Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton TV
Comments
-
If I'm BeIn Sport, I have paid a load of money to allow me to show an EFL game if I want to in my territory. Perhaps I'm showing racing but there's a thunderstorm so that's off and so I bung on the game I'm getting on the satellite link, I don't care what it is but I'll show it so there's something between the adverts on my channel. Now, if the supporters of the two clubs playing that game don't like it then that's too bad, perhaps they should convince their clubs not to be part of this deal, or resign from the EFL that I did the deal with.
Is there an argument that CAFC would earn more from selling its stream than joining a deal that includes all the other clubs?
Or is the argument that technology makes all these restrictions meaningless and therefore it's pointless to join.1 -
I’ve asked but no one seems to know how many fans stream CharltonTV, clearly enough to make it worthwhile for the club. Most Addicks see Charlton TV at £10 as great value, whether abroad or via a VPN (£40 PA). I’ll still get to 6–8 away games, but for those I skip like a midweek trip to Derby, the alternative of watching at home with my son and his mates on SKY or Saturday 3pm aways on CharltonTV, with the excellent Greg, Tel & Brownie it is hard to beat £10 V cost of away day up North, Wrexham etc. COYA's
0 -
They would not be able to do that. The stream is centralised, and of course Charlton rely on it being provided at away grounds as well as The Valley. Sandgaard invested in a pukka studio and the ability to edit on-site from the existing stream so as to play back the highlights we wanted, and also more cameras for different angles at The Valley. But the stream is centralised across the EFL, and started as iFollow.BrentfordAddick said:If I'm BeIn Sport, I have paid a load of money to allow me to show an EFL game if I want to in my territory. Perhaps I'm showing racing but there's a thunderstorm so that's off and so I bung on the game I'm getting on the satellite link, I don't care what it is but I'll show it so there's something between the adverts on my channel. Now, if the supporters of the two clubs playing that game don't like it then that's too bad, perhaps they should convince their clubs not to be part of this deal, or resign from the EFL that I did the deal with.
Is there an argument that CAFC would earn more from selling its stream than joining a deal that includes all the other clubs?
Or is the argument that technology makes all these restrictions meaningless and therefore it's pointless to join.
Charlton can't get out of it on their own, even if they wanted to. It's not their stream, per se, to sell.
As I understand it, while Charlton TV isn't unique in having a very high standard (or did until it was cut back this season) only a few other forward-thinking EFL clubs have gone that far. From what we see on the Disney show, Wrexham, perhaps unsurprisingiy, is one of them. Most of the other clubs didn't and maybe still don't have the vision to see how a production tailored to their core fanbase can be a smart business move.
Charlton received about £450,000 from the international deal last season, which was by coincidence almost exactly what they also earned from Charlton TV (source, Charlie Methven). There is a big increase now we are in the Championship but published figures in articles refer only to £1m-2m per season, I suppose we are far closer to £1m. I've not been able to get a breakdown of what BeIN or any other rights holder have paid. We know that the total deal is worth £147m for 4 years so £37m p.a. More than 200 countries are covered by the deal. For sure France is one of the bigger ones, but I don't know whether that means BeIN have paid a "load" of money. After all, as you say they are using it as "filler" whereas Viaplay which has the rights across Scandiland reliably show most of the games going out on the main streams.
We're stuffed for the duration of the Sky deal, but it shouldn't be repeated. That's the point.0 -
Good discussion
0 -
Blackburn are charging £11 for the game.0
-
Rip off bastardsMuttleyCAFC said:Blackburn are charging £11 for the game.0 -
It might be negligible for the broadcasters, but it’s clearly a premium the EFL can charge more for when selling the fights, just like with all streaming services that geoblock. It’s very common practice, hugely annoying, but just modern day sweating the asset.PragueAddick said:
Firstly, good, I'm pleased you describe it as "utterly ridiculous". I now feel confident enough to assert that when discussing the issue with the Club.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Have they ever stated that 'fear of piracy' is the reason for geoblocking? If so, it's utterly ridiculous.PragueAddick said:
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.PragueAddick said:
?Stu_of_Kunming said:Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not a valid part of the argument. Agreed?
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chance
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately).
The reason for geoblocking is far more likely the same reason Netflix, Youtube, Spotify and every other streaming service that exists does so - because stakeholders insist on it.
Companies paying for right to broadcast games will (or should) pay a premium for exclusive right - look at how Netflix deals with this: https://unogs.com/ - Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them. It's massively shit for the fans, but financially is makes sense - we all know no one actually cares about the fans.
Piracy is an irrelevance, the TV deal causes these issues, thankfully it takes about 5 mins and the IQ of a cucumber to solve the problems, not that it should be necessary.
They never say that piracy is the reason for geo-blocking. They tend - in response to representation from fan groups consisting of people like me who perhaps don't have the full cucumber-worth of IQ - to refer to it in their answers without explicitly saying that's the reason. A rare public example of this can be found in this article. It refers to the FAPL deal; the text in the mauve box is interesting. AFAIK there is nothing to stop a pub owner subscribing to CTV (or any other club stream) and then showing it in the pub. So obviously Sky want to scare him into not doing that. But in fact, the truth will be murkier than they imply. Does Sky have any copyright over a club stream? Not sure it does, if it does not show that game.
Moving on from that to the real money trails here. You ask: "Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them".
The answer is that any undercutting would be negligible. Take the French example, where the rights holder is BeIN Sports, and which is notorious for not showing the games and not telling the EFL if they will or not on any given week. How many supporters of Charlton and Blackburn do you think there are in France? By "supporters" I mean in touch enough to know of the existence of their club streams, and ready to pay for them. If there are more than 200 in total I'd be pleasantly surprised. And if they are already resident in France, it's quite likely that they are already BeIN Sport subscribers. I think the idea that Charlton TV is potentially undercutting BeIN Sport is, to coin a phrase, "utterly ridiculous". But that's not a dig. Your robust response made me search more for info about how piracy actually works and I now have this specialist article which explains the technical aspects pretty well (or that's how it looks to me). Perhaps you may in turn accept that when it comes to the money trail and the commercial aspects of broadcast sports I may be a cucumber short of an average IQ but I do have relevant professional experience.
The cucumber comment had nothing to do with understanding how illegal streaming works, I’d guess the majority of users don’t understand, but more how easy these things are to access, it’s as simple as a sky box, to highlight how it’s never going to be stopped. It’s simpler than setting up and using a VPN.2 -
May be surprising but I’ve never previously had much use for one so I don’t currently have a VPN but if this is how it’ll be moving forward then I might have to consider it.PragueAddick said:
But surely you of all people have a VPN?Callumcafc said:It’s on Paramount+ here in the States.
Also wondering if I should bother with a yearly subscription at this rate! Six games in and I’m pretty sure it’s only been possible for me to watch Bristol City (A) on Charlton TV.
If we all buy Charlton TV and use VPNs whenever this shoddy deal blacks us out where we live, we support our club and punish the idiots who refuse to accept the reality that private streams are what the most loyal supporters want to pay for.0 -
Cucumber?Stu_of_Kunming said:
It might be negligible for the broadcasters, but it’s clearly a premium the EFL can charge more for when selling the fights, just like with all streaming services that geoblock. It’s very common practice, hugely annoying, but just modern day sweating the asset.PragueAddick said:
Firstly, good, I'm pleased you describe it as "utterly ridiculous". I now feel confident enough to assert that when discussing the issue with the Club.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Have they ever stated that 'fear of piracy' is the reason for geoblocking? If so, it's utterly ridiculous.PragueAddick said:
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.PragueAddick said:
?Stu_of_Kunming said:Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not a valid part of the argument. Agreed?
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chance
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately).
The reason for geoblocking is far more likely the same reason Netflix, Youtube, Spotify and every other streaming service that exists does so - because stakeholders insist on it.
Companies paying for right to broadcast games will (or should) pay a premium for exclusive right - look at how Netflix deals with this: https://unogs.com/ - Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them. It's massively shit for the fans, but financially is makes sense - we all know no one actually cares about the fans.
Piracy is an irrelevance, the TV deal causes these issues, thankfully it takes about 5 mins and the IQ of a cucumber to solve the problems, not that it should be necessary.
They never say that piracy is the reason for geo-blocking. They tend - in response to representation from fan groups consisting of people like me who perhaps don't have the full cucumber-worth of IQ - to refer to it in their answers without explicitly saying that's the reason. A rare public example of this can be found in this article. It refers to the FAPL deal; the text in the mauve box is interesting. AFAIK there is nothing to stop a pub owner subscribing to CTV (or any other club stream) and then showing it in the pub. So obviously Sky want to scare him into not doing that. But in fact, the truth will be murkier than they imply. Does Sky have any copyright over a club stream? Not sure it does, if it does not show that game.
Moving on from that to the real money trails here. You ask: "Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them".
The answer is that any undercutting would be negligible. Take the French example, where the rights holder is BeIN Sports, and which is notorious for not showing the games and not telling the EFL if they will or not on any given week. How many supporters of Charlton and Blackburn do you think there are in France? By "supporters" I mean in touch enough to know of the existence of their club streams, and ready to pay for them. If there are more than 200 in total I'd be pleasantly surprised. And if they are already resident in France, it's quite likely that they are already BeIN Sport subscribers. I think the idea that Charlton TV is potentially undercutting BeIN Sport is, to coin a phrase, "utterly ridiculous". But that's not a dig. Your robust response made me search more for info about how piracy actually works and I now have this specialist article which explains the technical aspects pretty well (or that's how it looks to me). Perhaps you may in turn accept that when it comes to the money trail and the commercial aspects of broadcast sports I may be a cucumber short of an average IQ but I do have relevant professional experience.
The cucumber comment had nothing to do with understanding how illegal streaming works, I’d guess the majority of users don’t understand, but more how easy these things are to access, it’s as simple as a sky box, to highlight how it’s never going to be stopped. It’s simpler than setting up and using a VPN.1 -
How come I can’t access Charton TV if I’m in USA?0
- Sponsored links:
-
Should be able to today I think. It’s not one of the featured 3pm games on Paramount+.Valley11 said:How come I can’t access Charton TV if I’m in USA?The problem so far has been 4 out of our 6 games kicking off at 12:30 (100% of these get shown on Paramount+) and then our game against Sheffield Utd last weekend being one of the two to four featured games at 3pm.
So I’ve only been able to watch Bristol City (A) on Charlton TV so far this season.1 -
Looking after a baby this afternoon so can't make it to the Valley... If I were, in theory, to visit another country to watch Charlton TV for the Blackburn game this afternoon, which one should I get the Concorde pilot to fly to?1
-
Hopefully, I should be ok in Portugal.. was last week.0
-
Away in 🇫🇷 , so not making it to the Valley. Charlton Live worked for me.0
-
Madrid always works for me.0
-
Germany. They didnt buy the deal, got far too much excellent lower division footie of their own to watch.ladywell_addick said:Looking after a baby this afternoon so can't make it to the Valley... If I were, in theory, to visit another country to watch Charlton TV for the Blackburn game this afternoon, which one should I get the Concorde pilot to fly to?Seriously the general rule is to choose a VPN location as close as possible to your actual location. And Germany really hasnt bought the deal.0 -
Germany fine for me0
-
Working here in the US as I expected.0
- Sponsored links:
-
Italy for me.0
-
Another short break in Belgium this weekend. Racking up the frequent flyer points.0
-
At least Brownie sounds healthier0
-
Tonight's clash against Derby County will be shown live on Sky Sports Football in the UK and Ireland (KO 8pm BST).
Outside of the UK and Ireland, the game is available to watch on CharltonTV in certain countries/territories. A list of countries where the game is not on CharltonTV can be found below.
In the US
Watch live on Paramount+.
The game is not available to watch on CharltonTV in the below countries/territories.
Algeria, Andorra, Anguilla, Antarctiques Françaises, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba, Brazil, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chad, Chile, Clipperton, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacao, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Falkland Islands, Finland, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Monaco, Montserrat, Morocco, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Palestine, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Saint Bartelemey, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sint Maarten, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Virgin Islands (British), Virgin Islands (U.S.), Wallis and Futuna, Yemen.
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/how-watch-derby-county-clash
3 -
So that’ll be 6/8 times we’ve been featured, and counting!
Paramount+ it is… for the sixth time this season.0 -
I had to google Clipperton from Clive's list. The only Clipperton I could find is an uninhabited island in the Pacific Ocean!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island
2 -
Spare a thought for the mad Charlton fan stationed on.a listening station in the French Antarctic. It’s minus 50, and a howling gale but thanks to the state of the art satellite link paid for by French taxpayers, he’s confident of a perfect stream. He’s invited a few of the local penguins round for a beer and a half-time discussion about tariffs. Unbeknown to him, the super -sales team from Pitch International sold the rights to a different gang of penguins on another iceberg and so he’s geo-blocked.Not for nothing have Pitch International had the EFL in their pockets for 15 years….8
-
Damn, was hoping to find a bar in Clipperton to watch the gamekillerandflash said:I had to google Clipperton from Clive's list. The only Clipperton I could find is an uninhabited island in the Pacific Ocean!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island3 -
I’ve got a mate who plays for Clipperton _island FC .. he told me the game might be on …their tv in the bar tonight …the key is under the mat and to let yourself in .Callumcafc said:
Damn, was hoping to find a bar in Clipperton to watch the gamekillerandflash said:I had to google Clipperton from Clive's list. The only Clipperton I could find is an uninhabited island in the Pacific Ocean!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipperton_Island1 -
Lucky I already booked my flight to Belgium in anticipation for this.0
