HD6 working for me, the cycling
premier league thread
56 of 299
Originally Posted by icebergx:
“What I don't really understand is, if the PL are serious about clamping down on public broadcasts of games, they should just setup teams of people who go around identifying pubs that do this... It's more labour intensive, but that's the only way they will be able to limit/eliminate it.”
“What I don't really understand is, if the PL are serious about clamping down on public broadcasts of games, they should just setup teams of people who go around identifying pubs that do this... It's more labour intensive, but that's the only way they will be able to limit/eliminate it.”
Stop it at source and the issue goes away.
Originally Posted by saintalan:
“What is interesting is for once we are actively paying for content rather than free dodgy quality streams which I think says a lot.
I have Sky but really what I want from my Sports Package is a Season Ticket to watch my teams away games, i could & would probably do away with 80% of matches currently shown however not sure I could do without the Cricket Test coverage!
The trouble with Sky is you don't get these sort of choices and it'll probably end up being ultra expensive. At least AJS has come in and seemingly given Sky, FAs & subscribers etc something to think about.”
“What is interesting is for once we are actively paying for content rather than free dodgy quality streams which I think says a lot.
I have Sky but really what I want from my Sports Package is a Season Ticket to watch my teams away games, i could & would probably do away with 80% of matches currently shown however not sure I could do without the Cricket Test coverage!
The trouble with Sky is you don't get these sort of choices and it'll probably end up being ultra expensive. At least AJS has come in and seemingly given Sky, FAs & subscribers etc something to think about.”
Paying yes, but to something you are not meant to have access to.
Not sure if the PL will ever give you what - a TV season pass.
People need to realise that if you go down this route of subscribing to a service that actually you're not meant to receive then you run these type of risks - assuming it is AJS blocking VPNs and DNS's.
You pay your money and take your chances.
You pay your money and take your chances.
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“Paying yes, but to something you are not meant to have access to.
Not sure if the PL will ever give you what - a TV season pass.”
“Paying yes, but to something you are not meant to have access to.
Not sure if the PL will ever give you what - a TV season pass.”
My point was paying rather than T&Cs.
PL's hand will probably be forced when clubs see a market for it.
This whole issue will not go away just like these threads.
Cheers
Alan
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“People need to realise that if you go down this route of subscribing to a service that actually you're not meant to receive then you run these type of risks - assuming it is AJS blocking VPNs and DNS's.
You pay your money and take your chances.”
“People need to realise that if you go down this route of subscribing to a service that actually you're not meant to receive then you run these type of risks - assuming it is AJS blocking VPNs and DNS's.
You pay your money and take your chances.”
Totally agree I am surprised at the number of complaints about access and quality.
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“People need to realise that if you go down this route of subscribing to a service that actually you're not meant to receive then you run these type of risks - assuming it is AJS blocking VPNs and DNS's.
You pay your money and take your chances.”
“People need to realise that if you go down this route of subscribing to a service that actually you're not meant to receive then you run these type of risks - assuming it is AJS blocking VPNs and DNS's.
You pay your money and take your chances.”
Originally Posted by saintalan:
“Totally agree I am surprised at the number of complaints about access and quality.”
“Totally agree I am surprised at the number of complaints about access and quality.”
Don't be silly, people are probably well aware of the risks when they sign up, but it's not going to stop them trying to get the best possible service, which includes complaining.
HD6 still working (with overplay smartdns), no freezes, Championship highlights now.
Originally Posted by saintalan:
“My point was paying rather than T&Cs.
PL's hand will probably be forced when clubs see a market for it.
This whole issue will not go away just like these threads.
Cheers
Alan”
“My point was paying rather than T&Cs.
PL's hand will probably be forced when clubs see a market for it.
This whole issue will not go away just like these threads.
Cheers
Alan”
The problem is if you give people the choice to stay at home and watch a game crowd attendance will fall dramatically. It's not just the price people pay for the ticket, it's all the other costs - programme, food, drinks, spending in the club shop etc - that need to be covered.
Even if the PL set the price so high for a TV game, pubs will still show them - legally or not - and people will watch dodgy streams - which will get better as bandwidth increases.
If you could get a better dodgy stream from a web site, you won't bother subscribing to AJS etc.
If Sky offered a package where you would watch all of the 380 games - how much would you pay for it?
Originally Posted by dmuk:
“Don't be silly, people are probably well aware of the risks when they sign up, but it's not going to stop them trying to get the best possible service, which includes complaining.”
“Don't be silly, people are probably well aware of the risks when they sign up, but it's not going to stop them trying to get the best possible service, which includes complaining.”
No point complaining on here. Go complain to AJS...
Oh wait - you can't - cos you are breaking their T&Cs.
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“Pure speculation!!!”
“Pure speculation!!!”
Speculation, yes, but content providers/PL are taking measures to limit access to people accessing illegal streaming services. This would be a logical extension of that imo.
The first row streaming website was recently blocked due to action taken by the PL.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...-court-2057365
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“Stop it at source and the issue goes away.”
“Stop it at source and the issue goes away.”
As I mentioned, there are other ways around this...eg. installing a larger satellite to pick up a signal from the middle east. Pubs make big money from showing 3pm games and the only way to limit that is to take legal action... PL and Sky have far deeper pockets!
Originally Posted by Trainer99:
“The problem is if you give people the choice to stay at home and watch a game crowd attendance will fall dramatically. It's not just the price people pay for the ticket, it's all the other costs - programme, food, drinks, spending in the club shop etc - that need to be covered.
Even if the PL set the price so high for a TV game, pubs will still show them - legally or not - and people will watch dodgy streams - which will get better as bandwidth increases.
If you could get a better dodgy stream from a web site, you won't bother subscribing to AJS etc.
If Sky offered a package where you would watch all of the 380 games - how much would you pay for it?”
“The problem is if you give people the choice to stay at home and watch a game crowd attendance will fall dramatically. It's not just the price people pay for the ticket, it's all the other costs - programme, food, drinks, spending in the club shop etc - that need to be covered.
Even if the PL set the price so high for a TV game, pubs will still show them - legally or not - and people will watch dodgy streams - which will get better as bandwidth increases.
If you could get a better dodgy stream from a web site, you won't bother subscribing to AJS etc.
If Sky offered a package where you would watch all of the 380 games - how much would you pay for it?”
In my opinion, that's an old fashioned way of thinking, propagated by the Premier League and football authorities. Watching a game in a stadium is a totally different experience to watching a game on TV. For the most part, one would not effect the other. Maybe the odd game here and there, but not much. They have season tickets for the NFL and that doesn't limit attendances at all.
This debate was recently discussed by Gab Marcotti, a journalist for the Times and many other esteemed publications:
http://www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/scra...-3pm-kick-offs
I would pay £150+ to get all the games on one provider, be that Sky, BT Sport, or anyone else.
Right now, Sky would never offer a separate PL only TV package.
In future, a new provider like AJS, if they enter the bidding could do this. That would be a huge problem for Sky because, as soon as people start separating out TV packages by sport, Sky's business model will be in big trouble.
I believe (but am ready to stand corrected) that The Premier League don't allow us access to Saurday 3 o'clock games because when they were founded they signed a legally binding agreement with The Football League not to do so,
the fear isn't for dwindling Premier League attendances if this were to happen but English footballs lower tier teams.
I may be thinking too simplistically but my answer to this would be to move all the Saturday 3 o'clock games to Sundays, move the Sunday 4pm game to 6pm and the early Sunday game to 12:30pm, they could still have their Saturday lunchtime and evening games and the extra revenue created by having all games available on tv would allow the Premier League to earn some good publicity by offering to pay for away fans travel costs to and from the later Sunday evening kickoff.
I can't afford a season ticket (even if one was available) for my team and certainly can't afford to travel to away matches if I could get a ticket to one, but am prepared to pay to watch these on tv, whether legitimately through a UK broadcaster or through a more cloak and dagger game with an overseas provider.
Until the league address this demand and reap the revenues for themselves this cat and mouse game is going to continue for years to come.
the fear isn't for dwindling Premier League attendances if this were to happen but English footballs lower tier teams.
I may be thinking too simplistically but my answer to this would be to move all the Saturday 3 o'clock games to Sundays, move the Sunday 4pm game to 6pm and the early Sunday game to 12:30pm, they could still have their Saturday lunchtime and evening games and the extra revenue created by having all games available on tv would allow the Premier League to earn some good publicity by offering to pay for away fans travel costs to and from the later Sunday evening kickoff.
I can't afford a season ticket (even if one was available) for my team and certainly can't afford to travel to away matches if I could get a ticket to one, but am prepared to pay to watch these on tv, whether legitimately through a UK broadcaster or through a more cloak and dagger game with an overseas provider.
Until the league address this demand and reap the revenues for themselves this cat and mouse game is going to continue for years to come.
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/events/mark...sid=19817.html
it's uefa who enforce the blockout not premier league.
it's all 3pm football not just english games. last season el classico was not shown live in uk because of this ruling
it's uefa who enforce the blockout not premier league.
it's all 3pm football not just english games. last season el classico was not shown live in uk because of this ruling
So £80 per year for 380 pl games plus literally 100's of others is the absolute bargain of the millennium! No wonder the prem aren't happy.
Originally Posted by St@mmie:
“I believe (but am ready to stand corrected) that The Premier League don't allow us access to Saurday 3 o'clock games because when they were founded they signed a legally binding agreement with The Football League not to do so,
the fear isn't for dwindling Premier League attendances if this were to happen but English footballs lower tier teams.
I may be thinking too simplistically but my answer to this would be to move all the Saturday 3 o'clock games to Sundays, move the Sunday 4pm game to 6pm and the early Sunday game to 12:30pm, they could still have their Saturday lunchtime and evening games and the extra revenue created by having all games available on tv would allow the Premier League to earn some good publicity by offering to pay for away fans travel costs to and from the later Sunday evening kickoff.
I can't afford a season ticket (even if one was available) for my team and certainly can't afford to travel to away matches if I could get a ticket to one, but am prepared to pay to watch these on tv, whether legitimately through a UK broadcaster or through a more cloak and dagger game with an overseas provider.
Until the league address this demand and reap the revenues for themselves this cat and mouse game is going to continue for years to come.”
“I believe (but am ready to stand corrected) that The Premier League don't allow us access to Saurday 3 o'clock games because when they were founded they signed a legally binding agreement with The Football League not to do so,
the fear isn't for dwindling Premier League attendances if this were to happen but English footballs lower tier teams.
I may be thinking too simplistically but my answer to this would be to move all the Saturday 3 o'clock games to Sundays, move the Sunday 4pm game to 6pm and the early Sunday game to 12:30pm, they could still have their Saturday lunchtime and evening games and the extra revenue created by having all games available on tv would allow the Premier League to earn some good publicity by offering to pay for away fans travel costs to and from the later Sunday evening kickoff.
I can't afford a season ticket (even if one was available) for my team and certainly can't afford to travel to away matches if I could get a ticket to one, but am prepared to pay to watch these on tv, whether legitimately through a UK broadcaster or through a more cloak and dagger game with an overseas provider.
Until the league address this demand and reap the revenues for themselves this cat and mouse game is going to continue for years to come.”
As already stated, the blackout has nothing to do with the Premier League. It's UEFA who enforce it but they only enforce it at the request of a domestic FA who are all given the opportunity to submit dates pre-season. The FA's of Spain, Germany etc choose not to, whereas the English FA do submit dates - hence no football on TV between 2.45 & 5.15 every Saturday.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see all 380 matches broadcast live domestically because it's not as lucrative for the broadcasters. They currently pay in excess of £3 billion for a 3-year period and a limited 154 matches per season. Sky gauge that people only watch around 30 matches a season (can't remember the exact figure) and the key thing to bring in the best viewing figures (and in turn advertising etc) is the 'first pick' matches.
The value wouldn't increase if all 380 matches were offered. First off, it'd dilute exclusivity. If matches were split like now then why would Sky want to show a live 3pm match when BT Sport (and whoever else joined the party with that many matches available) would likely be showing one at the same time? How many new subscribers would 380 matches suddenly attract on top of the estimated 7m Sky Sports current subscribers? They already pay to see their team anyway. I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have a dramatic upward trend for them.
There's far more money to line the Premier League's pockets in drip feeding a select amount of matches instead of throwing all of them at the domestic market. It's taken from 1992 to the present to increase from the initial 60 matches to the current 154... if another increase does happen (still at least 1 or 2 more tenders away I think!) then it'll be around the 170 match mark because that'd mean a guaranteed match in every slot unlike now where there's still limited amounts of games on the Monday nights etc.
Originally Posted by akki007:
“So £80 per year for 380 pl games plus literally 100's of others is the absolute bargain of the millennium! No wonder the prem aren't happy.”
“So £80 per year for 380 pl games plus literally 100's of others is the absolute bargain of the millennium! No wonder the prem aren't happy.”
Yeah but don't forget that the international broadcasters don't pay anything like what Sky and BT do. They're provided with an off the shelf product - commentary and the broadcast as a whole is all packaged and provided for them. The only outlay they've got is the winning bid in itself which is still way short of the domestic prices.
Sky and BT have to produce their own games (Sky in-house, BT externally) and provide their own commentary teams etc. There's no way they could ever go as low as the broadcasters using the world feed.
Originally Posted by icebergx:
“
In my opinion, that's an old fashioned way of thinking, propagated by the Premier League and football authorities. Watching a game in a stadium is a totally different experience to watching a game on TV. For the most part, one would not effect the other. Maybe the odd game here and there, but not much. They have season tickets for the NFL and that doesn't limit attendances at all.
This debate was recently discussed by Gab Marcotti, a journalist for the Times and many other esteemed publications:
http://www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/scra...-3pm-kick-offs
I would pay £150+ to get all the games on one provider, be that Sky, BT Sport, or anyone else.
Right now, Sky would never offer a separate PL only TV package.
In future, a new provider like AJS, if they enter the bidding could do this. That would be a huge problem for Sky because, as soon as people start separating out TV packages by sport, Sky's business model will be in big trouble.”
“
In my opinion, that's an old fashioned way of thinking, propagated by the Premier League and football authorities. Watching a game in a stadium is a totally different experience to watching a game on TV. For the most part, one would not effect the other. Maybe the odd game here and there, but not much. They have season tickets for the NFL and that doesn't limit attendances at all.
This debate was recently discussed by Gab Marcotti, a journalist for the Times and many other esteemed publications:
http://www.fsf.org.uk/blog/view/scra...-3pm-kick-offs
I would pay £150+ to get all the games on one provider, be that Sky, BT Sport, or anyone else.
Right now, Sky would never offer a separate PL only TV package.
In future, a new provider like AJS, if they enter the bidding could do this. That would be a huge problem for Sky because, as soon as people start separating out TV packages by sport, Sky's business model will be in big trouble.”
Unfortunately one would effect the other. Why aren't games shown on UK TV at 3pm on Saturday? Cos they don't want to impact attendances - not just the attendance of a game being shown, but attendances of all clubs especially lower league.
It's got nothing to do with AJS being able to bid larger amounts of money (to obtain the rights to show all the games in the UK) - the PL don't offer this as an option in the UK for the reasons stated above. They are very protective of their 3pm KOs. Clubs want to fill stadiums. There is nothing worse than seeing a ground on TV whereby it's only half fall. If people want to see their team play, then a lot of the time they have to pay a premium (eg go to the games).
I think you are way off with you valuation of £150 to watch all games. People are paying approx £78 for PLP (basic) for watching all games - which are non domestic and at un sociable hours. The UK price would be 4 times this. AJS is more but has more games to offer. Even at £500 it's a bargain - even if you only watch your team's game that's £13 a game. But at this price people would still seek alternatives.
The NFL Sunday ticket is $225 - $300 but that is OUT OF MARKET games (http://www.directv.com/sports/nfl)
Originally Posted by akki007:
“So £80 per year for 380 pl games plus literally 100's of others is the absolute bargain of the millennium! No wonder the prem aren't happy.”
“So £80 per year for 380 pl games plus literally 100's of others is the absolute bargain of the millennium! No wonder the prem aren't happy.”
Absolutely.
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“
Sky and BT have to produce their own games (Sky in-house, BT externally) and provide their own commentary teams etc. There's no way they could ever go as low as the broadcasters using the world feed.”
“
Sky and BT have to produce their own games (Sky in-house, BT externally) and provide their own commentary teams etc. There's no way they could ever go as low as the broadcasters using the world feed.”
Only commentry - yes - as do all european broadcasters of the PL, but the pics are the same - provided by - can't remember - I should know cos it was at the end of every ADMC broadcast.
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“As already stated, the blackout has nothing to do with the Premier League. It's UEFA who enforce it but they only enforce it at the request of a domestic FA who are all given the opportunity to submit dates pre-season. The FA's of Spain, Germany etc choose not to, whereas the English FA do submit dates - hence no football on TV between 2.45 & 5.15 every Saturday.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see all 380 matches broadcast live domestically because it's not as lucrative for the broadcasters. They currently pay in excess of £3 billion for a 3-year period and a limited 154 matches per season. Sky gauge that people only watch around 30 matches a season (can't remember the exact figure) and the key thing to bring in the best viewing figures (and in turn advertising etc) is the 'first pick' matches.
The value wouldn't increase if all 380 matches were offered. First off, it'd dilute exclusivity. If matches were split like now then why would Sky want to show a live 3pm match when BT Sport (and whoever else joined the party with that many matches available) would likely be showing one at the same time? How many new subscribers would 380 matches suddenly attract on top of the estimated 7m Sky Sports current subscribers? They already pay to see their team anyway. I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have a dramatic upward trend for them.
There's far more money to line the Premier League's pockets in drip feeding a select amount of matches instead of throwing all of them at the domestic market. It's taken from 1992 to the present to increase from the initial 60 matches to the current 154... if another increase does happen (still at least 1 or 2 more tenders away I think!) then it'll be around the 170 match mark because that'd mean a guaranteed match in every slot unlike now where there's still limited amounts of games on the Monday nights etc.”
“As already stated, the blackout has nothing to do with the Premier League. It's UEFA who enforce it but they only enforce it at the request of a domestic FA who are all given the opportunity to submit dates pre-season. The FA's of Spain, Germany etc choose not to, whereas the English FA do submit dates - hence no football on TV between 2.45 & 5.15 every Saturday.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see all 380 matches broadcast live domestically because it's not as lucrative for the broadcasters. They currently pay in excess of £3 billion for a 3-year period and a limited 154 matches per season. Sky gauge that people only watch around 30 matches a season (can't remember the exact figure) and the key thing to bring in the best viewing figures (and in turn advertising etc) is the 'first pick' matches.
The value wouldn't increase if all 380 matches were offered. First off, it'd dilute exclusivity. If matches were split like now then why would Sky want to show a live 3pm match when BT Sport (and whoever else joined the party with that many matches available) would likely be showing one at the same time? How many new subscribers would 380 matches suddenly attract on top of the estimated 7m Sky Sports current subscribers? They already pay to see their team anyway. I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have a dramatic upward trend for them.
There's far more money to line the Premier League's pockets in drip feeding a select amount of matches instead of throwing all of them at the domestic market. It's taken from 1992 to the present to increase from the initial 60 matches to the current 154... if another increase does happen (still at least 1 or 2 more tenders away I think!) then it'll be around the 170 match mark because that'd mean a guaranteed match in every slot unlike now where there's still limited amounts of games on the Monday nights etc.”
Some excellent points.
Both Sky and AJS have contracts with the Premier League (AJS's is via MP & Silva)
I have no doubt Sky will be pressuring the Premier League to make AJS block access to their feeds out side MENA (Middle east North Africa). They have a huge investment to protect.
That is why while Premiership matches are on the SmartDNS services find their servers blocked.
It wouldn't surprise me if Sky were providing all the technical assistance AJS needed to do this.
Sky also have a contract with UEFA for Champions League football.
Are the Champions League feeds being blocked?
I have no doubt Sky will be pressuring the Premier League to make AJS block access to their feeds out side MENA (Middle east North Africa). They have a huge investment to protect.
That is why while Premiership matches are on the SmartDNS services find their servers blocked.
It wouldn't surprise me if Sky were providing all the technical assistance AJS needed to do this.
Sky also have a contract with UEFA for Champions League football.
Are the Champions League feeds being blocked?
Originally Posted by promo-only:
“As already stated, the blackout has nothing to do with the Premier League. It's UEFA who enforce it but they only enforce it at the request of a domestic FA who are all given the opportunity to submit dates pre-season. The FA's of Spain, Germany etc choose not to, whereas the English FA do submit dates - hence no football on TV between 2.45 & 5.15 every Saturday.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see all 380 matches broadcast live domestically because it's not as lucrative for the broadcasters. They currently pay in excess of £3 billion for a 3-year period and a limited 154 matches per season. Sky gauge that people only watch around 30 matches a season (can't remember the exact figure) and the key thing to bring in the best viewing figures (and in turn advertising etc) is the 'first pick' matches.
The value wouldn't increase if all 380 matches were offered. First off, it'd dilute exclusivity. If matches were split like now then why would Sky want to show a live 3pm match when BT Sport (and whoever else joined the party with that many matches available) would likely be showing one at the same time? How many new subscribers would 380 matches suddenly attract on top of the estimated 7m Sky Sports current subscribers? They already pay to see their team anyway. I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have a dramatic upward trend for them.
There's far more money to line the Premier League's pockets in drip feeding a select amount of matches instead of throwing all of them at the domestic market. It's taken from 1992 to the present to increase from the initial 60 matches to the current 154... if another increase does happen (still at least 1 or 2 more tenders away I think!) then it'll be around the 170 match mark because that'd mean a guaranteed match in every slot unlike now where there's still limited amounts of games on the Monday nights etc.”
“As already stated, the blackout has nothing to do with the Premier League. It's UEFA who enforce it but they only enforce it at the request of a domestic FA who are all given the opportunity to submit dates pre-season. The FA's of Spain, Germany etc choose not to, whereas the English FA do submit dates - hence no football on TV between 2.45 & 5.15 every Saturday.
IMO I don't think we'll ever see all 380 matches broadcast live domestically because it's not as lucrative for the broadcasters. They currently pay in excess of £3 billion for a 3-year period and a limited 154 matches per season. Sky gauge that people only watch around 30 matches a season (can't remember the exact figure) and the key thing to bring in the best viewing figures (and in turn advertising etc) is the 'first pick' matches.
The value wouldn't increase if all 380 matches were offered. First off, it'd dilute exclusivity. If matches were split like now then why would Sky want to show a live 3pm match when BT Sport (and whoever else joined the party with that many matches available) would likely be showing one at the same time? How many new subscribers would 380 matches suddenly attract on top of the estimated 7m Sky Sports current subscribers? They already pay to see their team anyway. I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't have a dramatic upward trend for them.
There's far more money to line the Premier League's pockets in drip feeding a select amount of matches instead of throwing all of them at the domestic market. It's taken from 1992 to the present to increase from the initial 60 matches to the current 154... if another increase does happen (still at least 1 or 2 more tenders away I think!) then it'll be around the 170 match mark because that'd mean a guaranteed match in every slot unlike now where there's still limited amounts of games on the Monday nights etc.”
This is all well and true but it does not escape the fact that the iron grip that the premier league have on TV rights needs to be challenged.
I am a Liverpool FC fan cannot get into the game like in the past, I would have to die 3 times over to move up the season ticket list and would not be able to afford the season ticket when I was able to purchase it.
The comments over attendance at prem games and lower leagues is not compelling enough for me, look at the likes of Germany.
3pm live matches should be available to those who are willing to pay for it, the PL should get real here!
LFC TV resorts to having on pl match Sundays having a guy with a special guest giving you live commentary while showing shots of excited supporters.
Time for a wind change SKY/PL and clubs please
56 of 299
