Highlights 2016/17

[fifaking]

Boreham Wood have made a statement on why they charge for highlights -


Boreham Wood Football Club wish to put the record straight, after reading Chester FC’s very biased media statement against us as a small football club trying to pay our way in a National Premier League..

We are talking about their media departments statement following their decision to refuse to make a contribution for the right to make a live radio broadcast of the BWFC v Chester game to their fee paying subscriber channel, which is clearly a stand alone club business enterprise.

We totally respect the staff of any subscription channels or business and their decision makers. We respect their right to say no to our small broadcasting fees but we are very unhappy to be used once again by Chester’s media departments in what is simply excuse diatribe. This happened last season and on that occasion we chose to say nothing but enough is enough.

So let’s be clear, BWFC will make absolutely no apologies for charging any visiting club a small fee of between £50 to £80, should they wish to broadcast either a live radio broadcast or wish to replay match highlights on their subscription channel and literally everybody has known our stance for over a year..

When any visiting club clearly runs a for profit subscribers channel and when we are asked to clearly provide the venue and half of the entertainment on view, then why would we give that away free of charge, when the visiting club are charging their own supporters??

As a balance to Chester’s media departments childish “we feel very hard done by” argument. We maintain that the deal the National league board, negotiated with the BBC to provide ‘free’ local radio coverage that can be accessed by everyone, is more than sufficient for each and every home and away fan..

We also maintain that a visiting clubs subscription channel and its fees and expenses, are only known by those individual clubs but they are certainly not run at a loss. That means they must accept that the clubs that they visit, will all have differing views and if that means a small charge is asked for, that should be respected.

Our view is very simple. We feel that to expect BWFC or other clubs for that matter to provide a subscription company/club with ‘free’ entertainment for profit subscription channels is simply unfair..

It’s not rocket science to work out that any home club has to pay pay salaries for players, groundsman, kit men, ground staff, stewards, gate people, ball boys, doctors, tannoy staff, caterers, cleaners, medical, floodlights, hospitality, general licences, health and safety etc and of course the latest technology to broadcast..

We also want to make the point re attendances that is often overlooked, in what is a totally dominated sky sports world. We want to encourage as many people as possible to our ground to watch and witness live football..

We believe by giving away our broadcast rights and social media rights for next to nothing affects that affects things across the whole spectrum of non league football.

We more than most realise that National Premier League football is an expensive product to put on and by giving away our product ‘free’ of charge to a subscription channel. Would just not happen in any other business and If you want an example just ask Sky Sports and the Premier League..

Chester City have loyal subscribers. Subscribers who are clearly being short changed by the people running their pay to view channel. We would strongly suggest that the Chester City media department now stop trying to deflect their inadequacies on us and get agreements in place with all the away clubs..

If they are selling their fans a product that they cannot provide or if they cannot afford £50/£80 for the BWFC game then they shouldn’t be in business.

The Chester media department will of course whinge at the total affront that a small club like ourselves have by standing up to them. However the truth is, they would be better suited to putting out intelligent statements to apologise to everyone of their subscribing supporters who they are misleading..

They have been given over 12 months prior notice from us in writing. Detailing our policy and explaining politely our position.. So they have known, as every visiting club has known about this well in advance..

We will continue to ask for a small fee paid in good faith for what is a value for money product where we do provide 50% of the entertainment.. We always pay our way, we never ask for scout passes, we pay our bills and players on time and we know the value of a pound note..

If Chester’s media department cannot guarantee their subscribers what they promise in pre season. If they are so financially challenged that they cannot afford to pay a small fee to the opposing club for providing them the technology to broadcast. Providing them the venue, the opposition and the ground staff to allow the game to go ahead, then their subscribers need to ask them where their money goes and vent their anger at them by cancelling their subscription..

Kind of agree with their stance

But that statement still belongs in tinpot thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris FGR]

Chester (and others) should think about the principle of charging their fans a subscription to watch highlights/interviews then. If they complain about being charged when they themselves are charging people to watch then they are hypocrites.

Clubs like ourselves who provide all media free of charge have a right to complain, those charging do not.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

Tbf they have a point. It's only 50 quid ffs. If Chester charge their fans a subscription they shouldn't be complaining.

On the other hand, there are a lot of clubs in this league, including us, who provide free highlights (and have done since well before Vince). Prefer it when clubs don't rip there fans off, so those that provide free highlights should not be charged by B Wood imo.

We charge a fee for Wrexham Player, but then we just put the goals up on YouTube anyway strangely, I'd be slightly annoyed if I'd paid a fee and then they just go and show them for free elsewhere.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

Its to show support for NHS Give Blood campaign I think. AFC Telford are doing similar.

Oh right thanks, didn't know that, how does that work then?

 

[DarkSithLord]

Oh right thanks, didn't know that, how does that work then?

No idea to be honest!

 

[Bluandwite]

Chester (and others) should think about the principle of charging their fans a subscription to watch highlights/interviews then. If they complain about being charged when they themselves are charging people to watch then they are hypocrites.

Clubs like ourselves who provide all media free of charge have a right to complain, those charging do not.

Get your facts right Chris.

We're not complaining, we simply put a statement out explaining to the fans of why there isn't going to be coverage of the game. That's it.

Maybe Boreham expect us to just sit in the dark and not know, probably suit them. They know what they do is unpopular and are pathetically trying to shift the attention on to us.

 

[LeWhites]

Boreham Wood have made a statement on why they charge for highlights -


Boreham Wood Football Club wish to put the record straight, after reading Chester FC’s very biased media statement against us as a small football club trying to pay our way in a National Premier League..

We are talking about their media departments statement following their decision to refuse to make a contribution for the right to make a live radio broadcast of the BWFC v Chester game to their fee paying subscriber channel, which is clearly a stand alone club business enterprise.

We totally respect the staff of any subscription channels or business and their decision makers. We respect their right to say no to our small broadcasting fees but we are very unhappy to be used once again by Chester’s media departments in what is simply excuse diatribe. This happened last season and on that occasion we chose to say nothing but enough is enough.

So let’s be clear, BWFC will make absolutely no apologies for charging any visiting club a small fee of between £50 to £80, should they wish to broadcast either a live radio broadcast or wish to replay match highlights on their subscription channel and literally everybody has known our stance for over a year..

When any visiting club clearly runs a for profit subscribers channel and when we are asked to clearly provide the venue and half of the entertainment on view, then why would we give that away free of charge, when the visiting club are charging their own supporters??

As a balance to Chester’s media departments childish “we feel very hard done by” argument. We maintain that the deal the National league board, negotiated with the BBC to provide ‘free’ local radio coverage that can be accessed by everyone, is more than sufficient for each and every home and away fan..

We also maintain that a visiting clubs subscription channel and its fees and expenses, are only known by those individual clubs but they are certainly not run at a loss. That means they must accept that the clubs that they visit, will all have differing views and if that means a small charge is asked for, that should be respected.

Our view is very simple. We feel that to expect BWFC or other clubs for that matter to provide a subscription company/club with ‘free’ entertainment for profit subscription channels is simply unfair..

It’s not rocket science to work out that any home club has to pay pay salaries for players, groundsman, kit men, ground staff, stewards, gate people, ball boys, doctors, tannoy staff, caterers, cleaners, medical, floodlights, hospitality, general licences, health and safety etc and of course the latest technology to broadcast..

We also want to make the point re attendances that is often overlooked, in what is a totally dominated sky sports world. We want to encourage as many people as possible to our ground to watch and witness live football..

We believe by giving away our broadcast rights and social media rights for next to nothing affects that affects things across the whole spectrum of non league football.

We more than most realise that National Premier League football is an expensive product to put on and by giving away our product ‘free’ of charge to a subscription channel. Would just not happen in any other business and If you want an example just ask Sky Sports and the Premier League..

Chester City have loyal subscribers. Subscribers who are clearly being short changed by the people running their pay to view channel. We would strongly suggest that the Chester City media department now stop trying to deflect their inadequacies on us and get agreements in place with all the away clubs..

If they are selling their fans a product that they cannot provide or if they cannot afford £50/£80 for the BWFC game then they shouldn’t be in business.

The Chester media department will of course whinge at the total affront that a small club like ourselves have by standing up to them. However the truth is, they would be better suited to putting out intelligent statements to apologise to everyone of their subscribing supporters who they are misleading..

They have been given over 12 months prior notice from us in writing. Detailing our policy and explaining politely our position.. So they have known, as every visiting club has known about this well in advance..

We will continue to ask for a small fee paid in good faith for what is a value for money product where we do provide 50% of the entertainment.. We always pay our way, we never ask for scout passes, we pay our bills and players on time and we know the value of a pound note..

If Chester’s media department cannot guarantee their subscribers what they promise in pre season. If they are so financially challenged that they cannot afford to pay a small fee to the opposing club for providing them the technology to broadcast. Providing them the venue, the opposition and the ground staff to allow the game to go ahead, then their subscribers need to ask them where their money goes and vent their anger at them by cancelling their subscription..

Despite the clear lack of professionalism in that writing, BW have made Chester look a bit silly here. I completely agree with their points - why should Chester be allowed to just turn up and record highlights for free when they are charging for them?

Do clubs who charge for highlights allow clubs who upload free highlights to film at their matches?

Would be interested to know where Dover stand on this, I know clubs have moaned in the past about us not letting them film for free.

As a side note, who is actually paying a subscription to watch highlights of non league football?

 

[Bluandwite]

Just for clarity, this is for radio commentary, not highlights. Also, we allow other clubs to cover games down here regardless of whether they then decide to charge or not.

What exactly is wrong with us informing our own supporters of the reason we are not covering the game?

 

[The Jovial Forester]

If this is the statement (what I could find on the Chester site) wouldn't say it's very biased even if it does obviously present Chester's side:

Chester FC regret to announce that we will not be providing live coverage of the Boreham Wood fixture on Saturday, we have taken this decision as a result of Boreham Wood proposing to levy unprecedented charges to both our media team and local press, something we have never encountered at other football clubs.

As a matter of principle both ourselves and Dee 106.3 will therefore not be sending reporters to cover the game live.

We will of course cover the game through social media, and reports on our website. We apologise to fans and subscribers but hope that you understand our stance

Sort of see where Boreham Wood are coming from but if no-one else charges can't see why they do and surely the fifty quid is neither here nor there?

 

[LeWhites]

If this is the statement (what I could find on the Chester site) wouldn't say it's very biased even if it does obviously present Chester's side:

Sort of see where Boreham Wood are coming from but if no-one else charges can't see why they do and surely the fifty quid is neither here nor there?

We do I think. £50 is a day's wages for some of our lads, every little helps. Plus I think it's the principle more than anything.

What's wrong with listening to BBC commentary anyway?

 

[The Jovial Forester]

We do I think. £50 is a day's wages for some of our lads, every little helps. Plus I think it's the principle more than anything.

What's wrong with listening to BBC commentary anyway?

What do Chester do at yours then? Pay up or not, or have you only just started charging?

 

[LeWhites]

What do Chester do at yours then? Pay up or not, or have you only just started charging?

Not sure about Chester but I remember Macclesfield (?) complaining about it.

If I was paying a subscription to the club for commentary I'd expect them to pay the £50.

EDIT: Just had a look back and it seems the problem with Macclesfield was we wouldn't/couldn't provide a WiFi connection for them to broadcast. I think it's highlights we've charged for rather than commentary.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Not sure about Chester but I remember Macclesfield (?) complaining about it.

If I was paying a subscription to the club for commentary I'd expect them to pay the £50.

EDIT: Just had a look back and it seems the problem with Macclesfield was we wouldn't/couldn't provide a WiFi connection for them to broadcast. I think it's highlights we've charged for rather than commentary.

Yep, that's the bit where Boreham Wood clearly have a point. Makes the "unprecedented" bit of the Chester statement a bit odd though if you charge too.

 

[LeWhites]

Yep, that's the bit where Boreham Wood clearly have a point. Makes the "unprecedented" bit of the Chester statement a bit odd though if you charge too.

Yeah it's hardly unprecedented. See here: http://onefootballforum.co.uk/index...r-heard-tinpot-thread.710/page-69#post-363094

Apparently we upset Guiseley, Tranmere and Macclesfield last season. No mention of Chester though.

Looking here at last year's highlights thread it seems that we wanted charge £100 to Macc to publish their highlights and Boreham Wood were at it last season as well.
http://onefootballforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/highlights-2015-16.6482/page-7#post-262704

 

[Bendubz]

All of this charging for highlights, be it charging the fans or charging the club, seems very tinpot to me. This is Non-League, not Premier League, and even then it seems strange. I don't know for other Prem clubs but Spurs operate on a system of a free account is all you need. This whole situation baffles me to be quite honest.

 

[Luke Imp]

Boreham Wood appear to pay ball boys.

 

[Raymondo316]

Boreham have always been a tinpot outfit.

They were pulling off this type of crap even when they were in the Ryman Leagues

 

[Sparrow]

What a sad, strange little club Boreham Wood is.

Why don't they charge journalists to get in seeing as they provide coverage through newspapers?

 

[Chris FGR]

Boreham Wood appear to pay ball boys.

How much?

 

[Pablosammy]

Boreham Wood appear to pay ball boys.

Funny, there didn't seem to be any at the game the other evening.

 

[Pablosammy]

We charge a fee for Wrexham Player, but then we just put the goals up on YouTube anyway strangely, I'd be slightly annoyed if I'd paid a fee and then they just go and show them for free elsewhere.

We publish the goals for free on Youtube, and have a 10-15 minutes highlights package behind the standard Football League 'Player HD' subscription pay wall. For £4 a month, the content they come out with is well worth it.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

We publish the goals for free on Youtube, and have a 10-15 minutes highlights package behind the standard Football League 'Player HD' subscription pay wall. For £4 a month, the content they come out with is well worth it.

Yeah that sounds like ours, extended highlights of games in HD. I'm still not sure it's worth it though and I can't imagine many people sign up to it.

 

[Pablosammy]

Yeah that sounds like ours, extended highlights of games in HD. I'm still not sure it's worth it though and I can't imagine many people sign up to it.

Most of our fans sign up to it to get the away match live commentary, local radio doesn't often have the whole game.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

Most of our fans sign up to it to get the away match live commentary, local radio doesn't often have the whole game.

Oh I see ok! I can't listen to us on the radio, too many heart palpitations.

 

[Bluandwite]

We're the same on the Football League Player. You can also see other clubs highlights if you're signed up.

We provide live commentary of the match, highlights, interviews and a free electronic matchday programme. Been having trouble recently with connections and signal at away games though and the club have already come out and said that we're binning it off when the contract expires.

 

[Luke Imp]

We have the Player, too, although most of it's freely available for us this season through the Lincs Echo or Radio Lincs so there's little point in having it now unless you have your heart set on watching extended highlights or the full game.

 

[Blue Lion]

We're the same, our club puts the goals from its games on Facebook and Twitter as well as on Youtube. We then have Silkmen Player which shows extended highlights and interviews plus re-runs of classic matches. It's also used for live match commentary, not something I use too much because I'm normally at the games anyway, otherwise I'll find another local team to watch like today. The Twitter updates that Macc supply are in decent detail too which is helpful, shame not all clubs do this so much.

 

[Harrier94]

We have the Player, too, although most of it's freely available for us this season through the Lincs Echo or Radio Lincs so there's little point in having it now unless you have your heart set on watching extended highlights or the full game.

Whoever edits those videos needs to turn down the commentary.

 

[Pablosammy]

Great quality highlights recorded by Maidstone, from the unusual vantage point of the main stand. We allowed them to do this.

 

[LeWhites]

Hardly extensive highlights but there's the goals from our game. We let Barrow film