Streaming the PL has been the news all week here in NZ as it has just been announced Sky TV NZ has lost the rights after being outbid by an internet startup. So the official coverage in NZ for the next 3 seasons will be online (plus there will be 1 match per week on free to air TV to keep the Premier League happy that it's not 100% online). Personally I think it will fail as NZ broadband is not good enough. They'll be selling it back to Sky next season.
Premier League 13/14
At least they need to be able to offer consumers a choice to subscribe to quality streamings then. There are countries where they have no other ways of watching other than streaming.
NZ is, of course, one of the few countries in the world where you can sign such a deal due to the rapidly increasing abundance of high speed broadband. Couldn't try that deal in the UK or US, for example.
Claudius wrote:abundance of high speed broadband
Streaming video is usually a nightmare here. It's a decent sized market to test it out on - small enough that it won't have a huge impact if it falls over. Think it's the only country with the main rights holder offering coverage online only. The 1 game a week offering to FTA TV is the keep the premier league happy as they require some coverage at least to be on TV. Subscription will be $150 NZ for the season (about 75 pounds) which seems decent if it works. Will have to decide what to do with Sky now as the main reason I pay for is for the football.
Iloveyouarsenewenger wrote:This model has been particularly successful with IPL in India.
It isn't the same thing though. Matches kick-off at the same time and substanial revenue is made out of selling highlight packages and delayed telecasts.
When every match is aired live on TV is when availability of free streaming has little impact on television viewership.
Manchester United is the guy who cheats in exams and gets five minutes extra to finish.
Manchester City is a spoiled child who spends money on expensive books but is never interested in reading them.
Chelsea is a boy who does ok and blames his teachers, then his family finds a new teacher for him every year.
Arsenal is a boy who’s used to be top of the class but dropped down because he had to sell his books due to financial problems. He tries hard but fails to come out on top.
Tottenham is a girl who gets decent marks on one specific subject. She always finishes behind Arsenal.
Everton is the quiet kid that always manages to do quite well but no one really cares because she comes from a rough area and everyone knows she will never really amount to anything.
Liverpool is a child who is very proud of the academic achievements of his grandfather.
West Brom is the guy that keeps getting expelled and then coming back.
Swansea City is the girl that likes to look good but never gets anywhere in life.
West Ham United have got that dick of a dad who thinks he’s brilliant.
Norwich City is the weird kid who has an extra finger.
Fulham is the kid everyone forgets about.
Stoke is the stupid violent kid that everyone hates.
Southampton is the kid that got moved up two sets.
Aston Villa is a boy who seems to have been there forever.
Newcastle United is the French exchange student.
Sunderland is that kid nobody can understand
Wigan Athletic is the guy that falls asleep for pretty much all the year apart from the last few weeks and scrapes through with a pass, until this year.
Reading is the kid that got put forward a year but it was too early for him.
Queens Park Rangers is the rich girl who thinks she’s clever, she’s not.
Next years newcomers...
Cardiff is the farmer that’s a little too into his animals.Hull is the rough girl that nobody ever wants to go and visit.
Crystal palace is the girl with the really fit mates in the cheerleading club.
Rohit wrote:Iloveyouarsenewenger wrote:This model has been particularly successful with IPL in India.
It isn't the same thing though. Matches kick-off at the same time and substanial revenue is made out of selling highlight packages and delayed telecasts.
When every match is aired live on TV is when availability of free streaming has little impact on television viewership.
They should provide streams directly from the channels they've sold the TV rights to and make the availability based on geography, then. So that they won't have to show any games that are not being shown on TV.
In any case, illegal streams also come up when the games are telecasted. (though often from channels available at different countries)
Even if they make all games available on the internet, I'm not sure, it is really going to eat into the revenue all that much. In countries where some matches are not available at any channel live, there is a reason why they're not available live. I am not sure how much revenue the likes of ESPN-Star Sports in India make from their repeat telecast of games like Everton vs Norwich. This viewership will again not be affected by live internet streaming because most of these people would be watching games of the bigger sides live.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9 days later
Liverpool signs players, players lean on stuff in photoshoots. For some reason some of them are hilarious to me:
After the lean-on photoshoot, this is the next thing Liverpool new signings do :
And it all ends with ...
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."
The SSN crew don't know what to do.
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.
qs! wrote:
Brilliant!
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.
Just got a chance to watch that. Fucking nails it doesn't he.
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.
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.
If he was running for election in London perhaps, but do you think Dobby would give a shit what Chelsea fans think?
Unknown oligarch not owning a PL club: disappears with little incident like many of Putin's undesirables.
Abramovich: massive international contretemps that runs as front and back page news in all the big broadsheets and tabloids for months.
You be the judge.
Do you think Dobby reads the Star?
Putin is almost absurdly image conscious. I guarantee he's acutely aware of what is said about him in the press.
Edit: wait, scrap that "almost".
Relatedly, an analysis of Putin's statement on Edward Snowden:
He's shown himself to be ruthless when perusing his enemies, a few thousand chavs are not going to stop him
I guess if you earn a reputation for ruthlessness by choosing opponents you can be certain to categorically destroy, then people escape your influence by calling that certainty into question.
Same game Usmanovs playing.
Why focus on investing in soccer teams then? And why just in England? Are the rules for ownership more lax over there than in other countries, and against other sports? I don't get it much either, or fully buy the political protection angle. Who truly knows why rich folk spend their money on whatever they choose to spend it on?
- high profile
- Chelsea was available
- The rules are/were more lax (and chelsea were available)
Abramovich clearly had interest in establishing his identity outside of Russia. Could be that he likes football, I think he loves it, but that doesn't nullify other vested interests.
He seems to genuinely to enjoy the game unlike some.....
Isn't he just doing what we all would if we had a spare couple of billion?
Haha, Matthew Syed just got his last gig on Sky.