The all-new Premier League thread Page 3709

  • Page

    of 5546 First / Last

  • THFourteen 22 Jun 2013 00:26:30 33,843 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ronaldinho with the straggly hair? He was fecking pony.
  • Trowel 22 Jun 2013 06:30:16 17,908 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    So the Premier League are going to try to get First Row and their streams blocked by UK ISPs. A typical thumb in the dam approach from them. I'm expecting next season to be better than ever for streams with all the new overseas deals, with extensive coverage of every game from NBC etc. Appreciate the complexity of Saturday afternoons and the impact on attendance, but the PL need to come up with a legitimate business model for streaming rather than pretending they can block it till kingdom come.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23004880
  • Dougs 22 Jun 2013 06:36:59 68,411 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    Ronaldinho with the straggly hair? He was fecking pony.
    A show pony, at times perhaps, but he was pure quality. Immensely talented and if lacking a little in discipline.
  • Dougs 22 Jun 2013 06:40:29 68,411 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Trowel wrote:
    So the Premier League are going to try to get First Row and their streams blocked by UK ISPs. A typical thumb in the dam approach from them. I'm expecting next season to be better than ever for streams with all the new overseas deals, with extensive coverage of every game from NBC etc. Appreciate the complexity of Saturday afternoons and the impact on attendance, but the PL need to come up with a legitimate business model for streaming rather than pretending they can block it till kingdom come.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23004880
    Surprised it's taken this long tbh. Agree that they can't carry on sticking their head in the sand though. The whole 3pm and lower league attendances is a bit of a red herring these days imo.
  • robc84 22 Jun 2013 07:24:10 5,800 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    So is this paulinho any good? I know absolutely nothing about him. Never seen him play. He's a midfielder right? Do we really need another one of those?
  • kalel 22 Jun 2013 07:27:28 88,419 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The-Bodybuilder wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    PSG Ronaldhino wasn't very good.

    And Villa never played for Athletico.
    I'll give you the latter.
    Former is purely your opinion though. He was good enough to get signed by Baca.
    He was a bit like Robinho at City. Flashes of brilliance but also largely useless.

    Point being, if you were going to go back in time and choose a version of Ronaldinho, you would be pretty retarded to choose the PSG one over the Barca one.

    Edited by kalel at 07:33:57 22-06-2013
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 08:58:38 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Trowel wrote:
    So the Premier League are going to try to get First Row and their streams blocked by UK ISPs. A typical thumb in the dam approach from them. I'm expecting next season to be better than ever for streams with all the new overseas deals, with extensive coverage of every game from NBC etc. Appreciate the complexity of Saturday afternoons and the impact on attendance, but the PL need to come up with a legitimate business model for streaming rather than pretending they can block it till kingdom come.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23004880
    It seems to me that the only true solving of this problem is making it easier and more viable for clubs to have a subscription based streaming solution alongside all the Sky rights and whatnot. Not all of us want or can afford Sky/BT and being denied other options then streaming illegally is the most obvious solution.

    The thing is, attendance is what it is, no one who can go to the game would avoid that to watch a mediocre stream so opening it all up and making profit from it that would otherwise be lost seems so obvious.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Shikasama 22 Jun 2013 09:09:37 6,966 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I was amazed when I moved here and looke into getting sky ports to find that you could only watch certain matches. i thought you paid a subscription and could 'red button' to choose any match that wa son that day.

    Still don't know why it doesn't work like that.
  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 09:12:46 20,770 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Agreed. It's too bloody expensive to justify for some of us (nearly 500 a year now just to have Sports added to the basic package isn't it?), when we struggle to afford a holiday I can't very well turn around and say 'oh, you know that holiday fund, well join me in watching Arsenal vs Wigan, but be prepared to not talk to me afterwards if it all goes pear shaped and we lose'. Especially as these days I have very little interest in watching any football other than Arsenal games as I just don't have the time.

    10 a month I'd pay. Can you imagine the global take up if Arsenal were to offer a monthly streaming service of their matches for 10 or maybe even 15 a month? Even if they delayed streaming by 10 minutes, so you weren't getting it 'live'. With clubs like Arsenal, Utd etc. having such large global fan bases the take up would be huge. Even lesser supported clubs (Swansea, Spurs, Norwich,etc.) would still get a big take up.

    Of course, in Arsenal's case, we'd charge 50 a month and it wouldn't come back on in the second half for 20 minutes.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 09:37:28 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I can imagine that Sky and now BT have a hand in this rather obvious revenue stream not being available. It's really not in their interests for the consumer to have a choice that isn't them.

    It would be a cash generator for all premiership teams, it may not be so great for the lower leagues but then they get fuck all revenue anyway so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work.

    Of course, it's like the music industry, it's such a dinosaur that trying to move with modern technology is just too much for them to consider. Even worse, copyright holding for the matches is still not exactly clear when streaming from another country, I'm not really sure how it can really be justified.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • TheSaint 22 Jun 2013 10:28:10 14,614 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I guess it all depends how often your team are on the tele. The NowTV sports day pass at 9.99 a pop could potentially save you a fair amount compared to paying for Sky Sports for the whole month.

    The crazy money we are seeing at the moment is all due to the exclusivity of the rights, nobody has any interest in making it cheaper or more accessible.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 10:33:17 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well as a Villa fan it'll probably be some games but we always get a drubbing when we're on Sky! I was considering the NowTV stuff as that is a nice middle ground, I was meaning to look into it.

    I'd rather just pay the money to the club though, fuck sky and all the extraneous middle men, I don't get to put much money towards Villa and this method would be a way where we both win.

    I agree too that nobody has any interest in making it cheaper or more accessible but that's not an excuse for the premier league to not do something positive for the fans. As it is, if I was unable to watch streams I would find it hard to follow my club nearly as well and my support would be diminished. Just relying on five minutes on MotD just doesn't cut it.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 10:40:25 20,770 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It's what's happening with me.

    I can't afford to attend games, I can't afford to (continually) pay 20 a month to get Sky Sports, and frankly I don't think 10 per match is good value for money either.

    If I could pay the club 5 a match directly, or something like that, or a cheaper-per-game monthly/annual sub I would, but I don't think there's any doubt that my enthusiasm for the sport having dwindled in the past two years, and my ability to watch the games having ended two years ago, are linked.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 10:47:25 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    True, 10 per match is pretty steep but should I suddenly get flush with cash then I would probably use that route as opposed to streaming, although ironically the Sky games always have the best streams so I am less compelled then anyway!

    It's the same here, finding a way of watching matches really rekindled my passion but if that was to disappear then, while I would still be a supporter, my interest would drop quite a bit.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • TheSaint 22 Jun 2013 12:01:37 14,614 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Not great value if you support a team like Arsenal who are on fairly often but for the teams who are only on once every couple of months it's a lot cheaper than the Sky sub.

    It's a shame unblock US don't support Fox Soccer 2 Go.
  • customfirmware 22 Jun 2013 13:01:21 817 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago


    new lfc signing luis alberto.
    http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/the-complete-guide-to-luis-alberto
  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 14:52:59 20,770 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I know I'm not that attractive to a club as a consumer. I have little disposable income so anything more than around 15 a month to watch the games then I'm out. However I'm probably more the 'average' person in this economic climate, I guess, therefore making up a fucktonne of the UK population. Surely it's therefore better to get something off of us, than nothing at all?

    Never done 'illegal' streaming before. It just doesn't sit right with me (although have no problems with others doing it, and I've watched it around a mates). Although I'm becoming more and more tempted.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 15:04:40 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    kentmonkey wrote:
    I know I'm not that attractive to a club as a consumer. I have little disposable income so anything more than around 15 a month to watch the games then I'm out. However I'm probably more the 'average' person in this economic climate, I guess, therefore making up a fucktonne of the UK population. Surely it's therefore better to get something off of us, than nothing at all?

    This is pretty much the main argument for it, it's income generation that they're missing out on through being stuck with old institutional models.


    Never done 'illegal' streaming before. It just doesn't sit right with me (although have no problems with others doing it, and I've watched it around a mates). Although I'm becoming more and more tempted.
    It's really not that big a deal, you just have to be judicious about the streams you choose and use the RIP add on in firefox to get rid of the ads and it's fairly easy. Also, the legality as I understand it is a bit of a grey area.

    Edited by Mr_Sleep at 15:05:09 22-06-2013

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • kalel 22 Jun 2013 15:04:46 88,419 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    They get money off you via your TV license fee for MotD highlights. They're only allowed to sell certain rights. They make every penny they can, there's nothing more they can legally do.
  • FWB 22 Jun 2013 15:23:33 44,839 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'm reliably informed that watching a stream isn't illegal. Uploading it is.

    Tho I was told that about a year ago, so maybe the law has changed.

    Edited by FWB at 15:24:28 22-06-2013
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 15:28:11 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    They get money off you via your TV license fee for MotD highlights. They're only allowed to sell certain rights. They make every penny they can, there's nothing more they can legally do.
    How does it work with Man Utd TV and the like? Don't they show games live or are they merely highlights channels? I've never watched one so I've no idea.

    I would suspect that the only time a stream is likely to be illegal is when it is being broadcast in this country. So all those 3pm games that aren't on Sky anyway aren't illegal per se. Although I have nothing but intuition to back that up as a supposition.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • TheSaint 22 Jun 2013 15:50:32 14,614 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Things like MUTV don't show any matches live, just hype and highlights.

    The clubs make far more thanks to the exclusive deals they have with companies like Sky and BT at the moment that they would if they started selling the rights online.

    Sky wouldn't have much incentive to pay the big bucks to lure subscribers if they could all watch their teams games online for 15 a month.

    Do Arsenal not offer a subscription to radio commentary of all their games? In some ways I think listening to a game (especially with club focused commentary) can be better than watching a stream.
  • FWB 22 Jun 2013 15:53:37 44,839 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Everton radio is free and covers all games, iirc. Or least every game that I can't find everywhere else. The highlights, short and extended, also go up quite quickly and are free.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jun 2013 16:01:08 17,184 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Things like MUTV don't show any matches live, just hype and highlights.
    Ah, I didn't know that. I always wondered about that, thanks for clearing it up.

    The clubs make far more thanks to the exclusive deals they have with companies like Sky and BT at the moment that they would if they started selling the rights online.
    The thing is, I think it's where it has to go, it's currently a very restrictive system. I kind of hope the premier league actually go for this First Row thing and they fight back with some sensible points, they may actually make the case well.


    Sky wouldn't have much incentive to pay the big bucks to lure subscribers if they could all watch their teams games online for 15 a month.
    What Sky want and what I want rarely ever overlap ;-)

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Dougs 22 Jun 2013 17:59:56 68,411 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The big clubs would probably make more if they held their own rights, but those without that level of support would lose out and probably go under, such is their reliance on their slice of the pie.
  • faux-C 22 Jun 2013 18:07:43 9,441 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    If "competition" actually meant more than one provider with a monopoly, prices might end up reasonable for the consumer. Until that happens, and I have a choice of who to pay my money to, I can't see any moral issue with streaming.
  • kalel 22 Jun 2013 18:10:01 88,419 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The law doesn't give a shit about your moral judgement on this issue.
  • faux-C 22 Jun 2013 18:32:25 9,441 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The law is an ass.
  • fletch7100 22 Jun 2013 18:46:54 7,353 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Not HD quality but the 5 a month IOS app to get all Sky Sports channels and ESPN is worth it. Monthly rolling subscription so can cancel anytime.
  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 18:48:26 20,770 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    fletch7100 wrote:
    Not HD quality but the 5 a month IOS app to get all Sky Sports channels and ESPN is worth it. Monthly rolling subscription so can cancel anytime.
    The what when why?
  • Page

    of 5546 First / Last

Log in or register to reply