Live Streaming of Championship Games

[Skyline Drifter]

19 minutes ago, Mr X said:

As it stands no permission has been given to stream the Betfred Cup games, so if thats what Dunfermline have promised they've been a bit premature

Betfred Cup

Am I missing something? Permission was granted for the Betfred Cup albeit the practicalities of how it's actually done are not decided yet. Link above directly quotes Doncaster.

That said, Dunfermline promising that (and I'm aware they have promised it which I was surprised about at the time), means firstly that they'll have to rescind on the Falkirk one since it's live on Premier Sports and secondly that they'll have to pay their opponent a percentage of the "stream" revenue they would otherwise have got from the sale of the other game which is a bit mental. I think it's unlikely any other club will give it away free to season ticket holders. I wonder if they might just backtrack on that too.

[LeodhasXD]

25 minutes ago, Mr X said:

You can use youtube if you set the stream to private, but you have to manually input all of the email addresses.

I dont think any clubs at this level could handle the OTT side on their own website. There are plenty of other sites available, like Vimeo, as  you say. Im not keen on their pricing structure.

There's a limit to that if I remember correctly and it breaks the terms and conditions of one login per person.

I didn't look at vimeo too much either. I imagine everyone could share their logins on that too.

 

I'll add I've not needed to add extra capacity to the club website yet. May be different if 8000 hearts fans all go to it at once. But so far I'm running on the principle of a submarine captain.

Edited September 14, 2020 by LeodhasXD

[Homer Thompson]

14 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Betfred Cup

Am I missing something? Permission was granted for the Betfred Cup albeit the practicalities of how it's actually done are not decided yet. Link above directly quotes Doncaster.

That said, Dunfermline promising that (and I'm aware they have promised it which I was surprised about at the time), means firstly that they'll have to rescind on the Falkirk one since it's live on Premier Sports and secondly that they'll have to pay their opponent a percentage of the "stream" revenue they would otherwise have got from the sale of the other game which is a bit mental. I think it's unlikely any other club will give it away free to season ticket holders. I wonder if they might just backtrack on that too.

I stand corrected. I didnt realise it had been announced

11 minutes ago, LeodhasXD said:

There's a limit to that if I remember correctly and it breaks the terms and conditions of one login per person.

I didn't look at vimeo too much either. I imagine everyone could share their logins on that too.

 

I'll add I've not needed to add extra capacity to the club website yet. May be different if 8000 hearts fans all go to it at once. But so far I'm running on the principle of a submarine captain.

I hadnt looked at the youtube thing particularly closely. Not sure it breaks the T&Cs of one login per person though, you're still restricting the stream through email address. Anyhow, probably irrelevant as its the worst option anyway.

Its years since I added any capacity to the website either but theres no way the current server could handle video streaming to more than a handful of viewers. 

[LeodhasXD]

49 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I hadnt looked at the youtube thing particularly closely. Not sure it breaks the T&Cs of one login per person though, you're still restricting the stream through email address. Anyhow, probably irrelevant as its the worst option anyway.

Its years since I added any capacity to the website either but theres no way the current server could handle video streaming to more than a handful of viewers. 

"a particular set of login credentials can only be used on one device at any one time and cannot be used to access the stream by more than one viewer at the same time." 

What they want is similar to what wyscout do... ish. If I log on with the club credentials it logs off anyone else who has logged in with them.

 

 

We're set up on a VPS just now. Might change in the future but as it is I don't see the need.

I wouldn't recommend serving video directly over your web server that runs your site. Instead how many youtube videos can you put on your website? As many as you want because Youtube are serving them.

I stopped before getting to this point but   you can have a load balancer in front of whatever media server you're using that autoscales instances to suit the traffic. 

 

[TxRover]

In all the “preview” and “sales” videos that Pixellot has pumping out over the last couple of years they discussed that the entity using the system could either self host or use their (Pixellot’s) system. With Pixellot riding in as a white knight for fitba, it’s seems perplexing they aren’t offering some solution for the less technically forward teams. I thought there was discussion of a SPFL hosting site for teams not wishing to , or unable to, host themselves?

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, LeodhasXD said:

"a particular set of login credentials can only be used on one device at any one time and cannot be used to access the stream by more than one viewer at the same time." 

What they want is similar to what wyscout do... ish. If I log on with the club credentials it logs off anyone else who has logged in with them.

 

 

We're set up on a VPS just now. Might change in the future but as it is I don't see the need.

I wouldn't recommend serving video directly over your web server that runs your site. Instead how many youtube videos can you put on your website? As many as you want because Youtube are serving them.

I stopped before getting to this point but   you can have a load balancer in front of whatever media server you're using that autoscales instances to suit the traffic. 

 

I see what you mean. I could log in to youtube with the same account on multiple devices. Good point

Ive no intention of setting up a media server!

54 minutes ago, TxRover said:

In all the “preview” and “sales” videos that Pixellot has pumping out over the last couple of years they discussed that the entity using the system could either self host or use their (Pixellot’s) system. With Pixellot riding in as a white knight for fitba, it’s seems perplexing they aren’t offering some solution for the less technically forward teams. I thought there was discussion of a SPFL hosting site for teams not wishing to , or unable to, host themselves?

There is discussion with the SPFL, its still on-going which is probably why most clubs havent released any details of what they are doing.

Im not sure the white knight comment is particularly fair to be honest. The installation of the cameras at Championship grounds has been in the works for a couple of years. And how do you know they arent offering anything to clubs?

[TxRover]

59 minutes ago, Mr X said:

There is discussion with the SPFL, its still on-going which is probably why most clubs havent released any details of what they are doing.

Im not sure the white knight comment is particularly fair to be honest. The installation of the cameras at Championship grounds has been in the works for a couple of years. And how do you know they arent offering anything to clubs?

The white knight was a comment directed at the provision of Pixellot systems in a number of League One and Two venues by a third party (Mike Millar), with support from Pixellot.

The point on provision of services is that nothing has been said by the SPFL or teams that currently lack a distribution channel. I don’t know if they are still hashing our the details, but with the installations having started months ago, I would have expected at least the framework of a deal to have been reached at this point (weeks out), and the comments by some ITK posters suggest that doesn’t appear to  yet be the case.

I do understand that there is the (small) possibility that they are withholding plans to plump up season ticket sales, as the assurance that ST holders will be able to stream home games seems pretty clear. But waiting until a day or two before the first games to be streamed will resulting in overwhelmed servers as people struggle to create the accounts necessary to stream games...because even ST holders will need registered accounts with verified ST details, and some will be left out in the cold as a result. Why risk a PR nightmare by waiting?

[Homer Thompson]

2 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The white knight was a comment directed at the provision of Pixellot systems in a number of League One and Two venues by a third party (Mike Millar), with support from Pixellot.

Its still not particularly fair. The article about Millar was a load of shite and clubs buying a commercial product is hardly white knighting

2 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The point on provision of services is that nothing has been said by the SPFL or teams that currently lack a distribution channel. I don’t know if they are still hashing our the details, but with the installations having started months ago, I would have expected at least the framework of a deal to have been reached at this point (weeks out), and the comments by some ITK posters suggest that doesn’t appear to  yet be the case.

Then you expected wrong

2 minutes ago, TxRover said:

I do understand that there is the (small) possibility that they are withholding plans to plump up season ticket sales, as the assurance that ST holders will be able to stream home games seems pretty clear. But waiting until a day or two before the first games to be streamed will resulting in overwhelmed servers as people struggle to create the accounts necessary to stream games...because even ST holders will need registered accounts with verified ST details, and some will be left out in the cold as a result. Why risk a PR nightmare by waiting?

Im almost certain no-one is withholding details to try and drum up season ticket sales, but if thats what you want to believe Im not going to stop you

[TxRover]

53 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Its still not particularly fair. The article about Millar was a load of shite and clubs buying a commercial product is hardly white knighting

Then you expected wrong

Im almost certain no-one is withholding details to try and drum up season ticket sales, but if thats what you want to believe Im not going to stop you

One can always hope the SPFL is learning, however taking the time to insult small portions of comments while ignoring the remainder is a wee bit churlish, I said small chance.

Do you also disagree that an announcement at the last minute and the resulting rush for new accounts will be chaotic?

[Homer Thompson]

24 minutes ago, TxRover said:

One can always hope the SPFL is learning, however taking the time to insult small portions of comments while ignoring the remainder is a wee bit churlish, I said small chance.

Do you also disagree that an announcement at the last minute and the resulting rush for new accounts will be chaotic?

Im not sure which bit of my post you found insulting, to be honest.

It doesnt matter what I think about a last minute announcement unless I think information is being withheld deliberately, which I dont.

[Guest Flash]

6 hours ago, Mr X said:

I think you're right. I think clubs will either use the SPFL setup or they'll do their own thing using similar systems to those the likes of Raith and Dunfermline have been using for years.

Again, I think you're right, and the SPFL will allow PPV. Having done so for the Premiership its hard to see how they could argue against it. However, as SD pointed out, it will still be up to the individual clubs to decide if they want to or not.

Why would clubs not sell PPV? Is it possible that it might not be cost effective?

[Homer Thompson]

3 minutes ago, Flash said:

Why would clubs not sell PPV? Is it possible that it might not be cost effective?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it depends what you mean by cost effective. Is it possible clubs will lose money doing it? Almost certainly not. Is it possible they will decide its not worth the effort for the money it brings in? Possible, although unlikely.

To be honest, I wasnt suggesting that I think clubs will choose not to offer PPV, just that it isnt an automatic once the SPFL announce its allowed 

[Guest Flash]

5 minutes ago, Mr X said:

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it depends what you mean by cost effective. Is it possible clubs will lose money doing it? Almost certainly not. Is it possible they will decide its not worth the effort for the money it brings in? Possible, although unlikely.

To be honest, I wasnt suggesting that I think clubs will choose not to offer PPV, just that it isnt an automatic once the SPFL announce its allowed 

I wasn’t sure how it worked, like maybe it was a fixed price depending on bands, like 1 to 1,000 cost a certain amount, then 1,000 to 5,000 cost a lot more, so if you were only going to sell 1,100 you could make a loss if you had 900 season ticket holders, for example. Just trying to figure out why both you and SD were emphasising the possibility of clubs not selling PPV if they were allowed to. Seemed almost the same as saying clubs would not sell to walk ups on the day for normal games, which just seems mental. Tbh I didn’t consider the possibility of it being more trouble than it was worth.

[Roath Raver]

6 hours ago, TxRover said:

But waiting until a day or two before the first games to be streamed will resulting in overwhelmed servers as people struggle to create the accounts necessary to stream games...because even ST holders will need registered accounts with verified ST details, and some will be left out in the cold as a result. Why risk a PR nightmare by waiting?

There is still a few weeks before the season starts, not sure the intention will be to wait until a day or two before. As a supporter I know it can be frustrating to not know now, but clubs will want to make sure everything is in place before making formal announcements.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Roath Raver

[Skyline Drifter]

38 minutes ago, Flash said:

I wasn’t sure how it worked, like maybe it was a fixed price depending on bands, like 1 to 1,000 cost a certain amount, then 1,000 to 5,000 cost a lot more, so if you were only going to sell 1,100 you could make a loss if you had 900 season ticket holders, for example. Just trying to figure out why both you and SD were emphasising the possibility of clubs not selling PPV if they were allowed to. Seemed almost the same as saying clubs would not sell to walk ups on the day for normal games, which just seems mental. Tbh I didn’t consider the possibility of it being more trouble than it was worth.

Its not clear yet how exactly it will work and there is more than one option with different costs. I think its possible clubs will 'lose' money relative to where they are now. Having already sold season tickets at a price that costs clubs nothing if the holder attends a match it absolutely will cost the clubs money to provide a stream to them. Potentially more than they may make selling ppv streams. However the commitment to provide streams to seqson ticket holders is a sunk cost, its already guaranteed. I doubt they can lose money selling ppv thereafter when the system will already have to be in place. 

All that said, the fact remains two Premiership clubs have opted not to provide ppv streams so I dont think it can be presumed it is a given everyone will.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[vikingTON]

Even if clubs try to sell PPV will their price point be realistic? If it was a choice between paying £10 for a 90 minute stream of a Championship match (either Morton or the home team hosting) or the usual highlights job plus an afternoon with Jeff and the boys then it'd be the latter for me every single time. I don't think that would change unless it was something like a fiver per game which I very much doubt is what clubs intend to charge.

The guilt-trip effect for fans who don't have another mechanism for sustaining their club right now will account for some uptake but I think the novelty of streamed PPV games would wear off very quickly at this level. 

[Guest Flash]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its not clear yet how exactly it will work and there is more than one option with different costs. I think its possible clubs will 'lose' money relative to where they are now. Having already sold season tickets at a price that costs clubs nothing if the holder attends a match it absolutely will cost the clubs money to provide a stream to them. Potentially more than they may make selling ppv streams. However the commitment to provide streams to seqson ticket holders is a sunk cost, its already guaranteed. I doubt they can lose money selling ppv thereafter when the system will already have to be in place. 

All that said, the fact remains two Premiership clubs have opted not to provide ppv streams so I dont think it can be presumed it is a given everyone will.

Fair enough. I wrongly assumed all clubs would sell PPV if they were allowed. If we end up not supplying PPV I can’t say I’ll be overly bothered. 

[Finlay21]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

Fair enough. I wrongly assumed all clubs would sell PPV if they were allowed. If we end up not supplying PPV I can’t say I’ll be overly bothered. 

Think some clubs are still trying to work out if they are going to go ahead with PPV what the charges will be due to season tickets already been sold by their clubs , it’s a tricky one I think 

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Robbo63 said:

Think some clubs are still trying to work out if they are going to go ahead with PPV what the charges will be due to season tickets already been sold by their clubs , it’s a tricky one I think 

As Roath Rover seemingly suggested above, it’s also likely some clubs simply don’t know if they can erect the infrastructure to support PPV in time or (perhaps) if the SPFL has some option they can piggyback off. With individuals ITK from two different clubs, one of whom is all set to stream and one of which isn’t, the silence to them both from the SPFL is worth noting...but as others have noticed, we cannot yet draw conclusions from it.

Does anyone know how Pixellot is monetizing this setup? Is there perhaps a small charge per stream, or are they getting a flat fee for services. Or maybe even more basically, is the SPFL perhaps licensing the whole thing and getting some recompense from the clubs?

While we’re at it, there’s still no word on streaming overseas this season.

[Homer Thompson]

23 minutes ago, TxRover said:

As Roath Rover seemingly suggested above, it’s also likely some clubs simply don’t know if they can erect the infrastructure to support PPV in time or (perhaps) if the SPFL has some option they can piggyback off. With individuals ITK from two different clubs, one of whom is all set to stream and one of which isn’t, the silence to them both from the SPFL is worth noting...but as others have noticed, we cannot yet draw conclusions from it.

Does anyone know how Pixellot is monetizing this setup? Is there perhaps a small charge per stream, or are they getting a flat fee for services. Or maybe even more basically, is the SPFL perhaps licensing the whole thing and getting some recompense from the clubs?

While we’re at it, there’s still no word on streaming overseas this season.

At the risk of insulting you again, how do you know there is silence from the SPFL? I dont think the issue for most clubs is infrastructure either, its more about which of the available options is best.

The SPFL are providing a central system for streaming matches. It, however, is not compulsory and is likely not the best fit for all clubs, particularly those like Raith who have already been streaming overseas matches. The SPFL system isnt finalised and until it is, its difficult for clubs to make decisions apart from those who already know they're not going to use the it. Even then with no official confirmation on PPV, these clubs cant announce everything.

Pixellot arent monetising anything. The install of the Pixellot cameras, at Championship grounds, has been paid for through the SPFL, although not actually for streaming matches. If clubs sign up to the SPFL centralised streaming service, there is a cost for that.

Ive seen overseas streaming mentioned a couple of times, from what Ive seen there is no change to previous seasons.