Premier League urge Crackdown on IIlegal Websites

[TheMaraudingDog]

You've just stated what I stated Moron.

You're basically saying that Bruce Willis is a player and he'll play for a top club on top wages. Then Vin Deisel is the lower league player playing for a lower club on lower wages. That's how it happens now! Tool!

As has been shown with City, money can't buy you any player you want and besides, do you really think that world class players will want to sit on a bench? There will always be a decent level of completion quite simply because there will always be large numbers of pro footballers who want to play.

With regards demanding more money, I never said they should get it all but they should get the lions share. When United finish top of the Premiership should they get an equal amount of money from the league as Plymouth?

Structures should be set up to incentivise teams. It's like that in the league at the moment, the higher you finish the more money you get. With the TV stuff the clubs need to work on pulling a bigger audience to get more money. That's pretty much how business works.

Clubs need to start thinking how they can close the gap on the big four instead of spending time moaning about it.

[TBM]

Aggro - my point the other day was that the money should be split across all leagues, which i still believe as what i was suggestion was paying for a service not a specific game so all clubs get a equal share......but i do agree that prize money should be dependant on where you finish in the league - more incentive to actually try and finish higher, even when safe from relegation.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Money should be split yeah, and it should be split depending on how many people tune in to watch your game.

[sheshnu]

He genuinely doesn't understand, does he?

[TBM]

Money should be split yeah, and it should be split depending on how many people tune in to watch your game.

See we've got different views here.......its like the TV money each club gets at the start of the season, its split equally across all teams. My idea was having an interactive service similar to the red button choose your game on Football First - so you pay, say your £15 and you can watch ANY game you want and keep flicking.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Money should be split yeah, and it should be split depending on how many people tune in to watch your game.

See we've got different views here.......its like the TV money each club gets at the start of the season, its split equally across all teams. My idea was having an interactive service similar to the red button choose your game on Football First - so you pay, say your £15 and you can watch ANY game you want and keep flicking.

I can see where you're coming from and in a 'free trade' world that would be the case.
We're not in a fair trade world though and an equal split of money would be UNFAIR on the big clubs. It's Staruday and United are playing Liverpool while Wigan are at home to Boro. How many people are going to tune in to the Wigan game? How many people are going to pay money to watch that game? What is the value of the money from that game that goes into the pot? Why should the get the money that United fans pay to watch their team on TV?

[papereyes]

Structures should be set up to incentivise teams. It's like that in the league at the moment, the higher you finish the more money you get. With the TV stuff the clubs need to work on pulling a bigger audience to get more money. That's pretty much how business works.

I would agree with you except that the structure in place at the moment is incredibly biased towards the champions league. The Champions League has a pool of £400 million, give or take, for prize money. When Liverpool lost the final a few years back, they got a sum for simply being Liverpool in the Champions League that was larger than the prize money for getting to the final. I can't see how that is in anyway fair.

On the other hand, the UEFA cup gets about £10 million in total for prize money. Rangers' cup run last year generated about 2.5 million from this total.

I know the markets are different, the TV audiences different, but I genuinely think a more equitable sharing of money between the two European competitions would help and a more equitable sharing of the money within the Champions League - a team from a relatively minor league will receive enough money to dominate next season but never enough to make them more competitive in the CL.

Clubs need to start thinking how they can close the gap on the big four instead of spending time moaning about it.

And this is fatally flawed. We have one team that have closed the gap, partially because of Arsenal's minor implosion. How have they done it? By getting a billionaire owner and spending, what, £60 million over three years. You say that its a case of 'looking at closing the gap' but when the answer is 'get a rich Yank in', it rather ruins your argument, for me, anyway.

I have more respect for Everton being there or thereabouts on a very limited budget but what happened when they broke the CL? Lost in the qualifiers and got no money while Liverpool were (rightly or wrongly) readmitted. The money stayed within that cohort of four clubs.

[weybridgewanderer]

Money should be split yeah, and it should be split depending on how many people tune in to watch your game.

See we've got different views here.......its like the TV money each club gets at the start of the season, its split equally across all teams. My idea was having an interactive service similar to the red button choose your game on Football First - so you pay, say your £15 and you can watch ANY game you want and keep flicking.

if you could do that there would be no need for late kick offs so potentially chelsea hull, portsmouth liverpool, west ham man utd and tottenham liverpool would all be on the TV tomorrow. what would it do to attendances at clubs outside the top flight?

how would the extra revenue be divided up to subsidise other clubs for the loss in revenue? man u, luverpool and co would demand the majority of the money as they are the attraction so there would not be enough left to spread throughthe hierarchy to make up for lost revenues

[The 17 Bus]

There is only one live KO time that is not allowed, 3pm on a Sat afternoon, we ahev Champs league games live , and lower league games on the same nights, has anyone done a comparison??

For me I would choose RFC live over any Prem game, as i am sure would many other clubs supporters, the worry is the youngsters, who can see the top 4 week in week out , and who probably dont go to watch their local team anyway.

Sadly a club that attracts 5k fans week in week out is not going to be a great attraction to television, in order to continue to pull in the money the TV rights will change over time, I can see 3pm games on a saturday being the norm, either PPV or just live, we have noon games and 5-15 games, does this hurt the 3pm KO's?

[Royal With Cheese]

You've just stated what I stated Moron.

You're basically saying that Bruce Willis is a player and he'll play for a top club on top wages. Then Vin Deisel is the lower league player playing for a lower club on lower wages. That's how it happens now! Tool!

No I'm not. It's not my fault if you can't understand a number of words formed into sentences. The nearest I can use to your analogy is that you pay to see Brucie smash the baddies. If they're no baddies then there's effectively no film. Unless, of course, you just want to look at him and masturbate - then, fair enough, you have a point.

[rabidbee]

The music industry’s response? While they’ve attempted to stop illegal downloads with pressure on ISPs and prosecutions, there’s tacit acknowledgement that it’s a battle that might never be won. So they’ve increased focus on what people want from the live experience and heftily discounted CDs, compared with only a few years ago.

Will the Premier League respond in similar fashion and encourage clubs to cut prices? The average Premier League crowd is now in its mid-40’s and the next generation of fan doesn’t seem to need the live fix. Young supporters have been priced out and think football is something you watch on TV anyway.

That's actually the opposite of what the music industry has done, though, where most money is now made from gigs (tickets and, in particular, merchandising). Of course, most people don't watch the same band week-in/week-out ( ), so they don't baulk so much at the price of gig tickets. If the league and braodcasters accept that they can't really stop p2p, except by offering a high quality product legally for a cheap price, that won't bode well for live attendances, especially amongst the generation who only watch football on telly, not unless the price comes down.

Even if the broadcasters can replace subscription revenues with advertising revenues (which one would have thought they could do), if they're not really enjoying a monopoly, there won't be much of an incentive for them to pay the league such huge sums of money, which could spell the end of the big money in football. Or, more realistically, perhaps a shifting of big money, with a greater proportion of the big name players' earning coming from marketing rights.

Or am I speculating bullshit?

[rabidbee]

Money should be split yeah, and it should be split depending on how many people tune in to watch your game.

See we've got different views here.......its like the TV money each club gets at the start of the season, its split equally across all teams. My idea was having an interactive service similar to the red button choose your game on Football First - so you pay, say your £15 and you can watch ANY game you want and keep flicking.

I can see where you're coming from and in a 'free trade' world that would be the case.
We're not in a fair trade world though and an equal split of money would be UNFAIR on the big clubs. It's Staruday and United are playing Liverpool while Wigan are at home to Boro. How many people are going to tune in to the Wigan game? How many people are going to pay money to watch that game? What is the value of the money from that game that goes into the pot? Why should the get the money that United fans pay to watch their team on TV?

Because the more competative the league is, the more entertaining it is. Also, the stronger it across the whole competition, the stronger the best teams have to be to win it. Funnel 95% of the money to the top two clubs and, basically, you end up turning the Premiership into the SPL. I'm not even sure I agree with splittig the TV deal money unequally according to league finish. Afterall, the most successful teams will inevitably be screened more, and so earn more that way, and they will earn a hell of a lot more through advertising, marketing and sponsorship. ]

The draft system obviously wouldn't work over here without a revolutionary change to the game, one that I wouldn't support. Nevertheless, one has to admire the intention of trying to keep the whole league broadly competative. Consequently, in the last 20 years, 14 teams have won the Superbowl, and 13 teams have won each of the World Series and the Stanley Cup (both of which missed a year because of strikes); even the NBA has had seven different winners in the last 20 years. Only six teams have won the League (Div One and PL) in the last 20 years (10 times by United alone); in fact, only ten teams have won it in the last 40. No wonder people are jaded about the league championship.

[TBM]

Seems they've cracked down already.........couldn't find many games on, over the weekend

[gh7901]

I did okay, watched the Liverpool and the Spurs game, the only 2 I tried to watch
A lot of sites have taken the links for Premiership games off now though, so it was a case of looking through a load of Sopcast channels. Luckily quite a few change the channel name to the game they are showing

[Matt de K]

Have you tried TVU - thats the only one I could find games on

[Matt de K]

I did okay, watched the Liverpool and the Spurs game, the only 2 I tried to watch
A lot of sites have taken the links for Premiership games off now though, so it was a case of looking through a load of Sopcast channels. Luckily quite a few change the channel name to the game they are showing

I hear that they are blocking anyone with a UK ip address. This makes sense as I when I was trying the steam would get to 92% buffer and stay there with a black screen. This happenned on a few channels

[gh7901]

I did okay, watched the Liverpool and the Spurs game, the only 2 I tried to watch
A lot of sites have taken the links for Premiership games off now though, so it was a case of looking through a load of Sopcast channels. Luckily quite a few change the channel name to the game they are showing

I hear that they are blocking anyone with a UK ip address. This makes sense as I when I was trying the steam would get to 92% buffer and stay there with a black screen. This happenned on a few channels

Ah right, well thats possible with streams from the channel itself but I certainly didnt have any problems!

IP blocking is hardly a solution - only takes someone who has a foreign satellite subscription to set up a P2P stream, job done. They'll never stop it

[Matt de K]

Apparently Premier League solicitors sent several "heavy threatening" letters out to chinese broadcasting addresses, and I guess the same for the likes of myp2p.eu etc; As one week all their links have dissapeared - yet the forums remain open giving channels & web streams - then the next week the forums all disappear - leaving me with a trial and error senario

[Matt de K]

Just like to say that watching footy is still very easy on t'internet so long as you know where to look. I watched the Man U Fulham game last night with perfect viewing, no buffering and in english

[TBM]

Just like to say that watching footy is still very easy on t'internet so long as you know where to look. I watched the Man U Fulham game last night with perfect viewing, no buffering and in english

So where do you look?