Jemfy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,129
- Reaction score
- 303
- Points
- 83
- Supports
- AFC Rushden & Diamonds
They do allow free commentary, as Harrier94 has said - from the BBC at least (due to a deal across the league). It seems that we don't have a test case of secondary free commentary from non-BBC sources to cite. As the season goes on we might get this.
We also can't declare them hypocritical since they either have never been asked to pay a fee for it, never refused to pay such a fee, or have never kicked up a fuss about it with public statements.
Also Boreham Wood don't claim to provide 100% of the entertainment. In their own statement it says they provide 50%.
I agree 100% - if Boreham Wood offer their highlights and/or commentary on a subscription based service clubs should charge them in return for this - but then they have to start charging each other in the same instances (i.e. clubs like Tranmere and Chester should be charging each other if they charge Boreham Wood)
The rules seem pretty clear that Boreham Wood are well within their rights to do this, even if it is against the norm. The rules are pretty clear - broadcast rights, beyond those of league agreements (BT, BBC Sport) belong to the home club, and the away club should have no automatic expectation that the rights to the game will be given to them freely.
To be honest I think it's pretty petty from Boreham Wood to be doing this, and I think the reasoning behind it is as much about trying to control what level of highlights of their club are out there for people to view as anything else. You can cut highlights (goals aside) to be quite biased if you choose - perhaps they cut highlights to bias towards themselves on their service and prefer not to have competing highlights available that counter this narrative - who knows?
It would also be remiss of me to fail to point out - if they wanted to control their image they might start by employing someone to proof read their statements before releasing them.
