had their way they would have a 'free for all' over showing games. They generate income from subscriptions, so the more games shown the greater probability of increased income

A most bizarre comment CC

Otherwise, as said, the subscription method will go the way of so much before - dial up internet and metered phone calls.  Why would you pay for calls when you can use 'messenger' ? Similarly, for face to face conversations.

How this pans out can't be known, though you can get a fair idea of the rough direction. Browsers like Firefox have shown you can get a far superior product ran on a contribution basis. This will evolve into so many other areas of disseminating data and information.

As much as HS2 is already an unwanted white elephant, so will much of what we use and how we use it will go the same way.

 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,270]

58 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Honestly the ammount of money clubs would make if they invested into a full time one match for a fiver/tenner kind of thing per season would be very good for the smaller clubs who need the money such as us with ten thosuand plus no doubt buying if it were like that every match.. but sadly Sky is king and thereore would never allow it as it would get in the way of their profits

But they don't own the UK TV rights, Sky does.

We had a tenner a game last season and people moaned about that, so to cover any sort of rights issue and make £7 a head contribution on top, like we did last season, would require a fair old stream fee.

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

NBC Sports will hopefully be showing every Prem game again next season. VPN and a legit account already sorted 😃

Edited July 20, 2021 by BigManInTheBarclay

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I'm assuming you're choosing to ignore the very first line?

I think its a great debate. Morals and legalities at loggerheads.

Football is still way behind in its product despite its own impression of the whole world is watching it.

There are ways that football could be streamed by each club that manages to fill its ground every week. But they are ignoring it. The matches are covered, each and every one. So there is opportunity to involve season ticket holders etc in watching away games and expats in all games.

Of course they have a contract with the media companies but they hold the best hand and none of those companies wants to lose it. They would be bound to compromise.

Instead of improving their product they continue to moan that people are watching it free on the internet. Well stop moaning and find a solution that satisfies all.

I genuinely would pay for a package if it was decently covered and decently priced. I used iFollow in the Championship three seasons ago and thought £5 was a fair price for admittedly poor coverage but nonetheless coverage. I didn't mind paying that and the club got a share of it.

But of course last season, the British disease of price rises when things are going well resulted in it doubling to £10. Agreed still manageable, but why more money when more were likely to watch it if the grounds were closed? Greed obviously.

And as KC has mentioned, it has now gone quiet. And because the owners couldn't give a monkeys as fans are allowed back in.

[Bill 1,788]

KG

I don't think clubs are moaning about streaming, as it is no loss to them

There is not a package that can be delivered, otherwise it would have been done long ago

Once a game is shown live, through whatever 'package', it is then vulnerable to being streamed - hence all the current live streaming of virtually everything.

It is not football, clubs or broadcasters who have 'not kept up - but fans/viewers.

the former well know that once a game is out there, it can be streamed for free. Until you, them, or anyone can come up with a cost effective method of stopping that, it will continue as with taping the top 20 off the radio onto a cassette

[Monty13 2,240]

Streaming is never going back in the box, football needs to move with the times and see those people as legitimate customers.

I paid £10 a game for every game since the pandemic started and I’d continue to do so as long as that’s an option.

Where that isn’t an option if they are going to force me to pirate it for free that’s there loss. 

[NewNestCarrow 202]

1 hour ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

Generally, I'd say, we Americans although poor at so many things are quite good at this stuff ... I can watch all 162 games of my favorite MLB baseball team for ~$150. It's easy and cheap. It's baffling to me that you in the UK seem to have such a difficult time watching matches!?

Yes, but be honest, in the USA there are always a number of games that that are Blacked Out, to protect domestic tv deals (in N Carolina this affects fans of the Nats, Orioles & Braves)

Overseas TV rights are almost always easier, simpler & cheaper than domestic.

[BroadstairsR 2,194]

8 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Streaming is never going back in the box, football needs to move with the times and see those people as legitimate customers.

I paid £10 a game for every game since the pandemic started and I’d continue to do so as long as that’s an option.

Where that isn’t an option if they are going to force me to pirate it for free that’s there loss. 

Ditto.

If seeing live games means illegal streams only then I'll do it.

I'll need put up with the t -ts, dodgy ads and the usual negotiating involved.

I'd rather do without that ****e though and support NCFC with my tenner than these crooks with my clicks.

Edited July 20, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[birchfest 397]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Ditto.

If seeing live games means illegal streams only then I'll do it.

I'll need put up with the t -ts, dodgy ads and the usual negotiating involved.

I'd rather do without that ****e though and support NCFC with my tenner than these crooks with my clicks.

That’s been pretty much my situation all of last season being in Madrid, I’ve happily supported the club with my money and then frustratingly had to watch some games on a stream as the sky ones weren’t  available on ifollow internationally. It’s mad really, I’m sat there ready to give them my money and it does nothing to stop me watching it for free. 

Edited July 20, 2021 by birchfest

[NewNestCarrow 202]

2 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Honestly the ammount of money clubs would make if they invested into a full time one match for a fiver/tenner kind of thing per season would be very good for the smaller clubs who need the money such as us with ten thosuand plus no doubt buying if it were like that every match.. but sadly Sky is king and thereore would never allow it as it would get in the way of their profits

It would be a disaster for Norwich if a club-led PPV deal ever took over from Sky. 

Sky currently pay each PL club £2.6m per week for TV rights, so you would need 130,000 City fans paying a tenner every week to match that.

If only (!) 30,000 City fans paid for PPV then our annual [TV] income would shrink from £100m to less than £12m

Edited July 20, 2021 by NewNestCarrow
missing word, for clarity

[Bill 1,788]

27 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Streaming is never going back in the box, football needs to move with the times and see those people as legitimate customers.

I paid £10 a game for every game since the pandemic started and I’d continue to do so as long as that’s an option.

Where that isn’t an option if they are going to force me to pirate it for free that’s there loss. 

That misses the point.

As soon as a game is shown live, legitimately

It becomes available for it to be streamed

If posters cannot grasp this fact, then they will not grasp why live games are not shown

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

It would be a disaster for Norwich if a club-led PPV deal ever took over from Sky. 

Sky currently pay each PL club £2.6m per week for TV rights, so you would need 130,000 City fans paying a tenner every week to match that.

If only (!) 30,000 City fans paid for PPV then our annual income would shrink from £100m to less than £12m

steady on old fellow

there's many on here not ready for the cold slap of reality

 

 

[Haus 259]

35 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Yes, but be honest, in the USA there are always a number of games that that are Blacked Out, to protect domestic tv deals (in N Carolina this affects fans of the Nats, Orioles & Braves)

Overseas TV rights are almost always easier, simpler & cheaper than domestic.

Only blacked out if the match isn't sold out though 

[Greavsy 2,418]

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

That misses the point.

As soon as a game is shown live, legitimately

It becomes available for it to be streamed

If posters cannot grasp this fact, then they will not grasp why live games are not shown

Does that include Ifollow Bill? 

[Monty13 2,240]

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

That misses the point.

As soon as a game is shown live, legitimately

It becomes available for it to be streamed

If posters cannot grasp this fact, then they will not grasp why live games are not shown

I don’t understand your point, all games are shown legitimately somewhere in the world. That’s how they are all streamed illegally.

In the U.K. people lose out on legitimate access to those same games when we could pay £10 a time and it’s been proven many would.