PDA

View Full Version : Premflix



Simon
February 10th, 2020, 6:26 AM
Looks like the Premier League are starting to test the waters with regard to a Premier League streaming service which cuts out the need for a broadcaster, sort of like the WWE Network. Will be interesting to see how this goes - in theory, the possibility of watching any game you like, and a back catalogue of endless games from the history of the PL, will be great. But on the other hand, this article from John Nicholson rasies some excellent points about the potential fallout of such a move...

https://www.football365.com/news/premflix-end-premier-league-john-nicholson

The Rosk
February 10th, 2020, 7:20 AM
I would absolutely love the option to watch any game from PL history. I'd probably just watch the 95/96 Villa season through in its entirety.

Simon
February 10th, 2020, 7:36 AM
Samesies, I think I'd watch the Spurs/United game from New Year's Day 1996 on a loop.

MMH
February 10th, 2020, 9:03 AM
Watching old games doesn't really work. Football is a live sport event where the result is the biggest factor. If you already know the result the spectacle is diminished.

I remember being chuffed that old games were to be shown on ESPN. After a couple I got bored.

A lot will depend on the cost. I would be happy to pay fully for Everton games, wouldn't really care about anybody else's games from the premier league. World wise would be different I support....

Murphy
February 10th, 2020, 9:36 AM
Yeah, no interest particularly in a back catalogue of games.

Being able to watch all Spurs games, appealing, generally. That said, watching them this season has been a chore from start until now. Dare I say it though, I think they're headed in a better direction now. Possibly. There are positives, anyway.

I'd need to be able to watch other games, as they cause me no discomfort. :D

Romford Pele
February 10th, 2020, 11:34 AM
Very interesting...a good way to discourage streaming if the pricing point is right. JN is right to point out the downsides though.

Simon
February 10th, 2020, 12:43 PM
Watching old games doesn't really work. Football is a live sport event where the result is the biggest factor. If you already know the result the spectacle is diminished.

Full live games maybe but extensive highlights at least? I have a folder of full Spurs games on my hard drive that I still go back to now and then. It probably sums up Spurs' recent history that the folder of games I've deemed worthy of keeping includes five draws and two defeats :lol:


A lot will depend on the cost. I would be happy to pay fully for Everton games, wouldn't really care about anybody else's games from the premier league. World wise would be different I support....

I read an article on The Athletic (@Alex) which said the price would likely be way less than people currently pay through their satellite provider. I don't see why that would happen - surely the PL would just undercut it slightly, giving everyone the feeling they were getting a good deal while creaming off the profits - but if it offers significant savings then everyone wins really.

Fanny Batter
February 10th, 2020, 3:13 PM
I'm not sure. It's got to the point where the majority of games are televised, so it boils down to whether you can get that for a significantly lower price as you can now, as you'd have to proportion for signing up elsewhere anyway for the Champions League and FA Cup, as well as other sports. I get the maximum amount we can pay is preposterous, but if you shop around and share accounts etc it's not 900 or whatever figure they shop for the Amazon/Sky/BT combination. BT bend over when you ring up, and can be played simultaneously on at least 2 devices. Now TV usually has an offer less than 200 for a season which can be watched on 2 devices simultaneously, so split that down the middle with someone. Amazon is cheap anyway for the free P&P aspect, but even so both fixtures they have fit in one month so you could just subscribe then. So basically by my math you can get a Prem season for around 150, and have all the additional football and sports with that. It's not ideal going through all the hoops to watch stuff you want, but realistically how cheap could they charge for it to be beneficial? I get from a corporate perspective it could be a good idea for the Premier League, but I'd need a bit more convincing to see its merit to the consumer.

MMH
February 10th, 2020, 4:21 PM
Full live games maybe but extensive highlights at least? I have a folder of full Spurs games on my hard drive that I still go back to now and then. It probably sums up Spurs' recent history that the folder of games I've deemed worthy of keeping includes five draws and two defeats :lol:

I read an article on The Athletic (@Alex) which said the price would likely be way less than people currently pay through their satellite provider. I don't see why that would happen - surely the PL would just undercut it slightly, giving everyone the feeling they were getting a good deal while creaming off the profits - but if it offers significant savings then everyone wins really.

I think most extensive highlights are already available on youtube for nothing though?

Same with streaming really, its available for nowt. Maybe not legally as such but it will always be there. I would assume it wont be a 10 a month WWE Network type deal.

In principle its a great idea and exactly what I would want but its come too late for me, the horse has already bolted.

RuneEdge
February 10th, 2020, 4:55 PM
Did no one here use that "Premier League Pass" service from New Zealand about 5 years ago?

It was a streaming service in New Zealand that had acquired exclusive rights to broadcasting the EPL in that country. You paid about 100 for a years subscription, and you got every single league game live (with up to 4 games watchable at the same time in split screen mode), and also the ability go back and replay any game from that season again in its entirety.
It was geo-restricted to New Zealand so you had to use a VPN, plus make up a fake home address before paying. But once it was set up, it worked flawlessly. It even came with its own phone app to let you watch everything on the go as well. The commentary team were the ones used on Match of the Day but lacked all the post match studio analysis.

Anyway, the point is that a similar thing to what Simon is talking about has been attempted before on a smaller scale (as in it was kinda trialled exclusively in a small country). Its interesting cuz I personally recommended it by some people who all used to pay for it, and had gone as far as cancelling their Sky for it.
I kinda liked the idea of it and if it was still around (it ended in 2016), Id probably still be paying for it today.

RFF Champ
February 11th, 2020, 3:44 AM
Streaming live sports on delay sucks :yes:

_me
February 12th, 2020, 3:49 PM
Looks like the Premier League are starting to test the waters with regard to a Premier League streaming service which cuts out the need for a broadcaster, sort of like the WWE Network. Will be interesting to see how this goes - in theory, the possibility of watching any game you like, and a back catalogue of endless games from the history of the PL, will be great. But on the other hand, this article from John Nicholson rasies some excellent points about the potential fallout of such a move...

https://www.football365.com/news/premflix-end-premier-league-john-nicholson
I feel like they could charge almost $100/month and still get millions of subscribers.

son_of_foley
February 13th, 2020, 1:38 AM
I doubt it

Gangers
February 13th, 2020, 5:18 AM
I feel like they could charge almost $100/month and still get millions of subscribers.

Not a chance. You could get both BT Sport and Sky Sports for well under that in the UK and nobody does that. Most people don't even have one of those.

Chris Scott
February 13th, 2020, 9:23 AM
Yeah no chance at 100 a month

Murphy
February 13th, 2020, 9:57 AM
You could go to all the games for that, depending on your team and where you are etc.

Fanny Batter
February 13th, 2020, 10:04 AM
Realistically, they'd have to offer quite a bit more than just 10 football matches a week to warrent charging a king's ransom. People would still likely keep Sky/BT for other programming if they reduced their asking prices, so they couldn't just charge the equivalent of what the whole lot costs now. Because they wouldn't be offering the whole lot. Essentially, they'd be replacing a Premier League Darts evening with Brighton vs. Burnley at 3 o'clock. The paying consumer will need it for less. For me, probably, 40 a month rolling contract would probably be fair, or a 300 year pass. That would still put them massively behind current rights deals, but then you can shop a game a week to various channels, which they'd pay to try and retain their revenue. Along with the monetary control over all advertising. With their own control over scheduling and growth of the brand. But then you get into the logistics of the costs of hiring the production teams and the Lineker's of the world, maintaining a consistent presence during international breaks and off season's, having to produce in house programming to fill scheduling etc. You can see why they fob it off to the highest bidder. It's a lot less hassle. The potential ceiling isn't as high, but I'd say with the current process the floor is comfortable, whereas the potential floor if it didn't take off would be catastrophic. Could you imagine if the software was shit and it crashed due to high volume first weekend of the season? At 40 a head? People would head to the illegal stream realm faster than you could say Pascal Chimbonda.

Murphy
February 13th, 2020, 10:25 AM
SHIMBOMBA

Man, I miss David Pleat on commentary.

_me
February 13th, 2020, 10:34 AM
Not a chance. You could get both BT Sport and Sky Sports for well under that in the UK and nobody does that. Most people don't even have one of those.
I meant world wide, not just the UK.

But yes, obviously there is a better price point. My larger point was their is a huge global audience just waiting for that product as soon as they offer it. I think they could easily get more directly from consumers than they get from the networks.

Chris Scott
February 13th, 2020, 10:56 AM
I honestly think most clubs will soon have all games home and away on an exclusive club channel only.

RFF Champ
February 13th, 2020, 11:31 AM
There's nothing radical on the horizon because they have TV deals to the end of the decade. That's a blessing because Amazon had the opportunity to provide something interesting and they came up with the same old commentators and pundits on a 90 second time delay.

Simon
February 13th, 2020, 11:42 AM
Amazon's coverage was brilliant you big ape.

Fanny Batter
February 13th, 2020, 11:56 AM
I think the streaming delay is a problem if you're a big gambler, or are on social media or talking to a friend who's watching at real time while the game is going on. I've been watching on Now TV, popped on the phone to check something and had a goal spoiled before it's happened on the box. It's certainly something they need to tighten up. It surely will though, given it's only about 10 years ago where you'd have to wait a day for somebody to upload something like the Ferguson "Christian" Bale gaff. Things are improving.

_me
February 13th, 2020, 12:02 PM
I honestly think most clubs will soon have all games home and away on an exclusive club channel only.
I can definitely see that with the non-English elite teams (Bayern, Madrid, Barca, Juvetus, etc). But I think the English ones get that they can make more by sticking together.

Fanny Batter
February 13th, 2020, 12:14 PM
Another thing, would it essentially condemn England into becoming, essentially, a franchise led Premier Division? You've got to think that the revenue the Championship could draw from TV rights would absolutely plateau if they weren't on a network propped up by people subscribing to the Prem. How would that affect our pyramid system? In terms of transition it would have to be thought out and perhaps revenue from the Prem filtered into the lower divisions, as it would collapse. I already have a fear that the bottom will fall out of the sport due to the increasing regulations within the gambling industry. The sport is propped up by the industry, through the prime time adverts, the shirt deals, the fucking league is named after a firm. If regulations lead to a clamp down on online gambling as they did on the high street, how many of these teams suddenly become in increasing debt? If that is then compounded by TV revenue dropping, the whole thing is fucked.

RFF Champ
February 13th, 2020, 12:19 PM
Amazon's coverage was brilliant you big ape.

Oh yeah, all those great things noone else does like hiring Peter Drury and erm...erm...erm

Simon
February 13th, 2020, 12:24 PM
Well who do you want commentating, Michael Portillo and that little disabled woman off of Silent Witness?

- - - Updated - - -

Side note: The best commentator is still Ian Darke.

Murphy
February 13th, 2020, 12:32 PM
Yes, Darke is still the man.

RFF Champ
February 13th, 2020, 12:44 PM
Well who do you want commentating, Michael Portillo and that little disabled woman off of Silent Witness?

- - - Updated - - -

Side note: The best commentator is still Ian Darke.

I want you to tell me what was so good about it

Gangers
February 14th, 2020, 5:39 AM
You could watch four games in a row and not have to talk to your fucking family on Boxing Day?

RFF Champ
February 14th, 2020, 6:07 AM
That's not an Amazon thing, that's been the case for years.

Murphy
February 14th, 2020, 6:13 AM
Nah, 2 max on those other bastards. :D

Fanny Batter
February 14th, 2020, 7:41 AM
BT did exactly the same for new year's, that's not an indictment on the quality of the product, that's the package that was sold. I didn't see Amazon's coverage, is it like NFL where they outsource the production from somewhere else, NBC possibly?

Simon
February 14th, 2020, 7:45 AM
You could watch four games in a row and not have to talk to your fucking family on Boxing Day?

:lol: