Premier League 13/14: Page 3 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Premier League 13/14

Iloveyouarsenewenger

Tam wrote:
They aren't going to show all the games live. The reason Saturday 3pm games aren't broadcast is to protect attendances. Their might be a big enough market for the bigger clubs to justify and be suitably compensated for showing all games live but that won't exist for the teams lower down the league(s).

To change those rules the Premier League would need something like agreement from 14 teams. They'll never achieve that; a lot of clubs are feeling the pinch of lower attendances as it is, and a system which broadcasts all their games is only going to make that worse. What they make out of any deal won't match their gate money and in any case no club wants empty stadium. Especially those which value their community spirit and support.

If those games are not being showed live anywhere at all, they can't be available live on illegal streams as well. So, an official streaming channel is not going to affect them by any means.

goon

Iloveyouarsenewenger wrote:
Rohit wrote:
Matches aren't sold individually to advertisers. Most are packaged deals with the low viewership of matches taken into consideration. It isn't also as if ESPN Star can purchase rights of selected matches.

Also, in theory, if streams are provided directly from the rights holder, then it gives the viewer an option of not subscribing to the channel (i am not saying that will happen).

Anyways, this to me seems to clearly be a move made on behest of the broadcaster and the broadcaster will only pressurize if their revenue is getting impacted.

Yes, this IS the risk that I am talking about. Broadcasters WILL take a hit. But, this hit won't be a major one. And Premier League could make up the money (since they'd be paid a bit less by the broadcasters) from subscription fees/advertising revenue on their websites.

Of course it would be a big hit, there is no way Sky would have paid anywhere close to £3bn for the PL rights and the PL itself wouldn't get close to making that money back from advertising.

In a very similar circumstance, one of our suppliers at work decided about 18 months ago to sell directly from their own website. In protest, both my company and their distributors in the US took the decision to stop selling their product, which I understand cost them a total of around £70,000 worth of income per month, which resulted in them becoming financially crippled. We now own 90% of that supplier and normality has resumed.

Iloveyouarsenewenger

This would obviously depend on the kind of product that you're selling and the traits of the two distribution sources and the consumers.

Like I said, a 5 minutes delayed official stream (free) didn't affect the TV revenues of IPL all that much. But, the demographics of the target audience might be different out here. Also, you'll need to make a cost-benefit analysis to find out if what you lose from TV revenues can be recouped from Internet or not. Like Irish Gunner said, there is an official stream (paid) for the Champions League and its presence obviously reduces their TV revenues, but, must generate enough revenue of its own for them to deem it profitable.

Rohit

IPL is a wrong example in this context like I said earlier. Number of brands advertising on TV has considerably reduced anyways since internet rights were sold although in this instance there are various other reasons.

Fact is if internet rights are sold for the Prermiership, it will have a massive bearing on any the commercials of a TV deal being negotiated.

Irishgunner

Rohit wrote:
IPL is a wrong example in this context like I said earlier. Number of brands advertising on TV has considerably reduced anyways since internet rights were sold although in this instance there are various other reasons.

Fact is if internet rights are sold for the Prermiership, it will have a massive bearing on any the commercials of a TV deal being negotiated.

I think it would massively boost foreign revenues for the premiership, which would offset the (likely) decrease in revenue from television deals like sky. I can't subscribe to Sky sports in France, and if I want to watch Arsenal matches on the television I would have to subscribe to Canal+ who only show about 5 Arsenal matches per season. I have no incentive to do so, I don't give a shit about ligue 1 and my canal+'subscription would be a complete waste for me.

I think a lot of people would pay for a streaming service, especially outside of England.

Out of curiosity, what is preventing clubs from setting up streams of their own home games? I'd buy an online arsenal "season ticket" if it was available, I'd also buy online "away tickets," from opposition clubs for our away matches. Everyone wins in that scenario.

Rohit

Irish gunner wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is preventing clubs from setting up streams of their own home games?

Clubs aren't allowed and rightly so. The big clubs will have a massive advantage.

Irishgunner

Rohit wrote:
Irish gunner wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is preventing clubs from setting up streams of their own home games?

Clubs aren't allowed and rightly so. The big clubs will have a massive advantage.

The clubs could still share the profits. Everyone puts the stream revenues into an account, the FA then either distributes it equally or depending upon league position.

Tam

It's to do with the broadcasting package. The packages are centrally negotiated by the PL on behal of the clubs and it doesn't allow for streaming of every game.

Clrnc

Irish gunner wrote:
Rohit wrote:
IPL is a wrong example in this context like I said earlier. Number of brands advertising on TV has considerably reduced anyways since internet rights were sold although in this instance there are various other reasons.

Fact is if internet rights are sold for the Prermiership, it will have a massive bearing on any the commercials of a TV deal being negotiated.

I think it would massively boost foreign revenues for the premiership, which would offset the (likely) decrease in revenue from television deals like sky. I can't subscribe to Sky sports in France, and if I want to watch Arsenal matches on the television I would have to subscribe to Canal+ who only show about 5 Arsenal matches per season. I have no incentive to do so, I don't give a shit about ligue 1 and my canal+'subscription would be a complete waste for me.

I think a lot of people would pay for a streaming service, especially outside of England.

Out of curiosity, what is preventing clubs from setting up streams of their own home games? I'd buy an online arsenal "season ticket" if it was available, I'd also buy online "away tickets," from opposition clubs for our away matches. Everyone wins in that scenario.

Which is why I think its terribly unfair to block streams considering they ain't even offering a legal way of watching matches for oversea viewers. Streams are the only way some countries can watch matches in the PL. I have no such problems though, considering Singapore have 2 seperate companies showing 10 HD channels of matches each week, but if that werent the case and I have no way of watching Arsenal I will be thoroughly pissed.

Anyway, isn't the La Liga big 2 have individual TV rights and can stream their own games? Which is why the league became so skewed.

Rohit

But BT is paying what they are paying because countries like Singapore are showing as many matches as they are. Dilute that with easy and cheaper access online, multiply that with the effect across countries and you have an rights holder.

marv3llous

Liverpool signs players, players lean on stuff in photoshoots. For some reason some of them are hilarious to me:

Iloveyouarsenewenger

After the lean-on photoshoot, this is the next thing Liverpool new signings do :

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Joe-Cole-Liverpool-is-a-bigger-club-than-Chelsea-or-Manchester-United-article533169.html

And it all ends with ...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4826463/Joe-Cole-amits-Liverpool-move-was-wrong.html

Here is what really happened

“When I joined, the guy interviewing me said ‘you’ve joined the biggest club in the country’ and reeled off the trophies they’d won.
“I just said ‘yeah, if you put it like that, I suppose you’re right’ and Liverpool used that as the headline to the interview.
“I didn’t want to upset anyone so I just went along with it. But obviously they’re not the biggest club in the country any more."

Qwiss

😆 The SSN crew don't know what to do.

Burnwinter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jul/02/joe-kinnear-director-of-football

"The manager can't do everything. I'm probably the only football manager to be a director of football. I don't know any other ex-managers who have."

What a mouth-breather. You'd think someone like Kinnear would've heard of Kenny Dalglish. Toon is like a fucking Dunning-Krugerquake.

Iloveyouarsenewenger

qs! wrote:

😆 The SSN crew don't know what to do.

Brilliant!

Bold Tone

Tony Cascarino looks like an idiot, used to play like an idiot and talks like an idiot.
Notwithstanding this, he sounds more knowledgeable than the presenters on that show.
Mr Jeff "Blah Blah Blah" and Ms Kirsty "Abramovic made Chelsea which put England on the map" are just off the scale.

Burnwinter

Just got a chance to watch that. Fucking nails it doesn't he.

Biggus

Nah he's talking bollocks, how is owning Chelsea going to protect Abramovich if he falls afoul of Dobby?
It's not exactly a golden goose that he can live off if his assets in Russia are seized, and as for "the mystique of Manchester united"- Fuck off.

Burnwinter

It's blindingly obvious that having a high profile, and a constituency of supporters in England give Abramovich a degree of political protection far beyond that of an equivalent oligarch unknown outside Russia.

Biggus

If he was running for election in London perhaps, but do you think Dobby would give a shit what Chelsea fans think?

« Previous Page Next Page »