Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

Short changed by coverage.

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 Unfortunately, whilst Norwich are not in the Premier League we cannot expect the wall-to-wall coverage that we have been use to for the past few seasons (although many still moaned then that Norwich didn''t get enough press). This is the reality of lower league football and will be the case until the law is changed, technological costs are reduced and clubs change attitude. Good luck with that...[/quote]

Agree with a lot of what you say, but having two or three cameras at a game and putting the match online is not going to cost as much as the BBC putting it out on national tv.  The future is online and the only thing that is stopping legal live online coverage is the law and club''s fear of losing attandance.  If clubs are against it because of attendances - and I agree not all clubs are as lucky as Norwich with its crowd figures - then that is a factor, but even one web camera put in at the end of the ground - say above the Barclay, pointing down the pitch, then the view would be acceptable enough on say a 42" screen - and these days it is easy to transmit your computer signal to TV. 

One camera showing a decent image similar to sitting in the Barclay - and asking a subscription to watch - would be better than any dodgy stream and would not cost a fortune to initiate.   Is the demand for that there?  Maybe not, but as I said earlier, I would happily pay a significant amount to watch and I suspect many people - old, infirm or exiles  would watch too. 

Say conservatively three thousand people around the world were prepared to have a virtual seat in the Barclay Stand - at £15 a time -  that would bring in c. £45,000.  Now setting up a camera and transmitting it online would cost a bit, but nowhere near that.  There is money to be made from some kind of initiative of this kind, even enough to cover a shortfall if a few decided not to go to games because of it.  All to the good because they would then have to pay to watch it online.   Three thousand isn''t many and  I wouldn''t mind betting the numbers around Norfolk and the world might be more like 10,000 - or maybe more.  If it was upwards of 10,000, then the potential income would be c £150,000.  It is difficult to guage a demand like that, but the right product - a virtual experience, with microphone giving localised crowd noise too, could be quite something and quite popular with many people otherwise unable to get to games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

The main reason there is little coverage is because very few people are actually that interested...

 

That may sound like a stupid thing to say considering the league is the 4th most attended in Europe (I think, it might be 5th), but many companies have attempted to monetise the coverage and failed miserably (ITV Digital). Even the BBC who don''t look to make a profit from the coverage have found viewing figures are too small to want to increase coverage.

 

A few seasons ago you may remember that the BBC showed 10 Championship games, off the back of launching the regional football programs (Kevin Piper use to do a weekly show) - the BBC focused on showing 10 local rival games as it was felt these would have the most interest (Norwich v Ipswich was shown live and we all got to witness the 4-1 hammering). The problem was, very few people actually watched these games, the Norwich/Ipswich fans who couldn''t make the match probably did but apart from that the numbers were weak - as was the case for the other 9 games. The BBC felt it couldn''t justify the cost of the rights and the cost of actually showing the games and ITV felt there was no profit to be made showing games either. The regional highlights show contiuned for a little longer, but was reduced to half a season only - I don''t know if it will be back this season - probably not. Does Mustard TV show highlights? I guess the idea is for these new regional channels to provide this regional coverage now.

 

The idea LDC mentions is impossible whilst the transmission of 3pm games is still banned in the UK - all those streams you can watch are intended for overseas markets. So a legal, pay-per-view service would require games to be played on Friday evenings, Saturday mornings or Sunday - the time slots allocated for televised Championship games - unless the law is changed of course. However, I still don''t think there would ever be enough demand to get such a service up and running. The initial costs of installing TV cameras at the stadiums, as well as increasing the size of press areas and broadcast facilities would be too much for any profit to be created. Especially when you consider for every 1 person willing to pay £10 to see a game, there would be 100s prepared to watch an illegal stream, of the legal one.

 

A friend at the BBC told me that costs for showing a game were so high that they had to make a choice between showing either Wimbledon or Blyth as they couldn''t afford both. Part of the reason for showing the Arsenal game against Hull was the cameras were already in place and Arsenal have their own broadcast studio, reducing costs significantly (as well as the saving considering a large amount of the staff are still in London).

 

Another barrier is that many clubs don''t want more games televised - whilst Norwich have managed to maintain attendances post relegation both Cardiff and Fulham have seen theirs slip by 20%, also smaller clubs would also be anti the idea as they feel it would risk their profits from ticket sales.

 

Unfortunately, whilst Norwich are not in the Premier League we cannot expect the wall-to-wall coverage that we have been use to for the past few seasons (although many still moaned then that Norwich didn''t get enough press). This is the reality of lower league football and will be the case until the law is changed, technological costs are reduced and clubs change attitude. Good luck with that...

[/quote]Good to see you back, Bethnal. I have sent you a PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day people, you make your own choices.

You choose what football team to support, you choose where to live, you choose how you spend your leisure time, and how much money you want to throw at particular pursuits.

So to expect your football club to bend over backwards just to accomodate your lifestyle choices, is slightly self centred, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][

Say conservatively three thousand people around the world were prepared to have a virtual seat in the Barclay Stand - at £15 a time -  that would bring in c. £45,000.  Now setting up a camera and transmitting it online would cost a bit, but nowhere near that.  There is money to be made from some kind of initiative of this kind, even enough to cover a shortfall if a few decided not to go to games because of it.  All to the good because they would then have to pay to watch it online.   Three thousand isn''t many and  I wouldn''t mind betting the numbers around Norfolk and the world might be more like 10,000 - or maybe more.  If it was upwards of 10,000, then the potential income would be c £150,000.  It is difficult to guage a demand like that, but the right product - a virtual experience, with microphone giving localised crowd noise too, could be quite something and quite popular with many people otherwise unable to get to games.


[/quote]

You''d be surprised how much these things cost, and again, I question whether you would get 3/4k prepared to pay £15 - which is a lot of a pay-per-view event. I doubt anyone would be able to turn a profit with this venture in all honesty, people would soon be fed up of paying a high price for one or two cameras positioned a long way from the pitch and unable to provide instant replays and different angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think this thread is remarkably similar to a hotel themed thread many moons ago. Lakey comes up with a harebrained idea, milks it for all it''s worth and tries to turn it into a thirty page thread, gives him an opportunity to overcome as many objections as he can while posting a minimum of fifty times himself, attempts to give every appearance that he is involved in reasonable debate while simultaneously disregarding every logical reason why it won''t work, ultimately works himself into a frenzy and tells one and all he will be contacting the club about the idea and will keep everyone posted, either gets ignored or laughed at ( I believe he prefers the former ) and, ultimately, there will be no further feedback on the matter from Lakey. Next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]I think this thread is remarkably similar to a hotel themed thread many moons ago. Lakey comes up with a harebrained idea, milks it for all it''s worth and tries to turn it into a thirty page thread, gives him an opportunity to overcome as many objections as he can while posting a minimum of fifty times himself, attempts to give every appearance that he is involved in reasonable debate while simultaneously disregarding every logical reason why it won''t work, ultimately works himself into a frenzy and tells one and all he will be contacting the club about the idea and will keep everyone posted, either gets ignored or laughed at ( I believe he prefers the former ) and, ultimately, there will be no further feedback on the matter from Lakey. Next![/quote]

That is quite a cynical post.  Actually, the hotel thread - if you got rid of those who just tried to rubbish it out of hand - had some good input from various posters who actually quite like discussing things in a creative way with a view to actually foreseeing the possibility of what future developments there might be, seeing models from other countries/leagues etc.   

Community online TV is something that is only going to get bigger.    The Norwich City community spreads world wide and anything that makes things better for that community is worth discussing.   Things can only get better.  In the last few years, the ability to follow the club has improved enormously compared to the eighties and nineties - and things will carry on improving.  Those with their heads in the sand can just ridicule or dismiss things because that is what they want to do.  Of course the costs involved are significant, but the idea is not a stupid one - any more than the idea of developing the hotel in some way to integrate it into the stadium being stupid. 

Widespread and legal live football on line is not far from reality and clubs will soon realise that as their attendances drop - as many are - they will benefit from the income of people subscribing to an online service - possibly gaining new supporters in the process.  The costs are significant, but not prohibvitive - and there is money to be made. There are already clubs that can beam a signal back to the home ground from away matches - only one stage away from being able to send it online to subscribers.  So scoff away Yankee, scoff away - it will happen, just as sure as the hotel will one day be refurbished and developed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]I think this thread is remarkably similar to a hotel themed thread many moons ago. Lakey comes up with a harebrained idea, milks it for all it''s worth and tries to turn it into a thirty page thread, gives him an opportunity to overcome as many objections as he can while posting a minimum of fifty times himself, attempts to give every appearance that he is involved in reasonable debate while simultaneously disregarding every logical reason why it won''t work, ultimately works himself into a frenzy and tells one and all he will be contacting the club about the idea and will keep everyone posted, either gets ignored or laughed at ( I believe he prefers the former ) and, ultimately, there will be no further feedback on the matter from Lakey. Next![/quote]



Widespread and legal live football on line is not far from reality and clubs will soon realise that as their attendances drop - as many are - they will benefit from the income of people subscribing to an online service - possibly gaining new supporters in the process.  The costs are significant, but not prohibvitive - and there is money to be made. There are already clubs that can beam a signal back to the home ground from away matches - only one stage away from being able to send it online to subscribers.  So scoff away Yankee, scoff away - it will happen, just as sure as the hotel will one day be refurbished and developed.

 


[/quote]

 

Perhaps, but your claim was that it would be done at almost no cost to NCFC....that was why it was harebrained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]I think this thread is remarkably similar to a hotel themed thread many moons ago. Lakey comes up with a harebrained idea, milks it for all it''s worth and tries to turn it into a thirty page thread, gives him an opportunity to overcome as many objections as he can while posting a minimum of fifty times himself, attempts to give every appearance that he is involved in reasonable debate while simultaneously disregarding every logical reason why it won''t work, ultimately works himself into a frenzy and tells one and all he will be contacting the club about the idea and will keep everyone posted, either gets ignored or laughed at ( I believe he prefers the former ) and, ultimately, there will be no further feedback on the matter from Lakey. Next![/quote]Widespread and legal live football on line is not far from reality and clubs will soon realise that as their attendances drop - as many are - they will benefit from the income of people subscribing to an online service - possibly gaining new supporters in the process.  The costs are significant, but not prohibvitive - and there is money to be made. There are already clubs that can beam a signal back to the home ground from away matches - only one stage away from being able to send it online to subscribers.  So scoff away Yankee, scoff away - it will happen, just as sure as the hotel will one day be refurbished and developed. [/quote]

Perhaps, but your claim was that it would be done at almost no cost to NCFC....that was why it was harebrained.[/quote]

No. The hotel is run and financed by Kew Green Hotels, not NCFC.  Still harebrained or in fact reasonable to assume they would bear the cost of refurbishing/developing a pitchside facade?  They spend millions refurbishing their hotels. Fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is wherever there are legal streams there are invariably illegal ones. And sure, there will be people happy to pay £10/15 to watch a game, there will be many, many more watching it for free. Of course the quality isn''t the same but, as with all counterfeit goods (clothes, shoes, watches etc), people will happily settle for an inferior quality product if it''s free or cheap.Can you honestly say you would pay to watch a game if there was a good illegal stream running on the same match Lakey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]The problem is wherever there are legal streams there are invariably illegal ones. And sure, there will be people happy to pay £10/15 to watch a game, there will be many, many more watching it for free.  Of course the quality isn''t the same but, as with all counterfeit goods (clothes, shoes, watches etc), people will happily settle for an inferior quality product if it''s free or cheap.Can you honestly say you would pay to watch a game if there was a good illegal stream running on the same match Lakey?[/quote]

Honestly - yes. The grainy streams you mostly get are on the whole pretty hard to watch, so a good quality one would be worth paying for - especially if it was combined with commentary and interviews etc etc.   I subscribed to Sky Sports for a while, but just gave up on it because there was so little on Norwich in there. Its not the money that is the problem - its the product. 

Once an infrastructure is set up around the leagues - and it must be there already because there are cameras at every match anyway - it is only legalities that stop a kosha online live streaming facility.   A more community based online scheme aimed at fans in our own country is the way forward - where old fans in care homes and hospitals,  or stuck at home - or just living away as so many of us do - can get to see what they want to see. 

Btw -[quote user="morty"]Nail ----> head Yankee.[/quote] A bit violent that, if I may say so - what''s YC ever done to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"] The hotel is run and financed by Kew Green Hotels, not NCFC.  Still harebrained or in fact reasonable to assume they would bear the cost of refurbishing/developing a pitchside facade?  They spend millions refurbishing their hotels. Fact. 


[/quote]

http://www.kewgreen.co.uk/news/newhotels/

New plans for reburbishment announced just last week for 4 hotels including Norwich Lakey so it looks like you have missed the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="lake district canary"] The hotel is run and financed by Kew Green Hotels, not NCFC.  Still harebrained or in fact reasonable to assume they would bear the cost of refurbishing/developing a pitchside facade?  They spend millions refurbishing their hotels. Fact.[/quote]

http://www.kewgreen.co.uk/news/newhotels/

New plans for reburbishment announced just last week for 4 hotels including Norwich Lakey so it looks like you have missed the boat.

[/quote]It looks as if they have acquired four new hotels which they are going to refurbish, one of which is in Norwich - so that will give them three Holiday Inn hotels in Norwich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone point me at any factual evidence that proves TV and illegal stream coverage has affected attendance? And if so by how much?

The 3pm ban is a self imposed ban, it fails to appreciate we are living in a Digital age. For the PL in particular these streams exist, people are getting them for free, and will continue to do so as long as the games are broadcast somewhere, not moving with the times and monetising this route is absolutely bizarre. The horse has bolted.

The comments about the costs involved are equally bizarre- the cameras are already at the games and in many cases broadcasting on TV abroad, or in the Championship''s case, online betting abroad.

"You choose what football team to support, you choose where to live, you choose how you spend your leisure time, and how much money you want to throw at particular pursuits. So to expect your football club to bend over backwards just to accomodate your lifestyle choices, is slightly self centred, to say the least."

I''m sorry Morty, I agree that canaries world is fine for what it offers, I agreed that if possible the vast majority of us want to see sport live. But to say if you can''t get to this game or that because you live too far away, you should have thought about that when you picked your club, is A) a ridiculous look at 21st century life and B) Not really the point.

There is a demand for streamed content for both the PL and Championship, not as big outside the PL granted (not really what I''m arguing for personally, the PL is the focus with streams), but it does exist. Pirates thrive on providing services companies have not worked out how to monetise effectively, not because they are providing a service to a few people out of kindness.

It happened with music, TV, Films, games and it will eventually happen in major Sports. iTunes, Google play, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Prime and various digital games distribution services are not responses to people delivering free content illegally. They are responses to pirates providing a service that people wanted, but major companies were slow to predict the changing technology outcomes and provide legitimate alternatives for, but also slow to work out models to monetise effectively. The number of music tracks downloaded illegally has been falling significantly due to good quality legal services.

People who think, well if it was profitable then somebody would have done it by now, are really failing to grasp how innovation driven by technological change happens in industries and in massive corporations in particular - which the FA is comparatively sized in terms of money within it (even if it''s not strictly there''s), but far more complicated to manage and illicit change.

In terms of the other argument I would also say that the BBC''s coverage of the FL suffer''s from a catch-22 imo, it''s carp so no one watches it and they don''t invest in it because no one watches it. I actually believe a decent Championship only highlights program would generate a decent audience, obviously no where near MOTD, but the audience for a lot of TV nowadays because of the multitude of ways of delivering content and the huge number of TV channels is measured in 10,000s.

A league with the 4th biggest support in the world should be able to sustain a highlights program if effectively geared towards it''s appropriate audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Monty13"]Can someone point me at any factual evidence that proves TV and illegal stream coverage has affected attendance? And if so by how much?

The 3pm ban is a self imposed ban, it fails to appreciate we are living in a Digital age. For the PL in particular these streams exist, people are getting them for free, and will continue to do so as long as the games are broadcast somewhere, not moving with the times and monetising this route is absolutely bizarre. The horse has bolted.

The comments about the costs involved are equally bizarre- the cameras are already at the games and in many cases broadcasting on TV abroad, or in the Championship''s case, online betting abroad.

"You choose what football team to support, you choose where to live, you choose how you spend your leisure time, and how much money you want to throw at particular pursuits. So to expect your football club to bend over backwards just to accomodate your lifestyle choices, is slightly self centred, to say the least."

I''m sorry Morty, I agree that canaries world is fine for what it offers, I agreed that if possible the vast majority of us want to see sport live. But to say if you can''t get to this game or that because you live too far away, you should have thought about that when you picked your club, is A) a ridiculous look at 21st century life and B) Not really the point.

There is a demand for streamed content for both the PL and Championship, not as big outside the PL granted (not really what I''m arguing for personally, the PL is the focus with streams), but it does exist. Pirates thrive on providing services companies have not worked out how to monetise effectively, not because they are providing a service to a few people out of kindness.

It happened with music, TV, Films, games and it will eventually happen in major Sports. iTunes, Google play, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Prime and various digital games distribution services are not responses to people delivering free content illegally. They are responses to pirates providing a service that people wanted, but major companies were slow to predict the changing technology outcomes and provide legitimate alternatives for, but also slow to work out models to monetise effectively. The number of music tracks downloaded illegally has been falling significantly due to good quality legal services.

People who think, well if it was profitable then somebody would have done it by now, are really failing to grasp how innovation driven by technological change happens in industries and in massive corporations in particular - which the FA is comparatively sized in terms of money within it (even if it''s not strictly there''s), but far more complicated to manage and illicit change.

In terms of the other argument I would also say that the BBC''s coverage of the FL suffer''s from a catch-22 imo, it''s carp so no one watches it and they don''t invest in it because no one watches it. I actually believe a decent Championship only highlights program would generate a decent audience, obviously no where near MOTD, but the audience for a lot of TV nowadays because of the multitude of ways of delivering content and the huge number of TV channels is measured in 10,000s.

A league with the 4th biggest support in the world should be able to sustain a highlights program if effectively geared towards it''s appropriate audience.[/quote]

Many good points here.

I woud add it was economically viable for Anglia TV to run Match of the Week for almost 25 years offering edited highlights. It was usually either Norwich or the lot down the road as the main game with occasional forays to the lesser teams. So I would hazard a guess that a market exists. Perhaps if the online game was shown on a Sunday that would get around the problem of attendances. I used to go to the games on a Saturday and then watch the game again on the Sunday afternoon. I''m sure people would do the same again today.

Technological costs must be relatively cheaper than back in the ''60s and ''70s and all games are recorded anyway for overseas markets the stats-gathering companies and the betting companies.so the infrastructure is in place already. Press rooms and broadcasting rooms strictly not neccessary.

I watched a stream recently that was being filmed by a single camera operator upin the stands at the half-way line. No commentary and no replays (therefore no expensive production crew) and it was sufficient to give a good quality product at little cost.

The only thing that is preventing games being shown online is the current regulations which have been negotiated by the TV companies to protect their broadcasting rights. The side-effect of this is that outside the Premier League (and outside of Norfolk in the case of BBC Radio Norfolk) coverage is not reaching this audience that LDC is referring to.

I think the clubs are missing an opportunity here both to reach exiled/potential fans and to add a further revenue stream. I don''t think it is impossible to find the right balance between satisfying all markets and protecting revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s interesting to note how they cover American Football in the states, the coverage is blocked in the state it''s being played but show all over the rest of the country, funny how the BBC radio do it the opposite way around here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, for me its not in any way being a luddite that football should remain primarily about attending games. The "self imposed ban" is there for a reason.

I am a season ticket holder, I miss some games a season through work, I get to maybe 8 or 10 away games a season. If I can''t get to a game I have no problem just following it on twitter or the BBC website, and catching the highlights either later on, or the ones released by the club the day after.

I think the coverage now is ample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s interesting to note how they cover American Football in the states, the coverage is blocked in the state it''s being played but show all over the rest of the country, funny how the BBC radio do it the opposite way around here

Swindon, NFL games are blocked in markets within 100 miles of the stadium only if its not sold out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LDC said...."Agree with a lot of what you say, but having two or three cameras at a game and putting the match online is not going to cost as much as the BBC putting it out on national tv. ..... even one web camera put in at the end of the ground - say above the Barclay, pointing down the pitch, then the view would be acceptable enough on say a 42" screen - and these days it is easy to transmit your computer signal to TV.

One camera showing a decent image similar to sitting in the Barclay - and asking a subscription to watch - would be better than any dodgy stream and would not cost a fortune to initiate".

It seems to me that the technology is already in place at Carrow Road. Those who leave the match 5 minutes early can often be found in the foot of the stairwell watching the game on the TV monitors!! - and the coverage is pretty good. I''d be much happier to pay a reasonable price (£10-15) for access to that when I can''t get to away games (or even the occasional home game) than listen to the scratchy reception on AM 873 because the online service has been suspended ''for contractual reasons''. What''s so ridiculous about the whole radio thing is that it''s available to listen to if you''re in the Norfolk radio reception area (as I am for AM but not digital or FM), but not otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Sorry, for me its not in any way being a luddite that football should remain primarily about attending games. The "self imposed ban" is there for a reason."

I think when people who want to watch PL games can free of charge via pirated streams because there isn''t a legitimate method, the FA/PL is (depending on your exact definition) acting in very much a luddite fashion. I''ll say it again, the horse has bolted, you can''t stop the internet.

Your view is your view and I respect it, I''m very much of the opinion that nothing beats watching football in a football stadium. However I would argue that the self imposed ban is not in fact there for a reason, or at least it''s about time the reason was challenged.

According to the PL site "Matches are not televised in the UK on a Saturday between 15:00-17:00, primarily to protect match attendances and atmosphere at all levels of the game." Well you can get a stream for every PL game, without issue, every week. What has been the affect? What has been the affect on attendance in televised weekend games? I''d love to see a study that backs up an age old assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Norwich first returned to the PL local grass roots football was affected by the live streams in the pubs. Teams had players crying off when there was a big game v Chelsea, Man Utd and the like. Amazingly there were suddenly less referees on these Saturdays too. My involvement in this level of football stopped in 2012 so I don''t know if the situation changed after the novelty had worn off. I would imagine it did. But for that first season the streams effected the game at grass roots level without a shadow of doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s unfortunate Nutty and sad to hear, and probably a little inevitable when a club makes it to the PL. But my point is that steams are here now, they are never going away no matter how hard the PL/FA try. The only way to stop it is stop showing the games anywhere and somehow I think their wallets will win over their desire to preserve grass roots football.

I''d still like some proper research done, because it may just have been the novelty. I wonder why only the big teams drew them away? Why did gates not seem to suffer in the same manner? Is it about time there was a wider discussion that needs to be had in that in order to sustain grass routes, maybe it needs to be deconflicted from professional football? The sanctaty of the 3pm game has been increasingly eroded by TV over the years anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]When Norwich first returned to the PL local grass roots football was affected by the live streams in the pubs. Teams had players crying off when there was a big game v Chelsea, Man Utd and the like. Amazingly there were suddenly less referees on these Saturdays too. My involvement in this level of football stopped in 2012 so I don''t know if the situation changed after the novelty had worn off. I would imagine it did. But for that first season the streams effected the game at grass roots level without a shadow of doubt.[/quote]Sorry NN, but you can''t blame increasing levels of available coverage, for players who would rather watch a dodgy stream instead of actually play for their local sides!That purely comes down to a lack of committment and genuine interest in the local team they''re playing for, and chances are that if the streams weren''t available but something else that interested them was (e.g. a live concert, a different sporting event of interest, even a movie premiere they could get free tickets to), then they''d be missing the game for that reason as well.Apart from Villa and Sunderland, every single PL club is running at over 90% average capacity for their attendances, with teams like Man Utd, Arsenal, West Ham and Chelsea ALL having over 99% attendance on average. What however is interesting here is that when you drop down to the championship, we are the ONLY side anywhere near those levels with a 96.7% attendance on average, with many other teams in the 50-60% area (including ''bigger'' sides like Leeds, Middlesboro, Birmingham, Blackburn and Bolton), and as we know that there are virtually NO streams for the Champs, but almost ALL PL matches are available via this method, so there is a distinct disconnect between attendances and streams when you look at the evidence like this.It''s blindingly obvious that the availability of streams and similar is having little to no impact on the top flight attendaces, and the lack of coverage at our level makes this a moot point in that regard to attendances in the champs, so the whole ''clubs would lose money from ticket sales'' argument just doesn''t hold up IMHO.Like LDC, I used to pay for Sky Sports, until I found that I was lucky to see 5-6 Norwich games a season whereas the likes of Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal etc were all getting 3 times more live matches shown despite their fans paying exactly the same for their subscription as I was (I''m sure this is great for fans of the big clubs and for many neutrals as well, but it sucks if you support someone like us or Reading etc).I''d go back to paying £15 a month for a sports channel IF they covered our matches to the same degree as they did the big clubs, in fact, I wouldn''t even be particularly bothered about any of their other coverage (be this footy or any other sport) and would happily pay to just watch our games on a consistent basis as part of an NCFC only channel (or whatever you want to call it).All that aside, I do have to see where BYG is coming from, and the honest truth is that genuinely doesn''t seem to be enough interest in the championship to warrant much more extended coverage by terrestrial TV (even if I do think that the FLS could be split into two shows - 1 for the Champs and 1 for L1/L2 with more extended coverage on each, rather than 45 secs of highlights and on to the next game...), and until those interest levels increase, then we have to accept that unless we''re back in the PL, coverage is going to be very limited and usually pretty short when we do get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]All that aside, I do have to see where BYG is coming from, and the honest truth is that genuinely doesn''t seem to be enough interest in the championship to warrant much more extended coverage by terrestrial TV (even if I do think that the FLS could be split into two shows - 1 for the Champs and 1 for L1/L2 with more extended coverage on each, rather than 45 secs of highlights and on to the next game...), and until those interest levels increase, then we have to accept that unless we''re back in the PL, coverage is going to be very limited and usually pretty short when we do get it...[/quote]

Agreed that terrestrial TV would never give us enough coverage to satisfy one club.  However, with the onset of things like youtube, everyone has a camera and they can transmit it almost straight away to youtube etc. so the perception in today''s society in general is that anything is easily accessible to view.    That makes it all the more galling that in a match like last Saturday, only a small proportion of people who would like to see it, could.     A potential audience of 23,000 supporters left who go to home matches, thousands of Norwich fans around Norfolk and the country who would relish the chance to see such an important match, given the manager situation etc etc - and yet zilch - or five minutes at around 12.30am.

So a subscribed live feed/channel online would be ideal.  Another consideration could be showing the whole match one hour after it had finished - allowing those who had been to it to see it all again and those that couldn''t see it at all, if they so wished, to avoid seeing the score so they could effectively watch the match as if it were live. 

The solutions are out there without necessarily affecting attendances or anything that would be detrimental to clubs - and offer a service that would enhance their supporter''s (customers, if you wish) experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but some of you people truly have lost what football is about. I''ll take getting up early on a Saturdayand travelling hundreds of miles with good friends to see a game, over sat in my armchair anyday.

Like I said, its your choice how you use your leisure time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven''t had an opportunity to read all this thread so I''m not sure if this has been covered. The whole aspect of Championship football coverage is totally under-valued, in particular by the BBC. If you look on the BBC Sports site you are more likely to see a report on an Inverness Caledonian Thistle match than you are a Championship game. Is this simply because it is the Scottish ''Premier'' league? The majority of the games in the Scottish Premier league have pretty low attendances whereas in the Championship there are an ever-increasing number of well-supported established clubs - in my view that indicates the interest.

Only when we get towards the end of the season does BBC then start to show an interest.

I hope that League football (as opposed to ''Premiership'') does get picked up by another terrestrial channel . I have seen some absolutely cracking matches away from the ''Premiership'' which, to be honest, I found disappointing.

There were individual games which stand out along with some stand out individual performances but in the main is was just a case of ''lets not get beaten'' even under Lambert and more so under Hughton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]Sorry but some of you people truly have lost what football is about. I''ll take getting up early on a Saturdayand travelling hundreds of miles with good friends to see a game, over sat in my armchair anyday.

Like I said, its your choice how you use your leisure time and money.[/quote]

What "football is all about" is the club, the fans that go to games, the

people of Norfolk who can''t get to games but are proud of and take an

interest in the club, those that used to go but can''t anymore through age or ill health - and the many people around the country and the world who come from Norfolk originally or who have adopted the club for some reason - presumably because it is such a great club to support.  So to  pretend that the only thing that matters is the few thousand that go to games is narrow minded in the extreme.  There are thousands of people who would have watched the game live last Saturday had it been available.  It wouldn''t have stopped those who were able to go to the game going -  and it is of course true that the best thing about football is going to matches. 

We live in a world of instant accessibility to nearly everything - except football, which is rationed, put together into a package that suits only the biggest clubs and served up cold and without regard to match going supporters who are inconvenienced no end by the ridiculous scheduling of matches. 

I''ll go to every match I can and enjoy it - the rest of the time I would like to be able to view the whole match either live on screen or after the event - and am prepared to pay for the privelege. In that regard I''m a potential "customer" - as are many others. Where is the "product"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Nutty points out, the ban on televised matches at 3:00pm wasn''t about protecting attendances for Premier League clubs (as the rule was introduced at its formation) but about protecting attendances at local clubs, where many of the fans attend because they couldn''t make it to the bigger teams'' games. i.e. A Norwich fan who might watch Dereham Town when Norwich play away.

 

This rule has been reviewed many times by the Premier League and FA and there is still a strong level of support for it from lower league teams. With streams now this rule is coming under increasing pressure, especially as Sky would love to be able to show every game, every weekend.

 

There have also been trials with having pay-per-view online streaming of games in other leagues and for other sports, but this has never drawn much interest. Whilst many people are now connecting their TV to the internet average broadband speeds across the country mean that it isn''t possible to roll this out universally yet. Also, internet transmissions still rely on using exisiting TV infrastructure/satellietes etc. Do you really think internet speeds in Norwich are fast enough to be able to live broadcast a Norwich game online to a decent quality?

 

In the lower leagues too few clubs have existing transmission equipment, as stated before pretty much every club has only one camera, which is partly why Howson''s appeal failed as there wasn''t any footage available where the tackle could be seen clearly from more than one angle and is also the reason the FA is still against video appeals. Even Norwich, a club with the relative Premier League riches only has one camera.

 

As for the highlights show, I believe the Football Leagues'' collective negotiation position requires all the leagues to be shown in one programme to give them equal billing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The radio issue is a football league issue, they own the rights to the games outside the local radio area to which they are broadcast. I was looking on A stoke city messageboard (oatcake fanzine) and a Brighton one (northstandchat) and their fans just to name two sets of supporters have got the same grumble. I know stoke are premier league but it seems like they are on a similar deal.

Last night in the FA cup though people could listen to games on local radio over the internet for free, which just shows how unecessary and greedy the whole league system is.

Incidentally I looked at Fulhams website, it doesnt seem to be like all the rest, and seems to have video highlights on it costing nothing to fans. It doesn''t have commentary presumably because the football league dont allow it, they do have a player site like we do (where I assume the commentary is) but there is no link to it on Fulhams official website at all. Do they not agree with the principle it.

I wish everybody could just adopt a system like Sunderlands Safsee, completly free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...