I would agree with you on the second tier I am only offering the stuff i've heard proffered about it. and I can see where you would think by extension i would want a super league. I am only however offering what i think the clubs want. I am actually not that pushed on it. The desirable games i mention are in effect happening in the CL and I am sure the clubs would also rather sell those themselves than give uefa a slice. I think in fairness to us both it would take a week of writing to put everything down as a view so clarifying what you picked up form what i say is a reasonable thing to do no? just as forming an assumption based on what you read is reasonable.
I agree with this. spotify and itunes show that when you offer very reasonable prices with a reasonably high quality product (neither IMO are the best sounds but better than pirate tracks) then the mass market goes legal. spotify and that internet radio one pandora have opened up a huge mass market for songs now (golden oldies) however i also fully see tobes point that some will always bootleg no matter what. I think our collective point tobes however is that many many more people now are illegally streaming for a reason and the reason is people see through the value proposition on offer. I think its fair to say that by the by 60million people verses 300million is not all that big a leap. especially as sky offer the deal people would want for much lower populations elsewhere.... we are thier cash cow and we don't like it much. To prevent piracy growing and to bring back the people who would just pay the 1 or 2 quid per game the TV companies must change.
now i really must do some work. i have spent the entire day on the internet so far! very enjoyable debate however. thanks!
I'm no defender of Sky, as they're an awful company to deal with, but their pricing policy isn't as bad as some would have you believe. The full Sky Sports package is £22 per month, which equates to a fiver a week. Ok you have to have the standard Sky package as well, which is £21.50, but it's hardly extortionate. It would appear that I'm the only one who has a real issue with illegal streaming here, which is ironic given that I pay full pops for both Sky & BT, as well as having a pair of season tickets & driving 5000 miles per season to watch our home games. Each to their own.
They seem to be trying but not too hard, it took me about 10 mins to get past their latest block. It is a minor annoyance and nothing more.
Your tired of him stalking your posts. So, Suarez has not turned out to be a misfiring malcontent who will disrupt the dressing room. Fancy that eh
No, it's "you're" & I said bored Toot & ploot arrive & a really good thread comes off the rails Time for me to do some work, later chaps, cheers
It doesn't need to be pick and choose, even package deals would be a step forward. With modern technology you can have now phones or tablets that can be set up and run entirely without a computer. To buy an album off iTunes you don't need to subscribe to having a set of Apple speakers installed in your house and connected to the phone line. So why does Sky still tie people down to requiring a Sky box in their house? Instead you're looking at about £49/month and all the hassle of contracts and installation, which would be £15 per game even if they somehow could show every Liverpool home game, which they don't. TV is a shambles for football, and I don't want individual rights, but there has to be something better than this.
What a completely irrelevant set of comments. What YOU and others find acceptable when it comes to price is irrelevant. Whilst others on here point to idiocy of existing legislation when it is put into the context of technological reality YOU have to harp on about your own irrelevant choices. (personally I wouldn't drive 5 miles to watch the Bitters - unless they were playing LFC). I'm sure that there are other areas of commercial activity that you find perfectly acceptable but others may find totally unacceptable. Each to their own.
You're missing the point lad, it's not the technology that's the issue, it's the price that they've paid for the rights. You could have all of that, at sensible prices, but the TV revenue would be vastly reduced & generally speaking - turkeys don't tend to vote for Christmas, so blame the PL clubs not Sky.
The problem is Sky, in the sense that traditional TV is dying but they are holding sports hostage as one of the few remaining reasons to prop up their outdated business model.
The comments were totally relevant as I was exploding a myth (perpetuated by tight twats like you ) that use that excuse to justify them watching illegal streams. I'd already pointed out that the point around technology was moot & no matter how tight the legislation, the mere fact that you're dealing in net streams make the policing of it the issue, not the legal framework ffs. In any case I'm still waiting to here how you justify labelling these thieves as 'innovators' btw. Oh & it's patently obvious that you wouldn't travel 5 miles to watch your own, like, but as I'd already said - each to their own.
Sky used football to build it's business & it's now reached the point where it's far less reliant on it, as they've developed into a credible broadcaster in their own right. Oh & 'prop up'? they made £1.2BN last year.... Now off to a meeting, I'm late
Astro hit the point exactly i made earlier about the whole thing going to the net. satellite tv started to cover everyone when cable had reduced or should i say smaller capacity. now 4g makes things effectively unlimited and the dish is no longer really needed. The sky box is a hard drive to store product and decrypt signals thats all. anyway...... this is all about view point and perhaps age or perhaps just who'd bought into the content craze. I see the trends of change, how desk top is dying, how lap top is dying, how tablet pcs are booming and how mobiles are getting bigger for better screens for content. I am personally convinced that in the not to distant future you will have a tv app on your phone for LFC. whether that app is sold by sky or whoever it matters not i suppose. I'll click and watch and can choose form the game yesterday, 3 weeks ago or 12 months ago OR watch live and i won't have listing to carragher to do it!
technology is never moot this is how companies like dell and HP and even microsoft are in trouble. why is balckberry being sold, why was nokia the most successful company going sold to microsoft... cos they missed the boat, missed the changes. Why was yahoo by passed, why did bebo die off... same reason. the pace of change is frightening in the past 3 years alone let alone 5. If tobes you really think that sky are not in the same danger.... They need to keep innovating and offering us more and better. 3pm saturday, one game on tv the rest of us on the terraces was the 80s. sky in 1992 in shiny suits and andy gray having a wee bit of hair lasted a long time, now its 24 hour. sky have GOOD products you are right. SSN, all the other things i'd call content like soccer am and the like are all bundelable but they are still stuck in the mode of offering very little to the mobile platform really. I can download to my desktop if i wish. If i tie 6 cables together and hope i can get sky on demand... but if i do... i can't get bt broadband really can i? I am perosnally awaiting the proper roll out of 4g with impatience. we will see some transformation of our "viewing" or "browsing" or whatever i nthe next 5 years. I don't beleie that when the current football tv deal runs out the same model will be sold again. I firmly believe more content is required.
I don't believe that at a sensible price per match that revenue does go down. you gave us the price you pay per month... so lets leave out the season ticket and travel you do which is laudable of course as say that oh i dunno you are obsessed with LFC and watch our games. now given you are obsessed you also refuse to stream cos you are a law abiding citizen right? Lets say LFc pay 4 games in the month, probably 5 but lets stick with 4. add 2 everton away games to that too. Now... you might say to yourself hang on thats 6x £3 and £18 to just watch the footy and actually sky give me tennis... and circket.. and la liga... and and and for that. you'd be quite right. the thing is its bundled. I don't want 90% of the sorts shown on sky sports. so.. Let me pay my £1 for my 4 games. I'll pay it. Make it £2 and scalp me. fine. then if you as a sport lover want to pay the extra 310 for the non premium sports on top fine. thats customer choice. say i pay £10 to sky and you pay £22. I am happy i get lfc and don't have to see everton and you get to watch everton and LFC and even the cricket. Then RHC can watch england trash australia at 4am on boxing day and be happy but not watch the boxing or whatever. The point is if i want to do it now I don't pay £22. i pay that plus to BT as you do and to see it on the big screen i need bt sport 1 or 2. All I'd like is to be able to choose for myself to pay for each match as it comes. how about this as a solution. Go log into LFC tv, pay a fee and the match is shown. sky or bt are paid by lfc a slice of what i pay. If game is one sky or BT I pay more to LFC tv. something to that effect. Game on LFC parochial commentators etc etc.
Let's ****ing hope so. I can also watch Liverpool trash citeh What happened to the argument, sorry, debate?
