PR

[nose]

I said before the club are good at PR
here is an example
when we win unless you pay for the highlights through FFCTV there are no clips avaiable for people that feel payment is a liberty! I had got used to that and understood the copyright issue was fundamental.

But when we lose to derby the club feels it a good idea to show ayite's goals on the website for free!

Or in other words to passify the discontent the PR guys (I presume) have put up the goals, gratis.

That brings the 'copyright' reason for asking for payment into doubt.

[gang]

The reason for charging is not a copyright  issue.

[Lighthouse]

Besides you can see all the goals within hours in this Country without paying for Fulham. You also get a more up to date round up during the game other than going to Fulham. Missing out on the actual PR of pointless interviews and so on and so forth doesn't seem such a burden as I thought it would be.

[nose]

The reason for charging is not a copyright  issue.

Isn't it? I thought that was a principle argument that the club was leaned on not to provide this stuff free to air as the footage was not theirs to do with as they wished.

[AlexW132]

Besides you can see all the goals within hours in this Country without paying for Fulham. You also get a more up to date round up during the game other than going to Fulham. Missing out on the actual PR of pointless interviews and so on and so forth doesn't seem such a burden as I thought it would be.

Agreed and I was never a fan of Gentleman Jim anyway. (Nothing against him, it was usually just very depressing!)

[gang]

The reason for charging is not a copyright  issue.

Isn't it? I thought that was a principle argument that the club was leaned on not to provide this stuff free to air as the footage was not theirs to do with as they wished.

It's because the club have to pay a fee to show them, they do however subsidise the cost.
I understand that all clubs charge, although I have not checked them all I have checked quite a few and this is the norm.

[sunburywhite]

The reason for charging is not a copyright  issue.

Isn't it? I thought that was a principle argument that the club was leaned on not to provide this stuff free to air as the footage was not theirs to do with as they wished.

It's because the club have to pay a fee to show them, they do however subsidise the cost.
I understand that all clubs charge, although I have not checked them all I have checked quite a few and this is the norm.

It must make a big dent in all the millions they pull in through sponsorship, sales, tv rights, league money etc
My heart bleeds for them

[gang]

The reason for charging is not a copyright  issue.

Isn't it? I thought that was a principle argument that the club was leaned on not to provide this stuff free to air as the footage was not theirs to do with as they wished.

It's because the club have to pay a fee to show them, they do however subsidise the cost.
I understand that all clubs charge, although I have not checked them all I have checked quite a few and this is the norm.

It must make a big dent in all the millions they pull in through sponsorship, sales, tv rights, league money etc
My heart bleeds for them
[/

You get nowt for nowt.

[Fulham1959]

I'm quite happy to pay £2.99 per month which, by any measure, is a pittance.  I enjoy the interviews, with the exception of Slavisa's which are painful to watch (listen to) and tell us absolutely nothing.

I do, however, accept that for some there is a perceived principle involved over the requirement to pay.

[nose]

I'm quite happy to pay £2.99 per month which, by any measure, is a pittance.  I enjoy the interviews, with the exception of Slavisa's which are painful to watch (listen to) and tell us absolutely nothing.

I do, however, accept that for some there is a perceived principle involved over the requirement to pay.

there is the issue of principle and I did not acept the club's reason for charging for what had been free mid way in the season.  Ok early in the season. But I was mighty hacked off they did not ever reply to my e-mails, despite receiving the automated reply!!!! 

My point was having five season tickets, two of them for 55ish years unbroken, I think I pay enough not to be asked for more.

I happen to think people tyhat are season ticket holders, or go to majority of away games/members, should get it for free, we do pay enough.

but my point was showing the goalas for I think the first time, when we lose. that is a bit much!

[RaySmith]

I'm quite happy to pay £2.99 per month which, by any measure, is a pittance.  I enjoy the interviews, with the exception of Slavisa's which are painful to watch (listen to) and tell us absolutely nothing.

I do, however, accept that for some there is a perceived principle involved over the requirement to pay.

I think his English has improved a lot.

Also, some might not be able to afford it.
Though most clubs now have a similar charge - usually more.

[Carborundum]

Highlights and interviews don't bother me, but I do miss Gentleman Jim.  But I'm not subscribing because I feel that subscription should be included on a season ticket holders package. I'm paying hundreds of pounds a year to the club already.

[Dodger53]

Paying for 90mins and GJ is fine but to pay for flashback highlights and player interviews stinks which is my reason for opting out.

[MJG]

Highlights and interviews don't bother me, but I do miss Gentleman Jim.  But I'm not subscribing because I feel that subscription should be included on a season ticket holders package. I'm paying hundreds of pounds a year to the club already.

I know I'll get abuse for this but.... What if someone does not want the compulsory subscription they don't use it at all. In effect you would be getting your ST cheaper than that person. For example we have 3 season tickets and one of the users certainly never goes on the Fulham website. Why should they in effect pay for something they don't use?

[toshes mate]

I am not sure any football club is legally required to make a charge for highlight/whole match viewing, and certainly highlights are freely available to view if you search for them.  I also disagree that season ticket holders should get something for nothing when the whole point of a season ticket is the reduction of cost of the seat from the benefit to the Club of having your money up front.

I no longer have a beef with Fulham FC on this matter but I do have a beef with the EFL.  We hear a lot on here about people who cannot get to games because of where they live. working, on holiday or whatever.  Multiply these people by the number of clubs in the EFL and you get a potential market for subscription funded live and/or repeated football matches. any game you choose to view, with the beneficiaries chiefly being the clubs involved.   You could sign up for any access, limited one club access or just single matches with different rates for any and all of them.  Now if the EFL did this alongside its deals with Sky (and Channel 5), BT, etc, then there would be proper competition for viewers and no monopoly.  Our supporters living anywhere would be better served and we would actually benefit from being members of the service by adding income to football and allowing it to thrive.

Shoot me down if you want, but I know we live in a world that has become increasingly mean and mercenary, and that is to all our detriments.

[MJG]

Simply the club got fined and will get fined if they show without paywall.
I do think online subscription to live games will come, but clubs are not overly keen as it will possibly affect matchday income and gates.
You sat at home paying £5 to watch Fulham v Ipswich this Saturday is not the seat price plus extras you may spend that the club would earn.

[toshes mate]

Simply the club got fined and will get fined if they show without paywall.
I do think online subscription to live games will come, but clubs are not overly keen as it will possibly affect matchday income and gates.
You sat at home paying £5 to watch Fulham v Ipswich this Saturday is not the seat price plus extras you may spend that the club would earn.

Hello, MJG.  Do you know for sure the Club got fined and it wasn't just a threat of being fined?

On the second point I was talking serious money for single match viewing.  Pay-Per-View events are between £10 and £20 currently in the UK, and there is no evidence that live audiences are reduced.  If the worry was that local people would stop going then that suggests the actual cost of getting to a match is close to out of reach for a lot of potential supporters.  That is an argument for making football more accessible and not ever less accessible.   Perhaps the reduced cost of safe-terracing would actually have a hidden benefit just as it did when I was a lad (I never found it unsafe although, as an eleven year old, I didn't much like crowd crush on leaving a ground when it was really full). 
 

[FFCAli]

Simply the club got fined and will get fined if they show without paywall.
I do think online subscription to live games will come, but clubs are not overly keen as it will possibly affect matchday income and gates.
You sat at home paying £5 to watch Fulham v Ipswich this Saturday is not the seat price plus extras you may spend that the club would earn.

But it's not just the recorded matches and highlights that are behind the paywall.  The club even stuck Leroy Rosenoir's interview behind it.  Almost everything on the club's news page of the web seems to lead you to being invited to pay up.  What's the point of a news page if you can never see the news?

[MJG]

Simply the club got fined and will get fined if they show without paywall.
I do think online subscription to live games will come, but clubs are not overly keen as it will possibly affect matchday income and gates.
You sat at home paying £5 to watch Fulham v Ipswich this Saturday is not the seat price plus extras you may spend that the club would earn.

But it's not just the recorded matches and highlights that are behind the paywall.  The club even stuck Leroy Rosenoir's interview behind it.  Almost everything on the club's news page of the web seems to lead you to being invited to pay up.  What's the point of a news page if you can never see the news?

we ha e discussed this all before and I'm expecting the two or three who always criticise me for being a club person to pop on any second.
Main argument from the club is to give those who do pay value for money outside of the replays... Which lets be honest would not be vfm for that only.
Now I'm not going to say the current content is giving those who actually pay full vfm either. Personally I don't think the content is at a point where it is tbh.

[MJG]

Simply the club got fined and will get fined if they show without paywall.
I do think online subscription to live games will come, but clubs are not overly keen as it will possibly affect matchday income and gates.
You sat at home paying £5 to watch Fulham v Ipswich this Saturday is not the seat price plus extras you may spend that the club would earn.

Hello, MJG.  Do you know for sure the Club got fined and it wasn't just a threat of being fined?

On the second point I was talking serious money for single match viewing.  Pay-Per-View events are between £10 and £20 currently in the UK, and there is no evidence that live audiences are reduced.  If the worry was that local people would stop going then that suggests the actual cost of getting to a match is close to out of reach for a lot of potential supporters.  That is an argument for making football more accessible and not ever less accessible.   Perhaps the reduced cost of safe-terracing would actually have a hidden benefit just as it did when I was a lad (I never found it unsafe although, as an eleven year old, I didn't much like crowd crush on leaving a ground when it was really full). 
 

its gone from may to fined to fined and now back to will be fined if we break the agreed lge rules. There was also pressure from other clubs for us to stop the free 90 min replays.
Just be clear I think it should be free,