I wrote my first complaint to Fulham in the entirety of my time supporting the club yesterday and got this corporate response back...
Dear *****
Thank you for email concerning the fulhamfctv subscription. Please allow me to respond and mention why this service has been implemented.
Since our relegation to the Championship, we have understood the importance of ensuring that fans have access to match footage because it is not so widely available as it had been in the Premier League. Therefore the Club took the decision to air them free, even though they came at a significant cost to us from the Football League.
As you may be aware the League is responsible for a centralised deal that puts all content behind a paywall on uniform designed club sites known as EFLDigital. Other club charges vary but are, on average, significantly more each month. The league protects the value of this deal by charging the clubs that are not signed up to it, to air their own footage on their own platforms. Therefore for two seasons Fulham has paid a considerable amount to the league, so that our fans could benefit from free content.
As I'm sure you can understand, that's simply not a sustainable model and we are, therefore, compelled to have a subscription service of our own. We will add value to this by ensuring that we create excellent content that fans will want to see, and produce features that are interesting and insightful. To add as much value to those subscribing as possible, our audio match commentary is included in the subscription. We will however continue to offer fans an alternative for free with the live match centre and social media updates.
The subscription service is in line with the many clubs in the league which are signed up to the EFLDigital platform, which is managed centrally. To protect this deal the League places significant restrictions on clubs that do not participate, including the broadcast of all match highlights and live commentary.
Therefore these had to appear behind a paywall or the Club would have been fined a significant amount by the League. We will still have to pay a percentage of the subscription fee to the league at the end of the season, so to continue subsidising this service - which we have since relegation – was no longer an option for us. Premier League clubs are able to offer free content, because there is no centralised deal and therefore no restrictions other than live broadcasts.
I wanted to assure you that your comments have been noted, and they will be discussed.
Kind regards
Carmelo
No mention of the actual costs or any alternative avenues being explored which I'm dissapointed in. All in all whilst logic is there, it's still doesn't justify jeopardising the relationship fans are entitled to with the club through it's online content. It shouldn't be a subscription service. The last resort (which shouldn't ever be considered). Shameful. That said EFLdigital and all the fees and fines that are incurred if not subscriped is daylight robbery so there is significant causation.
You (and others) may find it 'shameful'.
I (and, possibly, others) find it polite, friendly, logical and reasonable.
The part I don't understand is the sustainable model comment. I'm not the greatest at maths but even if we had 20,000 fans signed up to this (which will never happen) at £3 per month that's £60,000 per month over 12 months is £720,000.
Now if those figures are vital for becoming a 'sustainable model' then why did the club allow Kit Symons to mismanage Hyndman and watch both his and Dembele contracts run down and lose them for nothing. Combined theu were potentially a 10million package especially after the season Dembele had. There's the key to becoming sustainable.
Signing players like Matilla and Bodurov for transfer fees which added together must surely make more than the annual fee of the unrealistic £720000 I suggested. Neither hardly played, still had to be paid a weekly wage and both were eventually payed off to terminate their contracts resulting in a loss all round. Sustainable?
I've actually signed up to the TV thing and it's not bad for £3 quid but I wish the club were more honest when it comes to the sustainable nonsense.
Mitroglou anyone?
At least you got a polite reply I guess
I don't see how it's shameful that the club are charging us for something that they would be fined for providing us for free, on top of the actual costs of the content that they would have to pay. If anything is shameful it's fans feeling like that is something they're "entitled to" for free, especially now with the knowledge that in getting it for free the club would get fined.
Quote from: Statto on October 20, 2016, 07:12:43 PM
It says we have to pay "a percentage" (ie not the whole amount) of the subscription fees to the football league
so that tells us the club is charging more than it needs to, ie the subs not only cover the football league charge, but also generate a small profit on top of that for the club
and if we were to keep offering it for free, i can't believe the fine levied by the football league would be any more than that percentage they take now we charge a fee for it
so whichever way you dice it, this exercise is all about saving/generating a few hundred grand for the club... not much
This has got Casper Stylsvig, and Khan being a tightwad, written all over it
If you ignore production costs, sure.
Quote from: dannyboi-ffc on October 20, 2016, 07:05:27 PM
The part I don't understand is the sustainable model comment. I'm not the greatest at maths but even if we had 20,000 fans signed up to this (which will never happen) at £3 per month that's £60,000 per month over 12 months is £720,000.
Now if those figures are vital for becoming a 'sustainable model' then why did the club allow Kit Symons to mismanage Hyndman and watch both his and Dembele contracts run down and lose them for nothing. Combined theu were potentially a 10million package especially after the season Dembele had. There's the key to becoming sustainable.
Signing players like Matilla and Bodurov for transfer fees which added together must surely make more than the annual fee of the unrealistic £720000 I suggested. Neither hardly played, still had to be paid a weekly wage and both were eventually payed off to terminate their contracts resulting in a loss all round. Sustainable?
I've actually signed up to the TV thing and it's not bad for £3 quid but I wish the club were more honest when it comes to the sustainable nonsense.
Mitroglou anyone?
At least you got a polite reply I guess
Very well said. My thoughts exactly about this subscription service
Quote from: cmg on October 20, 2016, 06:47:33 PM
You (and others) may find it 'shameful'.
I (and, possibly, others) find it polite, friendly, logical and reasonable.
I count among the latter group. Though I do understand why some are upset....especially those who've pointed out that this is not an insignificant sum for those on a budget. I hope that they find a means toward the end of getting this content for themselves.
£3-00 a month ,that's ok by me.
I don't feel strongly about this. Nevertheless.... a free commentary service is paying for people to listen in, at the same time as those present are paying out. How does "entitlement" come into that?
I am happy to pay the £3.00.
I suspect that, for the majority, it is just the equivalent of one less pint of beer per month. For those on very restricted incomes, it might just be "the last straw" in financial terms and I accept that, too.
For some, it's just the principle that counts . . . but I feel that it's just not worth the aggro to continue making such a big fuss.
Quote from: Fulham1959 on October 20, 2016, 07:52:06 PM
I am happy to pay the £3.00.
I suspect that, for the majority, it is just the equivalent of one less pint of beer per month. For those on very restricted incomes, it might just be "the last straw" in financial terms and I accept that, too.
For some, it's just the principle that counts . . . but I feel that it's just not worth the aggro to continue making such a big fuss.
It is equivalent to 6 pints of beer at Supermarket special offers and 20% of a litre of gin, well worth the sacrifice, I will just cut down the measure of tonic in future!
Quote from: Statto on October 20, 2016, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: The Road Less Travelled on October 20, 2016, 07:15:45 PM
Quote from: Statto on October 20, 2016, 07:12:43 PM
It says we have to pay "a percentage" (ie not the whole amount) of the subscription fees to the football league
so that tells us the club is charging more than it needs to, ie the subs not only cover the football league charge, but also generate a small profit on top of that for the club
and if we were to keep offering it for free, i can't believe the fine levied by the football league would be any more than that percentage they take now we charge a fee for it
so whichever way you dice it, this exercise is all about saving/generating a few hundred grand for the club... not much
This has got Casper Stylsvig, and Khan being a tightwad, written all over it
If you ignore production costs, sure.
profit made or loss avoided... makes no difference. that's why i said saving/generating. either way it's about delivering an economic benefit to the club, nothing more. and as danny says it's a relatively small economic benefit at that.
And that's a problem? Considering the club have had an embargo recently for financial issues is it really worth criticising them for a) not wanting to be fined for something and b) charging a customer for something? If the club provided a service to someone else or hired out a suite to someone and it only amounted to a couple of hundred grand extra income, would you really expect them to decide against charging them cos it's not that much in the grand scheme of things?
If the club only has to pay a quid for every subscription to the EFL we'll still effectively be in credit until the end of this season considering we had the same service (that FFC had been paying for for us) for free for the last two years.
In fact, if the ONLY improvement this season to the last two is the new co-commentator instead of Sean Davis then it's worth paying £3 a month for.
'In fact, if the ONLY improvement this season to the last two is the new co-commentator instead of Sean Davis then it's worth paying £3 a month for.'
The greater 'professionalism' of the commentary was a move in preparation for this subscription service maybe.
Whatever, I do think Jamie works very well with GJ and enhances the commentary - not that I thought Jim ever did anything less than an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances anyway, but I'm sure he appreciates the help, especially at away games.
I would not have thought the club would tell you or us the cost
Everyone has their hand out these days wanting money for this, money for that.
As someone has said though, you pay £30+ to watch a game at the Cottage, but you can listen to it online for nothing! If Fulham started to charge for this I would be upset, but £3 is not just to watch the high-lights, there are extra interviews and substance. Sky show the limited high-lights for free, also, there are video's for free on 'Youtube', so they are out there.
It is a shame that the club feels they have to charge, but at least any profit is not going to Shareholders!
COYW
Quote from: davew on October 20, 2016, 08:03:16 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on October 20, 2016, 07:52:06 PM
I am happy to pay the £3.00.
I suspect that, for the majority, it is just the equivalent of one less pint of beer per month. For those on very restricted incomes, it might just be "the last straw" in financial terms and I accept that, too.
For some, it's just the principle that counts . . . but I feel that it's just not worth the aggro to continue making such a big fuss.
It is equivalent to 6 pints of beer at Supermarket special offers and 20% of a litre of gin, well worth the sacrifice, I will just cut down the measure of tonic in future!
Ah Dave, ever the frugal one. So next time they raise the rate you just have to skip the tonic all together. :dft011:
Another money grabbing device to go alongside the overpriced food , ticket prices, etc, etc
I am glad to say that the £3 is not a major issue to me , but as a long time. loyal. season ticket holder ( like many of you ), I feel that a free service should be just that, especially to season ticket holders.
It's fait accompli, is it not time to move on?
Quote from: love4ffc on October 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM
Quote from: davew on October 20, 2016, 08:03:16 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on October 20, 2016, 07:52:06 PM
I am happy to pay the £3.00.
I suspect that, for the majority, it is just the equivalent of one less pint of beer per month. For those on very restricted incomes, it might just be "the last straw" in financial terms and I accept that, too.
For some, it's just the principle that counts . . . but I feel that it's just not worth the aggro to continue making such a big fuss.
It is equivalent to 6 pints of beer at Supermarket special offers and 20% of a litre of gin, well worth the sacrifice, I will just cut down the measure of tonic in future!
Ah Dave, ever the frugal one. So next time they raise the rate you just have to skip the tonic all together. :dft011:
That sounds like a good plan, ice costs nothing to replace the tonic!
Quote from: Black and White Blood on October 20, 2016, 08:58:03 PM
Another money grabbing device to go alongside the overpriced food , ticket prices, etc, etc
I am glad to say that the £3 is not a major issue to me , but as a long time. loyal. season ticket holder ( like many of you ), I feel that a free service should be just that, especially to season ticket holders.
I wonder what percentage of season ticket holders actually used the free service before? I have to agree that if you are a season ticket holder then I do believe the service should be free!!
Quote from: davew on October 20, 2016, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: Black and White Blood on October 20, 2016, 08:58:03 PM
Another money grabbing device to go alongside the overpriced food , ticket prices, etc, etc
I am glad to say that the £3 is not a major issue to me , but as a long time. loyal. season ticket holder ( like many of you ), I feel that a free service should be just that, especially to season ticket holders.
I wonder what percentage of season ticket holders actually used the free service before? I have to agree that if you are a season ticket holder then I do believe the service should be free!!
Well said Dave, I agre that the service should be free to season ticket holders, although I'm sure the club would slightly increase the price of a season ticket... Don't think there's much choice really.
Anyway, I wish this debate would now stop as it's becoming rediculous...
Either you want to see what's on offer on the minimum charge site or you don't!
If you don't, then don't pay and don't complain, surely?
Yeah let's move on, far more important things to consider e.g. play offs!!
I know I'm thick, but if the club were subsidising it before without getting fined - why can't they subsidies it for the future...... To me it's all smoke and mirrors and echoes this sustainability model that Mr Khant is always banging on about
I wonder if the Club could take paid ads. Help keep the price down.
As per managing or mis-managing players. We know nothing about what occurred. I can't believe everyone at the Club is incompetent. I doubt we were able to offer what Villa or Celtic could.
Khan has always stated his aim is to make the Club sustainable. Which I guess means affordable deals and wages and fans having to pay for services.
Quote from: General on October 20, 2016, 06:36:34 PM
I wrote my first complaint to Fulham in the entirety of my time supporting the club yesterday and got this corporate response back...
Dear *****
Thank you for email concerning the fulhamfctv subscription. Please allow me to respond and mention why this service has been implemented.
Since our relegation to the Championship, we have understood the importance of ensuring that fans have access to match footage because it is not so widely available as it had been in the Premier League. Therefore the Club took the decision to air them free, even though they came at a significant cost to us from the Football League.
As you may be aware the League is responsible for a centralised deal that puts all content behind a paywall on uniform designed club sites known as EFLDigital. Other club charges vary but are, on average, significantly more each month. The league protects the value of this deal by charging the clubs that are not signed up to it, to air their own footage on their own platforms. Therefore for two seasons Fulham has paid a considerable amount to the league, so that our fans could benefit from free content.
As I'm sure you can understand, that's simply not a sustainable model and we are, therefore, compelled to have a subscription service of our own. We will add value to this by ensuring that we create excellent content that fans will want to see, and produce features that are interesting and insightful. To add as much value to those subscribing as possible, our audio match commentary is included in the subscription. We will however continue to offer fans an alternative for free with the live match centre and social media updates.
The subscription service is in line with the many clubs in the league which are signed up to the EFLDigital platform, which is managed centrally. To protect this deal the League places significant restrictions on clubs that do not participate, including the broadcast of all match highlights and live commentary.
Therefore these had to appear behind a paywall or the Club would have been fined a significant amount by the League. We will still have to pay a percentage of the subscription fee to the league at the end of the season, so to continue subsidising this service - which we have since relegation – was no longer an option for us. Premier League clubs are able to offer free content, because there is no centralised deal and therefore no restrictions other than live broadcasts.
I wanted to assure you that your comments have been noted, and they will be discussed.
Kind regards
Carmelo
No mention of the actual costs or any alternative avenues being explored which I'm dissapointed in. All in all whilst logic is there, it's still doesn't justify jeopardising the relationship fans are entitled to with the club through it's online content. It shouldn't be a subscription service. The last resort (which shouldn't ever be considered). Shameful. That said EFLdigital and all the fees and fines that are incurred if not subscriped is daylight robbery so there is significant causation.
You felt the need to blank out your name but was happy to name the person at the club who took the time to reply.
My take on it all is Fulham dont have much option to charge, what they should of done in the first place is let fans know the full reasons why they were charging, maybe the fans might of understood better
It wasn't out fault Guv. We waz ordered do to it. We are only following orders.
It wouldn't be seen as unreasonable if it were a new service, it's not expensive but what grates a little is that it's been free up to now.
Long before there were videos and interviews on the website we could call into the "clubline" premium rate number. That cost - most of our employers, probably.
Roger beat me to it. The website is just another cost centre to the business and has to be paid for somehow. I am out at the moment but need to ask....does it offer exactly the same as it did when free? Living abroad, I listened to GJ. Apart from that I never looked at it. I will keep checking FoF to get opinions if/when I intend to sign up.
Anyone care to answer?
Quote from: jarv on October 21, 2016, 01:06:14 PM
Roger beat me to it. The website is just another cost centre to the business and has to be paid for somehow. I am out at the moment but need to ask....does it offer exactly the same as it did when free? Living abroad, I listened to GJ. Apart from that I never looked at it. I will keep checking FoF to get opinions if/when I intend to sign up.
Anyone care to answer?
Pre and most match press conferences, highlights, full 90 min replay, player interviews, Cottage Cam atm
I have caved in after my principled stand of all of two weeks against corporate greed etc etc. One thing I forgot to check was whether the subscription runs for 12 months or for just the season. Does anyone know?
Quote from: Neil D on October 21, 2016, 01:40:20 PM
I have caved in after my principled stand of all of two weeks against corporate greed etc etc. One thing I forgot to check was whether the subscription runs for 12 months or for just the season. Does anyone know?
Like a gullible sap, I had assumed that this introductory offer of £2 a month lasted for the entire initial subscription - not just a miserable month. That isn't made clear or have I missed it?
I received the exact same message when I emailed the club as well. So I think this may just be a template they use to send to anyone that asks about it.
I did however get a personalised response when I wrote back and even had Sarah CC'd into the email, so hopefully they will consider some of my points.
I can answer my first question - it's a monthly subscription so the 12 month issue doesn't apply.
The EFL procured the services of NeuLion and Realise, two companies with experience in on-line video production, the former handling American sport, NFL, NBA, and UFC, and experienced in the monetisation of on-line sport. Hence the EFL has a clear responsibility via these contracts to impose charges to those watching. Realise seem to be the arm providing the design and development of club media.
What is interesting in the Fulham FC response is that the Club say they would have been fined if they hadn't imposed the paywall and still carried match highlights and commentaries. League rules 74 through 78 seem to impose very tight control over TV match material, post match interviews, press conferences and broadcast agreements with a passage that means no Club may breach the rules without written consent by the EFL. I am not a lawyer and I am unable to say whether the rules clearly state a club could be, would be, fined if in breach of the League rules because there are many provisos written into what is clearly a scheme and contractual obligation on the EFL and its two partners to make money out of the EFL football coverage on the Internet. Well over one hundred companies tendered for this contract which gives you some idea of how lucrative it was and is.
In summary it would seem the EFL are largely responsible for having entered into a purely money making scheme, and Fulham FC have simply followed the logic of that exercise but with a little more empathy with their fans. By way of apology I'd like to take back what I have previously said about FulhamFCTV VFM and what I described as a miserly charge since Fulham seem to have charged a minimal fee for what is poorly proscribed contract the EFL have entered into. The paywall could have been much, much larger.
Fulham seem to have done their best with a pretty poor job and we should all worry as to what is happening to our game and how the EFL are manipulating when they should be facilitating.
Sky show the limited high-lights for free, also, there are video's for free on 'Youtube', so they are out there.
Since when is a Sky subscription or Internet access free.?
Quote from: grandad on October 21, 2016, 04:22:00 PM
Sky show the limited high-lights for free, also, there are video's for free on 'Youtube', so they are out there.
Since when is a Sky subscription or Internet access free.?
The highlights are on the SKY website - you don't have to subscribe.
