My thoughts on FFCTV's PAYWALL

[The Rational Fan]

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?

[Fernhurst]

@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!

[colinwhite]

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 ?

[toshes mate]

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.

[Lighthouse]

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.

[hovewhite]

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.

[WhiteJC]

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