Streaming Abdabs

[Mister E]

For what it's worth, I believe there will be a point when somebody realises empty stadiums don't look so great on TV and ticket prices will eventually come into line. After all, it's been often said, the gate receipts are merely the icing on the cake in a premier league clubs quota.

True, Mr Woo, but some of the live games now are from rather forlorn-looking stadia - Huddersfield on Sunday being a case in point. I think people have got over this issue.

As I said earlier, I wonder whether BT / Sky have done the maths to show whether a more open approach (internet-streamed season ticket tariffs for club fans) would in fact garner more revenue than the current closed system.

[Mr Speedy H]

The major difference here is that MLB.tv is owned by Major League Baseball meaning all the money made goes directly in to their books.

There is a lot of money to be made here by watching live football, and I think this idea (although I personally approve of it massively) scares the FA and the clubs as the money they'd lose from the BSkyB deal would scare them.

This would allow all clubs to get an EQUAL SHARE of the money made, meaning they wouldn't have to raise ticket prices, meaning more people would go watch. I, personally, do not go to games personally because it'll cost me £50 for a good day out. £35-£45 for the ticket, £6 for food, £5 parking...

Look at the bigger picture: MLB is the best baseball league in the world - people pay to see it from all over the world.
The EPL is the best football league in the world - people will pay to see it from anywhere.

Fuck BSkyB, they're the most annoying company I know of, I really believe the FA are missing a trick here.

Charge £150 a year for all games. There are MILLIONS of football fans in the UK, Europe, Asia, Americas, who would be happy to pay this low price to get all their games streamed in HD right to their TV, computer, laptop, tablet...

Absolutely stupid.

Money money money money money money.

[eastie]

The major difference here is that MLB.tv is owned by Major League Baseball meaning all the money made goes directly in to their books.

There is a lot of

tmoney to be made here by watching live football, and I think this idea (although I personally approve of it massively) scares the FA and the clubs as the money they'd lose from the BSkyB deal would scare them.

This would allow all clubs to get an EQUAL SHARE of the money made, meaning they wouldn't have to raise ticket prices, meaning more people would go watch. I, personally, do not go to games personally because it'll cost me £50 for a good day out. £35-£45 for the ticket, £6 for food, £5 parking...

Look at the bigger picture: MLB is the best baseball league in the world - people pay to see it from all over the world.
The EPL is the best football league in the world - people will pay to see it from anywhere.

Fuck BSkyB, they're the most annoying company I know of, I really believe the FA are missing a trick here.

Charge £150 a year for all games. There are MILLIONS of football fans in the UK, Europe, Asia, Americas, who would be happy to pay this low price to get all their games streamed in HD right to their TV, computer, laptop, tablet...

Absolutely stupid.

Money money money money money money.

£150 a year seems excessive when i can watch the games for free via streaming - i might be prepared to pay £10 a month max .

The other thing to note is many would cancel their sky sports subscription  if this service were available.

[Mr Speedy H]

The major difference here is that MLB.tv is owned by Major League Baseball meaning all the money made goes directly in to their books.

There is a lot of

tmoney to be made here by watching live football, and I think this idea (although I personally approve of it massively) scares the FA and the clubs as the money they'd lose from the BSkyB deal would scare them.

This would allow all clubs to get an EQUAL SHARE of the money made, meaning they wouldn't have to raise ticket prices, meaning more people would go watch. I, personally, do not go to games personally because it'll cost me £50 for a good day out. £35-£45 for the ticket, £6 for food, £5 parking...

Look at the bigger picture: MLB is the best baseball league in the world - people pay to see it from all over the world.
The EPL is the best football league in the world - people will pay to see it from anywhere.

Fuck BSkyB, they're the most annoying company I know of, I really believe the FA are missing a trick here.

Charge £150 a year for all games. There are MILLIONS of football fans in the UK, Europe, Asia, Americas, who would be happy to pay this low price to get all their games streamed in HD right to their TV, computer, laptop, tablet...

Absolutely stupid.

Money money money money money money.

£150 a year seems excessive when i can watch the games for free via streaming - i might be prepared to pay £10 a month max .

The other thing to note is many would cancel their sky sports subscription  if this service were available.

£150 for EVERY game in the EPL with full HD with statistics, in game features, and the ability to watch on a multitude of devices? I'd pay that.

[eastie]

The major difference here is that MLB.tv is owned by Major League Baseball meaning all the money made goes directly in to their books.

There is a lot of

tmoney to be made here by watching live football, and I think this idea (although I personally approve of it massively) scares the FA and the clubs as the money they'd lose from the BSkyB deal would scare them.

This would allow all clubs to get an EQUAL SHARE of the money made, meaning they wouldn't have to raise ticket prices, meaning more people would go watch. I, personally, do not go to games personally because it'll cost me £50 for a good day out. £35-£45 for the ticket, £6 for food, £5 parking...

Look at the bigger picture: MLB is the best baseball league in the world - people pay to see it from all over the world.
The EPL is the best football league in the world - people will pay to see it from anywhere.

Fuck BSkyB, they're the most annoying company I know of, I really believe the FA are missing a trick here.

Charge £150 a year for all games. There are MILLIONS of football fans in the UK, Europe, Asia, Americas, who would be happy to pay this low price to get all their games streamed in HD right to their TV, computer, laptop, tablet...

Absolutely stupid.

Money money money money money money.

£150 a year seems excessive when i can watch the games for free via streaming - i might be prepared to pay £10 a month max .

The other thing to note is many would cancel their sky sports subscription  if this service were available.

£150 for EVERY game in the EPL with full HD with statistics, in game features, and the ability to watch on a multitude of devices? I'd pay that.

Yes , i thought you were talking about £150 just to watch your teams games , if included all premier games i would pay it too.

[paulcomben]

Great thread title.

Much obliged. One tries.

[paul_e]

Can't help but feel that anybody complaining about Skys subscription charges is missing the point, and failing to see the bigger picture.

TV broadcasters are subject to the same practices as any business, including the world's oldest market force, supply and demand. That is, if a lot of people want something - it's expensive. You could, therefore, be pointing the finger of blame equally at greedy players, leeching agents, covetous clubs or the piggish Premier league.

Or...you could just begrudgingly accept the sour and unpleasant face of capitalism in all its glory.

For what it's worth, I believe there will be a point when somebody realises empty stadiums don't look so great on TV and ticket prices will eventually come into line. After all, it's been often said, the gate receipts are merely the icing on the cake in a premier league clubs quota.

Actually you're missing the point more.

There is a demand and the premier league are failing to supply to that demand so consumers are using free sites of dubious legality ( I refuse to call them entirely illegal due to the fact that many people question the legality of the existing copyright laws anyway) to consume content that they have no option to pay for.

For example, I live in Norway so I can't go to the games at the ground, the local TV stations have good coverage but with Norwegian commentary that I can't follow.  I can't get english commentary via the radio on the internet due to restrictions so the only way I have to watch live football with english commentary requires me to use a dubious stream.  I'd happily pay a monthly fee to be able to log on to a website and view the games.

Even more ridiculous is that, if you can't get on iplayer, even viewing the highlights a week or 2 later is very difficult because everything gets locked down.

Compare with the rugby.

I do understand that it will have an effect on attendances at the ground, particularly for smaller sides, but in that case those clubs need to investigate ways to reduce that impact.

[stomper]

You just need a free uk vpn connection so that the servers think you are in the uk.  Go and google

[mr woo]

I probably phrased the point badly rather than missed it. What I was getting at is that Sky buy a wholesale product at a vastly inflated price to start with, and as with any business, they then pass that cost on to their consumer. So for people to complain about their subscription charges may be justified but a little misdirected. 

You do raise valid points over internet streaming though.

Once you convert something into a digital format it becomes almost impossible to prevent it being replicated and distributed. That goes for films, music, books, software,  broadcasts or whatever. Like many industries, football needs to find a way of living in a changing world because like those other media highlighted, the days of the secure easy dollar are long gone.

[paul_e]

You just need a free uk vpn connection so that the servers think you are in the uk.  Go and google

I have one, it's not legal to view iplayer through that though.

[paul_e]

I probably phrased the point badly rather than missed it. What I was getting at is that Sky buy a wholesale product at a vastly inflated price to start with, and as with any business, they then pass that cost on to their consumer. So for people to complain about their subscription charges may be justified but a little misdirected. 

You do raise valid points over internet streaming though.

Once you convert something into a digital format it becomes almost impossible to prevent it being replicated and distributed. That goes for films, music, books, software,  broadcasts or whatever. Like many industries, football needs to find a way of living in a changing world because like those other media highlighted, the days of the secure easy dollar are long gone.

I agree with the top part, focusing on the cost of what they do provide is wrong, the focus should be on the inability to pay for what they don't provide.

This is why copyright laws as they are are pretty much unenforceable.  How can someone be in breach of a copyright when there is no way for them to get a 'legal' version of the content?  It's a grey area in the current laws that torrent sites have been edging around for years, for so many of them to still exist whilst being so openly accessible shows just how difficult it is for corporations to protect their IPs in the current climate.

The music industry reaction is telling.  Since they embraced online music sales piracy has dropped significantly (down to similar levels of pirated CDs and cassettes in the 80s and 90s), the total amount of spending in the industry has increased and the breakthrough opportunities for smaller artists have increased massively.  The only downside has been the fall of high street stores but that's in no small part due to their own inability to react to a changing market.  HMV needed to reposition itself sensibly but instead moved to selling cut price books, dvds and games and made music a bit-part of their market.

[junxs]

As you - quite rightly - can't show Saturday 3pm kick-offs live, the idea's a non-starter anyway.

For now maybe , but sometime in the future i wouldnt rule it out .
It is not difficult to find villa live at 3 pm on saturdays on an internet stream.

The day that happens every non-league club may as well pack up.

Why?
If people are going to non league games now, then why would they stop going if subscriptions at £100+ were available to watch a team they dont want to watch anyway?

I've never had a Villa season ticket but I'd be willing to pay £250+ if i could watch every game live through high quality streaming.

[dave.woodhall]

As you - quite rightly - can't show Saturday 3pm kick-offs live, the idea's a non-starter anyway.

For now maybe , but sometime in the future i wouldnt rule it out .
It is not difficult to find villa live at 3 pm on saturdays on an internet stream.

The day that happens every non-league club may as well pack up.

Why?
If people are going to non league games now, then why would they stop going if subscriptions at £100+ were available to watch a team they dont want to watch anyway?

I've never had a Villa season ticket but I'd be willing to pay £250+ if i could watch every game live through high quality streaming.

Because if football was available on TV, on Saturday afternoon, people would be less inclined to watch live non-league games. 

[Risso]

Because if football was available on TV, on Saturday afternoon, people would be less inclined to watch live non-league games. 

I don't think that would be a big enough factor to worry about.  Out of our 7,000 or so missing fans at Villa Park each week, how many of those are regularly going to non league games instead?  I don't think the average non-league fan is going to be too swayed by watching Premier League teams live.  Could be wrong though.

[danlanza]

As you - quite rightly - can't show Saturday 3pm kick-offs live, the idea's a non-starter anyway.

For now maybe , but sometime in the future i wouldnt rule it out .
It is not difficult to find villa live at 3 pm on saturdays on an internet stream.

In my local we can watch any Prem game on Al Jaz or Ab Dab. Infact on Most Saturday's we can watch 6 different games on 6 different screens.
Is this not available in the UK ? 3pm kick off times, all of them by the way.