• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Live streaming platform unveiled for global EFL fans...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can understand that Football League rules don't allow multi camera live streaming (1970s anyone?) but I'd very much like to have a one camera no commentary service.
 

elder said:
just re-read the package... one camera and no audio/commentary either, dear me! perhaps the club should have given fans the option, i'd probably sign up for one game to see what it was like and maybe take up a season pass based on that experience (or not).

a full replay a day or so later just doesn't cut it, foxsports here in oz do that now since they lost the premier league coverage and it's a waste of time.

looking at our signings and now this it really shows you how small time life in the championship (for us) really is.
Click to expand...

Here's what I sent them... told them simply cancelling the plan and doing nothing would be better, as the plan is a f***ing club embarrassment.

Hello-

Getting right to the point, I am an SAFC supporter living overseas.

I read about the day-after-match plan for paid streaming that the club will offer and here's some honest feedback on that I hope you can share with club decision makers.

1. Fans that can't be there want to stream games live. Very few fans will pay for a club DVR service to watch the game a day later. Nor should they.

2. This plan reeks of "We have to do something - even if it's poor offering - something..."

Just cancel it.

It's embarrassing a club with a following as large as SAFC would try to sell their fans a sham like this.

If it's radio only this season, so be it. We all know club finances are tight and some big club amenities like live game streaming might not be in the cards.​
 
It is seriously the day after?

I don't live in the UK anymore. If I did I would have a season ticket still.

I missed a lot of games last season I'd have liked to watch. If this was live then even with one camera / no commentary I would snap it up.

No chance I would pay to watch the day later... I mean come on. Who is realistically going to avoid seeing the result / listening to the live coverage/ watching highlights to watch that??

I would be interested to know how many of the games would be shown on sky or overseas tv if that is the problem with a live service... Even then, you show the ones that are on tv elsewhere a day later and the others live. Jobs a good un.
 
Got this earlier from Chris Waters

Dear admwil,


Thank you for your enquiry regarding the online streaming of games during the 2017-18 season. I passed on your feedback previously and now have an update for you from the relevant department.


We have conducted extensive background work regarding this option being offered by the EFL and have made the decision not participate in iFollow or any streaming service for the foreseeable future.


There are a number of reasons behind us reaching this conclusion:


- We believe the standard one-camera option will not provide a quality service for supporters


- Producing a broadcast to the standard for which the club would be happy to charge our supporters (multi-camera, commentary etc) would involve significant costs


- A significant number of games (those broadcast on TV in the UK and abroad) cannot be streamed under EFL rules, and as such there is no guarantee as to a minimum number of games which could be shown. We would therefore be charging supporters for a product we may not be able to deliver


- We do not believe from our research that the revenue from subscriptions would make the venture financially viable


- We have already invested a significant sum in a multi-camera broadcast system for use at the Stadium of Light and are currently planning to broadcast full 90-minute re-runs of home games, delayed in accordance with the league's holdbacks (available from 12 noon GMT the day after the game) for a subsidised fee.


SAFC is continuing to invest in its digital platforms, recognising that this is a vital medium for fans to connect with the club. We will do everything we can to continue to extend our coverage via existing channels moving forward and hope you will understand our reasoning in regards to this.


Kind regards,

Chris
 
Would have given them the money instantly for the live service.

Know a few lads over here who have already got involved with it at other clubs.

Jealous.
 
I finally got my boilerplate from "Karen". I replied to Chris W. as follows

"
Thank you for the boilerplate which I received from Karen at SAFC today. I had already digested it on the NASA Facebook page yesterday.

I will not pay for a day old bread roll. I would have paid for live one camera silent iFollow despite your low opinion of that offering. So do not use a lack of sign up to your day old option as evidence of low interest abroad for video of SAFC games in the Championship. You will of course do exactly that.

SAFC cuts nose off to spite face. And does it with patronizing platitudes. It's that simple. Why are the clubs that have signed up for iFollow so dumb while SAFC is so caring? "
 
There's something contradictory about that response from Chris Waters. It claims that ...

- Producing a broadcast to the standard for which the club would be happy to charge our supporters (multi-camera, commentary etc) would involve significant costs

Then three bullet points later says ...

- We have already invested a significant sum in a multi-camera broadcast system for use at the Stadium of Light and are currently planning to broadcast full 90-minute re-runs of home games, delayed in accordance with the league's holdbacks (available from 12 noon GMT the day after the game) for a subsidised fee.

Again, I know of many universities over here that stream three-camera systems with commentary, and despite having much smaller budgets than SAFC, provide the service for free. The production costs are minimal, especially if you have the equipment to do it already purchased and on-site. Low and behold, in the second bullet, SAFC says they have that!

The excuses are rubbish.
 
Be happy with delayed coverage.. Gibbo is charging us 40 quid for the radio again :oops:
 
I Claudio said:
There's something contradictory about that response from Chris Waters. It claims that ...

- Producing a broadcast to the standard for which the club would be happy to charge our supporters (multi-camera, commentary etc) would involve significant costs

Then three bullet points later says ...

- We have already invested a significant sum in a multi-camera broadcast system for use at the Stadium of Light and are currently planning to broadcast full 90-minute re-runs of home games, delayed in accordance with the league's holdbacks (available from 12 noon GMT the day after the game) for a subsidised fee.

Again, I know of many universities over here that stream three-camera systems with commentary, and despite having much smaller budgets than SAFC, provide the service for free. The production costs are minimal, especially if you have the equipment to do it already purchased and on-site. Low and behold, in the second bullet, SAFC says they have that!

The excuses are rubbish.
Click to expand...

I thought this too. What's the real reason then? They don't think they will recoup what they pay to join ifollow maybe?
 
I Claudio said:
There's something contradictory about that response from Chris Waters. It claims that ...

- Producing a broadcast to the standard for which the club would be happy to charge our supporters (multi-camera, commentary etc) would involve significant costs

Then three bullet points later says ...

- We have already invested a significant sum in a multi-camera broadcast system for use at the Stadium of Light and are currently planning to broadcast full 90-minute re-runs of home games, delayed in accordance with the league's holdbacks (available from 12 noon GMT the day after the game) for a subsidised fee.

Again, I know of many universities over here that stream three-camera systems with commentary, and despite having much smaller budgets than SAFC, provide the service for free. The production costs are minimal, especially if you have the equipment to do it already purchased and on-site. Low and behold, in the second bullet, SAFC says they have that!

The excuses are rubbish.
Click to expand...

1. They need to be able to claim they "Did something..." for rudimentary PR purposes...

2. Clearly, they don't care whether that "something" is a respectable offering that fans would support or a hollow shell plan that fans will ignore.

All they care about is # 1.
 
Received the boiler plate response today. Shameful. I responded pleading for them to make games available, even at this late stage its surely within their power to do so. If they do so, I promised that directly after purchasing my streaming subscription I would go directly to the club shop and purchase new kits for me and my entire family. Otherwise, I'll wait until I can watch the lads again.

Sad part is, no matter what management does I'll always support the lads, hopefully they do the responsible thing and let us watch the matches!
 
SunderlandUSA said:
Received the boiler plate response today. Shameful. I responded pleading for them to make games available, even at this late stage its surely within their power to do so. If they do so, I promised that directly after purchasing my streaming subscription I would go directly to the club shop and purchase new kits for me and my entire family. Otherwise, I'll wait until I can watch the lads again.

Sad part is, no matter what management does I'll always support the lads, hopefully they do the responsible thing and let us watch the matches!
Click to expand...

They really should be trying to get the foreign based fans onside, it's a potential goldmine if we were to become moderately successful.

Like the NFL, I can't wait to give them my money for gamepass, and I'll be going to a game and spending my money later this year. This would never have happened without access to watching games.
 
scott934 said:
They really should be trying to get the foreign based fans onside, it's a potential goldmine if we were to become moderately successful.

Like the NFL, I can't wait to give them my money for gamepass, and I'll be going to a game and spending my money later this year. This would never have happened without access to watching games.
Click to expand...

It's clearly not a priority for the club currently.

It's sad but not all that surprising.

Given how poorly the club has been run, what's another poor plan / shite decision really matter?

Sadly, it's what we've all come to expect under Short and his muppets.
 
I think a lot of people haven't taken this point into account -

"- A significant number of games (those broadcast on TV in the UK and abroad) cannot be streamed under EFL rules, and as such there is no guarantee as to a minimum number of games which could be shown. We would therefore be charging supporters for a product we may not be able to deliver"

One of the initial points of the iFollow scheme was that if a Sunderland game is shown on Sky live then the foreign subscribers to iFollow can't watch it live through that service.

This then also applies to not just Sky but foreign broadcasters as well. Now imagine if we get aired as many times as Newcastle did last season and all of those games weren't included in the iFollow service.

I think it's shit that SAFC haven't joined in but it would probably be a shitty experience realistically anyway.
 
flusheding said:
I think a lot of people haven't taken this point into account -

"- A significant number of games (those broadcast on TV in the UK and abroad) cannot be streamed under EFL rules, and as such there is no guarantee as to a minimum number of games which could be shown. We would therefore be charging supporters for a product we may not be able to deliver"

One of the initial points of the iFollow scheme was that if a Sunderland game is shown on Sky live then the foreign subscribers to iFollow can't watch it live through that service.

This then also applies to not just Sky but foreign broadcasters as well. Now imagine if we get aired as many times as Newcastle did last season and all of those games weren't included in the iFollow service.

I think it's shit that SAFC haven't joined in but it would probably be a shitty experience realistically anyway.
Click to expand...

Over the first 11 matches, three are being shown internationally - two of them on Sky. (Nearly every Sky match is made available to the international partners.) Over the course of a 46-match schedule, the iFollow platform will still likely have 30-35 of our matches. If it's 35, that's $4 a match on their US pricing. Plus, it's an assurance that essentially every league match will be available, although the local international broadcasters don't always show every match they have rights to.

I am willing to do that. For the club to say, "Nah, it wouldn't be worth it to you," is appalling.
 
I Claudio said:
There's something contradictory about that response from Chris Waters. It claims that ...

- Producing a broadcast to the standard for which the club would be happy to charge our supporters (multi-camera, commentary etc) would involve significant costs

Then three bullet points later says ...

- We have already invested a significant sum in a multi-camera broadcast system for use at the Stadium of Light and are currently planning to broadcast full 90-minute re-runs of home games, delayed in accordance with the league's holdbacks (available from 12 noon GMT the day after the game) for a subsidised fee.

Again, I know of many universities over here that stream three-camera systems with commentary, and despite having much smaller budgets than SAFC, provide the service for free. The production costs are minimal, especially if you have the equipment to do it already purchased and on-site. Low and behold, in the second bullet, SAFC says they have that!

The excuses are rubbish.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And as mentioned earlier, surely there has to be a multi camera system in the stadium whether it's ours or not - there will be supporters of the visiting team who have paid for iFollow to watch their team so how would that work if we said no?
Doesn't add up. Either from the iFollow end or ours.
 
I Claudio said:
Over the first 11 matches, three are being shown internationally - two of them on Sky. (Nearly every Sky match is made available to the international partners.) Over the course of a 46-match schedule, the iFollow platform will still likely have 30-35 of our matches. If it's 35, that's $4 a match on their US pricing. Plus, it's an assurance that essentially every league match will be available, although the local international broadcasters don't always show every match they have rights to.

I am willing to do that. For the club to say, "Nah, it wouldn't be worth it to you," is appalling.
Click to expand...

This. Of course its worth it! How local universities can stream their lacrosse games but our massive club can't broadcast to its fans across the globe.... siiiiggh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top