Yeah. Let's sue the bastards for the $0.82 they stole from me!!!!! There are things to get mad about and things to sue about. I pray people have the common sense to know the difference between the two.
A lot of suits are not for money...they are for public awareness...and to shake up the powers that get away with consumer fraud. Nothing more or less...I could care less about a dollar...but it's more than a dollar. It's a lot of games not played that were prmoised, which means a lot of dollars they wouldhave lost if we knew this going in. comprendo?
As of right now, you're looking at six regular season games - tops. You're trying to say you wouldn't have subscribed if you knew six games at the end of the season might not be shown? Take the cross off your shoulder, get a little perspective and try some constructive measures to voice your displeasure instead of whining your way into court where you will be laughed out of town.
Monster....where have I said I want to sue anybody? Not once. I'm a hard line right winged conservative. There are rights, and there is corporate fraud. You are the unreasonable one here. If somebody wants to make noise...let 'em. Because it's a legitamate breach of contract. Not the jerk that is suing fast food joints because he's fat! But, my approach has been civil and discussions lead to what is indemands solution to this point. There is no final solution. They just want to get something out there. They don't want a PR nightmare...theyknow they screwed up....but there is nothing absolute about all games promised when contracted to be shown going futher by their statement. "Tape delayed" Taht is not what we were promised. Go ahead and let people take advantage of you the rest of your life. If you don't speak up...you end up on the bottom. I'm guessing you are one of those. And I am far from that.
I just find the notion that not showing one night of soccer games measures up to "corporate fraud" one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Maybe you should read the advertisement a little closer, dear. It's your game! MLS SHOOTOUT on Sports iN DEMAND features Major League Soccer matches that you as a viewer could otherwise not see. These games are in networks around the country. MLS SHOOTOUT is a digital sports package that includes regular season and select playoff games. May not be available in all areas. Programming subject to change. Where does it say all games live? Huh? Please, help me here. From the MLS press release: About iN DEMAND: Beginning on May 1, digital cable subscribers in many markets will be able to purchase every regional MLS telecast (regardless of the match date or originating broadcaster) through iN DEMAND. With a 65-channel lineup, iN DEMAND's programming also includes movies from all the major Hollywood studios, in addition to sports and entertainment events. Nothing about live games. No promises on that issue. So all you have sister is two games which were not shown. Cry me a freaking river. I'm upset the games were not on last week and am peeved the package has changed. I have voiced my opinions to MLS, iNDemand and my cable provider. But life goes on. And we were not deceived, not if we are smart enough to know that nothing is guaranteed. I'm all for voicing your opinion and venting your anger - just ask the MS people I harassed when it looked like iNDemand wouldn't carry the package. But there is a line where you cross into completely unreasonable territory. That has happened here when suits and class action issues are raised. I am happy about one thing - the perception that soccer fans are a whining martyrous bunch who feel slighted at every turn will continue as strong as ever. That's an unbreakable streak.
It's not two games, or one night....they missed games before last weekend, and it is a major point to miss the rest of the season. Is that so hard for you to comprehend? going into the playoffs is more important than watching the beginning of the year...if this was NHL...you don't think the entire country would be going mad? Why am i discussing this with a mentality so much below mine? Please exuse me posters...I am on major jetlag.
What other games? All threads popped up this weekend. A few games were changed by local broadcasters, but if you read anything on this, it changed last weekend. And if you continue to read, they aren't going to miss the rest of the season. I suggest you re-read the iNDemand e-mail and check the TV listings to see how misinformed you are. And if my mentality is so low, why am I the one providing facts while you can't seem to keep up in the argument?
I don't think suggesting some manner of suit is martyrous or whinny in any way. The fact is that we all paid $50 for all of the games that were available to be broadcast via the shootout. We can argue about it only being two games and the price being a bargain or whatever, but that is what we paid for. Personally, I don't care if they show the games via tape delay or live. There is nothing that says the games have to be live, so I'm fine with that. It means I may be able to actually get more for my money. The thing that upsets me is that they looked at what we paid and how many of us subscribed and decided that we should get screwed because maybe we wouldn't notice. If they said that a few games at the end of the season wouldn't be offered, then I still may have taken the deal. That is not what we were sold though. Now Monster, you have a great cable company. Most of us are dealing with Comcast, TW, AT&T, Cox, etc. They may have local offices, but that doen't mean that we get local service other than local interest channels. If cable companies had competitors in more markets, then we could take our business elsewhere and stay with cable, but we can't really do that. We can either get a dish with the same detached service, or we can complain or maybe sue. For most of us, cable is just not responsive. I have a real problem with a company like Comcast, and this is a little off topic, that has 80% or more of the cable market in the Philly area, and uses this power not to provide good varied services, but to protect it's local and company interests. The company keeps potential competitors like FSW off of its systems to protect low rated channels it owns, does not offer its local sports channel to satellite providers to keep local customers in cable if they wish to watch the sports franchises that it owns on a channel it owns (conflict of interest?), and replaces resonsive local cable offices that used to provide the kind of service you get with payment centers and regional call centers. I even pay more for digital service where I live now, than I did in my old apartment, and my old service was far superior in terms of equipment, ease of use, etc. I don't really want a dish because if I do that, I lose access to the Flyers and Sixers. So I'm left with the choice of switching to dish because I'm sick at how cable treats me, or stay with cable and make noise about it, which is like beating my head against the wall. The InDemand thing is just about the last draw for me, so my frustration with cable is more than just missing two to ten MLS games games due to InDemand or Comcast incompetence. It has to do with losing FSW, billing problems, internet outages, the fact that I pay for at least 10 flavors of Nickelodeon that I don't watch so I pay $50 for MLS, and unresponsive service. It seems like I'm not the only one that feels this way either. If you ask me, the shootout thing may not be something to sue over, but a cable company that I feel is abusing its influence I'm starting to think is something to sue over. Or, I can just get a dish and start over minus the other cable things that are important to me. It's not an easy situation in which to be put. The funny thing is that I'm a fairly conservative person in terms of how I feel about businesses. This is just abusive though because it clearly eliminates choice.
Monster, as a legal matter the terms of the contract are not totally dispositive. Particularly, the words appearing in an advertisement have only limited legal effect. The terms of the contract may also include the (unwritten) customary course of performance of a contract, the course of dealing between the parties, and customary trade practices (i.e., "usage of trade") in the industry. There is certainly a case here.
Did you sign a contract? I didn't. I'm sorry if I understand the credo "caveat emptor" and some other people don't. And bill, I'm sorry if I think suing over two soccer games is whony and matryrous in my opinion. But you take the jump that they did this to intentionally screw soccer fans. We don't know that. That would be the logical assumption, but we don't know that. I'm hoping to get a clearer answer later today from someone who knows more about this than you and I. But everything else is just speculation. And wanting to sue over speculation about why two games were not broadcast certainly seems pretty whiny to me. Finally, I understand cable is not responsive in many areas. Believe me, I count my blessings every time I hear about people who have to deal with one of the behemoths. That is why I am adamant about saying that dish vs. cable is a personal choice. I'm in a great boat with cable. I understand 100 percent why people with Comcast bail. But tell me this - do you think the companies will be more responsive when the initial reaction over one day's missed games is to file a class action suit for a package they were reluctant to carry in the first place? I just believe meaningful dialogue and pointed letters and calls are more effective than a class-action suit over something that didn't really affect the way the world operates.
Help me out here: Did anyone ever receive a written contract regarding MLS Shootout? What, specifically, were iNDemand's promises? Did they promise to televise a set number of games? If so, how many? Where is that promise made? Is there a website? Was it advertised on cable? Thanks. I'm getting my ducks in a row in case this blossoms into a class action lawsuit.
Glad to see this thread has worked its way down to the normal level of BigSoccer discourse. I was afraid for a short while that this would remain a high-level, thoughtful discussion.
Jesus people - are you that stupid? Yes, lets file a class action lawsuit, we will win $2 per person and iNDemand will never touch MLS again with a ten-foot pole. Time to come back to reality.
Obviously, I'm just a little fed up with cable. It's possible that suing over two games is a little much. I have written letters to my cable company, and I agree that getting a dish is a personal choice. I don't need people telling me I should get one either. I just think my cable patience has worn out, but I'm not sold on the dish yet. In my current situation, my company has one last chance to make things right, after that, I guess I have to look into the dish. I can see how it seems whinny, but I think the premise does have some merrit. It seems pretty obvious to me that if InDemand cut two college football games to show MLS, the fans of those four football teams would have gone nuts too. Perhaps they'd have gone nuts in greater numbers too. Who knows. It just seems to me that InDemand made a business decsion that, on paper, makes sense and by deduction it seems that the money we paid doesn't mean as much as the money the pointyball fans paid. I didn't mean to seem irrational, this is just a hotbutton issue for me right now.
I agree. Suing for $2 isn't practical. I think the idea has merrit though. I'm not stupid, just blinded by a Roy Kean like rage!
Welcome to the limited options available to the American Consumer. While I fully agree that I would not personally "sue" InDemand for their actions, I can see why others would. Two games, that's $11.90 by my count. Aren't those games $5.95 a piece to order? I paid for a bulk discount, I miss single games, I get the single rate back for the games. As far as their "advertising", their TV commercial says that you will get all the regular season games live. "With the MLS Shootout Package, you can see all your favorite teams live and you won't have miss a single game." That's the package *I* paid for. I won't hop on class action suit, but I have no problem if someone else does. I am an American Consumer. Sometimes the big bad corporations try to take advantage of the average Joe, and sometimes....Joe has to strike back. To me, it looks like InDemand tried a little program juggling hoping the soccer loving public wouldn't know/care. With the outcry to local cable companies, InDemand, and Joe Bob's congressman in Arkansas, they now know they need to placate us....the offended consumer. Welcome to the real world, where someone has to look out for our rights as consumers.
And I'm getting ready to cry because a class-action suit would probably wipe MLS off of iNDemand's radar screen forever. In the exact words of an MLS official while they were tying up this year's package: "We're not really negotiating from a position of strength." Kenny Rogers is a brilliant man. Listen to his lyrics.
It was a joke....knob. (And I can order any single game on my onscreen guide for $4.95) Had the price a little wrong.
Got a little digging done: 1. Last week was a last-minute decision that totally surprised MLS. This is as much of a bandwidth issue between iNDemand and a subcontractor as it is a soccer vs. football issue. From what I could gather, they had limited capacity and basically chose the more profitable PPV package. 2. iNDemand was surprised by the amount of reaction considering the low level of subscribers. 3. This isn't over yet concerning this week's games 4. Next week will be a b!tch because there are five Saturday games. Didn't ask about any legal language because basically that's a non-issue. If anyone has a legal beef, it's MLS and the person who I know said he knows that MLS is doing everything it can to make it right. Save your lawyer's fees and start a fund to build a soccer-only channel!