Fulham website, typical useless nightmare.

[Matt10]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

Look, it is decent service, okay? They have their own production crew and have improved significantly over the years. On top of that, it is of tremendous value to be able to watch non ESPN+ broadcasts. Yes, you sacrifice quality and amazing ESPN production, but you get GJ commentary on top of the field action. I remember when all I had to stay connected was GJ commentary. Now, I get to see my club and the great commentary to go along with it. It's completely worth it. I'll only get to be at CC as a bucket list experience, so I'll never be a STH, meaning I won't pay the significant amounts that those who are lucky to have that experience. So, I will gladly invest my time and money into my club - who are making a commendable effort in trying to bring the best product possible.

[General]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

Look, it is decent service, okay? They have their own production crew and have improved significantly over the years. On top of that, it is of tremendous value to be able to watch non ESPN+ broadcasts. Yes, you sacrifice quality and amazing ESPN production, but you get GJ commentary on top of the field action. I remember when all I had to stay connected was GJ commentary. Now, I get to see my club and the great commentary to go along with it. It's completely worth it. I'll only get to be at CC as a bucket list experience, so I'll never be a STH, meaning I won't pay the significant amounts that those who are lucky to have that experience. So, I will gladly invest my time and money into my club - who are making a commendable effort in trying to bring the best product possible.

On a serious note - it's is decent and has improved over the years is pretty poor. Why hasn't it just been done properly in the first place, after years of sorting things out it may have been more cost effective to have just done it to the high and required standard at the beginning.

For a Premier League/Championship club (championship is 5th richest in europe) and with a billionaire owner - multiple times over, you'd think it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service.

[Matt10]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

Look, it is decent service, okay? They have their own production crew and have improved significantly over the years. On top of that, it is of tremendous value to be able to watch non ESPN+ broadcasts. Yes, you sacrifice quality and amazing ESPN production, but you get GJ commentary on top of the field action. I remember when all I had to stay connected was GJ commentary. Now, I get to see my club and the great commentary to go along with it. It's completely worth it. I'll only get to be at CC as a bucket list experience, so I'll never be a STH, meaning I won't pay the significant amounts that those who are lucky to have that experience. So, I will gladly invest my time and money into my club - who are making a commendable effort in trying to bring the best product possible.

On a serious note - it's is decent and has improved over the years is pretty poor. Why hasn't it just been done properly in the first place, after years of sorting things out it may have been more cost effective to have just done it to the high and required standard at the beginning.

For a Premier League/Championship club (championship is 5th richest in europe) and with a billionaire owner - multiple times over, you'd think it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service.

There are countless streaming services that lack consistency and are backed by multi-billionaire operations, with billion views and visitors. If FFCTV utilizes a company that can reach those heights of production and compatibility, we'd be paying a whole lot more than $10 a match, or $240 a season.

[bramble]

It's good - it certainly isn't great.  I pay for the annual subscription and am in France.  Having logged in I got the 'not authorised' message, logged out and same again.  Re-booting eventually did the trick, but it was a bit of a pain.  Always need to remember to allow extra time (before the game, ha ha)!  HDMI cable worked fine again.

[love4ffc]

For the record, today was the first time in a long time that I have had problems with FFCtv. 

[Logicalman]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

ESPN shows just a portion of the games, no good if ou want to watch the rest of the games, unless you want to trust various streaming sites.

It is a personal choice, and I choose to pay FFCTv and have very few issues, a lot less than I used to have trying to get an uninterrupted stream, though I fully appreciate that those UK-based are not fortunate enough to have that choice.

[Logicalman]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

Look, it is decent service, okay? They have their own production crew and have improved significantly over the years. On top of that, it is of tremendous value to be able to watch non ESPN+ broadcasts. Yes, you sacrifice quality and amazing ESPN production, but you get GJ commentary on top of the field action. I remember when all I had to stay connected was GJ commentary. Now, I get to see my club and the great commentary to go along with it. It's completely worth it. I'll only get to be at CC as a bucket list experience, so I'll never be a STH, meaning I won't pay the significant amounts that those who are lucky to have that experience. So, I will gladly invest my time and money into my club - who are making a commendable effort in trying to bring the best product possible.

On a serious note - it's is decent and has improved over the years is pretty poor. Why hasn't it just been done properly in the first place, after years of sorting things out it may have been more cost effective to have just done it to the high and required standard at the beginning.

For a Premier League/Championship club (championship is 5th richest in europe) and with a billionaire owner - multiple times over, you'd think it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service.

I used to pay hundreds of dollars a month for cable service, and I suffered more outages, poor transmission, even worse 'customer service' in the cable service than I have found in the FFCTv service. I pay less for the yearly subscription to FFCTv than I did on a monthly basis for cable, and that was without the 'extras' like Netflix etc, so, when one speaks of "it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service" then the same should be asked of AT&T & XFinity in the US who rake in thousands more times income that the whole Championship TV services do each season.

If you don't want the hassle/cost of XFinity or AT&T then you have the choice to go elsewhere, the same goes for FFCTv.

I don't grumble about the various streams I have used to access (what some call illegal) content, when it fails me, I get what I don't pay for. Horses for courses and all that, but to claim that FFCTv does not provide a routinely good/reliable service is just plain incorrect, any more than to claim any of the cable providers in the US do the same.

[jarv]

Thanks again guys, I will try agaiin to log in next game using whatever numbers and addresses I have.

Reading all the responses you lot have much more patience than me. (probably I am the problem here).

[General]

Don't pay - stream. The club is trying to profit from you without even offering a decent service. It's on ESPN in the U.S and championship games are not ubiquitously televised.

Look, it is decent service, okay? They have their own production crew and have improved significantly over the years. On top of that, it is of tremendous value to be able to watch non ESPN+ broadcasts. Yes, you sacrifice quality and amazing ESPN production, but you get GJ commentary on top of the field action. I remember when all I had to stay connected was GJ commentary. Now, I get to see my club and the great commentary to go along with it. It's completely worth it. I'll only get to be at CC as a bucket list experience, so I'll never be a STH, meaning I won't pay the significant amounts that those who are lucky to have that experience. So, I will gladly invest my time and money into my club - who are making a commendable effort in trying to bring the best product possible.

On a serious note - it's is decent and has improved over the years is pretty poor. Why hasn't it just been done properly in the first place, after years of sorting things out it may have been more cost effective to have just done it to the high and required standard at the beginning.

For a Premier League/Championship club (championship is 5th richest in europe) and with a billionaire owner - multiple times over, you'd think it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service.

I used to pay hundreds of dollars a month for cable service, and I suffered more outages, poor transmission, even worse 'customer service' in the cable service than I have found in the FFCTv service. I pay less for the yearly subscription to FFCTv than I did on a monthly basis for cable, and that was without the 'extras' like Netflix etc, so, when one speaks of "it'd be relatively routine to provide a good/reliable service" then the same should be asked of AT&T & XFinity in the US who rake in thousands more times income that the whole Championship TV services do each season.

If you don't want the hassle/cost of XFinity or AT&T then you have the choice to go elsewhere, the same goes for FFCTv.

I don't grumble about the various streams I have used to access (what some call illegal) content, when it fails me, I get what I don't pay for. Horses for courses and all that, but to claim that FFCTv does not provide a routinely good/reliable service is just plain incorrect, any more than to claim any of the cable providers in the US do the same.

What I'm getting at is that there is a professional and very reliable standard that can and does exist.  If at the most basic level it was a fulham internal streaming operation the costs could be covered to the point there would never be issues, like there shouldn't be.

If you paid an excess for a poorer service, that's not because a better standard doesn't exist, it means you paid for a poor service.

[RaySmith]

This season in the UK, I've watched  one game on FFFCTV, and listened to listened to GJ for all of them, and one on Sky's Now TV, and the FFCTV  stream was fine, just a few seconds of buffering, same with GJ, while the Sky stream  had more buffering, and had to be restarted, whch is quite normal in my experience,  and the games cost the same price, £10.00.

Today, I tried to watch free internet streams, the game not being available to watch in the UK on FFCTV, and Hesgoal didn't have the game, and with other streams, only one of which  gave me game footage, i got constant  messages from my anti-virus system that threats had been blocked, so I gave up and just listened to GJ.

My conclusion - FFCTV, and even Sky, are good value, compared to free 'pirate' streams, because how much would it cost for  computer repair/new computer if affected by malware? apart from the fact that these streams are very unreliable and poor quality, if they even work at all,  to say the least.

[Sammyffc]

i usually buy the stream off the oppositions website. Its their commentary but never lags. When i try and use our website my laptop nearly gets launched off the balcony

[toshes mate]

As a true computer professional I find it very disheartening to read comments such as FFCtv is no worse or even better than some other content provider services as if that justifies anything.  The EFL's own content provider branding has terms of service (and EULAs) that state they do not provide 'an individual service' or 'guarantee any content provision' and does not offer money back for breakdowns, service failures, or any other complaints a user may have.   They offer you access via your account name and password and that is all even if it fails to work for you.

In other words these are buyer beware services that offer no protection at all from the moment you agree payment via your details and unless you cancel your subscription with sufficient notice for them to administer your wish before next payment they will keep on taking your money with no obligation to provide a service to you at all.   

All these services provide minimum (and sometimes optimal) specifications for your equipment but still do not give any guarantee to provide a service good, bad, or indifferent.   They'll take your money even if you tell them to cancel the subscription because their online site has bugs and doesn't work properly. 

This has been allowed to happen because politicians have allowed this incredible laxity to be a part of EULA and terms of service through their ignorance of computer and digital technology/software and the power of the big player companies who want to take everything they can 'legally' get from you in return for providing services which carry no guarantee at all.

And as an added note no computer connection to the internet is free from potential malware interference and you should carry maximum protection on your device at all times unless you know exactly what you are doing.

[Holders]

My gripe is that, having logged in (which I have to do each time, it doesn't seem to recognise me), the "listen now" appears in very small typeface when it's ready and easy to miss. Sometimes have to refresh to see it. It needs a bigger button and some way of telling you that it's recognised you but Jim isn't on line yet.

[RaySmith]

My gripe is that, having logged in (which I have to do each time, it doesn't seem to recognise me), the "listen now" appears in very small typeface when it's ready and easy to miss. Sometimes have to refresh to see it. It needs a bigger button and some way of telling you that it's recognised you but Jim isn't on line yet.

It can be confusing- you have to log in more than once under the new system, but I'm more au fait with it and its foibles now, and it has improved. Once they had the commentary link in a different place, and i couldn't find it until half time.

Though sometimes Jim's commentary starts to repeat from earlier in the game - is this a test to see if you're concentrating! and you have to refresh to get back on track.

But I generally think it's good value for  fiver, with the other content you get, though Jim is the main  reason for subscribing, and the live stream when you get it, though have to pay extra for this.

[MartyFFC]

The club is run like a Sunday league side, really weird how the clubs competence has disintegrated. Though as long as we're doing the business on the pitch it's an irritation that can be endured

[filham]

I have been struggling with, One AC, Fulham TV and the web site in general for a while now. It used to be straightforward but nowadays is far from fan friendly.

[Holders]

My gripe is that, having logged in (which I have to do each time, it doesn't seem to recognise me), the "listen now" appears in very small typeface when it's ready and easy to miss. Sometimes have to refresh to see it. It needs a bigger button and some way of telling you that it's recognised you but Jim isn't on line yet.

It can be confusing- you have to log in more than once under the new system, but I'm more au fait with it and its foibles now, and it has improved. Once they had the commentary link in a different place, and i couldn't find it until half time.

Though sometimes Jim's commentary starts to repeat from earlier in the game - is this a test to see if you're concentrating! and you have to refresh to get back on track.

But I generally think it's good value for  fiver, with the other content you get, though Jim is the main  reason for subscribing, and the live stream when you get it, though have to pay extra for this.

Agreed.

I just think that these are such minor imperfections/detractions that one would have thought they'd be easily overcome. I wouldn't want to be without it as I don't get to many games from the SW. 

[Logicalman]

As a true computer professional I find it very disheartening to read comments such as FFCtv is no worse or even better than some other content provider services as if that justifies anything.  The EFL's own content provider branding has terms of service (and EULAs) that state they do not provide 'an individual service' or 'guarantee any content provision' and does not offer money back for breakdowns, service failures, or any other complaints a user may have.   They offer you access via your account name and password and that is all even if it fails to work for you.

In other words these are buyer beware services that offer no protection at all from the moment you agree payment via your details and unless you cancel your subscription with sufficient notice for them to administer your wish before next payment they will keep on taking your money with no obligation to provide a service to you at all.   

All these services provide minimum (and sometimes optimal) specifications for your equipment but still do not give any guarantee to provide a service good, bad, or indifferent.   They'll take your money even if you tell them to cancel the subscription because their online site has bugs and doesn't work properly. 

This has been allowed to happen because politicians have allowed this incredible laxity to be a part of EULA and terms of service through their ignorance of computer and digital technology/software and the power of the big player companies who want to take everything they can 'legally' get from you in return for providing services which carry no guarantee at all.

And as an added note no computer connection to the internet is free from potential malware interference and you should carry maximum protection on your device at all times unless you know exactly what you are doing.

I'm unsure, from this, whether you feel that the statement regarding 'FFCTv is no better or worse than other content providers' is justified given the current poor level of service provided by much larger providers, or not.

XFinity and AT&T have very similar wording to the EFL's own content provider branding you mentioned, and therefore no such content provider appears to provide a fool-proof service. In my own experience, I have less issues when using FFCTv than I do when using ESPN+ on a week by week basis, especially when it comes to logging problems, as it needs to be linked via another providers account to run correctly.

As I mentioned before, you get what you pay for, and the cost of FFCTv is less than other providers, for the same issues we each come across. And you're quite correct in saying that no connection is free from malware, and that goes for mainstream content as well.

[Logicalman]

What I'm getting at is that there is a professional and very reliable standard that can and does exist.  If at the most basic level it was a fulham internal streaming operation the costs could be covered to the point there would never be issues, like there shouldn't be.

If you paid an excess for a poorer service, that's not because a better standard doesn't exist, it means you paid for a poor service.

I agree, there is is such a standard, but, in my experience, standards cost money, and for the price of FFCTv the standards are reasonable, and often at no less a level than I have found with XFinity (Comcast), AT&T etc. which, one might expect being the largest providers in the States (AT&T is the largest in the world with Comcast 2nd, by revenue as well).

The buck does stop with Fulham, however, the content is third-party, and so both us, and the club, are at their mercy for the service level, though the club obviously has some leeway on subscription costs.

[toshes mate]

As a true computer professional I find it very disheartening to read comments such as FFCtv is no worse or even better than some other content provider services as if that justifies anything.  The EFL's own content provider branding has terms of service (and EULAs) that state they do not provide 'an individual service' or 'guarantee any content provision' and does not offer money back for breakdowns, service failures, or any other complaints a user may have.   They offer you access via your account name and password and that is all even if it fails to work for you.

In other words these are buyer beware services that offer no protection at all from the moment you agree payment via your details and unless you cancel your subscription with sufficient notice for them to administer your wish before next payment they will keep on taking your money with no obligation to provide a service to you at all.   

All these services provide minimum (and sometimes optimal) specifications for your equipment but still do not give any guarantee to provide a service good, bad, or indifferent.   They'll take your money even if you tell them to cancel the subscription because their online site has bugs and doesn't work properly. 

This has been allowed to happen because politicians have allowed this incredible laxity to be a part of EULA and terms of service through their ignorance of computer and digital technology/software and the power of the big player companies who want to take everything they can 'legally' get from you in return for providing services which carry no guarantee at all.

And as an added note no computer connection to the internet is free from potential malware interference and you should carry maximum protection on your device at all times unless you know exactly what you are doing.

I'm unsure, from this, whether you feel that the statement regarding 'FFCTv is no better or worse than other content providers' is justified given the current poor level of service provided by much larger providers, or not.

XFinity and AT&T have very similar wording to the EFL's own content provider branding you mentioned, and therefore no such content provider appears to provide a fool-proof service. In my own experience, I have less issues when using FFCTv than I do when using ESPN+ on a week by week basis, especially when it comes to logging problems, as it needs to be linked via another providers account to run correctly.

As I mentioned before, you get what you pay for, and the cost of FFCTv is less than other providers, for the same issues we each come across. And you're quite correct in saying that no connection is free from malware, and that goes for mainstream content as well.

I use a lot of content provider sites from free to premium as do almost all computer users - examples are too numerous to list, and strictly speaking, even FOF is a content provider (all the wonderful stuff lifted from  elsewhere).  My disparaging comments about EULAs and T-o-S come from my background as I have always the best is what you aim for and I have stood firm against a large number of companies (including Apple, Microsoft and IBM) for what I call 'cheating customers'.  Unfortunately those who accompanied the crusade against the big guys failed miserably because politicians were too ignorant to listen.

None of this relieves FFC, or its providers, of a duty to provide fit for purpose content.  Imagine turning up at Craven Cottage and watching five players on one side against eleven on the other because of a communication breakdown somewhere - what would your reaction be if it happened not just once but regularly?

Computers are not mystical creatures of immense sophistication but they do need credible people to write software, design sites and provide facilities and hardware that actually work every time. The only things that stop stuff working every time  is the drive to make profit at the expense of the satisfaction of a customer and that was outrageous in my childhood and should still be outrageous now.  £5 per month for something that doesn't do what it claims is not the point.  The point is FFCtv just don't care and they share that with a lot of others and that IMHO just ain't good enough.  I rather give my £5 to some homeless person.