Goff: No live TV for Honduras V US

Discussion in 'TV, Satellite & Radio' started by dirk diggler, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Brought it up already and most people ignored it.

    According to Goff, the announcers are going to be Schoen and Hudson for the English PPV. Schoen and Hudson work for GolTV, which was founded by MediaPro, which also controls the rights to several of GolTV's properties.

    They never intended to put it on US TV. Never in a million years. They wouldn't do anything to further GolTv's competitors and knew GolTV could never bring in the ad revenue to outdo CCTV.
     
  2. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's germane because Sunil Gulati is on the MLS payroll.
     
  3. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, he's not. He works for Kraft Soccer, not MLS.
     
  4. Real Corona

    Real Corona Member+

    Jan 19, 2008
    Colorado
    Club:
    FC Metalist Kharkiv
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry, guess it got lost in the "you are stupid" "no you are" part of the thread.


    So the Goltv announcers are doing the England broadcast? Poor England fans.
     
  5. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I do love the subtle variations of "single entity". Kraft Soccer is not connected to the Revs, I suppose?
     
  6. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, it is. And they play in MLS. You said he was "on the MLS payroll." That's not true. he is on the payroll of an MLS team. There's a difference. It's not subtle at all. Kraft Soccer is an independent company from MLS. He works for one, not the other.

    That's not to say there arent' conflicts of interest across US soccer and problems with MLS and the USSF, but if you're going to start the Righteous Indignation Website of the Year, you should have your facts straight. That goes beyond the silly assertion that the federation and league should have bought the rights from someone who wasn't interested in selling the rights to make it easier for US fans.
     
  7. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's not to say there arent' conflicts of interest across US soccer and problems with MLS and the USSF, but if you're going to start the Righteous Indignation Website of the Year, you should have your facts straight. That goes beyond the silly assertion that the federation and league should have bought the rights from someone who wasn't interested in selling the rights to make it easier for US fans.[/QUOTE]

    You're right, this is by far the least most important way that the stilted, franchised, and closed league that stands in for a real first division contributes to the debilitation of club soccer in this country. There are far better examples, as outlined on the righteous indignation website I'm developing.

    That being said, I think this discussion is an ideal example of how MLS lives in a bubble, and is defended mightily by people who don't believe that they should have to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

    Their legion of defenders screams "we wouldn't have soccer without them"
    and calls every critic a sick frenchman.

    It's very George Bush, if you think about it....
     
  8. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The fact that I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of your characterization of someone's employment has turned into MLS being "defended mightily by people who don't believe that they should have to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny" cracks me up. Once again, outrage isn't deemed important unless it's the loudest.

    Take your little crusade elsewhere - it has nothing to do with the broadcast of this game. If you want to reasonably discuss the possibility of changes in MLS and the USSF, that would be fun. But if you're starting from the point that anyone who tries to see good alongside bad is merely a shill for the league, you might as well just talk to yourself.
     
  9. Kryptonite

    Kryptonite Fancy Title Here

    Apr 10, 1999
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As of this point, there are about 13 bars in the United States that are showing it. I have heard that every Fado will be showing it with the required $20 cover.

    One particular soccer-friendly pub in Columbus could RENT the equipment at a cost of several thousand dollars. As of right now, they're not doing it.


    Agreed. If it's on ESPN, Gol TV, or even regular Setanta Sports, pirating seems rather silly. In any major city, you could probably drive 20-30 minutes to a pub/bar with any of those channels and watch the game with no cover.

    When it's a seemingly greedy corporation and a soccer-friendly pub needs to rent the necessary equipment, it's another story. I'm not saying "do it." I'm saying that I can understand the logic of the pirates...IN THIS UNIQUE SITUATION.

    All of a sudden, mun2 and Telemundo (English SAP) look pretty damn good, don't they?


    That picture quality will be horrible...
     
  10. jcvf90

    jcvf90 Member

    Dec 12, 2006
    Boca Raton, FL
    Should be as good as the Justin ones. Done it before.
     
  11. soccerreform.us

    soccerreform.us New Member

    Mar 12, 2009
    Denver
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're right. I overreacted. I inferred that you were marching in lockstep with MLS and the pseudo independent remoras built around it, and that is a reach. It's tough to interpret tongue in cheek here. Not yelling on this end at all. I guess you can then jump down my throat for being high and mighty.

    Still, I can't imagine the FA would stand by and allow a pivotal world cup qualifier to go unbroadcasted to homes in the UK. Granted, it'd be a bizarre world where someone couldn't figure out how to make a buck off it over there - but still.
     
  12. Kryptonite

    Kryptonite Fancy Title Here

    Apr 10, 1999
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not quite sure of the technical term, but everytime i've tried to film a screen (cellphone to TV being the exception), there's this weird horizontal line moving vertically. Five minutes of that would be enough to drive me nuts.
     
  13. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Say what?

    Regardless, this ain't England so I don't see how what happens there should be analogous to what happens here. As much as we love the sports, we have to allow for cultural differences from country to country. One of them is that there just simply isn't as much demand, economically or in numbers, for the sport as in other places. No amount of name-calling or demonizing will change that.
     
  14. Kryptonite

    Kryptonite Fancy Title Here

    Apr 10, 1999
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Update:


    I just heard a rumor that there will be no cover fee because the PPV company has lowered the price to a reasonable level, but you won't actually hear that advertised.
     
  15. Sounders Fan

    Sounders Fan Member

    Feb 9, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Everyone should contact ESPN and ask them to show the game. They need to hear that there are a lot of people that would like to see this game.
     
  16. Kryptonite

    Kryptonite Fancy Title Here

    Apr 10, 1999
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're new around here, aren't you? "Everyone" would probably mean a couple thousand people at most.

    ESPN is showing college football on Saturdays to millions of viewers. If they opted for the soccer game, it would be on ESPN Classic at best. FSC or one of the Spanish-language channels (such as TeleFutura, Telemundo, Univision, or Galavision) would be the best "mainstream" option for that timeslot.

    However, it doesn't really work that way. If the provider of the game wants to sell it, they can name their price. If no one wants to pay that price, it won't be televised.

    At the end of the day, pub-only PPV with no cover fee isn't a bad option. We'll all be at the pub anyway, right?
     
  17. Westside Cosmo

    Westside Cosmo Member+

    Oct 4, 2007
    H-Town
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If they never intended to put it on US TV, they did a pretty crappy job of putting together any kind of real sales and marketing plan, seeing as they put out a public plea for marketing leads last week. I'm sure they had an idea how much they can or could make going the CCTV route in bars and figured they could extort more than that out of ESPN or even FSC.

    You'd think if they intended to go CCTV they would have been pushing this earlier, seeing that the CONCACAF Hex standings two months ago were likely going to make this game critical for both teams.
     
  18. geordienation

    geordienation Moderator

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC

    They're not going to pre-empt a second of college football for soccer.
     
  19. geordienation

    geordienation Moderator

    Apr 21, 2001
    Chicago
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC

    Agreed. I think this was a tactical ********up by the Circuito Cerrado guys. If Kryptonite heard correctly and they dropped the price, they're just trying to recoup whatever they can at this point.

    Their only hope was to get money out of ESPN, because FSC is not paying a large rights fee. What's laughable is that they didn't figure on this being college football season, arguably ESPN's most successful time of year.

    I hope these guys lose their asses on it.

    What's interesting is that all of these people claiming that someone should step up and buy it miss the larger point: if you pay them this time, they'll expect it. By refusing to be extorted, there's a better chance that this won't happen in the future.
     
  20. lovingthegreen

    May 29, 2006
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree. In my opinion, FIFA should enact a rule that rights need to be sold to an over-the-air television outlet that is at the very least available on most cable/satellite outlets. And that should be a worldwide rule, regardless of cultural differences, etc.

    I would be all over that if the closest place wasn't 265 miles away. :mad: It's so frustrating to not even have the option of paying. Unless somebody in Spokane unexpectedly picks it up this week, I guess I am resigned to trying to secure a feed on the Internet.
     
  21. blackhornet

    blackhornet Member

    Jun 26, 2008
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree - and I think everyone should watch through any other means other than official. Don't support the bars who bought the CC package. Force a different behavior for next time.
     
  22. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not saying the rules don't deserve a second look. I'm saying under the current rules, you have to factor in the amount of interest and possible financial gain. Just because you like the sport a lot and I like the sport a lot does not mean the shackles of reality disappear.
     
  23. monster

    monster Member

    Oct 19, 1999
    Hanover, PA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think they always intended on using their existing Spanish-speaking CCTV connections - they are doing El Salvador-Honduras on 10/14 - to push the game. I believe English-language was an afterthought. Either they grossly over-estimated what broadcast would pay, they grossly under-estimated what PPV interest there would be or they just didn't give a shit because they were making more than enough money pushing these two matches to the places where Honduran fans were going to be.

    I prefer to think they never intended to sell it to any English-language outlet other than ones that would reach out to them. Regardless of which version is true, however, Mediapro and ISM are the villains in this matter.

    I'm predicting right now that this game will end up re-broadcast on GolTV with no announcement of that until after the fact. Schoen and Hudson doing the broadcast make me more positive than ever that this was an intended screw job of GolTV's competitors.
     
  24. tambo

    tambo Member

    Jun 9, 2007
    Oh, about that website:

    Dude. The white-on-blue thing. It's really hard on the eyes. Not just mine. It's been clinically shown that anyone with an astigmatism (at least a quarter of the human population) has difficulty reading light text on dark backgrounds. There's a reason that, say, the New York Times sticks with good ol' black-on-white. And it's not because they have unimaginative designers.

    If you're really intent on conveying a message -- and that seems to be the fundamental reason for having such a site, yes? -- you should make that message as accessible as you can to as many people as you can.
     
  25. Sounders Fan

    Sounders Fan Member

    Feb 9, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    A couple points:

    If thousands of people contacted ESPN, that would get their attention.

    ESPN could find room on one of their channels if they wanted to.
     

Share This Page