See, I don't quite get this nudge, wink thing around it. I'd just like to understand how it gets there - if it's true. Because you only get Charlton TV if you pay for it. Someone who has paid for it, or maybe a family member. Why would they upload it to somewhere so it gets onto a Firestick? They're not going to earn any money by doing that. All they are doing is shafting their own club financially (and then going on Twatter to complain we didn't spend enough in the window).Â
What am I missing re the tech behind this? Or the motivation for uploading a stream of a still relatively obscure footie club?
It’s been explained several times, after you’ve asked.
its almost always hackers and phishers gaining access to the streams. Not a Charlton fan uploading stuff, these boxes have access to almost every commercial channel in the worldÂ
Interesting. I am in Spain for 6 weeks and have the annual £240 subscription. Normally for a 3pm Saturday kick off when in the UK or abroad I have to use my Opera VPN to access the Charlton TV live stream. This didn’t work for the Sheff Utd game, so I missed much of the first half. Then I came out of Opera and tried to get the stream using Safari on my iPad. Hey presto, it worked. Still not sure why,
Does anyone know how many match passes Charlton TV sells? I imagine this has dipped with SKY's EFL contract, if its 2000-3000 x £10 its a nice earner for club. I presume Charlton TV has to pay broadcaster SKY a healthy % of the £10 taken for the live camera feed then there is commentary teams and Brownies fees & travel expenses plus producer etc? If I can't go to an Away match its superb service and love the unreservably pro charlton commentary, insights and celebrations of goals and victories by Greg & Tel & Brownie.
IIRC the club gets ÂŁ4.50 per stream sold after deductions.
So 2K streams=ÂŁ9K & 3K streams=ÂŁ13.5K (surprised no one has exact numbers for Charlton TV streams sold?) If you take off Greg, Tel, Brownies fees, production, travel, expenses etc not huge amount but its worldwide reach which is where the potential is.... I'm very grateful indeed for Charlton TV, its an excellent production and at ÂŁ10 is VFM compared to some of away day costs once you factor in train fares, tkts & expenses etc....I can't do Derby away and its free on SKY+ so thats where i will watch. My next trip aboard with Charlton TV looks like Hull City. COYA's
Brownie gets paid?
Brownie is a first rate analysis (I'm not his agent) very insightful pundit but also good on BBC Radio London. I think trio Greg, Tel, Brownie are top rate compared to Shearer and Rooney, can't believe Wozza is paid ÂŁ800K by Beeb shocking!Â
See, I don't quite get this nudge, wink thing around it. I'd just like to understand how it gets there - if it's true. Because you only get Charlton TV if you pay for it. Someone who has paid for it, or maybe a family member. Why would they upload it to somewhere so it gets onto a Firestick? They're not going to earn any money by doing that. All they are doing is shafting their own club financially (and then going on Twatter to complain we didn't spend enough in the window).Â
What am I missing re the tech behind this? Or the motivation for uploading a stream of a still relatively obscure footie club?
Someone will be setting these up on a service as such and then resells / provides the feed. It will be someone who has purchased servers in a datacentre somewhere, a lot of these sources will sell to multiple people. HTH.Â
Thanks for at least trying to explain this to me, and I am sorry if I seem so thick about it.  I’m interested in the money trail. You twice mention “selling”. Who are the “buyers”? Obviously not the viewers of the streams, thats the whole point.Â
And how does the person/ group “setting these up on a service” get hold of the streams of , not just Charlton, but 36 streams per game round? Surely they do not pay subcriptions for 72 club streams? Are they able to hack into them all? Because if so, that is IMG’s problem to solve.Â
The buyers are the providers of the stream/dodgy stick who recoup money via selling the stick, subscriptions or ads
Ok. And apparently even the biggest players such as Netflix (and Sky) are powerless to stop their streams being hacked/hi-jacked. That's the piracy, and I accept it's a huge global problem. And serious. I've never liked the idea of people nicking content just because they can. I watch BBC iPlayer when I supposedly should not, but I've always said -directly to the BBC - that I'll happily pay more than the cost of a standard TV licence for a digital BBC licence. But they whine about the rights issues involved.
The part of this issue I still don't understand though is when the output of the Club streams somehow gets lumped into the "piracy" issue. When we ask why the EFL/Sky insist that private streams can't be allowed for games that Sky are showing, the "risk of piracy" is vaguely cited as one of the reasons. That's the bit I don't get. If Stu (above) is literally correct, the hackers have already got all the streams, so how does the opportunity to watch Charlton at Hillsborough via Charlton TV rather than Sky increase the risk of piracy?Â
Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.Â
?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
I think what should restrict piracy is Charlton is our club. Surely none of us want to rip it off. Well clearly some do!
There's a difference between wanting to and being priced out. The club don't get to set the prices so are off the hook somewhat but the cost to watch football is astronomical and a cost many can't justify. Now you could argue if you can't afford then you shouldn't be able to but if there's a free/cheap option available then I think most will take it
I think what should restrict piracy is Charlton is our club. Surely none of us want to rip it off. Well clearly some do!
Have to say I agree with this.
I am one of the mugs who still subscribes to Sky but even so I have no problem with anyone who uses a dodgy firestick to watch Sky. Frankly, Sky have brought all this piracy on themselves by their greed with ever increasing prices and on the sports front, for less coverage. (I saw recently that the Ashes are going to be on TNT). And as for the nonsense when you get to the end of your contract and Sky double your price forcing you phone them and ask for a better price, I despair.
But using a dodgy firestick to watch Charlton TV doesn't sit right with me. I know some peoples finances are really stretched but is it really too much to ask to expect Charlton fans to pay a tenner to watch a game, particularly when the money is going to Charlton. (And it is incredible that the price is still the same as when streaming started.)
There's no point people who use a dodgy firestick to watch Charlton Tv moaning about the club's lack of activity in the transfer market etc. when they are depriving the club of a useful source of income.
Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.Â
?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chanceÂ
If sky / TNT and the other streaming services were all priced more sensibly then there wouldn’t be a market for fire sticksÂ
People would still use the fire stick no matter what Sky/TNT reduced the prices.
It's no different to going onto a supermarket, giving them 10p for a steak and saying its Sainsbury's fault for not reducing their prices and that's all I can afford.
I agree ÂŁ10 is excellent value, for quality of Charlton Tv's production, excellent commentary and analysis. Interesting no one seems to know how many streams Charlton TV sells.
If sky / TNT and the other streaming services were all priced more sensibly then there wouldn’t be a market for fire sticksÂ
People would still use the fire stick no matter what Sky/TNT reduced the prices.
It's no different to going onto a supermarket, giving them 10p for a steak and saying its Sainsbury's fault for not reducing their prices and that's all I can afford.
It's theft, no matter how it is dressed up
Sainsbury’s don’t get to sell the steak, it’s gone, that’s not quite how online piracy work.Â
Apologies if this goes over some ground already covered. As a CATV annual subscriber I'm now in the position of having to wait until one or two days before the game to be told whether or not the streaming service I have paid for is going to be made available in the country I live in (France). If it is, great. If it isn't there are (I believe) three options: subscribe to the broadcaster (possibly) showing the game - can't do that in France for one day; pay for VPN to access (expense on top of the subscription cost); or find some less obvious route (fire stick etc). I've not come across any International Addick who has any desire to avoid paying the club, we just want to watch the games (and enjoy the excellent commentary, albeit now without the pre- and post-match shows).
I live in France too and the value for money for me lies simply in being able to see the Addicks week-in week-out (except when the games on bloody Sky!). Now that I’m retired and everything is sorted out I’m looking forward to coming over more often to see us play live at the Valley. In fact I’ll be over for the Swansea game on November 1st.
If sky / TNT and the other streaming services were all priced more sensibly then there wouldn’t be a market for fire sticksÂ
People would still use the fire stick no matter what Sky/TNT reduced the prices.
It's no different to going onto a supermarket, giving them 10p for a steak and saying its Sainsbury's fault for not reducing their prices and that's all I can afford.
It's theft, no matter how it is dressed up
Sainsbury’s don’t get to sell the steak, it’s gone, that’s not quite how online piracy work.Â
Your right I was not quite right.
Someone goes into Sainsbury, nicks the steak. Sells it to someone for 10p, and they say Sainsburys deserve no sympathy for selling it at the price they do.
Its interesting no one appears to know how many fans buy the stream? Chat GPT ..... how many CharltonTV / iFollow streams were sold last season. Clues from fan forums suggest an audience of 3-4,000 per game across all matches, but this doesn’t appear to be an official figure.
The EFL has previously published aggregate iFollow figures (for example: ~360,000 iFollow viewers and ~£42m revenue across all 72 clubs in 2020–21), but those are league-wide totals — no club breakdown was included.
Apologies if this goes over some ground already covered. As a CATV annual subscriber I'm now in the position of having to wait until one or two days before the game to be told whether or not the streaming service I have paid for is going to be made available in the country I live in (France). If it is, great. If it isn't there are (I believe) three options: subscribe to the broadcaster (possibly) showing the game - can't do that in France for one day; pay for VPN to access (expense on top of the subscription cost); or find some less obvious route (fire stick etc). I've not come across any International Addick who has any desire to avoid paying the club, we just want to watch the games (and enjoy the excellent commentary, albeit now without the pre- and post-match shows).
VPN can be purchased for ÂŁ3-4 per month and your concerns about access are eradicated forever. I concede this is frustrating, but it is the rubbish deal the EFL signed up to for international rights and nothing CAFC can do (about this one).Â
Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.Â
?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chanceÂ
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.Â
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)Â
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are  up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from  the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already  lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately). Â
Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.Â
?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chanceÂ
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.Â
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)Â
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are  up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from  the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already  lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately). Â
Have they ever stated that 'fear of piracy' is the reason for geoblocking? If so, it's utterly ridiculous.Â
The reason for geoblocking is far more likely the same reason Netflix, Youtube, Spotify and every other streaming service that exists does so - because stakeholders insist on it.
Companies paying for right to broadcast games will (or should) pay a premium for exclusive right - look at how Netflix deals with this:Â https://unogs.com/ - Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them. It's massively shit for the fans, but financially is makes sense - we all know no one actually cares about the fans.
Piracy is an irrelevance, the TV deal causes these issues, thankfully it takes about 5 mins and the IQ of a cucumber to solve the problems, not that it should be necessary.
Every game is already shown on Charlton TV, it’s just geoblocked in certain regions, it can’t possibly reduce piracy at all.Â
?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
As long as the stream is available somewhere in the world, it will be pirated, geoblocking in certain regions will do absolutely nothing to prevent that.
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chanceÂ
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes.Â
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)Â
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are  up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from  the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already  lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately). Â
Have they ever stated that 'fear of piracy' is the reason for geoblocking? If so, it's utterly ridiculous.Â
The reason for geoblocking is far more likely the same reason Netflix, Youtube, Spotify and every other streaming service that exists does so - because stakeholders insist on it.
Companies paying for right to broadcast games will (or should) pay a premium for exclusive right - look at how Netflix deals with this:Â https://unogs.com/ - Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them. It's massively shit for the fans, but financially is makes sense - we all know no one actually cares about the fans.
Piracy is an irrelevance, the TV deal causes these issues, thankfully it takes about 5 mins and the IQ of a cucumber to solve the problems, not that it should be necessary.
Firstly, good, I'm pleased you describe it as "utterly ridiculous". I now feel confident enough to assert that when discussing the issue with the Club.
They never say that piracy is the reason for geo-blocking. They tend - in response to representation from fan groups consisting of people like me who perhaps don't have the full cucumber-worth of IQ - to refer to it in their answers without explicitly saying that's the reason. A rare public example of this can be found in this article. It refers to the FAPL deal; the text in the mauve box is interesting. AFAIK there is nothing to stop a pub owner subscribing to CTV (or any other club stream) and then showing it in the pub. So obviously Sky want to scare him into not doing that. But in fact, the truth will be murkier than they imply. Does Sky have any copyright over a club stream? Not sure it does, if it does not show that game.
Moving on from that to the real money trails here. You ask: "Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them".
The answer is that any undercutting would be negligible. Take the French example, where the rights holder is BeIN Sports, and which is notorious for not showing the games and not telling the EFL if they will or not on any given week. How many supporters of Charlton and Blackburn do you think there are in France? By "supporters" I mean in touch enough to know of the existence of their club streams, and ready to pay for them. If there are more than 200 in total I'd be pleasantly surprised. And if they are already resident in France, it's quite likely that they are already BeIN Sport subscribers. I think the idea that Charlton TV is potentially undercutting BeIN Sport is, to coin a phrase, "utterly ridiculous". But that's not a dig. Your robust response made me search more for info about how piracy actually works and I now have this specialist article which explains the technical aspects pretty well (or that's how it looks to me). Perhaps you may in turn accept that when it comes to the money trail and the commercial aspects of broadcast sports I may be a cucumber short of an average IQ but I do have relevant professional experience.
Comments
its almost always hackers and phishers gaining access to the streams. Not a Charlton fan uploading stuff, these boxes have access to almost every commercial channel in the worldÂ
The part of this issue I still don't understand though is when the output of the Club streams somehow gets lumped into the "piracy" issue. When we ask why the EFL/Sky insist that private streams can't be allowed for games that Sky are showing, the "risk of piracy" is vaguely cited as one of the reasons. That's the bit I don't get. If Stu (above) is literally correct, the hackers have already got all the streams, so how does the opportunity to watch Charlton at Hillsborough via Charlton TV rather than Sky increase the risk of piracy?Â
I'm not suggesting it would "reduce piracy" . Maybe (hopefully) you meant to write "increase piracy"?Â
In which case we would be on the same page. Whatever the alleged commercial reasons why Charlton TV should be restricted - and as a result investment in it by and returns from it for the club severely limited - piracy is not  a valid part of the argument. Agreed?Â
my beloved clubÂ
I am one of the mugs who still subscribes to Sky but even so I have no problem with anyone who uses a dodgy firestick to watch Sky. Frankly, Sky have brought all this piracy on themselves by their greed with ever increasing prices and on the sports front, for less coverage. (I saw recently that the Ashes are going to be on TNT). And as for the nonsense when you get to the end of your contract and Sky double your price forcing you phone them and ask for a better price, I despair.
But using a dodgy firestick to watch Charlton TV doesn't sit right with me. I know some peoples finances are really stretched but is it really too much to ask to expect Charlton fans to pay a tenner to watch a game, particularly when the money is going to Charlton. (And it is incredible that the price is still the same as when streaming started.)
There's no point people who use a dodgy firestick to watch Charlton Tv moaning about the club's lack of activity in the transfer market etc. when they are depriving the club of a useful source of income.
These services can be on any Android or Apple device, as well as on any computer or smart TV.
If every single premium PPV event is available, the EFL don’t stand a chanceÂ
It's no different to going onto a supermarket, giving them 10p for a steak and saying its Sainsbury's fault for not reducing their prices and that's all I can afford.
It's theft, no matter how it is dressed up
Now that I’m retired and everything is sorted out I’m looking forward to coming over more often to see us play live at the Valley.
In fact I’ll be over for the Swansea game on November 1st.
Someone goes into Sainsbury, nicks the steak. Sells it to someone for 10p, and they say Sainsburys deserve no sympathy for selling it at the price they do.
As a said previously its theft.Â
Chat GPT .....
how many CharltonTV / iFollow streams were sold last season. Clues from fan forums suggest an audience of 3-4,000 per game across all matches, but this doesn’t appear to be an official figure.
The EFL has previously published aggregate iFollow figures (for example: ~360,000 iFollow viewers and ~£42m revenue across all 72 clubs in 2020–21), but those are league-wide totals — no club breakdown was included.
The EFL have signed a deal with Sky, both domestic and associated international, that includes clauses preventing clubs like Charlton from legally offering a Club stream to domestic viewers and viewers in countries with a local partner that is supposed to show the games. Because of these clauses the club had to cut back its excellent studio production because it feared that less Charlton fans would subscribe or PPV than last season (people have heard from the Club that they actually lost far less than they feared)Â
While it's too late to do anything about it since the new contracts are  up and running, I am suggesting that if "fear of piracy" was a major reason for inserting these clauses, it's a false reason. Who would lose revenue if all the Charlton streams were available in all countries? Sky cannot claim this, because, as you make clear, all their streams are being pirated anyway. The "Charlton" stream even last season with the full monty studio was and is essentially the same stream, coming from  the EFL's Osterley base. So if the pirates have already got Sky's streams and put them on firesticks, Sky may have lost, let's guess 10% of customers who might have considered subscribing. If the pirates then add Charlton TV and Spanners TV and Wombles TV, will Sky lose any more subscribers? I cannot see that they would. (whereas the club streams themselves already  lose some potential subscribers to the pirates, at least among UK-based fans).
If you or anyone think I'm missing something there, go ahead and put me bang to rights; but my issue is with the money flows rather than how piracy works technically (although I accept that a good understanding of the latter is needed in order to follow the money accurately). Â
The reason for geoblocking is far more likely the same reason Netflix, Youtube, Spotify and every other streaming service that exists does so - because stakeholders insist on it.
Companies paying for right to broadcast games will (or should) pay a premium for exclusive right - look at how Netflix deals with this:Â https://unogs.com/ - Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them. It's massively shit for the fans, but financially is makes sense - we all know no one actually cares about the fans.
Piracy is an irrelevance, the TV deal causes these issues, thankfully it takes about 5 mins and the IQ of a cucumber to solve the problems, not that it should be necessary.
They never say that piracy is the reason for geo-blocking. They tend - in response to representation from fan groups consisting of people like me who perhaps don't have the full cucumber-worth of IQ - to refer to it in their answers without explicitly saying that's the reason. A rare public example of this can be found in this article. It refers to the FAPL deal; the text in the mauve box is interesting. AFAIK there is nothing to stop a pub owner subscribing to CTV (or any other club stream) and then showing it in the pub. So obviously Sky want to scare him into not doing that. But in fact, the truth will be murkier than they imply. Does Sky have any copyright over a club stream? Not sure it does, if it does not show that game.
Moving on from that to the real money trails here. You ask: "Why would a French / German / South Korean company pay for TV right and then sit back and allow clubs to undercut them".
The answer is that any undercutting would be negligible. Take the French example, where the rights holder is BeIN Sports, and which is notorious for not showing the games and not telling the EFL if they will or not on any given week. How many supporters of Charlton and Blackburn do you think there are in France? By "supporters" I mean in touch enough to know of the existence of their club streams, and ready to pay for them. If there are more than 200 in total I'd be pleasantly surprised. And if they are already resident in France, it's quite likely that they are already BeIN Sport subscribers. I think the idea that Charlton TV is potentially undercutting BeIN Sport is, to coin a phrase, "utterly ridiculous". But that's not a dig. Your robust response made me search more for info about how piracy actually works and I now have this specialist article which explains the technical aspects pretty well (or that's how it looks to me). Perhaps you may in turn accept that when it comes to the money trail and the commercial aspects of broadcast sports I may be a cucumber short of an average IQ but I do have relevant professional experience.