[Archived] Pub Match Courtcase

[Manchester Blue]

the late brian clough said one day football would let the supporters into the ground for NOTHING,because football in a empty stadium is nowhere as exciting as it is when the ground is full.for many years it has been mooted that armchair supporters would be able to watch every game off the team they support live on tv,it's getting nearer that time is arriving.

        for us the diehards being there live is the drug,too up and coming supporters they have a choice,if they decide to watch it in the pub,at home it;s there decision,football is at a crossroads

398632[/snapback]

Fully agree with this. It's no good people just slating people for not going. Football has to change. All clubs will be affected by this. Most clubs are not selling out. Football is not the same as it was 20 or even 15 years ago. For every fan who has been attracted by the nice stadiums, many more have been put off because they don't enjoy it. No fan owes the club a living.

[speeeeeeedie]

Dan's responses are typical of today's younger fan. Going to the game isn't enough entertainment, a skin full before and a skin full after is also needed. To alot of young fans a game without a p!ss up is like fish without chips. Arguing over semantics of pricing is hardly convincing when the actual game figure is dwarfed by drinking spends.

I don't think any of us would disagree with the fact that the game needs changing and Rovers don't want to get shafted as a result. We cry into our pints over a few hundred (maybe) lost to foregin football. Imagine United? They can't build stands quickly enough to fit them in. How many black market fans watch their games?

[Billinge End Blue]

These days there are two ways that people (note, not necessarily fans) choose to watch football – individually (or in small family/friend circles at home) or communally, at an actual football ground or in a pub, with like-minded strangers.

However, with the cultural changes in both football and society over the last ten years or so, we now have a state where ‘armchair’ fans ARE making up an increasing percentage of the crowd so is it any wonder that some types of supporters are now put off going to home games. Supporting is a communal activity…but so is the act of watching a match in the pub (unless it’s the Robert Peel, Walton-le-dale!). Actual home-based armchair viewers are much harder to coax to Ewood than those watching in the pub; it isn’t solely cost that encourages people to watch matches in the pub, what is needed is for the desire of supporters to attend Rovers home matches to be better fostered. To start with, in addition to the Wild Rover from the tannoy, what about the Blackburn End singing ‘Abide with Me’ to TV viewers before every kick off?!

The Ewood match day experience needs to be good and different enough to attract people to the ground. A regular rip roaring atmosphere would help draw back those who frequent the satellite TV pubs. In the good old days of 5000 crowds at Ewood, a vocal away following would be taken on, their songs returned or undermined – it was a point of pride. This was seen as important, it was what bred our ‘hardcore’ support and it has been lost in the focus of BRFC and Premiership football in general on the ‘customer’, the family unit and business.

What has happened to this local pride? It has been undermined by heaps of cynicism. Kids drop litter and East Lancashire folk flock to the Trafford Centre. Do you shop for your hardware and toys at Mercers or B&Q and Toys r Us? Its all part of the same bogus cult of improved ‘choice’ these days. Like Tesco and McDonalds, the Chelsea and Man Utd product are rammed down the throats of modern football ‘consumers’. Call me an old fogey but, gah, modern life is rubbish!

That said, increased leisure options do adversely impact our attendances. Blackburn people now don’t NEED to go to Ewood, they can go shopping, play sport, go to a nearby city or beautiful countryside, to the gym, cinema or even to the pub to watch the match; why are some surprised when they exercise the wrong choice (as we see it)?

Even if every local pub with a TV is screening football on Saturday afternoons, there should be only one choice and desire for when there is a game at Ewood – to be there.

[Modi]

I had this conversation with some friends on Saturday before the Pompey match.

Don't just think of Rovers, but think of the 80 odd clubs which aren't genuinely 'big'. Exclude Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Newcastle, Arsenal and maybe a few others and what are you left with? Matches that the floating, casual fan isn't really bothered about.

How many people when faced with the choice of a few quid to watch Chelsea - Man Utd on a Saturday at 1500 or watch Bury vs Rochdale at £15 (or whatever)will go to Bury? How many would choose Torquay vs Scunthorpe for twice the price of Liverpool vs Arsenal?

Football will die if the top clubs are available on tap every single week.

ITV digital showed the folly of being reliant on tv money. How many clubs almost went to the wall?

Look at the choice of Rovers-Fulham or City-Newcastle, which would get the bigger audience? Why would Sky or another broadcaster believe they should pay the same for the former as the latter? If the market for broadcast is 'free' then most likely will the broadcasters payment schemes. The big clubs will only get bigger, the biggish clubs will be OK and the rest would see a fall in tv revenue and gate receipts.

In five seasons time, we'd be reduced to watching a kick around at Witton Park as Rovers would not survive.

[Biddy]

If Sky took over the TV rather than having Norway TV do it, what Modes98 says is right. The club's Sky revenue should increase as they get more game revenue. One solution for this is to have equal revenue sharing of TV money. That way every Prem team gets the same amount from the pot. More games being shown means a greater exposure elsewhere (cue Peter Kenyon and David Gill).

398637[/snapback]

With the implications of todays ruling, this is not going to happen. If pubs are now allowed to show football from other satellites then Sky will have to drop sports subscriptions to compete.

The lowest suscription to sky you can get is for 2 mixes at £15 per month. Sky sports takes this up to £34 therefore £19 per month (£228 per year) for Sports Channels showing a selection of football.

I have been looking into foreign satellites (as I'm ###### off with Sky's charges) and you can get the ART channels under subscrition for £83.99 for the year Art Sub Card. This gives you every game that sky shows including pay per views and 4 3pm kick off games. Remembering that pubs pay a lot more than retail prices for Sky subscriptions therefore if pubs can get it at this price, which do you think they are going to go for?

[waggy]

thats a brilliant offer

[stuwilky]

With the implications of todays ruling, this is not going to happen.  If pubs are now allowed to show football from other satellites then Sky will have to drop sports subscriptions to compete.

The lowest suscription to sky you can get is for 2 mixes at £15 per month.  Sky sports takes this up to £34 therefore £19 per month (£228 per year) for Sports Channels showing a selection of football.

I have been looking into foreign satellites (as I'm ###### off with Sky's charges) and you can get the ART channels under subscrition for £83.99 for the year Art Sub Card.  This gives you every game that sky shows including pay per views and 4 3pm kick off games.  Remembering that pubs pay a lot more than retail prices for Sky subscriptions therefore if pubs can get it at this price, which do you think they are going to go for?

398714[/snapback]

Im waiting for mine to be installed at home....

[Exiled in Toronto]

I for one am surprised that Sky didn't see this coming, being the innovators of satellite TV. These dodgy channels BOUGHT the feeds fair and square, and to try and impose national boudaries on their footrpint is bizarre when the whole point of satellite is its ability to broadcast far and wide.

Unfortunatley for Sky and footy in general, the Murdoch model has been to sell to Johnny Foreigner at the marginal cost of transmission plus a margin. That's why you schlubs pay hundreds of pounds in the UK for the same broadcast matches I get here for $3 a month. I can watch 6 full games a week here for 25p each. You're paying for the Sky money that goes to clubs, I'm just paying Murdoch a bit of jam on top.

Sky are pissing in the wind trying to stop it as there is no crime - everyone is paying the asking price. Sky may own copyright but Turkish TV are paying what Murdoch charges, the Jolly Cripple is paying what Turkish TV charges, and the pub punters are paying what the landlord charges for his ale. And of course Rovers get paid a handsome sum when the game gest shown, far more than they lose on the gate. So no surprise that it goes on.

I agree with Waggy - fans will be let in for nothing eventually. I can go and see Major League Baseball in Toronto for three quid, even when it's the Yankees or Red Sox in town, because TV fees pay for everything.

[Eddie]

The thing he'll have to do is simply renegotiate his deals with foreign broadcasters when the deals run out. That's the only way he can stop himself from slowly losing sky subcribers and also possibly losing the rights to the Premiership once the football clubs become unhappy with losing fans to Greek TV.

[den]

I for one am surprised that Sky didn't see this coming, being the innovators of satellite TV.  These dodgy channels BOUGHT the feeds fair and square, and to try and impose national boudaries on their footrpint is bizarre when the whole point of satellite is its ability to broadcast far and wide.

Sky are pissing in the wind trying to stop it as there is no crime - everyone is paying the asking price.  Sky may own copyright but Turkish TV are paying what Murdoch charges, the Jolly Cripple is paying what Turkish TV charges, and the pub punters are paying what the landlord charges for his ale.

398728[/snapback]

You're wrong EIT. There most certainly is a crime being perurtrated here. A couple of people involved with BRISA have been making enquiries to the relevant people who deal with the issues of illegal tv broadcasting.

I'm not going to divulge my sources on here, but a couple of quotes:

"We have spoken this week, he confirmed that to show the broadcasts in pubs was a definite copyright infringement and could result in prosecution"

"He said they were isolated cases [the cases in Bolton being discussed here] which were let off on a technicality and had no bearing on the overall issue that showing these games in local pubs broke copyright as they could only be viewed live in the middle east not the UK."

"He said the cases in Bolton were prosecution failed were isolated cases and they had previous prosecutions in that area and would do so in the future. He likened the issue to "because your neighbour gets off a motoring offence on a technicality it didn't mean that you could expect the same if you broke the law."

[Biddy]

The thing he'll have to do is simply renegotiate his deals with foreign broadcasters when the deals run out. That's the only way he can stop himself from slowly losing sky subcribers and also possibly losing the rights to the Premiership once the football clubs become unhappy with losing fans to Greek TV.

398733[/snapback]

However the worlds buying public aren't as gulible as us Brits when it comes to English football. They will generally pay a fair price and nothing more. After all, any money is better than no money especially when the bread basket is on home soil anyway.

Also, surely it isn't Murdoch selling the TV rights to other countries, it's the FA / Premier League which own and sell the rights?

[den]

However the worlds buying public aren't as gulible as us Brits when it comes to English football.  They will generally pay a fair price and nothing more.  After all, any money is better than no money especially when the bread basket is on home soil anyway.

Also, surely it isn't Murdoch selling the TV rights to other countries, it's the FA / Premier League which own and sell the rights?

398740[/snapback]

bskyb own the copyright.

[Flopsy]

the fact that it costs me more to drive to and from Ewood than it does to buy a ticket is one of the reasons I dont go as often as i did.

Also we seem to lose when i turn up so its for the good of the club really.

[Eddie]

Yeah, it goes from bskyb to foreign channels, so it is up to them to negotiate the deals. The Premiership is very popular, people will pay more for it than they do now. I certainly think he can afford to increase the price by enough that even if they lose customers they'll still make as much if not more.

[Biddy]

You're wrong EIT. There most certainly is a crime being perurtrated here. A couple of people involved with BRISA have been making enquiries to the relevant people who deal with the issues of illegal tv broadcasting.

I'm not going to divulge my sources on here, but a couple of quotes:

"We have spoken this week, he confirmed that to show the broadcasts in pubs was a definite copyright infringement and could result in prosecution"

"He said they were isolated cases [the cases in Bolton being discussed here] which were let off on a technicality and had no bearing on the overall issue that showing  these games in local pubs broke copyright as they could only be viewed live in the middle east not the UK."

"He said the cases in Bolton were prosecution failed were isolated cases and they had previous prosecutions in that area and would do so in the future.  He likened the issue to "because your neighbour gets off a motoring offence on a technicality it  didn't mean that you could expect the same if you broke the law."

398738[/snapback]

It certainly could be an interesting long running battle ahead.

I am just wondering whos copyright the lawyers would be arguing was broken. Sky's copyright hasn't as their channels would not have been hacked to show the encrypted programming. The Premier Leagues haven't been broken as the pubs were paying a subscription therefore directly paying the copyright owner. Finally, the foreign Satellites copyright is in tact as again the subscription is still in place.

I would have thought the only law being broken is the rather poor law that states that no live games can be shown during certain times. This is the law that most prosecutions have been brought against and won successfully. I'm sure if someone challenged this at a European level that even this would be called ridiculous as we can legitimately receive other satellite channels in this country.

Also, The argument about "middle east" providers is also a strange one as surely in this open EU market, we could buy a service from anywhere in Europe? Well, you can also subscribe to French and German channels who show just as much football as the Middle Eastern satellite providers.

And the "technicality" that the Bolton case won on was the fact that they had a paid for suscription. Rather a large technicallity that anyone who isn't using hacked cams can win a case on it would appear.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Biddy

[Biddy]

bskyb own the copyright.

398741[/snapback]

Fair enough.

I wonder how that will all get negotiated when Sky can't own all the packages.

[den]

And the "technicality" that the Bolton case won on was the fact that they had a paid for suscription.  Rather a large technicallity that anyone who isn't using hacked cams can win a case on it would appear.

398744[/snapback]

"Dan Johnson, a spokesman for the Premier League, said: "There are no rights for the general bar trade to show football games at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. It's illegal and if people transgress we will take them to court."

He said the two court rulings in Bolton were "rogue decisions" and just because a licensees had paid a foreign broadcaster for a signal it did not give them the copyright to the games.

"It's a breach of copyright. If those rights have been sold abroad then they are only for use in that region."

Mr Johnson added that there was lots of anecdotal evidence which showed attendeces at football games fell when the matches were being shown in pubs and that it also led to a fall in the number of people playing football on a Saturday. "

[des]

for me when football went down the free market road, them there have to accept that it is a free market.

players can earn what they can, club are free to change what there can, and fans should be free to watch football where ever and the cost should be open in a free market.

this means that people should be able to chose, where there go to buy the things that there want, and that also means football.

people use the concept of free market when it suits them. ie players and clubs and sky etc, but when it starts to harm them there cry foul, well no way, football has gone down this road and will have to live with it.

[OscarRaven]

I wonder how that will all get negotiated when Sky can't own all the packages.

398745[/snapback]

That’s a good point, I see this from a slightly different angle, this is upsetting the apple cart TV wise and I think this needs to happen big time.

Unfortunately SKY can control who they sell too so ultimately they have control anyway. If this was a serious threat to them they would cancel the contracts, as it is they will just bump the price up if Greek TV is getting loads of subscribers - Sky will get their pound of flesh one way or another.

Rooney blows £700,000 gambling in a few months, Bellamy fly’s into training via helicopter - sorry I am not going criticise anyone who no longer wants to pay the modern footballers wage either via sky subscription or ticket prices.

I will just say to the rest of you "die hards" when is enough enough? £50? £75? £100 a game. After all its such a wonderful competitive league where anything can happen and anyone can win the league.

Example:

Salary = £15,000 (roughly £200 a week after tax) Ticket = £27 or 13.5% of wage

Salary = £60,000 (roughly £700 a week after tax) Ticket = £40 or 5.7% of wage

[£94 ticket for the £60K earner makes them equal in terms of percentage]

Who pays the most? Who's more dedicated? Who is the better fan?

I support the club but it grates me that I'm paying for superstars to P#*s away my hard earned cash. It shouldn't be this way, but I guess I should just shut up and accept it like the rest of you?

This season in my opinion has been worth the season ticket price last 2 seasons before that - no way. But like most people I have my limit cost wise, just accept that Blackburn has a lower fan base and Blackburn fans have lower household incomes than the city dwelling clubs.

I'm not surprised its the people of Blackburn are the first ones to wake up and smell the coffee. I'm just shocked that so many of you are still in dreamland.

[Tris]

I've scanned through this thread and read quite a lot of rubbish, some sensible contributions, and some downright misinformation (hello EIT).

A couple of points:

- The reason I've singled EIT out is because (s)he's on a hobby horse again - like a dog with a bone. Always slagging off the board, always blaming Sky for the "dodgy broadcasts" thing. Actually has the facts wrong on the whole lot.

- The Premier League - for the current contract period - sold the DOMESTIC rights exclusively to Sky. Others made offers, and under EU instructions the PL had to sell some games to other broadcasters - if a reserve price was met. It wasn't.

- Seperately, the Premier League sells rights to an intermediary for overseas broadcasters around the world. The current deal was also the highest ever (but the value of the deal was around 15% of the value of the domestic rights).

- The host broadcaster provides pictures for the TV companies which buy the rights - for a nominal fee. Currently, some games are covered by Sky and some by the BBC (who also pay each other for the same feeds which get sold overseas).

- All the rights money goes into the PL pot and gets dished back out to the clubs. I find it hilarious that some posters who slate the Rovers board for not splashing cash on new players to boost us up the table (for more prize money) are the very same people who are slagging off the source of all that positional prize money - TV revenue.

- Rovers stand to lose more than any other PL club if this ruling survives (I assume there will be an appeal) - for these reasons:

1) Lowest revenue (out of current 20 clubs) through the gates even now, so for Rovers - money from the TV honey pot is more important than for any other PL club.

2) After this ruling, I would expect any TV company bidding for future exclusive domestic rights (Sky, Setanta, ITV, TopUpTV and Five are rumoured to be in there) to stall. Why pay a share of 1.x billion for exclusive domestic rights, when any UK resident or business can subscribe to Greek TV for a few quid and the courts say it's OK?????!!!!!

3) Clubs like Rovers who already punch above their weight do so thanks to TV money. The collapse of the current allocation of TV revenue will benefit - in order - Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Newcastle, Everton, Man City ... ...

and eventually Leeds, Sunderland, Hull, Sheff Wddnesday, etc etc

IE ... gate and non-TV commercial revenue will in the end once again become the main factor in league position

4) The same thing will happen if we go to "every game available live on TV" (as mentioned by Manc Blue and others).

France went there first, on the back of being the worst attended league in western Europe (despite having the lowest ticket prices). The context could not be more different from our Premier League.

Myself and Kiwiwannabe went to Nice v Lens a few weeks ago. Both in the mix for the UEFA cup, but we walked up to the ground 15 mins before kick off and paid less than 20 quid for the best seats. The ground was nowhere near full. The first league to go for "every game on TV" has a range of kick off times (and an array of empty grounds) which would make Sky blush.

Last nights French Cup 1/4 finals were at 1815 (Paris v Lille) and 2050 (Lyon v Marseille) - both live on TF1 and fitted around the evening news at 8pm. Both grounds were probably 50% full at best.

The FFA sold out so badly to TV that the sponsors of the main cup competition take precedence over the usual shirt sponsor as negotiated by the clubs - so in every cup match the two main competition sponsors adorn the shirts of the competing teams. All for TV.

Back to the main point - TV rights are here to stay, and the key for the providers is spreading the schedule - ie making live football available every weeknight and three times a day on Saturday and Sunday. That's now ingrained and is never going to go away.

All that to try and get the message over - WE NEED THE CURRENT TV MONEY MORE THAN ANY OTHER PL CLUB. Gate money is chicken feed in comparison - and our closest PL rivals just now (Arsenal, Man U, Spurs etc) can earn 10 times our gate income every time they play at home.

We NEED the TV income to survive at this level.

[philipl]

Excellent post Tris.

At the end of the day, there is a breach of copyright committed by the Pubs. They legally bought an illegal product but my recollection of the law is that the illegal product is returnable to its rightful owner.

As BSkyB have established the apetite for Prem games around the World, they will steadily up the price to foreign broadcasters. It is like a promotional sale to introduce Argentinian wine at the moment- wait 'til we get the taste and watch the price rise.

Clough got it right- in time real prices for live attendance will drop to near to nothing and as the Mancs et al HAVE to bump their prices up, Rovers will start winning new audiences on price competition.

Of course, this depends on the Prem hanging together collectively but it is such a life and death issue that apart from the kamikazes at Newcastle, most Prem clubs are now in the hands of the most professional management they have ever had.

In my view, Rovers are very fortunate not to have redeveloped the Riverside. In a few years they will HAVE to redevelop it to provide a massive behind the scenes pleasant supporter environment which is superior to the pubs and clubs. The ticket price will have fallen but Rovers will make their money out of hosting thousands of people for hours and hours outside of match times- it will cut traffic congestion as well.

At present, nobody in their right mind would prefer the concourses to being in a pub- that is going to have to change.

[Alan75]

In my view, Rovers are very fortunate not to have redeveloped the Riverside. In a few years they will HAVE to redevelop it to provide a massive behind the scenes pleasant supporter environment which is superior to the pubs and clubs. The ticket price will have fallen but Rovers will make their money out of hosting thousands of people for hours and hours outside of match times- it will cut traffic congestion as well.

At present, nobody in their right mind would prefer the concourses to being in a pub- that is going to have to change.

398771[/snapback]

I take it youve not been to the Blues Bar on a non match-day.

[Eddie]

The thing is Tris, as you mentioned at the beginning, I'm not sure how different things would be in France even if they didn't have every game on TV. At the moment there simply isn't the interest level in the French game. People are becoming interested in other sports and even if they are interested in Football they are often simply supporting foreign teams. While some violence between fans has put a lot of people off going to the grounds.

[thenodrog]

Since I went past the young season ticket limit i cant justify paying the £30 a game price, then prices for ale and generally a day/night out.

398631[/snapback]

Welcome to the real World Dan.

Word of advice 1. to you....get used to it it gets worse!

Word of advice 2. to younger ones. Listen to your teachers and study hard! Jobs that seem to pay a lot of money in teenagers eyes soon become poorly paid when the full expenses of adult life are subtracted.

[thenodrog]

Good points on here about the legallities of this and that. BUT trying to stop the increasing influence of Sat TV is like Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.

Nobody will apreciate this, brows will furrow and eyes will turn upwards in exasperation. BUT accepting that ultimately football will HAVE to adapt and cope with wall to wall TV football wes till come back to the fact no matter how unpalatable it may be to the traditionalists that there are simply too many professional clubs supporting toc costly an infrastructure in this country. If the mountain will not move to mohammed...........