I was listening to an interesting debate about live football and the football streams that have really taken off over recent times. There seemed to be a general consensus that people only use the "illegal" streams because they can't get to the game and it's not aired on tv. One thing that was mentioned was that people seemed happy to pay for a live stream if they were made legal and hosted by the PL. Personally, I would do it. I'd be happy to pay say £4 to watch a decent quality live stream when I can't make the game live. I have a feeling I am probably on the minority but would be interested in your thoughts? Do you really think this no games shown live at 3pm should still be applicable? I personally think its bollocks, I'd rather go to a live game if I could. Out of interest, for those that watch live streams, where do you watch yours?
Off topic a little, but a pub near me who used to show every NCFC match last year (on the Swedish viasat stream, I think) now has one game at 3p.m. each Saturday, but he has no control over which one. Last week was WBA v L'poo followed by the late kick off Newcastle v Spurs. I do know at least 2 pubs in Norwich who had our match on, so not sure why the disparity? I'm not sure if I'd pay to watch a stream, whatever the source, as up here in wild and woolly north Norfolk, our bandwidth speed is so slow that the picture often lags behind the commentary and freezes up completely 3 or 4 times per match. Sadly, not when Fulham score, however I rarely talk about live streams on here. In my own paranoid little way, I see it as similar to discussing in public where one's music downloads come from - and you never know who is reading. Probably a silly, outdated view, but hey ho.
I would quite happily pay a fee, but prefer going to a pub and getting the interaction/banter with other fans (especially when there are fans of the opposition in there!!).
I think it's a bit of a farce that other countries get more live PL football than the country it actually originates from..especially a good 3pm Saturday game. Paying for a stream? Seems a reasonable idea but how far does this go? I mean sky with the sports package is already in excess of 50 quid a month then what 4 quid every weekend considering Norwich are rarely on tv you're looking at near on 70 quid a month plus tv license fees. Ridiculous IMO.
The main arguement against live Premiership matches on TV at 3 on a Saturday is nothing to do with Premiership clubs but the effect it might have on lower league attendances. If you were standing in a pub having a pint and thinking about braving the rain to stand on the terraces and watch Accrington v York and realised that you could stay in the warm, have another couple of pints and watch Man U v Chelsea on the tele what would you do? I will be a complete minority of one but I think that streaming is just another strand of illegality and needs stamping out. If you download music for free illegally rather than pay or download films for free rather than go to the Cinema then eventually nobody will produce music or films because they can't make money even getting away from the moral standpoint of its illegality. Sky commit cameras to all grounds for all matches as part of their deal. They also sell live coverage to other Countries. If they start to lose more money in the UK by people cancelling subscriptions than they make from showing live matches abroad then guess what will happen? I pay for the full Sky package and think that it is good value for money but if people don't want to pay for it why should they get the benefits? As a matter of principle I do not illegally download films or music or use - on matchdays or any other day - any Pub that shows live games streamed from abroad.
I pay 30 quid a year on a website called streampro. It has every sporting event along with continuous sky and ESPN channels. It used to have all 3pm kick offs but now can not guarantee it dye to the license laws abroad where way provider can only show 3 matches. I go to most away games my way anfbif I lived back in Norwich I would have a season ticket. It's the only way i can really watch mathes that aren't sky matches
It is a hard one, but I would not be happy paying £4 a game if the money is going to the premier league. I would however not mind paying £4 to the PL if they then knocked some money off tickets to live games. I know this is not currently in their power but it would mean they are getting additional income and it is more affordable to go to games. The current prices of tickets in football are pretty ridiculous really and while I would love to go to live games every week the price makes it prohibitive.
The Internet issue is a weird one. It's tied up with lots of contractual stuff. Basically sky don't want you to pay per game, they want you to buy the whole package. It would make sense to go to a "iTunes style" on demand service but they are tryin to screw us over. I'd pay it, for sure.
If you're in another country, sometimes the only option is streaming. Here in Vietnam I can usually choose between three 3pm kickoffs on TV. However, if Norwich isn't one of these, I have to try to find a good stream, which is difficult because the internet connection is not great. I sometimes end up having to 'follow' the game by coming on here and depending on you guys and your updates.
Same here and I think we had 18,000 season ticket holders when we were in League 1. I know that around where I sit in area 'QL' there can't be more than a handful of people who've given up their seat in the 5 years that I've had a season ticket.
The only issue with watching 'live streams' is getting throught the adverts beforehand and those that pop-up during the match. Also, you have to be careful as sometimes sex sites pop-up for some reason, make sure your McAfee is up to date ! I have BT infinity fibre optic and picture freeze rarely occurs now, picture quality is also much better and will improve greatly no doubt in the near future. It seems unfair that an individual could be proscecuted for watching a stream, surely it's the provider who is breaking the law anyway ?
1950canary I admire your thinking and I don't disagree that watching streams is probably illegal, but morally I don't have an issue with it because there is no other way to see the game if you cant get a ticket or be there. I do disagree heavily with your desired response to it though, you will never stamp out live streams as long as the games are shown somewhere in the world, that's the nature of the internet. It is also important to note that illegal downloading of movies, games and music has never been stamped out. My wife works in Digital Publishing dealing with issues like DRM and digital distribution and its an incredibly interesting but also difficult issue for companies to deal with, and many refuse to move with the times. Pirates and programmers often grip the potential of new technology far faster than companies, the ones that do grip it however make it to the top, look at apple. The problem Sky has like the Movie, Games and Music industry before it is that the pirates providing these streams are A) Providing a service that is in demand and B) Doing it better than the actual provider, because at the minute they refuse to. I'm afraid your argument that the movie and music would die out because of piracy is rather outdated and has been proven wrong. Movies still take record gross profits and sales of music has had a huge increase due to the effect of digital technology. What has been repeatedly proven is that if these companies provide a high quality and affordable service that people want, the piracy lessens as people are prepared to pay. This is why iTunes is so successful, Steam in the games industry, Sony Entertainment for watching movies on a PS3 as just a few examples. There is nothing stopping Sky right now technologically from making every game available to view instantly on satellite TV and online, it should probably be free to Sky Subscribers and pay as you watch for others. They would undoubtedly make more money than they do at the moment. The tricky thing would be how do you stop that effecting club ticket sales? How do you get every club to agree to a business model. However I would say the vast majority of fans are technically able to find the streams and use them, and so far Carrow Road still sells out each week, so does Old Trafford. The problem Sky has is that this is already happening on a huge scale, they can waste millions like every other industry before them trying to stamp it out and unless they stop broadcasting the games everywhere in the world they will fail, or they can become the provider and unlock potentially millions more in revenue. Eventually I suspect they will.
Welcome to the board Monty! Excellent, well thought out and structured post! Midway, you've got your work cut out here!
I have the full sky package and would continue to do so, regardless of whether I could get specific games online. When I can't get to a game and its not on Sky, what can you do? Take the point about lower league teams but if your a fan, your a fan and would brave whatever weather, right? I'm totally with Monty, I buy games online and all my music from iTunes. There are pirate versions available but I'd rather get the real thing. My Internet connection isn't great by any means, but my sky go still runs perfectly. If that service were available on a pay as you watch deal for specific games then I'd do it and I'd keep my Sky. I sort of think, "I can't make that game, so you can't have my money. But I'd pay to watch it via other means if the quality was good. Have my money or don't have it, your choice".
Thanks Dave, been lurking a while but decided to get involved, been getting increasingly fed up with the Pinkun bored (pun intended) and thought it was time to properly join here. OP you are totally right, People like you and me and many others are going to watch Streams whether Sky like it or not, their only real choice is to offer an alternative and unlock that revenue stream as it simply can't be stamped out without hurting their own sales to overseas TV companies. The sooner Sky realises that the better, but some bigger names in other digital industries still haven't fully got their heads around the idea that you cant stop the internet, so I'm guessing Sky will take longer than we all hope to give their customers and potential customers what they actually want.
I do not think that Sky would object to instant coverage of all live games - surely the problem with that is their agreement with the Premier League. I would have thought that Sky would be delighted to do it as more coverage means more subscribers and more money in their till. I also agree that attendances in the Premier League would not be greatly affected - perhaps a reduction in away supporters - and any shortfall would be amply covered by the increase in money Sky would pay to Premiership Clubs but I come back to the point I originally raised - it would have a devastating affect on lower league and non league sides. I also think that football is in a stronger position to clamp down on any illegality than Cinema or music. Once a CD or DVD is released it can be put on the internet and downloaded. You can't smuggle a TV camera and crew into a football ground!! Coverage comes from cameras already there and each individual Club and/or Sky can control the output. At the moment I suspect that Sky make more money abroad from televising live matches than they lose from illegal streaming and decoding boxes but if that changes I still maintain that the Premier League, the clubs and Sky can pull the plug on all live output other than that agreed.
It wouldn't stay £4 for long, and I doubt it would be that little to begin with. Personally, I think football gets enough money out of us, I'm quite happy watching it via a stream or listening to it free on the radio.
