So , i have seen the debates in another topic and from advice from another member i decided to just make a new thread regarding this. So here is my opinion.
Is FFCTV worth it ? .. thats the question.
So during the end of season break i realized there was hardly any content being posted however i was still getting charged every month. This wound me up and i ended up emailing the club and got the classic we will get back to you within a certain time period ( i forgot the period ) however , did i get an email ? no .
It read something on the lines of ..
'' Good afternoon, i am enquiring about my current FFCTV account membership and have realized there is hardly any content. Why is this when you are still charging me ? is there any point in me paying for this or should i just cancel '' ?
.... no reply . ::off_Topic::
However , do i think during the season its a worthwhile investment ? soso.
Let me start with the negatives..
some of the content is so amateurish its unreal. Compare the quality of the interviews to other clubs ? our lighting is poor , most of the players aren't even wearing a mic ! come on , but i also get to see content so ???
Secondly ... Absolute lack of content. its actually shameful , the media department in the club need a big adjustment.
Thirdly... not replying to a members email is disrespectful .
HOWEVER...
The amount of money i am spending every month on the service doesn't affect me. Its just one less beer or something every month. I do it because i know my money is helping the club no mater how small it is and i am not going to shame the club for that. i do not own the club , i am a fan. Regardless of how rich Shad is my small amount every month is going somewhere. It baffles me that people complain amount the amount it costs , its a service. EVERYTHING in the club costs money for fans, from merch to food. This is no different , if you don't want it ... don't pay it and stick to the news or wherever you get your information from.
There is one thing i would change though .. ( CORRECT ME IF THIS IS ALREADY BEEN DONE )
People who are at the retirement age should get this service for free, people in the armed forces etc should get this service for free.
Apart from that , i would'nt say im happy or unhappy at FFCTV. It is what it is and hopefully the quality will change.
Let the comments begin .. :group hug:
Well done Sammy, at least this may allow my thread regarding our DoF interview to die a natural death.
Lucky to be one of retirees you refer to, however, born in Fulham to a Fulham supporting family was absolutely smitten since day one and seventy years later still feel the exactly same. Living on the South Coast it is much more difficult to attend as many games as in previous seasons. My connection to FFCTV is essential for me and the cost is irrelevant for my daily fix of Fulham and would gladly pay double if necessary which some may find strange, but, you see I'm addicted!
Even after our games have been broadcast will often find time the following day to watch the match again just to enjoy Jim's commentary.
Sorry the club did not reply to you, very unprofessional.
049:gif COYW 049:gif
I do apologise to fenhurst at i think i was the one that changed the subject. I didn't think it woukd ignite.
My only point is interviews and stuff like that as a matter of principle should be free for all.
The games i realise need to be charged for even though i do not like paying for the highlits that i could see for free on quest.
The live midweek service in the uk being chargeable i accept.
It is just the interviews and fluffy stuff that i object to and, IMO, the club is missing a trick, because it can be great advertising and PR.
Whether its good value for money is a moot point and I think many will say its an insult to be charging loyal fans.
I do think allowing the subscription to continue through the close season is more than a bit cheeky of the club!
It is annoying for sure and I sympathise with those on a tight budget, but I can't help but feel that if £5/month is a deal-breaker then you have more urgent things to focus on than what Tony Khan or TC have to say.
Annoying? Sure. Big deal? No.
I'm afraid I go back to the point about the programme. I must have stopped paying for it in a regular basis around 2010.maybe picked up one or two but beyond that I felt it was a waste of money. But during that time I have not been able to read the managers notes, chairman's comments, captain views or read a match review, or anything else that is in there.
Do I feel cheated? nope because it's my choice and at £3.50 a go for at least 20 a season what I have saved is now going towards the online equivalent.
There is a long list of things fans want free, online content, coaches to away games, friendlies with their ST or even a cup game here and there. In the end I know it's horrible to say but we are fans and it's a business.
Now there is an argument that you add all this up and it's the wages of one player for a month or two maybe. But that's just not how it works is it?
Everything has a budget and even the comms team have to recoup money somewhere.
In an ideal world it would all be subsidised for us and all we would have to pay is a £1 for a ticket, but I would bet that if we were in the hot seats faced with running the club, we would almost certainly resort to the tried and tested ways clubs are run. Some of you should follow Andy Holt on twitter the Accrington Stanley chairman who talks a lot about the finances of running his football club.
I think I made all the points I needed to on the other thread. I don't get all weepy and start swooning if the subject matter changes on a thread. It makes it more readable instead of the 10 pages of yes/no debate. But the paywall didn't used to exist. Now Papers and others charge because they have a product that was being undermined by giving the information away free. It made sense for them to start charging.
But football has a product and as such use information and player interviews and manager debates and owners comments to push the ticket sales. If you live far away or have been priced out of the game. Then information is a way to keep in touch. Charging a sum of money for that information is not helping the club as they have plenty of money and if they didn't give out any interviews then fans would turn to radio and tv anyway. So the only reason for the charge of a paywall is to take money out of fans pockets because they know they can. Club or football authority are both happy to exploit the fan and have done for years.
I don't care how cheap or how good the content is. I will not pay for it. I am happy for others to do what they like. But as a fan of long standing I am not being screwed any longer. An overreaction perhaps. But one I am happy to hang onto. Fulham I love you. Well I like you. Once you were the be all and end all. Now you and the game have alienated me so much as to be of only interest to me. But I am interested in the team and the result. But forget about the rest. I don't need it anymore. You certainly don't need me.
As an ex-pat living in Russia more than happy to pay the club money for these services,in fact would gladly pay double.However,don,t tell the club this as I fear they would put thhe prices up!
Free choice no one is forced to have it and if you subscribe then you can share it with a friend or 2 if you trust them
Guys, it's £45 per year / £3.75 per month.
Of course there is less content during the Close season when there are no matches.
But the content during the season is worth more than £3.75 p/m IMHO so for me it balances itself out over the course of the season.
As someone posted in another thread the monthly subscription is less than the cost of a pint. I cannot believe this argument is still rumbling on over a pittance
@Lighthouse
So you'd turn to radio and tv instead, yet you pay a licence fee to watch TV 🤔
I paid last year but depending on where I was located I got very poor service (in Vermont) and it would break down every few minutes. Probably more to do with the internet service than Fulham. Given I will be in Vermont (skiing) almost every week again, I am unsure whether I will do it again or not. Anybody else in USA have similar problems??
I have paid for FFCTV since it was made available and my reasons for doing so are very simple. I am no longer able to get to as many games as I once would have done for many reasons, especially away games. Regular attendance at football priced itself beyond my reaches quite some time ago, and so I have to pick and choose carefully. I miss the ability to go to matches I would have once gotten to and so FFCTV offers me a cheap way of watching ninety minutes of matches I would otherwise never see. I do not begrudge FFC a penny of the subscription - it is a product and it is reasonably priced for what it is. Yes, it could and should be improved without additional cost since at times it is and has been very poorly put together, but it has still given me access to the matches I have missed and that is priceless for me. The service and product has recently improved and I hope that continues, but I do have strong reservations about what should and shouldn't be behind a paywall and I find some of the decisions made by the Club (which is running FFCTV through a provider) very bizarre and frankly contemptuous to the Club's supporters.
Perhaps FFC would like to consider a proper membership subscription system for access to the website with layers which cater for individual tastes, needs and pockets, one of which would be free to all.
As Lighthouse says, newspaper online content is increasingly behind paywalls,except for The Guardian,which relies on user donations, like FoF, to keep going, and that is a matter of survival in a world where people no longer buy newspapers in the same numbers,and get their news online from many sources.
We assume that FFC has plenty of money to keep going, but could it actually afford to provide all the current online content now behind the paywall, including match commentaries and video replays for free, when no other club does this?
Fulham isn't the same as it used to be back in the 60's and 70's, when there was no internet, but society isn't the same, and anyway i don't ever remember getting anything for free from the club, or feeling that they ever could care less about me if I couldn't afford to buy a programme or go to games - that is the way of the world. .
Quote from: toshes mate on August 14, 2019, 06:37:40 PM
I have paid for FFCTV since it was made available and my reasons for doing so are very simple. I am no longer able to get to as many games as I once would have done for many reasons, especially away games. Regular attendance at football priced itself beyond my reaches quite some time ago, and so I have to pick and choose carefully. I miss the ability to go to matches I would have once gotten to and so FFCTV offers me a cheap way of watching ninety minutes of matches I would otherwise never see. I do not begrudge FFC a penny of the subscription - it is a product and it is reasonably priced for what it is. Yes, it could and should be improved without additional cost since at times it is and has been very poorly put together, but it has still given me access to the matches I have missed and that is priceless for me. The service and product has recently improved and I hope that continues, but I do have strong reservations about what should and shouldn't be behind a paywall and I find some of the decisions made by the Club (which is running FFCTV through a provider) very bizarre and frankly contemptuous to the Club's supporters.
Perhaps FFC would like to consider a proper membership subscription system for access to the website with layers which cater for individual tastes, needs and pockets, one of which would be free to all.
:plus one:
I watched almost all of the 16/17 and 17/18 matches without ever going to England...in a 12 month window.
For $6 per month.
The paywall is easily worth it to me. Not saying it shouldn't be free to some, but those of us that can't make it to games, that live out of the country...godsend.
Quote from: Hatch007 on August 14, 2019, 06:30:44 PM
@Lighthouse
So you'd turn to radio and tv instead, yet you pay a licence fee to watch TV 🤔
I object to paying a licence fee as I listen or watch very little tv or listen to very little radio. But I pay for Netflix and Amazon for my entertainment. Sadly I am required by law to pay a licence fee even if I only watch or listen or own one radio or tv. It is another con. I pay for Netflix and Amazon because I want to. But as I have to pay a licence fee I don't need to pay for Fulham tv unless I decide it is worth it. At the moment I don't and along with the licence fee it is a rip off. One is the law and is a rip off and have sent many letters and emails in complaint. However it isn't the law to pay for Fulham tv.
It sounds as if I am a grumpy old fart but I am really such a nice .......GET THE FOXES OUT OF MY GARDEN YOU BAS......!!!!!
It sounds as if I am a grumpy old fart but I am really such a nice .......GET THE FOXES OUT OF MY GARDEN YOU BAS......!!!!!
[/quote]
🤣🤣🤣👋👋👋
Just a note on the TV Licence Fee, the BBC pays approx. £10m a year to PPL for blanket use of music in its TV programmes and on its radio stations. I know this because I work in the music industry.
Obviously the BBC doesn't have adverts although it derives income from other sources but I assume the TV Licence Fees we pay go some way to funding all the music the Beeb pays for.
The above is not my endorsement, nor denouement, of the TV Licence, just an observation from industry knowledge
Quote from: Hatch007 on August 14, 2019, 07:28:42 PM
It sounds as if I am a grumpy old fart but I am really such a nice .......GET THE FOXES OUT OF MY GARDEN YOU BAS......!!!!!
🤣🤣🤣👋👋👋
Just a note on the TV Licence Fee, the BBC pays approx. £10m a year to PPL for blanket use of music in its TV programmes and on its radio stations. I know this because I work in the music industry.
Obviously the BBC doesn't have adverts although it derives income from other sources but I assume the TV Licence Fees we pay go some way to funding all the music the Beeb pays for.
The above is not my endorsement, nor denouement, of the TV Licence, just an observation from industry knowledge
[/quote]
Well in other words the BBC rips off other people as well. It does have adverts for its own services all the blimmin time. It should fund itself through adverts like every other broadcast service and not have a hundred and fifty radio and tv stations nobody listens to. ... I do apologise. I will stop now, honest.
I subscribed to FulhamTV for a couple of seasons but for me the main features are the live commentary & highlights, which when you go to every home game and many of the away games become somewhat redundant. Eventually I cancelled.
It would be nice if there was an "away game" package for season ticket holders or a reduced price package for supporters with a high number of loyalty points.
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 14, 2019, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Hatch007 on August 14, 2019, 06:30:44 PM
@Lighthouse
So you'd turn to radio and tv instead, yet you pay a licence fee to watch TV 🤔
[/quote
I object to paying a licence fee as I listen or watch very little tv or listen to very little radio. But I pay for Netflix and Amazon for my entertainment. Sadly I am required by law to pay a licence fee even if I only watch or listen or own one radio or tv. It is another con. I pay for Netflix and Amazon because I want to. But as I have to pay a licence fee I don't need to pay for Fulham tv unless I decide it is worth it. At the moment I don't and along with the licence fee it is a rip off. One is the law and is a rip off and have sent many letters and emails in complaint. However it isn't the law to pay for Fulham tv.
It sounds as if I am a grumpy old fart but I am really such a nice .......GET THE FOXES OUT OF MY GARDEN YOU BAS......!!!!!
Lighthouse - you exasperate and entertain in equal measure. Good man !!!
At Queens Club near St Andrews where Fulham started, one of the greatest teams ever to grace the game "Corinthians FC" played that inspired "the colours of Real Madrid" and "the name of the great Sao Paulo's team" had the debate should a club collect more money than it takes to run the event.
Corinthians FC choose to stay amateur went from having all eleven players in the England team to being almost unheard of, all because it didn't rip money from spectators and spend it on players. Amateur spectator football was killed in Fulham, can we complain a 100 years later?
Quote from: Whitesideup on August 14, 2019, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 14, 2019, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Hatch007 on August 14, 2019, 06:30:44 PM
@Lighthouse
So you'd turn to radio and tv instead, yet you pay a licence fee to watch TV 🤔
[/quote
I object to paying a licence fee as I listen or watch very little tv or listen to very little radio. But I pay for Netflix and Amazon for my entertainment. Sadly I am required by law to pay a licence fee even if I only watch or listen or own one radio or tv. It is another con. I pay for Netflix and Amazon because I want to. But as I have to pay a licence fee I don't need to pay for Fulham tv unless I decide it is worth it. At the moment I don't and along with the licence fee it is a rip off. One is the law and is a rip off and have sent many letters and emails in complaint. However it isn't the law to pay for Fulham tv.
It sounds as if I am a grumpy old fart but I am really such a nice .......GET THE FOXES OUT OF MY GARDEN YOU BAS......!!!!!
Lighthouse - you exasperate and entertain in equal measure. Good man !!!
Welcome back Grumpy, just about to send the boys around to untwist your knickers!
Im just very happy that we get excellent content on the website. It doesnt cost much ,and for me is well worth the money. I am a lifelong supporter but why is that relevant to this issue ?
Quote from: The Rational Fan on August 15, 2019, 07:44:14 AM
At Queens Club near St Andrews where Fulham started, one of the greatest teams ever to grace the game "Corinthians FC" played that inspired "the colours of Real Madrid" and "the name of the great Sao Paulo's team" had the debate should a club collect more money than it takes to run the event.
Corinthians played games at many London venues. Their origins were at a time when all football in the south of England was amateur (i.e. players were unwaged). They live on even today merged into Corinthian Casuals FC and play their home matches at Tolworth to this day and no doubt there are still people around who are prepared to pay to watch them. Just like any other football club in the pyramid they need income to pay the cost for the pitches, referees, training, and meetings, etc. They are part of the grass roots of our game, just as St Andrew's Church at Fulham Fields was at the root of FFC.
The issue about FFCTV is that it offers something other than live football at Craven Cottage, but the arguable point about FFC's generic website is that it is an advertisement for the Club, it is an inducement to come and watch football at FFC and perhaps catch the same bug we once caught. There is a fine line between inducement and information intended to make your custom more resolute, and something that actually offers you substantially more than that. Have FFC got it right vis-a-vis FFCTV? That's what the debate is about.
Quote from: colinwhite on August 15, 2019, 10:15:00 AM
Im just very happy that we get excellent content on the website. It doesnt cost much ,and for me is well worth the money. I am a lifelong supporter but why is that relevant to this issue ?
It is relevant because it means that you have been about before the interweb and had to travel miles on poor transport to get to games. It means you were about when games were affordable for the family who could all enjoy a day out. It means you were there before SKY and blanket coverage.
The point being that 'it doesn't cost much' is less relevant. The cost of an item that was free that offers only information and propaganda to buy tickets and is in my opinion nothing more than adverts for the product. Could cost a penny but still be too much. I think the cost of football is ridiculous now and has been increasing for too long. We are being asked to pay for the same thing over and over again.
Fans make up their own mind and I have made mine up. A life long fan means you have been addicted to the drug for a life time. Deciding to stop buying all the paraphernalia that goes with it is the first step to moving away from the addiction. That isn't good news to the drug provider.
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 14, 2019, 05:42:21 PM
I think I made all the points I needed to on the other thread. I don't get all weepy and start swooning if the subject matter changes on a thread. It makes it more readable instead of the 10 pages of yes/no debate. But the paywall didn't used to exist. Now Papers and others charge because they have a product that was being undermined by giving the information away free. It made sense for them to start charging.
But football has a product and as such use information and player interviews and manager debates and owners comments to push the ticket sales. If you live far away or have been priced out of the game. Then information is a way to keep in touch. Charging a sum of money for that information is not helping the club as they have plenty of money and if they didn't give out any interviews then fans would turn to radio and tv anyway. So the only reason for the charge of a paywall is to take money out of fans pockets because they know they can. Club or football authority are both happy to exploit the fan and have done for years.
I don't care how cheap or how good the content is. I will not pay for it. I am happy for others to do what they like. But as a fan of long standing I am not being screwed any longer. An overreaction perhaps. But one I am happy to hang onto. Fulham I love you. Well I like you. Once you were the be all and end all. Now you and the game have alienated me so much as to be of only interest to me. But I am interested in the team and the result. But forget about the rest. I don't need it anymore. You certainly don't need me.
I feel exactly the same lighthouse.
Quote from: hovewhite on August 15, 2019, 11:11:07 AM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 14, 2019, 05:42:21 PM
I think I made all the points I needed to on the other thread. I don't get all weepy and start swooning if the subject matter changes on a thread. It makes it more readable instead of the 10 pages of yes/no debate. But the paywall didn't used to exist. Now Papers and others charge because they have a product that was being undermined by giving the information away free. It made sense for them to start charging.
But football has a product and as such use information and player interviews and manager debates and owners comments to push the ticket sales. If you live far away or have been priced out of the game. Then information is a way to keep in touch. Charging a sum of money for that information is not helping the club as they have plenty of money and if they didn't give out any interviews then fans would turn to radio and tv anyway. So the only reason for the charge of a paywall is to take money out of fans pockets because they know they can. Club or football authority are both happy to exploit the fan and have done for years.
I don't care how cheap or how good the content is. I will not pay for it. I am happy for others to do what they like. But as a fan of long standing I am not being screwed any longer. An overreaction perhaps. But one I am happy to hang onto. Fulham I love you. Well I like you. Once you were the be all and end all. Now you and the game have alienated me so much as to be of only interest to me. But I am interested in the team and the result. But forget about the rest. I don't need it anymore. You certainly don't need me.
I feel exactly the same lighthouse.
me too, we're seen as either cash cows or sheep waiting to be blindly milked, or fleeced, of every penny that can be squeezed out of us.
Football as a "spectator sport" will die if new generations don't attend, if "kids" don't get hooked by our "little" club then they'll either get hooked by one of the "big" clubs or not be interested at all.
So unless we become a "big" club our support base must diminish, diminishing support means lower revenue, and we all know what lower revenues mean.
Charging for FFCTV short term will provide minimum funds and do absolutely nothing to grow the fan base, short-termism at its finest
