Essexyellows
Well-known member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 17,253
Seems Accrington are not happy with the EFL "deal" and have written to object.
Wonder if we will join in?
Wonder if we will join in?
ifollow didn't apply outside EFL so a number of those were either Prem or non-league. It is apparently a decision to be in, but as said by Andy there were "threats" of "loss of income" for outliers. Bigger clubs could afford to ignore that. The costs for steaming used to be prohibitively expensive, so that encouraged lots to join, it is not "cheap" now, but it is much more achievable for less - as many non-league clubs are showing. Given that both iFollow, and the stupid template CMS that the sites use are so awful, I really think OUFC should move away.I thought some of the bigger clubs didn't use iFollow as a service?
This is from The Guardian when it was launched:
Does this apply to any EFL fixture, then?
Not quite. To start with, a number of clubs have not opted in to iFollow. Accrington Stanley, Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Bristol City, Charlton Athletic, Derby County, Hull City, Forest Green Rovers, Middlesbrough, Queens Park Rangers, Stoke City, Swansea City or Sunderland are the outliers although they are still allowed to stream games via their own websites and digital services. QPR and Bristol City will do exactly that tonight.
It was a convoluted and poor solution to an issue that was entirely created as a sop to the bigger clubs to get their buy in.As a small club, he is always going to say that.
Accrington won't be selling many IFollow tickets for their away matches, and their opponents when they play at home are more likely to sell iFollow tickets, particulaly if it is a club who would sell out the away capacity.
So obviously a collective division of IFollow shared out equally among the league would benefit Accrington compared to for instance Ipswich, who would expect to have greater iFollow sales.
Is it still a convoluted division of sales based on away attendances?
I'd also add that it is really annoying that you can't login and watch directly on a modern tv. During lockdown, I didn't mind paying £10 for an away game, but as I don't have a laptop to HDMI to the tv, I had to watch on my pc screen.
it is tv dependent, depends on the browser on the tv, and how it identifies to the website.I'm sure I was able to login and watch via my tv's browser.
I work for a company that does VOD and global streaming services for a variety of sizes of client. I wonder if I could flag it to my higher ups as an avenue to explore.ifollow didn't apply outside EFL so a number of those were either Prem or non-league. It is apparently a decision to be in, but as said by Andy there were "threats" of "loss of income" for outliers. Bigger clubs could afford to ignore that. The costs for steaming used to be prohibitively expensive, so that encouraged lots to join, it is not "cheap" now, but it is much more achievable for less - as many non-league clubs are showing. Given that both iFollow, and the stupid template CMS that the sites use are so awful, I really think OUFC should move away.
So again oversea supporter's get to watch more games than fans in the UK...iFollow Explained
At a recent EFL meeting clubs were asked to vote by division on which League games should be streamed to the domestic market* during the coming season.www.oufc.co.uk
Oufc explanation