iFollow

[Fulhamerica23]

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.   

I like the way the NFL did it here in the US. If you're in the television market, the game will be on your local station. If the stadium doesn't sell 85% of tickets within 72 hours of kickoff, the game would be blacked out in the local market and you couldn't watch. They lifted the policy in 2015, and attendance only fell 0.5 percent. But say you're a Jacksonville Jaguars fan in California. You can buy a package that allows you to watch every game that's not on national TV. It's expensive, but it's a reason one of the major cable providers (DirectTV) still gets business. It's exclusive to them.

I think you could do something similar with streaming soccer inside the UK. You'd have to find a fair attendance % to judge when the blackout locally occurs, but there is no reason Americans are able to watch more football than those in the UK on the TV. EVERY EPL game is shown here. Every week. Every game is available.

[westcliff white]

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.   

I like the way the NFL did it here in the US. If you're in the television market, the game will be on your local station. If the stadium doesn't sell 85% of tickets within 72 hours of kickoff, the game would be blacked out in the local market and you couldn't watch. They lifted the policy in 2015, and attendance only fell 0.5 percent. But say you're a Jacksonville Jaguars fan in California. You can buy a package that allows you to watch every game that's not on national TV. It's expensive, but it's a reason one of the major cable providers (DirectTV) still gets business. It's exclusive to them.

I think you could do something similar with streaming soccer inside the UK. You'd have to find a fair attendance % to judge when the blackout locally occurs, but there is no reason Americans are able to watch more football than those in the UK on the TV. EVERY EPL game is shown here. Every week. Every game is available.

The difference is that you can show global games live as they kick off in the states if you pay for the package, now as I understand the tiles no game in the uk can be shown live on Saturday at 3pm, so the service is just for thos living abroad. If that number us sufficent then the club will do it if not then they won't. No point wasting cash

[Fulhamerica23]

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.   

I like the way the NFL did it here in the US. If you're in the television market, the game will be on your local station. If the stadium doesn't sell 85% of tickets within 72 hours of kickoff, the game would be blacked out in the local market and you couldn't watch. They lifted the policy in 2015, and attendance only fell 0.5 percent. But say you're a Jacksonville Jaguars fan in California. You can buy a package that allows you to watch every game that's not on national TV. It's expensive, but it's a reason one of the major cable providers (DirectTV) still gets business. It's exclusive to them.

I think you could do something similar with streaming soccer inside the UK. You'd have to find a fair attendance % to judge when the blackout locally occurs, but there is no reason Americans are able to watch more football than those in the UK on the TV. EVERY EPL game is shown here. Every week. Every game is available.

The difference is that you can show global games live as they kick off in the states if you pay for the package, now as I understand the tiles no game in the uk can be shown live on Saturday at 3pm, so the service is just for thos living abroad. If that number us sufficent then the club will do it if not then they won't. No point wasting cash

Correct. The rule of not showing anything live at 3pm is stupid, imo. I get that it's to get people into the stadiums, but then, even if the game is at Craven Cottage only 25k get to see it? Obviously, that's limited distribution. Surely, more than 25k on a given day in UK want to watch a Fulham match, not counting the opponents and neutrals as well.

There is no reason for games not to be shown nation wide. The folks in America still buy TV subscriptions is to get their NFL, college football, basketball, baseball, hockey, ect. Not sure what the prices/demand in UK is on television and their viewing habits, but live sports are seemingly the one and only thing that is keeping cable alive in the US right now.

[westcliff white]

Personally I don't have an issue with them not being shown live n saturdays at 3pm, the extra revenue from merchandise and food sales are vital to some smaller clubs making the games on TV would mean smaller gates and possibly a loss of revenue.

It hasn't been broken so doesn't need fixing in my opinion. The possibility of doing for those abroad and creating an extra revenue stream for clubs should be applauded, but should only be done by the clubs if they can increase revenue, not if is at a cost to them.

I am sue Fulham are looking at something

[toshes mate]

Far be it for me to say but the rule about 3pm (and live football) originated at a time when ALL games were scheduled to be played at 3pm Saturday except for Bank Holiday fixtures.  That's no longer the case and so the rule is really irrelevant for many supporters who may once have organised their lives around 3pm every week or every other week.  It also means there is a large audience who are being denied access to games simply because of rescheduling.   In my opinion football needs to release the shackles and regain control from the corporate media, but it will not do so as long as it is remains oblivious to all the other possibilities.

[westcliff white]

Your correct toshes mate, even more so for the premier league. However, most EFL games are 3 o'clock in Saturday's and it is thise that in the U.K. at least that will fall foul of the 3pm thing. Be thatvright it wrong, if they did release the 3pm slots I. Saturday it would go even more I. The media way and smaller clubs in league one and two could really suffer

[toshes mate]

Agree, WW, that we certainly don't want to play into media hands any further but my point is really directed at 'monopoly enterprise' whereby contracts can interfere with genuine supporter interests.  If football wants to recover sanity then it must become truly supporter conscious and act without inviting greedy middlemen to interfere where they are not needed. 

[joemole]

Received an Email from FFC in response to mine regarding why we are not on iFollow. Was told that FFC could not sign up because it had been proposed when we were in the Premier League, and they are not included. They went on to say that they would be offering a similar program through Fulham TV. Anyone have any more info?

[joemole]

Here is the actual Email:
Dear Joseph

Thank you for getting in touch.

As Fulham Football Club is not part of the EFL Digital platform, we are unable to provide overseas supporters with the iFollow service for the 2017/18. The EFL Digital platform service was set up a few years ago whilst the Club was in the Premier League.

We do have our own fulhamfctv platform and we are in the process of investigating the possibility of offering this product through our existing digital offering, which would allow subscribers overseas to watch Fulham matches during the regular league campaign, providing the fixture has not been selected by the EFL's overseas broadcast partners to broadcast live.

This service won't be available to supporters in the UK and Ireland due to TV rights, however fans will still have access to live audio commentary and highlights packages.

Please keep an eye on the website www.fulhamfc.com in the coming months where we hope to announce further information.

Kind regards

Carmelo

[aaronmcguigan]

Received an Email from FFC in response to mine regarding why we are not on iFollow. Was told that FFC could not sign up because it had been proposed when we were in the Premier League, and they are not included. They went on to say that they would be offering a similar program through Fulham TV. Anyone have any more info?

Eh we got relegated same time as Cardiff and Norwich. 

https://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/news/2017/june/1718-fixtures-to-be-streamed-worldwide-with-ifollow-cardiff-city/

https://www.canaries.co.uk/iFollow/iFollow-Norwich/

[aaronmcguigan]

On a side note, does Carmelo have Sarah's job now?

[westcliff white]

Received an Email from FFC in response to mine regarding why we are not on iFollow. Was told that FFC could not sign up because it had been proposed when we were in the Premier League, and they are not included. They went on to say that they would be offering a similar program through Fulham TV. Anyone have any more info?

Eh we got relegated same time as Cardiff and Norwich. 

https://www.cardiffcityfc.co.uk/news/2017/june/1718-fixtures-to-be-streamed-worldwide-with-ifollow-cardiff-city/

https://www.canaries.co.uk/iFollow/iFollow-Norwich/

As they came up, and in Norwich's case back up, after us maybe it was voted on in the in between years?