PL ups the anti on pubs showing live games on Saturday afternoons

[E.L.F. 0]

Boy are you thick C1. This is almost too funny. If you are capable of re-reading my original post and actually use any brain function you might have, one might be able rationalise what was being said.

Now, I''ll explain this at your level so please pay attention.. T H E N F L, M L B A N D N H L A R E P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E S W H I C H H A V E A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. T H E B A R C L A Y S P R E M I E R L E A G U E, AS I S T H E O F F I C I A L N A M E I S A L S O A P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E W I T H A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. C A N Y O U C O M P R E H E N D T H I S O R D O Y O U H A V E A P E R M A N E N T M A L F U N C T I O N? By the way the Jays beat the Houston Astros 4-0 this evening. If you need help with that, please let me know.

[E.L.F. 0]

WOW, bad iphone formatting but you get the gist.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="E.L.F."]Boy are you thick C1. This is almost too funny. If you are capable of re-reading my original post and actually use any brain function you might have, one might be able rationalise what was being said.

Now, I''ll explain this at your level so please pay attention.. T H E N F L, M L B A N D N H L A R E P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E S W H I C H H A V E A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. T H E B A R C L A Y S P R E M I E R L E A G U E, AS I S T H E O F F I C I A L N A M E I S A L S O A P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E W I T H A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. C A N Y O U C O M P R E H E N D T H I S O R D O Y O U H A V E A P E R M A N E N T M A L F U N C T I O N? By the way the Jays beat the Houston Astros 4-0 this evening. If you need help with that, please let me know.[/quote]

Thanks for the word search. 

City1st is a bit of a dinosaur and doesn''t understand how quickly the internet has and still is changing the world.

Like I''ve said to him before, every Premier League game is already recorded and broadcast live, it would be ridiculously easy for Sky to offer a PPV service in addition to their existing package with very little additional production cost to Sky - especially if there is no commentary (who needs it?). 

All it would require is for a little change in law (the 3pm rule), which is easily fixed when your CEO is a mafia don with police on payroll. A big brown envelope every few years to the relevant political party, bish bash bosh. 

All they would be doing is producing a huge income from something which people are already watching at no cost. That income can come not only from the fee/subscription charge but also from offering out pre-match, half-time, and post-match adverts. 

His argument is that millions of people will watch Manchester United games, and tens of thousands of people will watch Norwich games. An irrelevant one for two reasons: 

1). Millions more people will already watch Man Utd vs Man City than will watch Norwich vs Stoke. 

2). Millions of people will watch Manchester United vs Norwich. 

City1st has no coherent argument against PPV or more comprehensive/tailored subscription services, and will instead just resort to being abusive and condescending to make it look like he has a strong argument.

He doesn''t. 

[E.L.F. 0]

Yeah, sorry about that. First post I''ve made on my iphone. Result noted.

He''s more than a dinosaur TNB. It''s not too hard to see how this should play out. Will it?, not sure but I assume some of the new American owners might push it forward a little.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="E.L.F."]Yeah, sorry about that. First post I''ve made on my iphone. Result noted.

He''s more than a dinosaur TNB. It''s not too hard to see how this should play out. Will it?, not sure but I assume some of the new American owners might push it forward a little.[/quote]

SKY have already been trialing PPV on selected games, they aren''t stupid and that is the way that they are heading with the EPL, might take a few years but it will come.

They actually used to offer PremPlus PPV for a handful of games which didn''t really work out, but the problem there was that the viewer needed to have a Sky Subscription to get PremPlus. The next logical step for Sky is to trial an online streaming service which does not require a Sky subscription. 

It is likely that Sky invests millions into market research, and then millions on testing of products, and then millions building products which they think are ready for the marketplace. It is likely that City1st hasn''t spent a single penny conducting any market research or developing prototype products for pay per view football. 

So I think we should pay attention to what Sky are doing, and no attention whatsoever to what City1st thinks Sky shouldn''t do. 

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]of course there''s evrey possibility that the more and more people who switch to free streams will tell the likes of Sky and BT that their business model is now at an end [/quote]I don''t think so - Sky have just announced record profits of £1.26bn Doesn''t sound like a flawed business model to me

[Syteanric 1]

how have sky announced that profit?

I''d be very suprised if it was from subscriptions....

also, someone mentioned above that sky have already trialed PPV games... if anyone paid for those they are an idiot! Already paid for Sky sports, paying for a game is just filling the coffers of a fat cat.

as long as its free online i''m going to continue to watch it.. It isn''t illegal to watch a game online, and if sky, BT, ESPN or anyone else don''t like it then they can kiss my ring.

[SwindonCanary 455]

I think this guy puts it a lot better than I could, but I totally agree with his comments  http://fsf.org.uk/blog/view/scrap-the-tv-ban-on-3pm-kick-offs

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="E.L.F."]Boy are you thick C1. This is almost too funny. If you are capable of re-reading my original post and actually use any brain function you might have, one might be able rationalise what was being said.

Now, I''ll explain this at your level so please pay attention.. T H E N F L, M L B A N D N H L A R E P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E S W H I C H H A V E A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. T H E B A R C L A Y S P R E M I E R L E A G U E, AS I S T H E O F F I C I A L N A M E I S A L S O A P R O F E S S I O N A L S P O R T S L E A G U E W I T H A P R E S E N C E A R O U N D T H E W O R L D. C A N Y O U C O M P R E H E N D T H I S O R D O Y O U H A V E A P E R M A N E N T M A L F U N C T I O N? By the way the Jays beat the Houston Astros 4-0 this evening. If you need help with that, please let me know.[/quote]

Thanks for the word search. 

City1st is a bit of a dinosaur and doesn''t understand how quickly the internet ! ! ! has and still is changing the world.

Like I''ve said to him before, every Premier League game is already recorded and broadcast live, it would be ridiculously easy for Sky to offer a PPV service in addition to their existing package with very little additional production cost to Sky - especially if there is no commentary (who needs it?). 

All it would require is for a little change in law (the 3pm rule), which is easily fixed when your CEO is a mafia don with police on payroll. A big brown envelope every few years to the relevant political party, bish bash bosh. 

All they would be doing is producing a huge income from something which people are already watching at no cost. That income can come not only from the fee/subscription charge but also from offering out pre-match, half-time, and post-match adverts. 

His argument is that millions of people will watch Manchester United games, and tens of thousands of people will watch Norwich games. An irrelevant one for two reasons: 

1). Millions more people will already watch Man Utd vs Man City than will watch Norwich vs Stoke. 

2). Millions of people will watch Manchester United vs Norwich. 

City1st has no coherent argument against PPV or more comprehensive/tailored subscription services, and will instead just resort to being abusive and condescending to make it look like he has a strong argument.

He doesn''t. 

[/quote]

dearie metalk about making it up as you go alongso if I point out that the Western governments are unlikely to stop manufacturing and using arms and use the money to feed the world''s starving then I am against feeding the starving !makes you wonder how some of these simpletons get out of bed in the morning never mind stand up and walkour not too bright rounders fan now concedes that actually the world league is not actually a world league it just gets broadcast around the world - just as Test cricket is a world competition because it gets broadcast around the world" Millions more people will already watch Man Utd vs Man City than will watch Norwich vs Stoke. "dearie methat is not the point, it is what the subscribers purchase - it is pretty much academic who watches what within the packages sold by BT/SKY etc as the money is divided up equallybreak it down into individual games and suddenly there is no reason why each club should receive an equal share - and you and hillbilly hank think the other 16 or so clubs in the PL will agree to that ?  you also think that the PL and the broadcasters will want their monthly subscriptions cut down to one off individual gamessadly the pair of you are locked into some 20th century timewarp and have little grasp of what has been happening with the marketing and sales of goods/servicesfrom phone deals to internet and TV deals it is now the package/bundle (call it what you want) that is the predominant method of purchase and sale - even down to season tickets at football matches where the individual sale of tickets is in the minority, sellers want an even flow of sales and income stream, not constant fluctuations but I wish you and hilly billy hank well in your quest and I''m sure with a bit more pressing we can all go back to the days when you were charged for each individual phone call and each minute used on the internet ..... and with a bit of luck you could even have some lady to connect you directly at the local exchange !

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Making Plans"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]of course there''s evrey possibility that the more and more people who switch to free streams will tell the likes of Sky and BT that their business model is now at an end [/quote]I don''t think so - Sky have just announced record profits of £1.26bn Doesn''t sound like a flawed business model to me

[/quote]

 

Yes, pre-tax profits of £1.26bn. No detail yet as far as I can see on how this has been achieved. But this is only for the year up to this spring. It doesn''t necessarily tell you how the Sky Sports business model might be being slowly affected by streams and the like. But then again Sky Sports is only one part of BSkyB, and the profit figure is for the whole of BSkyB.

[splutcho 173]

City 1st are you capable of debate without being condescending and up yourself? Or are you this bitter and unpleasant in person as well?

[E.L.F. 0]

As a previous poster said, every match is televised. The viewer though, is at the mercy of which live match the broadcaster wants to show. When I lived in Canada, we would get a chosen live match in a cable package and would have to pay an additional $16.99 a month to have access to an additional live match. Replays of other matches would be broadcast throught the week. Nice.

Since gate revenue is only a small part of league revenues, obviously dwarfed by tv revenue, empty seats equate to only. a small loss in revenue. NFL teams could literally play in empty stadiums and still make a profit. Millions of supporters around the world offset empty seats with an online streaming subscription. And for my good friend who cannot understand the concept, even gate driven leagues like the National Hockey League see the value of internet streaming for revenue from Europeans who watch hockey.

As you said Jas, I watch the shitty streams like you but I would gladly pay 100 quid to be able to watch any game I want online. The EPL (see what I did there C1) is missing out on a great opportunity to line their pockets even more but it''s their choice, an incorrect one IMO.

[E.L.F. 0]

WOW, just WOW C1.

BTW, the game is called ''baseball'', not ''rounders''. As Brit myself, I cringe when the term ''soccer'' is used to descibe our beautiful game. At least North Americans have a reason to use the term ''soccer''. You may want to start listening and learning things, it''s a great way to improve one''s self and judging by your posts, you seems to pretty much lagging behind most people.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

The problem with having a system of pay-per-view live online streaming is two things;

 

1) UK law says football games kicking off at 3pm on a Saturday cannot be shown live (they can''t even be shown with a 5 min delay as one poster suggested). That is the first major block to all matches being shown live online, or on TV - until this law is changed it just isn''t going to happen. Of course this law doesn''t apply outside the UK so other countries can show every match live.

 

2) The risk of pay-per-view is it will undermine the thing the Premier League does so well, equal division of all TV revenue. This is something every fan, of every team (apart from the top 4 or 5+ plus Liverpool) should be fighting to keep. A PPV allows clubs to argue that they should be entitled to more money, as they are drawing in fans and many people only want to see the games between big clubs. This is what happened in Spain and now look at the mess the league is in - La Liga was never the most competitive league but it didn''t use to be as two dimensional as it is now, some mid table La Liga teams can''t get sponsorship as few games out Barcelona''s and Real Madrid''s make it onto TV.

 

American owners have been moving into the Premier League in the hope they will be able to start to negotiate their own TV rights, or opt out of the SKY deal and broadcast their games themselves. Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool could all make more money than they currently make if they went inderpendent.

 

Whilst the system in America is great for armchair fans, and the clubs now don''t have to worry about selling tickets because they have already made their money - what is the point of playing matches to half empty or empty stadiums? Kind of kills the atmosphere for not only those watching on TV but those who enjoy attending games.

 

The future of live match broadcasting is hard to predict - until the law is changed not much will happen in the UK market but the overseas market will become a battle ground. Personally I don''t think it will be long until either Man U or Liverpool will try to breakaway from the collective bargaining agreement - then all hell might break loose.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="E.L.F."]As a previous poster said, every match is televised. The viewer though, is at the mercy of which live match the broadcaster wants to show. When I lived in Canada, we would get a chosen live match in a cable package and would have to pay an additional $16.99 a month to have access to an additional live match. Replays of other matches would be broadcast throught the week. Nice.

Since gate revenue is only a small part of league revenues, obviously dwarfed by tv revenue, empty seats equate to only. a small loss in revenue. NFL teams could literally play in empty stadiums and still make a profit. Millions of supporters around the world offset empty seats with an online streaming subscription. And for my good friend who cannot understand the concept, even gate driven leagues like the National Hockey League see the value of internet streaming for revenue from Europeans who watch hockey.

As you said Jas, I watch the shitty streams like you but I would gladly pay 100 quid to be able to watch any game I want online. The EPL (see what I did there C1) is missing out on a great opportunity to line their pockets even more but it''s their choice, an incorrect one IMO.[/quote]

 

I haven''t been following this in detail because it isn''t terribly relevant to me. The only football I see are half a dozen games at Carrow Road and the Champions League final if it''s on terrestrial TV. But  perhaps the Premier League believes that if fans can watch a high-quality live broadcast of every game their team plays then there will be no reason to attend matches any more.

[E.L.F. 0]

You''re spot on Bethnal. In professional sports, there are the have''s and then the rest. The Toronto Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications, who just happens to own Sportsnet which broadcasts all the games. The on-line streaming is done by the league, using the clubs broadcaster and then distributes money between all the clubs. There''s an obvious imbalance in MLB but very small teams, like Tampa Bay and Oakland seem to do very well year after year and they usually get 12000-18000 each game but they also play in two of the worst ballparks. That''s why City should not expand Carrow Road. The Winnipeg Jets build a 15000 seat arena knowing that the NHL would return. It is by far the smallest arena in the league but it''s filled every game and a waiting list for season tickets. A 35000 seat Carra might be filled to capacity a few times a season but lots of yellow and green plastic seats for the rest. With a smaller stadium, you will most likely still have the base 25000 stadium supporters and the additional live streaming revenue just makes it sweeter. Laws can be changed and when the 1% say so, it will be changed.

We''re looking at buying a flat in NR1, most likely in the new Taylor Wimpey flats when we come next month. I would 100% want a couple of season tickets if we do return home. But it would also be nice to be able to watch a proper stream when we are not in Norwich just as I can with the Toronto Blue Jays.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="City1st"]that is not the point, it is what the subscribers purchase - it is pretty much academic who watches what within the packages sold by BT/SKY etc as the money is divided up equallybreak it down into individual games and suddenly there is no reason why each club should receive an equal share - and you and hillbilly hank think the other 16 or so clubs in the PL will agree to that ?  

[/quote]

Oh dearie me City1st, the BT/Sky money is not already divided up equally. 

And you can''t give me a single reason why the Premier League would need to divide up the money any differently than they do now! 

Sky already offered 40 PPV games per season for almost a decade. 

Did they give the revenues directly to the clubs being shown? No, they did not. It was within the terms of the existing deal.

Muppet. 

[Sammy_Clingans_Nose 0]

[quote user="ReadingCanary"]Its like that website they are shutting downI heard the other day that 20 + more sites have since popped up to replace it!The easiest way to get around this is to charge us £5 to watch the games we want to watch online.Give us HD stream with a bloke commentating.I bet it would be a lot easier than going through all thisI mean BBC MOTD get to watch all the weekends games on TV before MOTD airs (so there clearly is a service which provides it)[/quote]

The last four lines. Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.

[Sammy_Clingans_Nose 0]

I didn''t actually read the rest of the thread so apologies if someone explains above that this may be illegal over here due to broadcasting rights i.e. different to those of MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL etc

[Syteanric 1]

well whilst Sky wet''s itself over the streaming i will be watching games from my Home in Norwich, Live and Free online via a stream... as far as the internet is concerned i''ll be "in" sweden, Hong Kong, Columbia, you name it