Footy Broadcasts

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

I was wondering (partly as just saw a thread pulled) about streams.  I fully expect this to be pulled very soon, but did wonder what people’s thoughts are about them.  If we discuss generally/generically it may be ok….

We recently had a thread about the strangeness of the broadcast deal with canary tv (or whatever it’s called) and having to pay £140 when games are often not shown. The whole thing does seem a bit of a mess.

Imo the thing with the ‘dubious’ sites is a bit double-edged - I’m sure many have used them (and I always feel a hair’s breadth from downloading a virus onto my iPad, so don’t often bother).  On the one hand I can’t believe they do a lot of harm, and it is quite probable that broadcasters turn a blind eye to them…there’s many been going for years.  That said, there’s obviously the issue of lost revenue.  One thing that did recently change is the licence for pubs/clubs, as I believe it was suddenly determined by the footprint - so a place with a car park had to pay tonnes more, and many just stopped showing Sky games in particular.

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

I’m Sat waiting for my car’s mot so not that bothered about wasted time if this is pulled!

[Rottingdean canary 117]

Good luck with the MOT!  I see tonight's game won't be on Canaries TV.  I'd have been happy to pay the usual £11 to watch it.  Does anyone know why it's not being shown?  I suspect there won't be any dodgy streams either.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

I noticed, during the brief time allowed, for CC's posting that the game will be broadcast from Norway, throughout Africa and onto Australia, yet there I'll be, credit card at the ready, in Southern England unable to watch one single live minute unless I resort to cheating. 

Ridiculous.

[Satriales 651]

10 minutes ago, Rottingdean canary said:

Good luck with the MOT!  I see tonight's game won't be on Canaries TV.  I'd have been happy to pay the usual £11 to watch it.  Does anyone know why it's not being shown?  I suspect there won't be any dodgy streams either.

I don't think there are any Carabao cup games streamed for any club. Sky show a game, thats about it I think.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Satriales

[lake district canary 4,531]

2 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I noticed, during the brief time allowed, for CC's posting that the game will be broadcast from Norway, throughout Africa and onto Australia, yet there I'll be, credit card at the ready, in Southern England unable to watch one single live minute unless I resort to cheating. 

Ridiculous.

Yep, me too. It's a ludicrous situation. Willing to pay for a match, but no-one wants my money for it. Needs sorting.

Edited August 23, 2022 by lake district canary

[Captain Holt 522]

There is 100% no coverage of tonight's game anywhere in the world, so no stream. The only two games from tonight that you'll get coverage of are Fleetwood v Everton and Bolton v Aston Villa. 

[ncfcstar 292]

12 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I was wondering (partly as just saw a thread pulled) about streams.  I fully expect this to be pulled very soon, but did wonder what people’s thoughts are about them.  If we discuss generally/generically it may be ok….

We recently had a thread about the strangeness of the broadcast deal with canary tv (or whatever it’s called) and having to pay £140 when games are often not shown. The whole thing does seem a bit of a mess.

Imo the thing with the ‘dubious’ sites is a bit double-edged - I’m sure many have used them (and I always feel a hair’s breadth from downloading a virus onto my iPad, so don’t often bother).  On the one hand I can’t believe they do a lot of harm, and it is quite probable that broadcasters turn a blind eye to them…there’s many been going for years.  That said, there’s obviously the issue of lost revenue.  One thing that did recently change is the licence for pubs/clubs, as I believe it was suddenly determined by the footprint - so a place with a car park had to pay tonnes more, and many just stopped showing Sky games in particular.

I'm sure I have seen things in the past which show that piracy is actually a net positive for broadcasters in most circumstances.  The effort that has to be used to find a decent stream nowadays means that for the majority they'll either give up or pay the fee anyway.  If you've gone to the effort of finding a stream, and another 10k around the globe have also done it, there is zero chance that they were going to be paying customers in the first place.

The way to reduce piracy is by offering good value legitimate solutions, as seen in the early success of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify etc etc.  But I believe the club are hamstrung slightly by the intricacies of the EFL Digital deal that exists for other clubs (doesn't impact home games of course) and of course the Sky deal and the 3pm blackout. 

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

1 minute ago, Captain Holt said:

There is 100% no coverage of tonight's game anywhere in the world, so no stream. The only two games from tonight that you'll get coverage of are Fleetwood v Everton and Bolton v Aston Villa. 

Probably. there's some confusion between 'live scores' and live-streaming here.

Still ridiculous.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,720]

The biggest issue is that you simply can't get rid of streaming sites, its like saying you can win the war on drugs. Soon as you get rid of one site another will pop up and will often it's server hosting will then be moved to another county and will often be one that does not have streaming laws. It's an endless battle that will never be won, and as long as the only 'legal' way to watch football on your tv costs you an arm and a leg there will always be alternatives.

 

And yes, once again the fact that sometimes matches being played here in the country you live in won't be shown on tv here yet will be broadcast live in places like China, Tasmania and Timbuktu is ridiculous

Edited August 23, 2022 by cambridgeshire canary

[shefcanary 2,409]

2 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I'm sure I have seen things in the past which show that piracy is actually a net positive for broadcasters in most circumstances.  The effort that has to be used to find a decent stream nowadays means that for the majority they'll either give up or pay the fee anyway.  If you've gone to the effort of finding a stream, and another 10k around the globe have also done it, there is zero chance that they were going to be paying customers in the first place.

The way to reduce piracy is by offering good value legitimate solutions, as seen in the early success of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify etc etc.  But I believe the club are hamstrung slightly by the intricacies of the EFL Digital deal that exists for other clubs (doesn't impact home games of course) and of course the Sky deal and the 3pm blackout. 

The main complication over your eminently sensible idea of just pricing it right for the consumer to eliminate the need for illegal streams is that there are just too many interested parties who want a cut of the action. This is further complicated because those parties are not prepared to work together to allow for an effectively universal legitimate "stream" on demand (with one or two legitimate geographical constraints) under a rights based policy where licencing rates are agreed to share the income appropriately. Whilst the leagues like EPL / EFL continue to squeeze as much out of broadcasters as they can, with those broadcasters trying to cover the costs of their broadcasting rights, this will continue to prevail. The clubs are the probable solution, but then you would just move the argument to one between the likes of the EPL big six and the rest as divergence over whether the home club or the away club should benefit the most. 

In conclusion, this is an economic minefield, which even the likes of Einstein and Kissinger (one for the oldies) working together could not achieve compromise on.   

[Mason 47 1,379]

I think streams are great value for money. Not only do I get to watch most of a match sometimes, I would never have known Tatiana (22, Newton Flotman) wanted to share her saucy pictures and it was only a click away.

 

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

7 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I think streams are great value for money. Not only do I get to watch most of a match sometimes, I would never have known Tatiana (22, Newton Flotman) wanted to share her saucy pictures and it was only a click away.

 

Hang on a mo, I thought she lived in Kingston….?!

[paddycanary 539]

42 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The main complication over your eminently sensible idea of just pricing it right for the consumer to eliminate the need for illegal streams is that there are just too many interested parties who want a cut of the action. This is further complicated because those parties are not prepared to work together to allow for an effectively universal legitimate "stream" on demand (with one or two legitimate geographical constraints) under a rights based policy where licencing rates are agreed to share the income appropriately. Whilst the leagues like EPL / EFL continue to squeeze as much out of broadcasters as they can, with those broadcasters trying to cover the costs of their broadcasting rights, this will continue to prevail. The clubs are the probable solution, but then you would just move the argument to one between the likes of the EPL big six and the rest as divergence over whether the home club or the away club should benefit the most. 

In conclusion, this is an economic minefield, which even the likes of Einstein and Kissinger (one for the oldies) working together could not achieve compromise on.   

OT but have you ever read the Christopher Hitchens book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger?" The premise being that he should be tried as a war criminal. Hitchens is now gone but I'm fairly sure Kissinger is still alive.

[Greavsy 2,415]

Oh the entitlement of some people. 

There is a match on, so I must be able to watch it. 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Oh the entitlement of some people. 

There is a match on, so I must be able to watch it. 

 

I don’t think that is the point of this at all.  The whole thing is an unholy mess, that’s the thing. Even you on your high horse might agree that?

[shefcanary 2,409]

16 minutes ago, paddycanary said:

OT but have you ever read the Christopher Hitchens book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger?" The premise being that he should be tried as a war criminal. Hitchens is now gone but I'm fairly sure Kissinger is still alive.

I haven't - but one for my reading list.

[ncfcstar 292]

21 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Oh the entitlement of some people. 

There is a match on, so I must be able to watch it. 

 

I don't think it's entitlement, more that people know all the games are being filmed and broadcasted in some sense so why not make them available for consumption?  The answer to that is the intricacies of the broadcast deals, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't change in the future (but as per @shefcanary's post, it won't).

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

44 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Oh the entitlement of some people. 

There is a match on, so I must be able to watch it. 

That's not the point. The point is that there will be plenty of cameras filming the game and lots of people willing to pay to watch it, but it's not going to be broadcast anywhere. 

The curiosity here is that in England, English football is far more difficult to watch, legally or illegally, than some overseas football. For example, I follow Lecce in Italy, who were in the Serie B last season. Every game was broadcast live, free of charge, on the bet365 website if you had money in your account (I put a tenner in over a year ago and still have £1.50 left). There wasn't even the Saturday afternoon blackout. This season in Serie A, I believe every game will be broadcast live on BT Sport except for if it's moved to Saturday afternoon. 

Meanwhile, how many Norwich matches will be available to view legally? You might get around 10 or so on Sky, plus the same again available to stream? So around half, I imagine.

Obviously I understand the reasons for this, but it's still pretty frustrating. Clubs are missing out on potential revenue and given how football is nowadays, I'm sure that they'll find a way to monetise this soon enough.

[Greavsy 2,415]

Fair enough - happy to hold my hand up, maybe my reply was more from an illegal streaming perspective than a paid for provision. 

However dont blame the broadcasters, its the money grabbing football owners that set up / agreed to the terms, to protect what they are being paid for, and they are entitled to that of course. 

Remember since lockdown when then sat 3pm ban was lifted temporarily, they have voted to return it! 

Its all about the kerching, as per. 

 

 

[Matt Juler 151]

As a season ticket holder that can't routinely get to midweek games, I'd like to see the option to get a free stream instead of the potential for £15 if the club can resell my ticket.

 

 

[NeymarSmith 130]

So to clarify, likely to be no stream anywhere as it isn't being shown on any TV station on the planet?

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Oh the entitlement of some people. 

There is a match on, so I must be able to watch it. 

 

People are entitled because they want to watch the spectator sport that is professional football.

Ok.

Edited August 23, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Greavsy 2,415]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

People are entitled because they want to watch the spectator sport that is professional football.

Ok.

There is more professional football on tv than ever these days if you want to be an armchair spectator. 

Oh you want to be specific about which team you watch?   

[Greavsy 2,415]

30 minutes ago, Matt Juler said:

As a season ticket holder that can't routinely get to midweek games, I'd like to see the option to get a free stream instead of the potential for £15 if the club can resell my ticket.

 

 

I think thats a great idea in theory - but would, as most of these things are - be an administrate nightmare. 

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

8 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

There is more professional football on tv than ever these days if you want to be an armchair spectator. 

Oh you want to be specific about which team you watch?   

Eh?

I didn't quite get that logic. No surprise there then.

On balance, I rather think I'd prefer to watch Norwich City games since you asked.

Isn't this thread actually all about watching a certain Norwich City game?

Edited August 23, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[glory.win or die. 270]

Seeing as we have in the past broadcast friendlies it does seem odd that we wouldn't take advantage of screening any competitive match for a fee.

 

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

32 minutes ago, Matt Juler said:

As a season ticket holder that can't routinely get to midweek games, I'd like to see the option to get a free stream instead of the potential for £15 if the club can resell my ticket.

 

 

I’m with you - live in Surrey and the 22:02 train was usually doable but they’ve just removed all the late trains the other end at Waterloo (last one 00:09), so I’m looking at late tubes/buses and getting in for 2am.

Admin it would be tricky, but in cricket they used to have ‘country’ members for those living further away and who can’t get to as many games.  

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

6 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Eh?

seems simple enough to me. 

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Just now, Greavsy said:

seems simple enough to me. 

'Simple' being the operative word.