iFollow

[Walsh]

Fulham are one of the only clubs to drop out of the iFollow deal.

Disappointed to say the least.

[westcliff white]

maybe there was no income stream for the club or not enough o make it worth while

[PokerMatt]

Is this official news?

[dannyboi-ffc]

What is ifollow?

[jj____]

I believe they can use their own live streaming system, the club just has to pay for it.  Also how would this come into play with other clubs?  Would their fans not be able to watch if they were playing us? 

[westcliff white]

iFollow is the new streaming from the EFL for people living abroad, £110 per year and get to see the games live, but I am not sure what the clubs get from it, which is why I said maybe that's why the club pulled out, if they have as I have not seen that mentioned anywhere

[Nero]

iFollow is the new streaming from the EFL for people living abroad, £110 per year and get to see the games live, but I am not sure what the clubs get from it, which is why I said maybe that's why the club pulled out, if they have as I have not seen that mentioned anywhere

what would they get exposure, chance to attach more fans, leading to larger sponsorship deals and shirt sales. There's a reason why clubs go touring the world

[westcliff white]

iFollow is the new streaming from the EFL for people living abroad, £110 per year and get to see the games live, but I am not sure what the clubs get from it, which is why I said maybe that's why the club pulled out, if they have as I have not seen that mentioned anywhere

what would they get exposure, chance to attach more fans, leading to larger sponsorship deals and shirt sales. There's a reason why clubs go touring the world

I get that I really do was just offering a prospective reason.

I would say we don't do tours but small trading camps and games there, which are not really tours like we used to do round Ireland etc.

Problem for all EFL teams, and why I welcome this iFollow, is that the larger teams are the ones that attract foreign fans. iFollow as much as it is a good idea will primarily be bought by EFL team fans living abroad, as premier gamrs are generally shown abroad on TV when they kick off on Saturdays

[Fulhamerica23]

They can probably make more offering it themselves than using a third party. I'd be shocked if Fulham didn't offer their own alternative.

[Hong Kong Fulham fan]

Found this



The 148 games selected for traditional TV coverage outside of the regular Saturday 3pm slot will not be included as part of the deal.

To date, 61 of the 72 EFL clubs have signed up to be part of the iFollow service, while Fulham, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Aston Villa, Leeds United, Bristol City, Birmingham City, Queens Park Rangers, Derby County, Charlton Athletic and Accrington Stanley have declined the opportunity and will instead be able to launch their own independent services.

[aaronmcguigan]

It's all the clubs officially linked to the EFL platform via the previous PLAYER set up. We have our peen fulham tailored website online and digital offering and such incur our own costs but also reap all the rewards

[Walsh]

It's all the clubs officially linked to the EFL platform via the previous PLAYER set up. We have our peen fulham tailored website online and digital offering and such incur our own costs but also reap all the rewards

"reap all the rewards" but you can't watch the games live.... That's what fans are into, watching the games live not 24 hours later.

[westcliff white]

It's all the clubs officially linked to the EFL platform via the previous PLAYER set up. We have our peen fulham tailored website online and digital offering and such incur our own costs but also reap all the rewards

"reap all the rewards" but you can't watch the games live.... That's what fans are into, watching the games live not 24 hours later.

same as those who cant get to game sin the uk!!!

however as I understand things, Clubs are allowed to now broadcast games outside of the UK live as per the iFollow thing, so perhaps the club will do so if there is a revenue stream that makes it worth while

[Fulhamerica23]

It's all the clubs officially linked to the EFL platform via the previous PLAYER set up. We have our peen fulham tailored website online and digital offering and such incur our own costs but also reap all the rewards

"reap all the rewards" but you can't watch the games live.... That's what fans are into, watching the games live not 24 hours later.

same as those who cant get to game sin the uk!!!

however as I understand things, Clubs are allowed to now broadcast games outside of the UK live as per the iFollow thing, so perhaps the club will do so if there is a revenue stream that makes it worth while

Exactly. Pretty sure the international rights have ended as of last campaign. By the looks of it, the league has negotiated with broadcast partners to allow the teams to negotiate the rights to their games if not shown on network (for instance, BEIN which the games have been on in America).

[joemole]

I am a user of FulhamTV, and I know they show the full game the next day. But I always listen to the GJ broadcast live, so the next day video isn'tthe same as watching it live. I would be very disappointed and really pissed off at FFC if they have a chance to let their supporters watch the game live and not provide the service.

[Fulhamerica23]

I am a user of FulhamTV, and I know they show the full game the next day. But I always listen to the GJ broadcast live, so the next day video isn'tthe same as watching it live. I would be very disappointed and really pissed off at FFC if they have a chance to let their supporters watch the game live and not provide the service.

All signs point to marrying the GJ audio with live stream. Big question is: what is it cost.

[toshes mate]

I am guessing that the iFollow scheme is not living up to its pre-release hype, and that is why teams are deciding to move aside.  It seems like there are lots of failures and not too many successes in the streaming business.

There is a lot of money available to the EFL via the right system but we shouldn't forget the muscle Sky have over what happens to 'live' game streaming.  I think the EFL lack the ability to make intelligent choices about a subscription system for fans who cannot get to 'live' games and would be prepared to pay reasonable sums for the privilege, and much of that is being massaged by Sky's big interest in what goes on.   The EFL needs to get a new team of advisers.

[westcliff white]

I am a user of FulhamTV, and I know they show the full game the next day. But I always listen to the GJ broadcast live, so the next day video isn'tthe same as watching it live. I would be very disappointed and really pissed off at FFC if they have a chance to let their supporters watch the game live and not provide the service.

You do relapse it is for people living abroad and th service won't work in the U.K. Unless you use an illegal method? Something that the authorities can now track and detect apparently.

The service, if FFC do it, has to be a viable revenue stream as otherwise there is no point, the club would be losing money, and that just wouldn't make sense. Hopefully they have plans, but if not it will be just the same as living in the U.K. And if abroad what everyone is used to already.

[grandad]

I was not intending to subscribe anyway. If the quality of the stream is anything like other streams it would not be watchable. As I live in the countryside here in Spain I do not have a landline for my internet. I have to us a relay aerial signal for my home phone & internet service, which does not have a very good download capability. It is fine for normal internet use but poor for anything requiring a wider bandwidth.

[toshes mate]

The service, if FFC do it, has to be a viable revenue stream as otherwise there is no point

[my italics] That is exactly the point, WW, and it is the reason so many clubs appear disenchanted with what the EFL have offered up so far.  Fulham cannot be profiting from FFCTV as it stands but merely partially covering the costs but then I assume the EFL are also subsidising the whole scheme as it stands. 

What is at issue is how you cater for fans who simply cannot physically get to games but would pay to see them 'live' if they were available.  Sky have a big interest in that via their contract with the EFL and it seems to me that there is something of a protection game being fought.  Why not have a system where any football supporter can access a game live, wherever they are, if they are willing to pay a hefty subscription for it?  The argument that it would damage live audiences is actually semantic unless it is tried and tested and clubs then consulted as to their results - gate receipts plus TV revenue plus stream revenue.  If revenues are down then the whole thing can be shelved, but if they are up then the market can carefully play with subscription values until the revenues are maximised.   It just needs to be tried, tested, and rejigged to provide best income to professional football via whatever channels there may be.   Strangely enough it may actually increase live gate money via new supporters at grounds.

My own view is that the TV contracts stand in the way of a better service for ALL fans and that is why it is proving so difficult to change things for the better.