Streaming Clampdown?

[First Wizard 0]

Oh well, had to happen I guess:

 

http://www.newsorganizer.com/article/top-clubs-face-lower-tv-rights-014de9c1d9be83a3b8d0f4f6afb4d55f/

[ca 1]

Thats a shame for people who can''t get to the home and away games and don''t have Sky/ESPN for all the televised games but could see it coming tbh.

I''ve only used the live streams about half a dozen times and they have frozen and let me down on odd occasions so I''m not going to miss them too much, but I feel sorry for those who rely on them every weekend for their fix of footy.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Thats a shame for people who can''t get to the home and away games and don''t have Sky/ESPN for all the televised games but could see it coming tbh.

I''ve only used the live streams about half a dozen times and they have frozen and let me down on odd occasions so I''m not going to miss them too much, but I feel sorry for those who rely on them every weekend for their fix of footy.

[/quote]

 

Same here Angel, but I shan''t miss the spyware!

[Beauseant 0]

If you look you''ll see that the article was dated 24th February, yet I watched the Stoke game last week on a stream with English commentary. I suspect that streams will continue to be available, albeit with foreign commentary.

[Trent Canary 0]

It just sounds like European streams.Non-European streams should be fine (The ones from Thailand & Dubai etc should be fine)If a game is live on TV somewhere around the world (Which in the premier league it always is), then there will always be a stream.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Streaming problems? Buy some incontinence pants!

[Bill 1,788]

The devil is in the detail- though it is only speculation at the moment" The withdrawal of the 3pm kick-offs will reduce the offering to

European broadcasters from 380 to 200. This will likely have an adverse

impact on the sums received from European broadcasters, currently about

£300 million of the £1.3 billion Premier League clubs receive over the

three-year rights cycle."That equates to about a 50% cut in TV money. I doubt most Premier League Clubs could survive that, given how most are locked into 3 year player contracts which cannot simply be reduced by 50% or torn up. That will be the killer decision as it will also have a devastating effect upon the Premier League itself. Interesting times, it would seem.My solution to the armchair fan would be to swap armchairs ie move from one side of the room to the either side of the room - presuming you remember what each side of the room is called.

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

Oh well, had to happen I guess:

 

http://www.newsorganizer.com/article/top-clubs-face-lower-tv-rights-014de9c1d9be83a3b8d0f4f6afb4d55f/

[/quote]

How else can the premier league afford to keep bailing out Portsmouth. 

[Hugh J Wurzell 0]

Good! Then we can wave goodbye to all those ghastly new fans from nowhere near Norwich

 

Norwich City - a LOCAL club for LOCAL people!

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

It makes no sense to me. I have long thought that gate money paled into insignificance compared to TV money for Prem. clubs.

 

It''s turning back the tide really as most sports are  TV sports these days. It''s progress, inevitable and suits me fine.

 

Cricket test matches see half empty grounds attending games watched by millions throughout the World on-screens.

 

For example, second to India, the USA has the largest number of people watching streamed cricket Worldwide. Believe.

 

Few sports can healthily survive on gate money alone nowadays. The costs are too high. Put prices up and attendances will dip as well.

 

Without TV money the cost of attending the Carra would probably be prohibitive.

[Bill 1,788]

"Without TV money the cost of attending the Carra would probably be prohibitive."Without TV money the costs (wages) would not have risen so absurdly highThe cost can only be what the market will bear ie £15 cup game, £45 Man Utd At this stage it is too early to see which way the PL will go. Cutting off this income stream will be cutting it''s own throat.  The moot point is whether these online steams are causing los elsewhere. I''m not sure if they do. I doubt the PL could raise the fees charged to others to cover the losses in income to them and clubs like Norwich.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

[quote user="City1st"]"Without TV money the cost of attending the Carra would probably be prohibitive."

Without TV money the costs (wages) would not have risen so absurdly high

The cost can only be what the market will bear ie £15 cup game, £45 Man Utd

At this stage it is too early to see which way the PL will go. Cutting off this income stream will be cutting it''s own throat.  The moot point is whether these online steams are causing los elsewhere. I''m not sure if they do. I doubt the PL could raise the fees charged to others to cover the losses in income to them and clubs like Norwich.
[/quote]

 

Chicken and egg really. The top English clubs want to attract the best players in the World to compete at the highest level. In turn, the World wants to watch televised games of the best competitions, whether it be European Cup or Premiership games. The World-wide audience is enormous and lucrative and needs to be fed accordingly.

 

Without paying absurdly high wages the English game would deteriorate to backwater levels and the Chinese, for example, would be watching Spanish football, buying Real Madrid shirts and the Prem. would become a Worldwide nonentity.

 

This is a big thing nowadays and has far advanced from being a "local game for local people." The current compromise is ideal but I can only surmise as to where NCFC would be now without TV money.   

 

Like it or not, but most of us now spend a considerable amount of our leisure time in front of a screen. That is pandemic.

[Budapest Canary 152]

[quote user="Hugh J Wurzell"]

Good! Then we can wave goodbye to all those ghastly new fans from nowhere near Norwich

 

Norwich City - a LOCAL club for LOCAL people!

[/quote]What is your problem, man?

[Herman 9,820]

[quote user="Budapest Canary"][quote user="Hugh J Wurzell"]

Good! Then we can wave goodbye to all those ghastly new fans from nowhere near Norwich

 

Norwich City - a LOCAL club for LOCAL people!

[/quote]

What is your problem, man?
[/quote]

He''s a binner for starters.

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

[quote user="Budapest Canary"][quote user="Hugh J Wurzell"]

Good! Then we can wave goodbye to all those ghastly new fans from nowhere near Norwich

 

Norwich City - a LOCAL club for LOCAL people!

[/quote]

What is your problem, man?
[/quote]

 

Exactly Budapest, but it depends upon somebody''s personal history. If you were born and bred in Norfolk and lived there all your life, and there''s nothing wrong with that as it sounds idylic, then you see things from a narrower perspective.

 

For my sins, I have spent much of the last two decades in Asia and from Shanghai to Chennai the proliference of bars showing the English football games is a delight for me and it''s never devoid of convivial ex-pat company.  Getting into a taxi and discussing the previous night''s game with the driver helps the day.

 

Our World gets smaller.

[JF 694]

Has affected the streams today, the site I use only has the Sunderland v Liverpool and Chelsea v Stoke games and both are in foreign. Firstrow has one stream of Wolves v blackburn but not the Villa v Fulham game so not looking good.

[Syteanric 1]

this wont affect streaming..infact you have to understand how streaming works...the technology is very simple... you can record onto a streaming website.. eg ustream.net anything you are watching currently... The link will only effect these foreign satellites whoshow the games in pubs.now, streaming is slightly different.. say i lived in Germany and I was watching Tomorrows game online via a legit GErman staellite provider... there is nothing to stop me hooking my PC up to my TV and making this accessible online... Justin tv and the afforementioned Ustream mean you can stream what you want (as long as it inst pornographic etc), these sites are perfectly legal and have allowed many internet TV stations to crop up.. some of them pretty good.I would then be able to stream the match through my PC and share the link with whoever I want.. i quick email to say First row sports to let them know what i am doing and the link is available for all to see.... would i be breaking a law? Who knows.. the chances of the powers that be ever finding out who these streamers are is very slim to non existant... that''s why they try and take the sites down rather than the streamers.similar to downloading an mp3... they might arrest you for downloading thousands but as they cant actually prove who copied that song and made it accessible for free in the first place they cant stop it.10 years ago they said there would be no more free MP3''s or software available to download for free online... theres now more torrent sites than ever before....

streaming cant be stopped... they have tried, they have failed.. accept it and move on.The internet has made football Free. if "uncle Rupert" doesnt like it then tough....

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="JF"]Has affected the streams today, the site I use only has the Sunderland v Liverpool and Chelsea v Stoke games and both are in foreign. Firstrow has one stream of Wolves v blackburn but not the Villa v Fulham game so not looking good.[/quote]and yet adthe has got every game showing on it....

[JF 694]

Not with anywhere near the same quality I have been used to watching. The site I have been using has streamed every match with tv quality and no pausing ect. Today they can only broadcast 2 games as the others are not being shown in Europe. Yes you will still find them but what is the point if the quality is unwatchable.

[Bill 1,788]

"i quick email to say First row sports to let them know what i am doing and the link is available for all to see"

How does that relate to First Row ? Are they not deemed to hosting the ''illegal'' stream ?I agree with the sentiments you express. The genie is out of the bottle and the danger of taking action is that you may lose a case and so set a precedent whereby it stops being a few lesser websites and is taken up by bigger concerns.How long before a fan sits with a small head camera and relays the game back via a mobile internet connection and out via a stream ?

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="JF"]Not with anywhere near the same quality I have been used to watching. The site I have been using has streamed every match with tv quality and no pausing ect. Today they can only broadcast 2 games as the others are not being shown in Europe. Yes you will still find them but what is the point if the quality is unwatchable.[/quote]first row has all the games on right now and all in good quality.

[JF 694]

Yes they do but the quality is far from good.

[Syteanric 1]

try sunderland vs Liverpool... looks fine to me

[Mr. Bump 0]

[quote user="JF"]Yes they do but the quality is far from good.[/quote]I take it you use LOF too? The quality on there was great. [:(]. There''ll still be a stream or two for our non-televised games but unless we''re playing a ''fashionable'' team we''ll have to make do with poor quality.

[YellowBlood 0]

I find it hard to believe the FA would forfeit 300 million of TV money just out of a bloody-minded desire to prevent people watching online.

[im spartacus canary 0]

strangely enough i watched the best stream i''ve had all season in perfect clarity on firstrow... long may this clampdown continue [:D]

[JF 694]

Mr. Bump wrote. I take it you use LOF too? The quality on there was great. . There''ll still be a stream or two for our non-televised games but unless we''re playing a ''fashionable'' team we''ll have to make do with poor quality. Yeah superb site, brilliant quality and well worth £3 a month.

[......and Smith must score. 1,357]

[quote user="JF"]Mr. Bump wrote. I take it you use LOF too? The quality on there was great. . There''ll still be a stream or two for our non-televised games but unless we''re playing a ''fashionable'' team we''ll have to make do with poor quality. Yeah superb site, brilliant quality and well worth £3 a month.[/quote]At last someone else on here who doesn''t mind shelling out a few quid to get high quality streaming with no adverts !!

[ca 1]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="JF"]Mr. Bump wrote. I take it you use LOF too? The quality on there was great. . There''ll still be a stream or two for our non-televised games but unless we''re playing a ''fashionable'' team we''ll have to make do with poor quality. Yeah superb site, brilliant quality and well worth £3 a month.[/quote]

At last someone else on here who doesn''t mind shelling out a few quid to get high quality streaming with no adverts !!
[/quote]

 

Whats LOF?

[kick it off 1,952]

JF - I can only assume u are looking in the wrong places. Streams are syndicated - the same ones shown across multiple streaming sites - the quality is generally no better or worse on any of them. Individual streams can be better or worse quality, but the sites themselves are not as the same individual streams are featured across several of them, with the odd exception.

I have watched several games this weekend and the quality is exactly the same as it has always been, and there is absolutely no logical reason it shouldn''t be, if you actually understood anything about streaming then you would understand this - basically, you''re talking out of your ar5e.

Smith must score, we''ve had this chat before re: paying for streams - so I won''t delve into it again, just to let you know there is an extension for Firefox and Google Chrome (dunno about Internet explorer as I haven''t used it since about 2003!!) called "adblock" which filters out 99% of ads across the entire web - including those on streaming sites.