The Sunday Game

[Seany]

Excellent answers there easytiger. Really informative. Thanks.

[Main Street]

I'm sure Monaghan and Kildare fans didn't mind the amateur camera work for their match yesterday as at least they got to see some footage of their match.

On the contrary, given  the nature of this thread to date I'd expect that a) the coverage wasn't long enough, b) it missed most of the key moments in the game, c) the camera work was amateurish, d) the analysis wasn't long enough, e) the analysts clearly didn't watch the game, f) local soccer gets better coverags and there's only 300 people at those matches, and g) RTE are c***ts.

Sky TV etc have created a beast whereby modern sports fans expect on-demand, high quality footage of their sport. In this case, these are unreasonable demands.

Not so, the difference between a Sky tv production and an Eirsport production is chalk and cheese.
That Tyrone Dublin game was a basic bog standard video production with dreadful audio quality which muffled the crowd atmosphere.
What can it cost to hire an independent video production company to at least match that quality?
or hire a production team  to cover a lower division game,  2 cameras, a sound engineer and a master engineer who edits and encodes the content for streaming/broadcast?
TG4 can easily manage high quality broadcasting of a sport event on a low budget, a fraction of what it costs Sky to do their thing.

Putting together a proper highlights package  for both codes  from all the divisions would take a sea change from traditional thinking
Norway has 5 sports channels, Iceland has 4 sport channels which cover most every football/basketball/handball game, some 140 live football games are broadcast in HD  each year and highlights  from the rest of the games.

Jesus more of it. Sky have champo - which usually means it is sunny, there is a good crowd and atmosphere, and you are not relying on flood lights without the sufficient power. There is a big difference between that and a murky winter's night in Omagh. Do you know the difference in audio between 8 thousand people and 20 thousand people?

They all - ALL - use the same OB companies to produce these games - it is the same equipment, it is just a question of how upscale you want your OB to be.

And here's the news, the Eir game had at least three cameras on it. TG4 use a minimum of three cameras for their live games - everyone does, it is the minimum you should use for a live game.

So, they use the same independent OB companies, the same equipment, in many cases the same pool of camera, audio, video replay staff - but in one case they were in the middle of winter, at a league game, the other it is the summer and championship. Lipstick and pigs.

Okay the lights could have been crap at Omagh but the rest of the comparison stands.
Eirsport's production costs are puny compared to Sky.
I do know the difference between capturing the sound of a crowd like Sky can manage  to great expense  and what Eirsport  can manage.
As you seemed to have missed my point  by a country mile I will repeat it.
My point countering Wobbler was that we do not expect a production like Sky manages to do.
The difference in costs between a Sky production and what Eirsport managed in Omagh is enormous.
We don't expect a Sky production for  the league 1 games  never mind for lower league game.
GAA fans would be quite content with the standard TG4 can manage.
And if a tiny populated country like Iceland  can manage to broadcast 140 live games from one sporting code with proper HD highlights from all the other games,  I think that's evidence enough that it's viable to do in Ireland.

And by the way, there is no great difference in expense between Sky's audio set up and what Eir would have used - the difference is the crowd number. 8 thousand people make less sound than 20 thousand.

Quite frankly that's total bull, you are spoofing.
The muffled sound from the Omagh game that we heard on tv has nothing to do with crowd size, by all accounts the good attendance there at that game was raucous.
A Sky tv production places many microphones around the ground and mix the crowd sound into the commentary. That costs money with equipment and personal. What Eirsport use to record sound with is something very basic, the crowd noise is deliberately baffled so we can just about hear it underneath the commentary.
When Sky come to town to do a live sporting broadcast there are trucks and crew. A video production crew that eirsport use could fit into  a van.
There is no comparison. What GAA fans want  is something which is available in other countries, a modest viable level of video production competency, way beyond what the Sunday Game broadcast or schedule.
There does need to be a separate sport channel.

[rosnarun]

how about say 4 static cameras in good positions going back to one mixer board. or even 2 one close up and one from a height .it may not be top notch but people really just wan to see the games.
Mayo GAA TV. give a very satisfactory coverage with just one camera you forget about the quality as soon as the match begins

[rosnarun]

I'm sure Monaghan and Kildare fans didn't mind the amateur camera work for their match yesterday as at least they got to see some footage of their match.

On the contrary, given  the nature of this thread to date I'd expect that a) the coverage wasn't long enough, b) it missed most of the key moments in the game, c) the camera work was amateurish, d) the analysis wasn't long enough, e) the analysts clearly didn't watch the game, f) local soccer gets better coverags and there's only 300 people at those matches, and g) RTE are c***ts.

Sky TV etc have created a beast whereby modern sports fans expect on-demand, high quality footage of their sport. In this case, these are unreasonable demands.

Not so, the difference between a Sky tv production and an Eirsport production is chalk and cheese.
That Tyrone Dublin game was a basic bog standard video production with dreadful audio quality which muffled the crowd atmosphere.
What can it cost to hire an independent video production company to at least match that quality?
or hire a production team  to cover a lower division game,  2 cameras, a sound engineer and a master engineer who edits and encodes the content for streaming/broadcast?
TG4 can easily manage high quality broadcasting of a sport event on a low budget, a fraction of what it costs Sky to do their thing.

Putting together a proper highlights package  for both codes  from all the divisions would take a sea change from traditional thinking
Norway has 5 sports channels, Iceland has 4 sport channels which cover most every football/basketball/handball game, some 140 live football games are broadcast in HD  each year and highlights  from the rest of the games.

Jesus more of it. Sky have champo - which usually means it is sunny, there is a good crowd and atmosphere, and you are not relying on flood lights without the sufficient power. There is a big difference between that and a murky winter's night in Omagh. Do you know the difference in audio between 8 thousand people and 20 thousand people?

They all - ALL - use the same OB companies to produce these games - it is the same equipment, it is just a question of how upscale you want your OB to be.

And here's the news, the Eir game had at least three cameras on it. TG4 use a minimum of three cameras for their live games - everyone does, it is the minimum you should use for a live game.

So, they use the same independent OB companies, the same equipment, in many cases the same pool of camera, audio, video replay staff - but in one case they were in the middle of winter, at a league game, the other it is the summer and championship. Lipstick and pigs.

Okay the lights could have been crap at Omagh but the rest of the comparison stands.
Eirsport's production costs are puny compared to Sky.
I do know the difference between capturing the sound of a crowd like Sky can manage  to great expense  and what Eirsport  can manage.
As you seemed to have missed my point  by a country mile I will repeat it.
My point countering Wobbler was that we do not expect a production like Sky manages to do.
The difference in costs between a Sky production and what Eirsport managed in Omagh is enormous.
We don't expect a Sky production for  the league 1 games  never mind for lower league game.
GAA fans would be quite content with the standard TG4 can manage.
And if a tiny populated country like Iceland  can manage to broadcast 140 live games from one sporting code with proper HD highlights from all the other games,  I think that's evidence enough that it's viable to do in Ireland.

And by the way, there is no great difference in expense between Sky's audio set up and what Eir would have used - the difference is the crowd number. 8 thousand people make less sound than 20 thousand.

Quite frankly that's total bull, you are spoofing.
The muffled sound from the Omagh game that we heard on tv has nothing to do with crowd size, by all accounts the good attendance there at that game was raucous.
A Sky tv production places many microphones around the ground and mix the crowd sound into the commentary. That costs money with equipment and personal. What Eirsport use to record sound with is something very basic, the crowd noise is deliberately baffled so we can just about hear it underneath the commentary.
When Sky come to town to do a live sporting broadcast there are trucks and crew. A video production crew that eirsport use could fit into  a van.
There is no comparison. What GAA fans want  is something which is available in other countries, a modest viable level of video production competency, way beyond what the Sunday Game broadcast or schedule.
There does need to be a separate sport channel.

your looking for modest but better than the sunday game from a technical point of view?
the probalem with SG is there too much shite spoken but its fine from a Quality standpoint and anything better i expect would be big bucks ensuring less games were covered and more shite from Larry curly and MOE

[easytiger95]

I'm sure Monaghan and Kildare fans didn't mind the amateur camera work for their match yesterday as at least they got to see some footage of their match.

On the contrary, given  the nature of this thread to date I'd expect that a) the coverage wasn't long enough, b) it missed most of the key moments in the game, c) the camera work was amateurish, d) the analysis wasn't long enough, e) the analysts clearly didn't watch the game, f) local soccer gets better coverags and there's only 300 people at those matches, and g) RTE are c***ts.

Sky TV etc have created a beast whereby modern sports fans expect on-demand, high quality footage of their sport. In this case, these are unreasonable demands.

Not so, the difference between a Sky tv production and an Eirsport production is chalk and cheese.
That Tyrone Dublin game was a basic bog standard video production with dreadful audio quality which muffled the crowd atmosphere.
What can it cost to hire an independent video production company to at least match that quality?
or hire a production team  to cover a lower division game,  2 cameras, a sound engineer and a master engineer who edits and encodes the content for streaming/broadcast?
TG4 can easily manage high quality broadcasting of a sport event on a low budget, a fraction of what it costs Sky to do their thing.

Putting together a proper highlights package  for both codes  from all the divisions would take a sea change from traditional thinking
Norway has 5 sports channels, Iceland has 4 sport channels which cover most every football/basketball/handball game, some 140 live football games are broadcast in HD  each year and highlights  from the rest of the games.

Jesus more of it. Sky have champo - which usually means it is sunny, there is a good crowd and atmosphere, and you are not relying on flood lights without the sufficient power. There is a big difference between that and a murky winter's night in Omagh. Do you know the difference in audio between 8 thousand people and 20 thousand people?

They all - ALL - use the same OB companies to produce these games - it is the same equipment, it is just a question of how upscale you want your OB to be.

And here's the news, the Eir game had at least three cameras on it. TG4 use a minimum of three cameras for their live games - everyone does, it is the minimum you should use for a live game.

So, they use the same independent OB companies, the same equipment, in many cases the same pool of camera, audio, video replay staff - but in one case they were in the middle of winter, at a league game, the other it is the summer and championship. Lipstick and pigs.

Okay the lights could have been crap at Omagh but the rest of the comparison stands.
Eirsport's production costs are puny compared to Sky.
I do know the difference between capturing the sound of a crowd like Sky can manage  to great expense  and what Eirsport  can manage.
As you seemed to have missed my point  by a country mile I will repeat it.
My point countering Wobbler was that we do not expect a production like Sky manages to do.
The difference in costs between a Sky production and what Eirsport managed in Omagh is enormous.
We don't expect a Sky production for  the league 1 games  never mind for lower league game.
GAA fans would be quite content with the standard TG4 can manage.
And if a tiny populated country like Iceland  can manage to broadcast 140 live games from one sporting code with proper HD highlights from all the other games,  I think that's evidence enough that it's viable to do in Ireland.

And by the way, there is no great difference in expense between Sky's audio set up and what Eir would have used - the difference is the crowd number. 8 thousand people make less sound than 20 thousand.

Quite frankly that's total bull, you are spoofing.
The muffled sound from the Omagh game that we heard on tv has nothing to do with crowd size, by all accounts the good attendance there at that game was raucous.
A Sky tv production places many microphones around the ground and mix the crowd sound into the commentary. That costs money with equipment and personal. What Eirsport use to record sound with is something very basic, the crowd noise is deliberately baffled so we can just about hear it underneath the commentary.
When Sky come to town to do a live sporting broadcast there are trucks and crew. A video production crew that eirsport use could fit into  a van.
There is no comparison. What GAA fans want  is something which is available in other countries, a modest viable level of video production competency, way beyond what the Sunday Game broadcast or schedule.
There does need to be a separate sport channel.

Ok, just for the hard of learning like yourself...

I have worked and directed games for both companies.

Both companies use the same facilities providers, so they could, quite literally, be using the same OB truck except on different dates.

The audio equipment is the same for both.

The only difference is that Sky uses it during the summer (big crowds). And Eir uses it during the winter (small crowds).

You can use small trucks sometimes, and bigger trucks other times, depending on how many cameras you are putting on something, but that doesn't impact the number of effects mics you would put out around a ground. What impacts that is where the crowd is - no point putting a mic in front of an empty terrace. Wind can be a problem as well, you need to shelter the mics if it is bad or you'll get blown out of it, and the way the stands affect the acoustics. This is why you have a sound man on a sound desk mixing the feeds from the various mics

So, you could go by your anecdotal evidence (you didn't like the sound mix and someone who was there told you that there were very rowdy, ergo Eir are turning up in Hiaces with one mic whilst Sky fly in on a mother ship with thousands of them) -

Or you could accept the word of someone who has been there, who knows the specs that Eir use for their league coverage, and realise that the venue and crowd have far more to with sound quality than the number of mics.

[westbound]

And really, the question I'm getting at is why isn't it possible to do something similar for the NFL/NHL?

Ok, let's look at what you have shown. It is a 40 second clip. It is shot by one cameraman, who has a nice elevated position. He has been clever and stuck a Go Pro in the goals - he probably stuck another one in the far goals. So he shoots the game, he goes home, sticks the SD card in the computer from the main camera, gets the goal out, puts it on a time line, then gets the Go Pro, downloads the footage from that, goes to the same timecode (if he thought to sync them both, otherwise he is spooling through it - no matter, only takes a few minutes) and then he tops and tails that clip from the Go Pro and puts that on the timeline - bish, bash, bosh, you have a 40 second clip.
This footage of the goal was available on youtube BEFORE the end of the game. I've no idea how it was done. So unfortunately your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
Now let's think what would happen if you were actually streaming this footage live. I'm not talking about streaming live.
A highlights package (even 2 days later) would suffice for meLook at the clip, he stays with the scorer, pushes in tight on him as an identifying shot - which you should do. Then he cuts to his replay. If you were streaming that live, you wouldn't be able to cut to a replay, unless you had both cameras connected to a mixing desk (then you are getting into expense, someone manning that desk etc). So, assuming you don't want to do that, the cameraman now has to get back to the goalkeeper for the kick out - from where he is, on tight shot of the scorer. So he whips back to the goalie. It looks ugly and feels disorientating - depending on the kick out strategy and how high scoring a game it is, you are doing that 30 times in a game, more if you include reactions to wides, even more if you try and be ambitious and try and get manager/sideline/crowd reaction.

The very best single cameramen (and believe me guys, if you think it is just a matter of sticking a camera in someone hands, you are very wrong - even amongst the pros, there are lads who have reputations for being the best at single camera footage) will do all that and take those risks - and why? Because they know that single camera shouldn't be watched in full, that are you shooting for the edit, not for a live broadcast, and the more options and cutaways you give the editor, the better your 2 minute report will look. Fair enough, there would be a drop in quality if there aren't enough good cameramen in the country. This could certainly be a problem if there was a significant difference between the quality of footage between gamees

So, if we can agree that in terms of broadcast (and I'm talking about on a national basis, not club websites) single camera 70 minute footage isn't a runner, than we need to look at what we can get from the 16 or so games that take place on a football weekend (and more if it is a hurling weekend as well). What do we want from these games? I agree 70 minute live coverage of all games is not a runner (nor did I suggest it).Broadband issues alone would be reason enough to ensure this isn't a runner

The TV companies only have the money to do about three games each live or deferred on Saturdays and Sundays. And the GAA wouldn't want them doing full coverage of much more in case it affects the gate for other fixures. So you have say roughly 10 games going uncovered at any one weekend. RTE is a public service broadcaster so there is an arguement that covering NFL and NHL games should be done as a public service (not as a profit making exercise!). However, that's an entirely different argument!!

Do you propose sending a single cameraman to each of those games? Ok, do it (you might have a problem finding that many decent pro sports camera man - remember there are 6 OBs happening that weekend as well, and they would be booked for them first - but let's assume you do).  I have no idea how many cameramen of adequate quality there are in the country. But as I said above, if there is a shortage this could be a problem.

What are you asking them to do - a two minute report from each of them? Because if you do that, you not only need 10 camera men, you'll need assistant producers to watch over the cut, and editors to do the cut, and a couple of reporters to script and V/O those reports. And by the way, you have just allocated 20-25 minutes of your programme to footage whose quality in no way resembles the six games that weekend that did get full 3 or more camera footage. You only have an hour in the schedules (maybe an hour thirty if there is hurling on as well). And although a lot of people on message boards don't like it, you do have to provide some analysis, where is your time for that?I'm not asking them to show a 2 minute report at all.
An online highlights package would be fine by me. Also, why do you 'have to' provide analysis? Just because it's always been done one way, doesn't mean it can't be done a different way in the future. TG4 provide little or no analysis on their highlights program

Or perhaps you just want one clip, say around 40 secs, from each of those 10, possibly more games. You are still paying for cameraman to be in each location - you still have some editing costs, because he is not just doing it for a college communications unit himself - he is bringing the footage into you in RTE/Eir/TV3/TG4 whererever.

And so you do all that, you do a round up for everyone - 40 secs from each game - and someone on a message board says it is a disgrace that you only gave 40 secs to their county. And then you reach for the brandy and a revolver. I accept that you'll never satisfy all of the people all of the time. Sure, even if you have 15 minutes coverage of every game, fellas would want 20!

These are all the decisions a producer faces - they are editorial, they are budgetary, they are time and schedule based. Producers don't have time to be biased against smaller counties. County websites have the luxury of catering for the highest common denominator - the absolute GAA buff who would watch anything. A producer on a national broadcaster doesn't have that - he has to go for the widest audience, and the widest audience expect quality above a youtube video. But my point is there is a market for an online highlights package.

And that is why, in general, the matches beyond the live games, don't get covered universally.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it tiger. I just think the product your are describing is different to the product that would satisfy me. I completely understand the reasons as you have explained why all games can't be shown on the sunday game programme. But I'd be happy with 3-4 minutes of highlights online with no analysis. This is a different product to what AZ is describing.

[macdanger2]

Easytiger, you sound like you know what you're talking about tbf but if RTÉ can't even be arsed to show the D3 & D4 results up on the screen during league sunday then even without the barriers you've outlined, chances are they wouldn't be willing to provide any coverage of the lower leagues.

[easytiger95]

Which brings me back to my original finishing point from my original post on this matter Macdanger - slagging them off for all the things they can't control (which I am now absolutely exhausted from pointing out) lets them off the hook for the things they can control (reading out the results, talent choices, editorial choices).

[Syferus]

It's the GAA's responsibility to promote the game in all counties. They are failing in that duty and exactly like grant money, they only really care about the top counties.

Many of these matches are recorded; the idea that it needs to be Croke Park-quaility production to be sold is a serious strawman that no one has made a case for. The choice is no coverage and any coverage; people will be delighted to see their county or club no matter where in Ireland or Earth they are. The infrastructure to host and stream them live and in an archive after the fact are in place, particularly in county grounds which are already served by fiber optic broadband that can take care of uploading the video and audio with little problem.

Money is what will drive the GAA to do something and an on-demand service that gives access to a constantly growing library of GAA matches at any and all grades is an easy way to make a few bucks. If they went the extra mile and included radio commentary streams by making deals with local stations, as well as making historical GAA documentaries and magazine shows available, they'd have a service I'd pay 15 Euro a month for in a heartbeat.

This service is going to arrive eventually - it's only a matter of when. The sooner it does the faster the rough edges will be sanded away.

[easytiger95]

And really, the question I'm getting at is why isn't it possible to do something similar for the NFL/NHL?

Ok, let's look at what you have shown. It is a 40 second clip. It is shot by one cameraman, who has a nice elevated position. He has been clever and stuck a Go Pro in the goals - he probably stuck another one in the far goals. So he shoots the game, he goes home, sticks the SD card in the computer from the main camera, gets the goal out, puts it on a time line, then gets the Go Pro, downloads the footage from that, goes to the same timecode (if he thought to sync them both, otherwise he is spooling through it - no matter, only takes a few minutes) and then he tops and tails that clip from the Go Pro and puts that on the timeline - bish, bash, bosh, you have a 40 second clip.
This footage of the goal was available on youtube BEFORE the end of the game. I've no idea how it was done. So unfortunately your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
Now let's think what would happen if you were actually streaming this footage live. I'm not talking about streaming live.
A highlights package (even 2 days later) would suffice for meLook at the clip, he stays with the scorer, pushes in tight on him as an identifying shot - which you should do. Then he cuts to his replay. If you were streaming that live, you wouldn't be able to cut to a replay, unless you had both cameras connected to a mixing desk (then you are getting into expense, someone manning that desk etc). So, assuming you don't want to do that, the cameraman now has to get back to the goalkeeper for the kick out - from where he is, on tight shot of the scorer. So he whips back to the goalie. It looks ugly and feels disorientating - depending on the kick out strategy and how high scoring a game it is, you are doing that 30 times in a game, more if you include reactions to wides, even more if you try and be ambitious and try and get manager/sideline/crowd reaction.

The very best single cameramen (and believe me guys, if you think it is just a matter of sticking a camera in someone hands, you are very wrong - even amongst the pros, there are lads who have reputations for being the best at single camera footage) will do all that and take those risks - and why? Because they know that single camera shouldn't be watched in full, that are you shooting for the edit, not for a live broadcast, and the more options and cutaways you give the editor, the better your 2 minute report will look. Fair enough, there would be a drop in quality if there aren't enough good cameramen in the country. This could certainly be a problem if there was a significant difference between the quality of footage between gamees

So, if we can agree that in terms of broadcast (and I'm talking about on a national basis, not club websites) single camera 70 minute footage isn't a runner, than we need to look at what we can get from the 16 or so games that take place on a football weekend (and more if it is a hurling weekend as well). What do we want from these games? I agree 70 minute live coverage of all games is not a runner (nor did I suggest it).Broadband issues alone would be reason enough to ensure this isn't a runner

The TV companies only have the money to do about three games each live or deferred on Saturdays and Sundays. And the GAA wouldn't want them doing full coverage of much more in case it affects the gate for other fixures. So you have say roughly 10 games going uncovered at any one weekend. RTE is a public service broadcaster so there is an arguement that covering NFL and NHL games should be done as a public service (not as a profit making exercise!). However, that's an entirely different argument!!

Do you propose sending a single cameraman to each of those games? Ok, do it (you might have a problem finding that many decent pro sports camera man - remember there are 6 OBs happening that weekend as well, and they would be booked for them first - but let's assume you do).  I have no idea how many cameramen of adequate quality there are in the country. But as I said above, if there is a shortage this could be a problem.

What are you asking them to do - a two minute report from each of them? Because if you do that, you not only need 10 camera men, you'll need assistant producers to watch over the cut, and editors to do the cut, and a couple of reporters to script and V/O those reports. And by the way, you have just allocated 20-25 minutes of your programme to footage whose quality in no way resembles the six games that weekend that did get full 3 or more camera footage. You only have an hour in the schedules (maybe an hour thirty if there is hurling on as well). And although a lot of people on message boards don't like it, you do have to provide some analysis, where is your time for that?I'm not asking them to show a 2 minute report at all.
An online highlights package would be fine by me. Also, why do you 'have to' provide analysis? Just because it's always been done one way, doesn't mean it can't be done a different way in the future. TG4 provide little or no analysis on their highlights program

Or perhaps you just want one clip, say around 40 secs, from each of those 10, possibly more games. You are still paying for cameraman to be in each location - you still have some editing costs, because he is not just doing it for a college communications unit himself - he is bringing the footage into you in RTE/Eir/TV3/TG4 whererever.

And so you do all that, you do a round up for everyone - 40 secs from each game - and someone on a message board says it is a disgrace that you only gave 40 secs to their county. And then you reach for the brandy and a revolver. I accept that you'll never satisfy all of the people all of the time. Sure, even if you have 15 minutes coverage of every game, fellas would want 20!

These are all the decisions a producer faces - they are editorial, they are budgetary, they are time and schedule based. Producers don't have time to be biased against smaller counties. County websites have the luxury of catering for the highest common denominator - the absolute GAA buff who would watch anything. A producer on a national broadcaster doesn't have that - he has to go for the widest audience, and the widest audience expect quality above a youtube video. But my point is there is a market for an online highlights package.

And that is why, in general, the matches beyond the live games, don't get covered universally.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it tiger. I just think the product your are describing is different to the product that would satisfy me. I completely understand the reasons as you have explained why all games can't be shown on the sunday game programme. But I'd be happy with 3-4 minutes of highlights online with no analysis. This is a different product to what AZ is describing.

Ok, you may not be trying to be argumentative, but you are being so. You were the one who asked me to answer your question as to why a clip that you showed, which is 40 secs long and shows only a goal, could not be replicated across all NFL games. I've done my best to answer that.

Quickly going through this - as to why the clip appeared on youtube before the end of the game - maybe he didn't have to record the whole game. Or maybe he handed the SD card with the goal on it to his friend to upload while the game was still going. I don't know. I simply outlined how I would make and upload such a clip if I had to record an entire game. You are the one who posted the clip, you should know more than me.

RTE is a public service broadcaster, but it has a dual funding model, which means it has to be cognisant of commercial issues - hence "Dancing With The Stars" - its a paradox but it is a reality.

No, you weren't asking for a 2 minute report. You just asked how that clip could be replicated across the league. Now apparently, you are willing to expand on what you want, and it is a 3-4 minutes highlights package - I've got news for you - that takes as much work as a 2 minute report. Even without a voiceover script. Would these highlight packages have any graphics on them? To tell you who was playing or what the score is? All doable, just takes a bit of work.

Why do you have to provide analysis? Well, I don't, not if your end goal is basically 3-4 minute highlights packages, with no script, no score, no context. That is all doable. It's just that it is such an unattractive prospect I don't think anyone is going to pay you for it, and if it doesn't bring in revenue, then you are goosed - especially as you are going to have to pay the GAA for online highlight rights. They will not accept magic beans.

You think there is a market for what you have just described (you could have done that before, by the way and saved me some time). when you use the word "market", I'm assuming that means someone is going to pay for it, and someone is going to have to be paid to make it. If that's the case, I don't think it is viable - NB I said viable, not possible.

[easytiger95]

It's the GAA's responsibility to promote the game in all counties. They are failing in that duty and exactly like grant money, they only really care about the top counties.

Many of these matches are recorded; the idea that it needs to be Croke Park-quaility production to be sold is a serious strawman that no one has made a case for. The choice is no coverage and any coverage; people will be delighted to see their county or club no matter where in Ireland or Earth they are. The infrastructure to host and stream them live and in an archive after the fact are in place, particularly in county grounds which are already served by fiber optic broadband that can take care of uploading the video and audio with little problem.

Money is what will drive the GAA to do something and an on-demand service that gives access to a constantly growing library of GAA matches at any and all grades is an easy way to make a few bucks. If they went the extra mile and included radio commentary streams by making deals with local stations, as well as making historical GAA documentaries and magazine shows available, they'd have a service I'd pay 15 Euro a month for in a heartbeat.

This service is going to arrive eventually - it's only a matter of when. The sooner it does the faster the rough edges will be sanded away.

So basically you are advocating for GAA TV - check back two pages and you'll find me advocating for that as the only possible way to provide the service you are all clamouring for and being a viable proposition...

and then you go and spoil it all by asking for unicorns as well - as the highlighted sections above show. Syf, you may live in a hyper connected digital utopia, but the vast majority of county grounds do not. Sorry, they just don't and I've worked in the majority of them.

And as for throwing in the odd magazine show and historical documentary, do you even have a clue how much they cost? How long they take to prepare and shoot? And before you bang on about how you don't want the quality, what you are actually doing here is rabbiting on about how good and reliable skodas are and how you are going to get one, and when someone asks you what model, you whip out a picture of a Porsche.

There is very little reality in any of these discussions guys. One thing that hasn't changed in 20 years is that production is expensive - platforms may change, delivery may change, technology has certainly changed - but you still need bodies on the ground and some measure of production nous for it to be viable.

And if you don't want it to be viable, fine. The professionals you need won't work for you, because you won't be able to pay them. Shoot it yourself on a phone - prove me wrong. Because for all the talk of how attractive this all is, no one is touching it with a barge pole.

[AZOffaly]

It's the GAA's responsibility to promote the game in all counties. They are failing in that duty and exactly like grant money, they only really care about the top counties.

Many of these matches are recorded; the idea that it needs to be Croke Park-quaility production to be sold is a serious strawman that no one has made a case for. The choice is no coverage and any coverage; people will be delighted to see their county or club no matter where in Ireland or Earth they are. The infrastructure to host and stream them live and in an archive after the fact are in place, particularly in county grounds which are already served by fiber optic broadband that can take care of uploading the video and audio with little problem.

Money is what will drive the GAA to do something and an on-demand service that gives access to a constantly growing library of GAA matches at any and all grades is an easy way to make a few bucks. If they went the extra mile and included radio commentary streams by making deals with local stations, as well as making historical GAA documentaries and magazine shows available, they'd have a service I'd pay 15 Euro a month for in a heartbeat.

This service is going to arrive eventually - it's only a matter of when. The sooner it does the faster the rough edges will be sanded away.

So basically you are advocating for GAA TV - check back two pages and you'll find me advocating for that as the only possible way to provide the service you are all clamouring for and being a viable proposition...

and then you go and spoil it all by asking for unicorns as well - as the highlighted sections above show. Syf, you may live in a hyper connected digital utopia, but the vast majority of county grounds do not. Sorry, they just don't and I've worked in the majority of them.

And as for throwing in the odd magazine show and historical documentary, do you even have a clue how much they cost? How long they take to prepare and shoot? And before you bang on about how you don't want the quality, what you are actually doing here is rabbiting on about how good and reliable skodas are and how you are going to get one, and when someone asks you what model, you whip out a picture of a Porsche.

There is very little reality in any of these discussions guys. One thing that hasn't changed in 20 years is that production is expensive - platforms may change, delivery may change, technology has certainly changed - but you still need bodies on the ground and some measure of production nous for it to be viable.

And if you don't want it to be viable, fine. The professionals you need won't work for you, because you won't be able to pay them. Shoot it yourself on a phone - prove me wrong. Because for all the talk of how attractive this all is, no one is touching it with a barge pole.

Except Armagh TV and Mayo TV. They do club games at least in this manner. And they charge a couple of quid I think for every person who wants to view. You use the Skoda and Porsche analogy there with Syf, but to be honest I think we're asking for the Skoda, and you're saying, 'Yeah but it's really expensive to build a Porsche'. This is the Skoda I want

http://armaghgaa.net/armagh-tv-archived-full-games/

[OgraAnDun]

It's the GAA's responsibility to promote the game in all counties. They are failing in that duty and exactly like grant money, they only really care about the top counties.

Many of these matches are recorded; the idea that it needs to be Croke Park-quaility production to be sold is a serious strawman that no one has made a case for. The choice is no coverage and any coverage; people will be delighted to see their county or club no matter where in Ireland or Earth they are. The infrastructure to host and stream them live and in an archive after the fact are in place, particularly in county grounds which are already served by fiber optic broadband that can take care of uploading the video and audio with little problem.

Money is what will drive the GAA to do something and an on-demand service that gives access to a constantly growing library of GAA matches at any and all grades is an easy way to make a few bucks. If they went the extra mile and included radio commentary streams by making deals with local stations, as well as making historical GAA documentaries and magazine shows available, they'd have a service I'd pay 15 Euro a month for in a heartbeat.

This service is going to arrive eventually - it's only a matter of when. The sooner it does the faster the rough edges will be sanded away.

So basically you are advocating for GAA TV - check back two pages and you'll find me advocating for that as the only possible way to provide the service you are all clamouring for and being a viable proposition...

and then you go and spoil it all by asking for unicorns as well - as the highlighted sections above show. Syf, you may live in a hyper connected digital utopia, but the vast majority of county grounds do not. Sorry, they just don't and I've worked in the majority of them.

And as for throwing in the odd magazine show and historical documentary, do you even have a clue how much they cost? How long they take to prepare and shoot? And before you bang on about how you don't want the quality, what you are actually doing here is rabbiting on about how good and reliable skodas are and how you are going to get one, and when someone asks you what model, you whip out a picture of a Porsche.

There is very little reality in any of these discussions guys. One thing that hasn't changed in 20 years is that production is expensive - platforms may change, delivery may change, technology has certainly changed - but you still need bodies on the ground and some measure of production nous for it to be viable.

And if you don't want it to be viable, fine. The professionals you need won't work for you, because you won't be able to pay them. Shoot it yourself on a phone - prove me wrong. Because for all the talk of how attractive this all is, no one is touching it with a barge pole.

They're already doing them for GAA Go.

I think a lot of people on this forum forget that we're in a silo here, interacting only with people who are mad about football and hurling and would happily pay a tenner a month to have access to poor enough footage of games. And there definitely are a number of people all over the country who would pay for this. But is there a big enough demand to really make it worthwhile showing a number (not even all) Division 2, 3 and 4 games like this? I don't think so. GAA TV might happen, but I don't think it will be what people here want, with all 16 football and hurling league matches available on catch up each week.


EDIT: As for the points about Armagh TV and Mayo TV, people don't care what it looks like and will pay that for their own county or club. Most people would be a lot more selective about what they watch when they have no involvement in the game.

[Syferus]

I never said do magazine shows and documentaries them themselves. Read what was said. RTE and TG4 alone have massive archives of GAA content that isn't live matches or highlight shows and isn't making them a single penny as it stands. It's the same sort of licensing model you see with Netflix and Amazon Video - pay the holder a fee to let you stream the video and everyone benefits.

[easytiger95]

Well apparently the Skoda has to be hosted and streamed live from every county ground and be available world wide an a subscription platform like GAA Go or better.

The Skoda also has to make deals with local radio stations to access their commentaries. It should also be making GAA historical documentaries and magazine shows.

The Skoda is no longer a Skoda. It is a media conglomerate.

And you are now misrepresenting my whole point in this argument AZ. You and others said "look at what they do on county sites, why can't they do that on RTE/Eir/Sky/TG4/TV3 etc" and I told you exactly why they couldn't. Nobody is saying that county sites don't do great work, and nobody is saying that it is not a good idea for them to stream matches. I was just answering the question why national broadcasters don't.

In short, you keep on coming into my Porsche dealership looking for a Skoda. I've explained many times why you can't get one here.

I'll be getting a restraining order next