For those outside of the U.K., this is a phenomenal service so long as it works! We can stream every home and away game next year!
http://worldsoccertalk.com/2017/05/09/efl-ifollow-faq-need-know-football-leagues-new-streaming-service/ (http://worldsoccertalk.com/2017/05/09/efl-ifollow-faq-need-know-football-leagues-new-streaming-service/)
Excellent news!
Yes please.
Now I just need to convince the boss... 067.gif
Gawd. More sleepless Saturday nights / Sunday mornings
A welcome improvement in coverage with promises of more to come, but people should make a note of the 'dissenting' clubs listed in the article which have their own digital structure and streaming brand name. I can see this taking while to get to the point where subscription football is available to anyone.
And for those of us who are UK based, we can use VPN!
There is an interesting article on the cityam.com site about why Derby County's owner, Mel Morris, is railing against the EFL's 'iFollow' streaming agreement upon which this thread is based and involving the dissenting clubs mentioned above. The argument is that 'live' PL games attract audiences that are averaging about three times the audience watching EFL games live and yet the lowest placed PL club will receive £100m in revenue as compared to an average Championship club receiving £6.3m totally out of step with the audience figures to the power of five. Morris wants EFL to renegotiate the contract to be more reflective of the 'value' of live football to the broadcasting contract winner.
Although this sounds promising from the perspective of more money shifting from the PL to the lower leagues, there is a risk that any changes will still benefit clubs with a larger 'live' following whilst hurting those with less 'live' supporters, as well as compounding the problem that it is advertising revenue that is driving the whole vehicle along. What is very apparent from the article is the naivety of the football authorities when it comes to selling the product, but I guess we all knew that already.
My personal view is that the EFL would do better by having all games available to stream globally with a realistic (and expensive) annual subscription cost to watch any game but with PPV as an option on matchdays. PPV subscriptions costs at the moment are up to £20 per event and this would seem to reflect the maximum amount PPV should be set at. The benefit to all clubs is the proportion of the subscription they would receive from the audience, additional revenue added to the cost the broadcaster would have to pay for the right to stream.
It is therefore a much 'dirtier' problem than the press release by the EFL suggests.
Quote from: toshes mate on May 20, 2017, 10:44:48 AM
There is an interesting article on the cityam.com site about why Derby County's owner, Mel Morris, is railing against the EFL's 'iFollow' streaming agreement upon which this thread is based and involving the dissenting clubs mentioned above. The argument is that 'live' PL games attract audiences that are averaging about three times the audience watching EFL games live and yet the lowest placed PL club will receive £100m in revenue as compared to an average Championship club receiving £6.3m totally out of step with the audience figures to the power of five. Morris wants EFL to renegotiate the contract to be more reflective of the 'value' of live football to the broadcasting contract winner.
Although this sounds promising from the perspective of more money shifting from the PL to the lower leagues, there is a risk that any changes will still benefit clubs with a larger 'live' following whilst hurting those with less 'live' supporters, as well as compounding the problem that it is advertising revenue that is driving the whole vehicle along. What is very apparent from the article is the naivety of the football authorities when it comes to selling the product, but I guess we all knew that already.
My personal view is that the EFL would do better by having all games available to stream globally with a realistic (and expensive) annual subscription cost to watch any game but with PPV as an option on matchdays. PPV subscriptions costs at the moment are up to £20 per event and this would seem to reflect the maximum amount PPV should be set at. The benefit to all clubs is the proportion of the subscription they would receive from the audience, additional revenue added to the cost the broadcaster would have to pay for the right to stream.
It is therefore a much 'dirtier' problem than the press release by the EFL suggests.
They can raise the price to reflect the viewership as you mention above...i'll still pay it to watch my beloved Fulham.
Really like the look of this but I'd like to see what the quality of the service is going to be like.
Quote from: AlexW132 on May 20, 2017, 08:08:37 AM
And for those of us who are UK based, we can use VPN!
Hell yeah
Too expensive for me for unknown quality.I will stick with GJ, pay my £2.99 & watch the full match the next day. If we do well we will be on Sky a few times which I already pay for.
I did a "trial" subscription to Worldsoccertalk.com for the Reading matches. The visual quality was quite good but the second match was only in Spanish for some reason. If the Cup games are included, which I doubt (different revenue stream), this would be a bargain for $142. Even without the cup games, the price is not horrible; $3 a go. Better than not seeing the Whites like thus year.
Quote from: YankeeJim on May 20, 2017, 04:49:29 PM
I did a "trial" subscription to Worldsoccertalk.com for the Reading matches. The visual quality was quite good but the second match was only in Spanish for some reason. If the Cup games are included, which I doubt (different revenue stream), this would be a bargain for $142. Even without the cup games, the price is not horrible; $3 a go. Better than not seeing the Whites like thus year.
These iFollow games are probably not going to be that well produced. They said in the article, that minimum it'll be 1 camera with each club having the option to add more and produce it how they want. The world soccer talk stream was probably BeIn's which had access to the world stream that is very well produced. Don't expect that quality. At the bare minimum, expect the quality of the highlight packages the teams provide. That'll most likely be the 1 camera. Still worth the price for me.
Certainly someone will have to broadcast it before it can be streamed. I think it's just "when Fulham are being carried by SOMEBODY, you can get it on this device."
Could be wrong
Is there some way we can find out from the club itself if and how this will work? We would not need to buy Fulham TV any more, and this is something the club might not want to do.
Whoever owns iFollow is about to make a boatload of money.
Quote from: HatterDon on May 20, 2017, 08:01:43 PM
Certainly someone will have to broadcast it before it can be streamed. I think it's just "when Fulham are being carried by SOMEBODY, you can get it on this device."
Could be wrong
Clubs will broadcast the games on their own personal iFollow accounts. So, basically when you sign up for it, you sign up by the team. If you purchase the Fulham package, you'll be given a stream of every Fulham game that isn't shown on US television. It's pretty simple. You'd log onto Fulham's official website, click the link, log in, watch us go unbeaten.
As I read it 'iFollow' is simply becoming another provider of football streaming but guaranteeing to cover every game for every club (with the possible exception of those clubs who are challenging the iFollow-EFL contract decision). 'iFollow' is also said to be providing audio coverage for games where the Sky-Channel Five-EFL contract forbids video coverage (e.g. UK) if I read the proposals correctly. All EFL games are already streamed (broadcast) by virtue of the Sky-Channel Five-EFL contract but not all live streams are of interest beyond small audiences and therefore do not get carried 'live' by current providers. This scheme overcomes provider disinterest in order to allow non-UK supporters to watch all games. It remains to be seen if it will be a success and be a satisfactory outlay for customers. If it does succeed then it may open the way for subscription viewing of football globally.
So are FFC definitely in or are we one of the 11 objectors? I am sceptical,, I signed up for the first season of the worldwide streaming of the PL a few years ago (I am in Auckland, NZ), it was a disaster with all the forever stops for buffering etc and I was on fibre connection at the time!! Hope this is better because this is a lot of money to pay for a crap service.
I don't think FFC are one of the dissenting clubs although there seem to be five in the Championship at the moment. It's suggested that a deal may be struck with iFollow to avoid conflict since the real beef is the way money is allocated to clubs disproportionately to audience figures* and that is a matter the EFL would have to take up with Sky-Channel Five. I hope iFollow demonstrates normal practice by offering a trial period before you cough up cash but that is just a hope.
*A Premier League club with a similar live viewing audience (e.g. 400,000) for a 'live' game can earn more than twenty times the money per viewer per season than a Championship team can. I don't think the EFL-iFollow contract deals with that at all.
Fulham won't be involved. If you look at our website compared to most other EFL clubs they are different. Most are part of a standard EFL digital makeup and the iFollow will be through that platform just like the EFL standard Player HD has been. It's just been clarified on twitter @jaygatties
Would like to think FFC will organise something if streaming rules are changing and other clubs are at an advantage
Quote from: Newry FFC on May 24, 2017, 08:47:16 PM
Fulham won't be involved. If you look at our website compared to most other EFL clubs they are different. Most are part of a standard EFL digital makeup and the iFollow will be through that platform just like the EFL standard Player HD has been. It's just been clarified on twitter @jaygatties
Would like to think FFC will organise something if streaming rules are changing and other clubs are at an advantage
Probably want to have more control over it. Can charge what they'd like or what they think will make them the most. Could package Gentleman Jim audio with the video. Could have a whole team lined up. Who knows. My guess is they won't be missing this opportunity.
A couple of things I have noticed being reported in the US is that the iFollow link will be on the official Cub website and Fulham are one of the listed clubs as being involved. However there is a report that if any game is being carried live on any US TV network it will not be available via the iFollow system.
Here's an email I received a week ago from the EFL regarding this:
Hello Jason,
Thank you for your email.
Fulham have elected not to take part in the central iFollow product. This will mean that the club will be responsible for their own product, and their own live streaming, the form and function of which will be up to the club.
You should contact them directly to establish their plans in this area.
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
I tried emailing the club but never heard back. With that said, I can't imagine they don't have something planned, especially with FulhamTV now in place.
