Disagree with a lot said about Pete. He does a good job gets to games and provides us with his best efforts. If you want a professional commentating then you may as well go and support a prem club who can afford to employ one, because as long as we are where we are, I doubt we can afford anyone who can satisfy the needs of those who pay a mighty 4 or 5 quid a month. As long as we have people Like P.F who is willing to help out then fair play and so be it.
Very grumpy indeed about this thread as many travelling Addicks and those posted abroad depend on the live commentaries it to keep in touch with games.
Player pads out the content with audio interviews with the captain of the women's team and the thoughts of the reserve kit man but this is largely to irrelevant to most subscribers. Its the live commentary that we pay for and partly the next day highlights.
Firstly, my experience is that the Player a very poor service from a technical point of view and if anything its getting worse. I don't think I am the only one as each (excellent) match day thread from Red Midland is punctuated with desperate pleas and moans from fellow Addicks all over the globe trying in vain to access the Player service that they have paid for. We all know the commentary often drops out, log in is like an on-line Russian roulette and to have the half time interval punctuated by background voices of people talking about going to the Gents or purchasing a pie is just not on in 2012. This would have been unacceptable in the pre-war days of radio commentary. I have also noted a 2-3 minute time delay between Red Midland (live ) and Player (almost live).
Secondly, the commentary is (often) very amateurish. I now only listen to the away commentary teams so I can obtain some idea if there is a football match taking place rather than two mates having a chat in the local. Hats off to Peter F for coming on and making valid points but I think he reveals the core problem. He is not being paid for his service and is by therefore, by definition, an amateur. This is fine if it is a free service to fans and we are asked to make a voluntary contribution to help club funds and pay Peter F's expenses but Player takes actually a chunk off our credit card every month and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a professional service.
This is the richest sport in the world in a league just one down from the Premiership with a fan base spread all over the world and its often impossible to get a live audio commentary and when you do it is provided by unpaid amateurs doing their best at their own expense?
Not good enough and if we had any balls we would all unsubscribe en-mass until Peter F had his train fares paid as a first step in the right direction.
This is not a difficult problem to solve nor should it be. Listen to the customers! A couple of years ago we had the infamous "twitter match". Following that, the same points were made and I thought the message had got through. We know that people like Jamie Reed are professionals and are capable of describing the action, I've heard him do it. Peter has some valuable insight into the players and has a much deeper Charlton knowledge than his professional counterpart. It's really just a case of putting the two together and giving the customers what they want/need. At the moment it's as if they are deliberately being annoying in doing the very things that people have told them they don't like. Just for a change I'd like to hear, "Jackson to Pritchard, good turn, he pushes it wide to Wilson, Wilson advances down the line, etc etc. That's commentary.
I never listen to the commentary so I can't comment on our own, and I'm sure Pete does a great job, but how comes Wolves have ex-player Matt Murray and Palace have ex-player James Scowcroft? Do we ever have ex-players?
I never listen to the commentary so I can't comment on our own, and I'm sure Pete does a great job, but how comes Wolves have ex-player Matt Murray and Palace have ex-player James Scowcroft? Do we ever have ex-players?
some of us listen to the opposing team's commentary because it describes the play. This is coming from clubs in the same area of financial ballpark as us, if they can organise a proper commentary why can't Charlton, or do they have better local radio facilities?
This is not a difficult problem to solve nor should it be. Listen to the customers! A couple of years ago we had the infamous "twitter match". Following that, the same points were made and I thought the message had got through. We know that people like Jamie Reed are professionals and are capable of describing the action, I've heard him do it. Peter has some valuable insight into the players and has a much deeper Charlton knowledge than his professional counterpart. It's really just a case of putting the two together and giving the customers what they want/need. At the moment it's as if they are deliberately being annoying in doing the very things that people have told them they don't like. Just for a change I'd like to hear, "Jackson to Pritchard, good turn, he pushes it wide to Wilson, Wilson advances down the line, etc etc. That's commentary.
This.
Adding to the moaning, I've also recently noticed Jamie Reed has developed an annoying habit of breaking off mid-sentence and during some on-going action in order to tell us about a goal at another match.
I thought he got better for a while after the twitter match you refer to, but he's been pretty terrible lately. He comes across as a frustrated local radio breakfast dj.
I am trying to establish to whom complaints may be addressed. This is proving to be a somewhat convoluted process, (the BBC excels in this regard), and when I do get a response, I will post it up.
I listen regularly, being abroad, and just to add:
1. Peter Finch is not the problem, it's Jamie Reed. Several times I've heard Pete trying to help Reed get back to commenting the action, rather than waffling. That is embarassing. Jamie Reed I am sure is paid by the BBC he is one of Radio London's team.
2. When you get Phil Parry and James Scowcroft, that is of course different class but that's because it is the actual BBC London radio commentary. On the other hand last Sat the Reed/Finch commentary appeared to be broadcast by BBC Radio Kent.
3. Someone at the BBC needs to give Jamie Reed the feedback from us. He's simply wrong to assume that we want "characters and colour". I have heard several excellent commentators on Player other than the A -team of Parry plus Scowcroft or Bradley Allen, but they all really excel when they are doing it on their own. In particular, another Jamie, Hill, was very good.
4. Eventually they listen. We got rid of Emma, she seems to be inflicted on Fulham now.
5. It's a shame it has to be so personal, but that is the nature of the professional service provided, and they should listen to the reasonable feedback.
6. The overlaid commentary on Player's TV footage is equally awful, and I do not understand why it has to be so.
I never listen to the commentary so I can't comment on our own, and I'm sure Pete does a great job, but how comes Wolves have ex-player Matt Murray and Palace have ex-player James Scowcroft? Do we ever have ex-players?
We had Charlton legend Steve Froggatt commentating against Leeds the other night
Before we get too carried away, the Wolves people, including Matt Murray were pretty guilty of off topic conversation too, and the constant updating of other scores, they were not one of the best. It is people at places like Scunthorpe and Rochdale who are usually good, even with an expert alongside...they know what they're trying to achieve, and they don't pound the media heavy streets of London creating, and then believing their own hype. Looking at Jamies webpage I can sort of understand the reluctance for broadcasters to stick to their job. They want to stand out in some way, and if they are functional and doing a good job, they think they will be forgettable; so they don't just pepper, but flood the commentary with chit chat, and colour...and then say they know that's what people really like and enjoy...probably because their mum told them! If the broadcasters want a lesson about how to bring us a football match there are example after example above telling them the do's and the don't.
Well it’s been an age since I’ve been on here other than lurking, but this thread has prompted me out of my lethargy to react and hopefully give a little more insight into the goings on regarding commentaries.
Firstly some replies;
To RedMidland, thank you for you kind comments as it is myself as the main and Pete as the Co-commentator who generally conduct the pre-season friendlies commentary as the BBC only pay and provide commentators for the competitive fixtures.
To Seth Plum, It was I who arranged the 10 year back to the Valley March, thank you for being part of it. I hoped to arrange a 20 year version, but the increased costs and considerable red tape may prevent this.
To Prague Addick, I conduct the ‘Live’ video commentaries for the T2TV Player service, but regrettably as I am, yes a volunteer, I cannot get to all matches, so if there has been an ‘Overlay’ commentary it wasn’t me. Of course if it is my live commentary you dislike, please let me know specifics and I will try to improve it. If however you are talking about the ‘professional’ service, I believe that commentary is overlaid by the Football League.
Now to the issue at hand, I would like to first say that I do not subscribe to the, ‘It’s a voluntary service so it is ok for it to be poor quality’ statement. Yes I volunteer, but I have been doing so in Radio for many years in various guises and as in my professional life I endeavour to do what I do as skilfully and as accurately as possible. In commentaries, I have chosen to put my head above the parapet and so if I get shot at because what I do isn’t deemed good enough, then so be it. If I can’t take it, then I can stop and go back to being just a fan and complain again that we have no Charlton bias in our commentaries anymore.
And this is where I would like to clarify something. Forgive me if I’m wrong but it seems that many of you are under the illusion that Charlton Live and the people who run it is a service provided by CAFC Player and therefore is funded by the service. I can confirm that it is not. The notion of Charlton Live returning was thought up long before CAFC Player, but regrettably this method of broadcasting it to the fans was the only avenue available and so it was that or nothing . But equally we must say that we are eternally grateful to the Club, especially the media team and the Trust who have given us the platform to provide the service on CAFC Player and if I am honest allow us as fans into privileged positions and incredible access behind the scenes. Personally I think it’s an excellent service and yes we would all like it to be free, but that unfortunately is not the real world we are in at the moment. However please understand if what Charlton Live and the team provided was not available, you would still be paying the same amount. We exist because as fans we have been trying to make what you our fellow fans pay, that little bit more acceptable.
Additionally we, like many on here were unhappy with random commentaries given from people with no affinity to the club, usually assisted by someone from the away team thus giving no Charlton bias at all to a service paid for by Charlton fans. So we have worked over the last few seasons to try to ensure that happens as little as possible. By having one of us as a co-commentator is the first and possibly only step we can achieve in that process, but in our opinion that is a significant improvement on what was happening before. And sorry but to believe that the BBC would pay any attention to us, or even the club on how they do their job, especially when it is they who are paying for the service, is naive in the extreme in my opinion.
We also within the Charlton Live team actually believe that Jamie Reed is the best main commentator for us as he does have a Charlton bias, notwithstanding of course that he will not be to everyone’s taste, but we should also understand that having 20 or 30 fans on a forum complaining, does not necessarily represent the full picture when the service is provided to thousands. But of course if it is the majority view that the commentary style is not acceptable, then certainly steps should be taken, but what are they. The BBC currently pays for and provides the commentator and equipment for the commentary service. They also pay the FL rights to allow matches to be broadcast. By replacing that service when the current contract runs out, the club would not only lose the BBC revenue, but then have to pay for new broadcast equipment and of course the FL broadcast license. Additionally there would be no local radio broadcast as it would only be available on Player. Therefore the decision to bring everything under the clubs control would have significant financial implications and as it stands actually a lesser service available to fans.
We have as fans tried by stealth to improve the commentary service offered in previous seasons and I actually believe we have achieved this and if you’ll forgive me as a final shameless attempt to stick up for Pete as a colleague and friend who knows the hard work, time and money he puts in to provide the fans a service, he does a damn fine job.
I shall now return to my lethargic lurking, thanks!
Killersbeard thank you for your lengthy reply (and for that march). There are one or two things that confuse me a bit.
You say: 'The BBC currently pays for and provides the commentator and equipment for the commentary service. They also pay the FL rights to allow matches to be broadcast.'
Do I understand that the BBC give money to the host club when relaying commentary on player?
If that is the case, (and supported by your description of the voluntary efforts regarding Charlton Live) then the club(s) get money from our player subscriptions PLUS money from the BBC ('the club would not only lose the BBC revenue'). So the host club(s) trouser the player subscriptions, and BBC money, for doing nothing at all! In that context who pays Jamie Reeds fee? And surely some of that money should go to Peter Finch?
The confusion regarding Charlton live is because it is advertised on the club website, and in the programme, it is broadcast from the Valley, and as you have said, the show has premier access to all kinds of people and things. In that context it seems to the innocent observer that Charlton Live is a vehicle for the club. I wonder what would happen if Charlton Live ever broadcast criticism of the clubs actions and behaviour...if it is a voluntary service seperate from the club then the broadcasters can presumably say what they like within the law...like an evaluative comment on staff departures from the club as one example. You say also: 'allow us as fans into privileged positions'. Do you really mean that? Aren't the club privileged to have so many decent stalwart fans, and shouldn't they be bending over backwards to invite us in as it were?
You also say: 'By having one of us as a co-commentator is the first and possibly only step we can achieve in that process, but in our opinion that is a significant improvement on what was happening before.' Well that is an opinion of, what, a small select group of people, so it is hardly fair to go on to say: 'having 20 or 30 fans on a forum complaining, does not necessarily represent the full picture when the service is provided to thousands.'. It could be that the weight of opinion expressed in this thread alone is worth more than the opinion of the Charlton Live inner circle. Indeed one single commentator may well mean there is more match and less 'colour'.The divergence is most in evidence regarding Jamie Reed where judging by feedback here he is very poor when it comes to telling us what is happening in the match.
There is not a battle here, although there is a sense some people feel they are being attacked. The issue is so simple it's untrue. Fans listening want to be told what is happening, and chit chat confined to moments when there is clearly no action, that is what they are complaining about. Issues about funding, volunteering, who is doing what are all secondary to that fundamental.
Some of this is very harsh on people volunteering to provide the service. It's not like these guys are experienced professional commentators. They spend their own money getting to games and on kit, they do a decent job.
I think you are missing the point slightly Mortimerician.....it seems as though the biggest complaint is the fact that CAFC Player is a 'paid for subscription service' and the product being delivered (is obviously seen my many) as a volunteered average offering.
If you are paying a fee for a service you are well within your right to give an opinion on the standard of it.
What exactly is very harsh Mortimerician? It's very simple for me, I am paying for a service which is not being delivered. I'm not really interested in who does what to be honest, that may seem reprehensible to you but all I want is to be told by the commentators what is happening on the football pitch.
I live abroad would love to have a reliable way of listening to matches live. The feedback on here about how bad player is has made me not want to pay for it. I suspect there are others who would use it but don't because of the feedback seen on here. I don't know what it costs but it seems silly not to tweak the service so it delivers what is wanted by it's target market. Which should increase sales - certainly from me.
Thanks for a very interesting post. It looks like you might be the best way to pass on some feedback. So here is mine:
Re Jamie Reed, I think he is fine, when he is commenting on what is happening on the pitch, but the extra chit-chat goes on when the ball's in play. At least one game recently a goal completely caught him out. If he and Pete had the chitchat while the ball was out of play (and he has told us its out of play) I'm sure that would be enough for most people.
Re the Player TV highlights, my comment is pretty similar. Last night I caught up with the last four games (the 5-6 min highlights). In each case the commentator wants to give us extra information while the ball is in play, such as "Charlton of course were Div 1 Champions last season" just as a Charlton player is about to shoot. Now, I think every single viewer knows that Charlton were League 1 champions, however I wanted to know, and still don't know, who that Charlton player was who lined up that shot. It's like that all the time. It's clearly overlaid. So I just think the commentator should concentrate on who is on the ball - something which isn't always easy to see on Player, despite the alleged "HD" quality. And my personal choice would be for a narrative report style, rather than a 'pretend live' style.
Comments
Very grumpy indeed about this thread as many travelling Addicks and those posted abroad depend on the live commentaries it to keep in touch with games.
Player pads out the content with audio interviews with the captain of the women's team and the thoughts of the reserve kit man but this is largely to irrelevant to most subscribers. Its the live commentary that we pay for and partly the next day highlights.
Firstly, my experience is that the Player a very poor service from a technical point of view and if anything its getting worse. I don't think I am the only one as each (excellent) match day thread from Red Midland is punctuated with desperate pleas and moans from fellow Addicks all over the globe trying in vain to access the Player service that they have paid for. We all know the commentary often drops out, log in is like an on-line Russian roulette and to have the half time interval punctuated by background voices of people talking about going to the Gents or purchasing a pie is just not on in 2012. This would have been unacceptable in the pre-war days of radio commentary. I have also noted a 2-3 minute time delay between Red Midland (live ) and Player (almost live).
Secondly, the commentary is (often) very amateurish. I now only listen to the away commentary teams so I can obtain some idea if there is a football match taking place rather than two mates having a chat in the local. Hats off to Peter F for coming on and making valid points but I think he reveals the core problem. He is not being paid for his service and is by therefore, by definition, an amateur. This is fine if it is a free service to fans and we are asked to make a voluntary contribution to help club funds and pay Peter F's expenses but Player takes actually a chunk off our credit card every month and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a professional service.
This is the richest sport in the world in a league just one down from the Premiership with a fan base spread all over the world and its often impossible to get a live audio commentary and when you do it is provided by unpaid amateurs doing their best at their own expense?
Not good enough and if we had any balls we would all unsubscribe en-mass until Peter F had his train fares paid as a first step in the right direction.
A couple of years ago we had the infamous "twitter match". Following that, the same points were made and I thought the message had got through. We know that people like Jamie Reed are professionals and are capable of describing the action, I've heard him do it. Peter has some valuable insight into the players and has a much deeper Charlton knowledge than his professional counterpart. It's really just a case of putting the two together and giving the customers what they want/need. At the moment it's as if they are deliberately being annoying in doing the very things that people have told them they don't like.
Just for a change I'd like to hear, "Jackson to Pritchard, good turn, he pushes it wide to Wilson, Wilson advances down the line, etc etc. That's commentary.
We need to regularly feedback on the commentary to the bbc, riiiight?
Anyone hearing me?
Or we Just Want to moan amongst ourselves on here?
We need to regularly feedback on the commentary to the bbc, riiiight?
Anyone hearing me?
Or we Just Want to moan amongst ourselves on here?
Or
Start a regular, sustained feedback conversation with the bbc
Any other options?
-------
So, who do we contact at the bbc?
Adding to the moaning, I've also recently noticed Jamie Reed has developed an annoying habit of breaking off mid-sentence and during some on-going action in order to tell us about a goal at another match.
I thought he got better for a while after the twitter match you refer to, but he's been pretty terrible lately. He comes across as a frustrated local radio breakfast dj.
We need to tell the beeb
Soooo... Who do we tell
1. Peter Finch is not the problem, it's Jamie Reed. Several times I've heard Pete trying to help Reed get back to commenting the action, rather than waffling. That is embarassing. Jamie Reed I am sure is paid by the BBC he is one of Radio London's team.
2. When you get Phil Parry and James Scowcroft, that is of course different class but that's because it is the actual BBC London radio commentary. On the other hand last Sat the Reed/Finch commentary appeared to be broadcast by BBC Radio Kent.
3. Someone at the BBC needs to give Jamie Reed the feedback from us. He's simply wrong to assume that we want "characters and colour". I have heard several excellent commentators on Player other than the A -team of Parry plus Scowcroft or Bradley Allen, but they all really excel when they are doing it on their own. In particular, another Jamie, Hill, was very good.
4. Eventually they listen. We got rid of Emma, she seems to be inflicted on Fulham now.
5. It's a shame it has to be so personal, but that is the nature of the professional service provided, and they should listen to the reasonable feedback.
6. The overlaid commentary on Player's TV footage is equally awful, and I do not understand why it has to be so.
Is this the fella people are complaining about? Is so, you can contact him direct.
We need to tell the beeb
Any suggestions for the format weekly sustained feedback could take?
I imagine some kind of overall rating with a paragraph of text.
Or maybe a list of criteria with a score for each
Any ideas?
It is people at places like Scunthorpe and Rochdale who are usually good, even with an expert alongside...they know what they're trying to achieve, and they don't pound the media heavy streets of London creating, and then believing their own hype.
Looking at Jamies webpage I can sort of understand the reluctance for broadcasters to stick to their job. They want to stand out in some way, and if they are functional and doing a good job, they think they will be forgettable; so they don't just pepper, but flood the commentary with chit chat, and colour...and then say they know that's what people really like and enjoy...probably because their mum told them! If the broadcasters want a lesson about how to bring us a football match there are example after example above telling them the do's and the don't.
Firstly some replies;
To RedMidland, thank you for you kind comments as it is myself as the main and Pete as the Co-commentator who generally conduct the pre-season friendlies commentary as the BBC only pay and provide commentators for the competitive fixtures.
To Seth Plum, It was I who arranged the 10 year back to the Valley March, thank you for being part of it. I hoped to arrange a 20 year version, but the increased costs and considerable red tape may prevent this.
To Prague Addick, I conduct the ‘Live’ video commentaries for the T2TV Player service, but regrettably as I am, yes a volunteer, I cannot get to all matches, so if there has been an ‘Overlay’ commentary it wasn’t me. Of course if it is my live commentary you dislike, please let me know specifics and I will try to improve it. If however you are talking about the ‘professional’ service, I believe that commentary is overlaid by the Football League.
Now to the issue at hand, I would like to first say that I do not subscribe to the, ‘It’s a voluntary service so it is ok for it to be poor quality’ statement.
Yes I volunteer, but I have been doing so in Radio for many years in various guises and as in my professional life I endeavour to do what I do as skilfully and as accurately as possible. In commentaries, I have chosen to put my head above the parapet and so if I get shot at because what I do isn’t deemed good enough, then so be it. If I can’t take it, then I can stop and go back to being just a fan and complain again that we have no Charlton bias in our commentaries anymore.
And this is where I would like to clarify something. Forgive me if I’m wrong but it seems that many of you are under the illusion that Charlton Live and the people who run it is a service provided by CAFC Player and therefore is funded by the service. I can confirm that it is not. The notion of Charlton Live returning was thought up long before CAFC Player, but regrettably this method of broadcasting it to the fans was the only avenue available and so it was that or nothing .
But equally we must say that we are eternally grateful to the Club, especially the media team and the Trust who have given us the platform to provide the service on CAFC Player and if I am honest allow us as fans into privileged positions and incredible access behind the scenes. Personally I think it’s an excellent service and yes we would all like it to be free, but that unfortunately is not the real world we are in at the moment.
However please understand if what Charlton Live and the team provided was not available, you would still be paying the same amount. We exist because as fans we have been trying to make what you our fellow fans pay, that little bit more acceptable.
Additionally we, like many on here were unhappy with random commentaries given from people with no affinity to the club, usually assisted by someone from the away team thus giving no Charlton bias at all to a service paid for by Charlton fans. So we have worked over the last few seasons to try to ensure that happens as little as possible. By having one of us as a co-commentator is the first and possibly only step we can achieve in that process, but in our opinion that is a significant improvement on what was happening before. And sorry but to believe that the BBC would pay any attention to us, or even the club on how they do their job, especially when it is they who are paying for the service, is naive in the extreme in my opinion.
We also within the Charlton Live team actually believe that Jamie Reed is the best main commentator for us as he does have a Charlton bias, notwithstanding of course that he will not be to everyone’s taste, but we should also understand that having 20 or 30 fans on a forum complaining, does not necessarily represent the full picture when the service is provided to thousands. But of course if it is the majority view that the commentary style is not acceptable, then certainly steps should be taken, but what are they.
The BBC currently pays for and provides the commentator and equipment for the commentary service. They also pay the FL rights to allow matches to be broadcast. By replacing that service when the current contract runs out, the club would not only lose the BBC revenue, but then have to pay for new broadcast equipment and of course the FL broadcast license. Additionally there would be no local radio broadcast as it would only be available on Player.
Therefore the decision to bring everything under the clubs control would have significant financial implications and as it stands actually a lesser service available to fans.
We have as fans tried by stealth to improve the commentary service offered in previous seasons and I actually believe we have achieved this and if you’ll forgive me as a final shameless attempt to stick up for Pete as a colleague and friend who knows the hard work, time and money he puts in to provide the fans a service, he does a damn fine job.
I shall now return to my lethargic lurking, thanks!
You say: 'The BBC currently pays for and provides the commentator and equipment for the commentary service. They also pay the FL rights to allow matches to be broadcast.'
Do I understand that the BBC give money to the host club when relaying commentary on player?
If that is the case, (and supported by your description of the voluntary efforts regarding Charlton Live) then the club(s) get money from our player subscriptions PLUS money from the BBC ('the club would not only lose the BBC revenue'). So the host club(s) trouser the player subscriptions, and BBC money, for doing nothing at all! In that context who pays Jamie Reeds fee? And surely some of that money should go to Peter Finch?
The confusion regarding Charlton live is because it is advertised on the club website, and in the programme, it is broadcast from the Valley, and as you have said, the show has premier access to all kinds of people and things. In that context it seems to the innocent observer that Charlton Live is a vehicle for the club. I wonder what would happen if Charlton Live ever broadcast criticism of the clubs actions and behaviour...if it is a voluntary service seperate from the club then the broadcasters can presumably say what they like within the law...like an evaluative comment on staff departures from the club as one example.
You say also: 'allow us as fans into privileged positions'. Do you really mean that? Aren't the club privileged to have so many decent stalwart fans, and shouldn't they be bending over backwards to invite us in as it were?
You also say: 'By having one of us as a co-commentator is the first and possibly only step we can achieve in that process, but in our opinion that is a significant improvement on what was happening before.' Well that is an opinion of, what, a small select group of people, so it is hardly fair to go on to say: 'having 20 or 30 fans on a forum complaining, does not necessarily represent the full picture when the service is provided to thousands.'. It could be that the weight of opinion expressed in this thread alone is worth more than the opinion of the Charlton Live inner circle. Indeed one single commentator may well mean there is more match and less 'colour'.The divergence is most in evidence regarding Jamie Reed where judging by feedback here he is very poor when it comes to telling us what is happening in the match.
There is not a battle here, although there is a sense some people feel they are being attacked. The issue is so simple it's untrue. Fans listening want to be told what is happening, and chit chat confined to moments when there is clearly no action, that is what they are complaining about. Issues about funding, volunteering, who is doing what are all secondary to that fundamental.
If you are paying a fee for a service you are well within your right to give an opinion on the standard of it.
I suspect there are others who would use it but don't because of the feedback seen on here.
I don't know what it costs but it seems silly not to tweak the service so it delivers what is wanted by it's target market.
Which should increase sales - certainly from me.
Thanks for a very interesting post. It looks like you might be the best way to pass on some feedback. So here is mine:
Re Jamie Reed, I think he is fine, when he is commenting on what is happening on the pitch, but the extra chit-chat goes on when the ball's in play. At least one game recently a goal completely caught him out. If he and Pete had the chitchat while the ball was out of play (and he has told us its out of play) I'm sure that would be enough for most people.
Re the Player TV highlights, my comment is pretty similar. Last night I caught up with the last four games (the 5-6 min highlights). In each case the commentator wants to give us extra information while the ball is in play, such as "Charlton of course were Div 1 Champions last season" just as a Charlton player is about to shoot. Now, I think every single viewer knows that Charlton were League 1 champions, however I wanted to know, and still don't know, who that Charlton player was who lined up that shot. It's like that all the time. It's clearly overlaid. So I just think the commentator should concentrate on who is on the ball - something which isn't always easy to see on Player, despite the alleged "HD" quality. And my personal choice would be for a narrative report style, rather than a 'pretend live' style.