The Footie Thread

[PJ87]

Fraud has always carried large sentences. If people actually read the details instead of responding to a bad headline it’s pretty obvious that no single person has been sentenced to 30 years. 5 members of a gang have been convicted varyingly across multiple offences. The person receiving the largest sentence is 11 years for multiple offences; fraud, money laundering and contempt of court. Fraud carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in itself.

Other interesting fact for perspective. They took £7million between them and that could/shoud have otherwise gone into the coffers of the football clubs we all support.

7 million? Between how many clubs ? Even if just premier league 20 clubs. That's small change for them.

Most of the time it's not denied them any money as for example people don't not go to games because of it. A lot still have sky and watch a stream for a game that's not on sky

So if your paying anyways what's exactly been stolen? Something that the club wasn't getting anyways?

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

I'm not sure the 7m really came from the clubs. Most people who have the boxes use them for games not sold in the UK. So whilst they have not declared tax etc I dont see the clubs losing money as such.

I would imagine the majority who have paid for the subscription have cancelled there £100+per month sky/virgin package. That is were the biggest loss will be. I would imagine Sky/Virgin/BT are all behind this latest case.

 

[Pin-seeker]

£100 per month
Or
£50 per year including Ppv

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

Most of the time it's not denied them any money as for example people don't not go to games because of it. A lot still have sky and watch a stream for a game that's not on sky

So if your paying anyways what's exactly been stolen? Something that the club wasn't getting anyways?

Do you know theres a world wide law against piracy? Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant.

 

[Jimaroid]

Another intersting fact for those that choose to brush over the fact they’re funding organised crime for the sake of watching a “free“ match.

One of the men was also sentenced for possession of child pornography.

Have a word with yourselves and ask what you’re actually paying someone for when trying to save yourself fifty quid.

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

£100 per month
Or
£50 per year including Ppv

I agree, it makes sense for us the working man in the street to pay £50 per year vs £1200+ per year. But it is also another fine example of how we are as a nation where we want access to the best but are not prepared to pay for it. If we want luxuries in life then we have to pay the going rate for it.

 

[GB72]

Another intersting fact for those that choose to brush over the fact they’re funding organised crime for the sake of watching a “free“ match.

One of the men was also sentenced for possession of child pornography.

Have a word with yourselves and ask what you’re actually paying someone for when trying to save yourself fifty quid.

I totally agree on that element, these things have a habit of funding far worse things. I was looking at it from an objective point of view (wrongly, I suppose, ignoring such factors) and looking at the fact that football has created a market that will inevitably attract piracy and dodgy streams simply due to the fact that it has taken a sport that has always 'belonged' to the ordinary, person on the street fan (I am trying to avoid the cliche of calling it a working class sport) and then priced the fan base out of the market. What do these people do who have generations of family members investered in the supporting of a club do when that is taken away, they look to alternatives. Meanwhile, they see that money invested in paying more to the super rich and that iimmediately acts as justification, correct or not, for their actions.

It is a vicious circle, clubs want more TV money, Tv companies have to charge more to cover that cost and more fans are unable to afford the price of watching the club they have watched for years.

 

[Swango1980]

It's all well and good saying "I can't afford it" to try and justify paying for an illegal subscription. I get it, that is probably the reason, although it isn't a justification. There are loads of things I can't afford, but that doesn't justify me going out and stealing it.

However, I suspect there are quite a few people who could actually afford a Sky / BT subscription. They just don't want to, because they want more disposable income to do other things. If the illegal option was not available to them, I'm sure many would find the money to pay up for Sky/BT. Therefore, I wonder how much money legitimate services lose because many "steal" the broadcasts, and I wonder how much of those lost costs end up getting paid for by those that have to pay elevated subscriptions?

At the same time, I agree that it becomes difficult when the main broadcasters don't actually show all of the matches (and if you don't support one of the big name sides, perhaps there is limited times your club gets broadcast. It is also difficult when the football is shared over multiple broadcasters, meaning multiple subscriptions. People complain about Sky having a monopoly on sport, although that is no longer strictly true. I much preferred it when Sky had a monopoly, as I paid one subscription, end of story.

Not that I'm having a go at those that pay for illegal streams. I know quite a few that do it, I'm sure we've all looked at ways to save a few quid in the past, and sometimes some of us make decisions that aren't strictly legal. What surprises me is that my old golf club streams these illegal services every week, has done for 10-15 years. I know pubs back where I'm from that stream them, I used to go every Saturday to watch the 3pm kick offs. I really have no idea how they get away with it so easily, when it is part of running a business.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I agree, it makes sense for us the working man in the street to pay £50 per year vs £1200+ per year. But it is also another fine example of how we are as a nation where we want access to the best but are not prepared to pay for it. If we want luxuries in life then we have to pay the going rate for it.

That’s the salient point

It’s another example of people wanting a product but not willing to pay the required cost

So they look at the illegal ways to get what they want and then cry cost of living crisis etc

It simple - if you can’t afford it then you make a choice about what you can have

How many would try and get onto a golf course without paying what’s needed to play ?

 

[DPapas1982]

I would imagine the majority who have paid for the subscription have cancelled there £100+per month sky/virgin package. That is were the biggest loss will be. I would imagine Sky/Virgin/BT are all behind this latest case.

I must be the exception then. I have pretty much every subscription you can imagine, but still can't get all the games and it's worth it simply for the Saturday afternoon games at 3.

That being said, with Saints being a shambles season tickets are now more worthwhile so the dodgy stick is less required.

 

[GB72]

I agree, it makes sense for us the working man in the street to pay £50 per year vs £1200+ per year. But it is also another fine example of how we are as a nation where we want access to the best but are not prepared to pay for it. If we want luxuries in life then we have to pay the going rate for it.

I suppose my argument would be as to whether football should be a luxury. Bearing in mind it is an everyman sport and the national sport, is it then right to be able to ring fence that behind an unaffordable pay wall. That cost is only going to keep going up, the clubs want to hoover up more money and Sky sports would struggle to exist without the football rights and so that contract is going to get more and more exepensive and more and more every day fans are going to be excluded from watching their club.

I am not saying dodgy streaming is right, clearly it is not, but nor is it right to have the national sport behind an ever increasing paywall.

 

[Hobbit]

That’s the salient point

It’s another example of people wanting a product but not willing to pay the required cost

So they look at the illegal ways to get what they want and then cry cost of living crisis etc

It simple - if you can’t afford it then you make a choice about what you can have

How many would try and get onto a golf course without paying what’s needed to play ?

I’m not sure how Sky/BT Sports etc package their products these days. I used to find it annoying that to get what I wanted from Sky I had to buy a bundled package that included a lot of what I didn’t want. If 100 channels costs £100 but I only want 5 channels, why can’t I just pay £5 for the channels I want? Does Joe Bloggs want downhill skiing? Does Fred want water polo?

Whilst the main subscribers are bundling products to inflate prices, in effect forcing people to pay over and above for the bit they want, and paying out exorbitant amounts of money to buy exclusive rights I have no problem with Jack the lad streaming illegally. If the providers behaved more ethically, I’d be more inclined to support their arguments

 

[HomecountiesJohn]

I suppose my argument would be as to whether football should be a luxury. Bearing in mind it is an everyman sport and the national sport, is it then right to be able to ring fence that behind an unaffordable pay wall. That cost is only going to keep going up, the clubs want to hoover up more money and Sky sports would struggle to exist without the football rights and so that contract is going to get more and more exepensive and more and more every day fans are going to be excluded from watching their club.

I am not saying dodgy streaming is right, clearly it is not, but nor is it right to have the national sport behind an ever increasing paywall.

Live Football and most other sports for that matter should be on Terrestial TV. It shouldn't be behind a paywall. Unfortunately that ship sailed a very long time ago. Specifically Football here, fans have been excluded from going to football for a long time. Increasing Ticket prices year on year, travel increasing and thats before you're expected to pay £3 for a bottle of water because you cant take your own drinks into stadiums!!


I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph.

 

[GB72]

Live Football and most other sports for that matter should be on Terrestial TV. It shouldn't be behind a paywall. Unfortunately that ship sailed a very long time ago. Specifically Football here, fans have been excluded from going to football for a long time. Increasing Ticket prices year on year, travel increasing and thats before you're expected to pay £3 for a bottle of water because you cant take your own drinks into stadiums!!


I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph.

Not saying that it is not just people being cheap that opt for these dodgy streams (certainly some of the people I know with them could easily afford the price) but I do have sympathy with the long term fan of a club that has been priced out of watching his or her team. Not sure they would see it as a luxury and, whilst it remains wrong, I can honestly see why some people go for dodgy streams and it is not difficult to justify it in your own mind when you see that money disappearing in ludicrous wages and transfer fees.

 

[GB72]

I’m not sure how Sky/BT Sports etc package their products these days. I used to find it annoying that to get what I wanted from Sky I had to buy a bundled package that included a lot of what I didn’t want. If 100 channels costs £100 but I only want 5 channels, why can’t I just pay £5 for the channels I want? Does Joe Bloggs want downhill skiing? Does Fred want water polo?

Whilst the main subscribers are bundling products to inflate prices, in effect forcing people to pay over and above for the bit they want, and paying out exorbitant amounts of money to buy exclusive rights I have no problem with Jack the lad streaming illegally. If the providers behaved more ethically, I’d be more inclined to support their arguments

I would be surprised if there was any Sky package or channel available that did not include an element of subsidy for the cost of the Premier League rights in the price.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I would be surprised if there was any Sky package or channel available that did not include an element of subsidy for the cost of the Premier League rights in the price.

I suspect PL subscriptions probably subsidise most other things, other than F1, on Sky. Ask the majority of people why they have Sky and it comes down to football or F1 (hugely dedicated fanbase and liked by advertisers). Football is central to the Sky model.

 

[Beezerk]

I suspect PL subscriptions probably subsidise most other things, other than F1, on Sky. Ask the majority of people why they have Sky and it comes down to football or F1 (hugely dedicated fanbase and liked by advertisers). Football is central to the Sky model.

My offers on Sky at the minute are showing all Sky sports channels for £20 pm, not a bad deal which I’ll probably go with when I renew next month.
I also have a firestick with a paid for streaming service, to be honest I don’t watch it a lot, maybe the odd football game or golf major but that’s it.

 

[GB72]

I suspect PL subscriptions probably subsidise most other things, other than F1, on Sky. Ask the majority of people why they have Sky and it comes down to football or F1 (hugely dedicated fanbase and liked by advertisers). Football is central to the Sky model.

I have neither, I actually have it for Sky Atlantic etc and drama series. Used to have Sky Sports for rugby but then that was cut to just a few England matches abroad and the Lions Tour so that was ditched. Do not have any dedicated sports subscriptions now. Premieship rugby do a stream of all matches not on BT sport for a fiver so I use that plus there are a few matches on terrestrial TV and England matches are on BBC, ITV and Prime (that I have for the delivery options).

 

[Pin-seeker]

That’s the salient point

It’s another example of people wanting a product but not willing to pay the required cost

So they look at the illegal ways to get what they want and then cry cost of living crisis etc

It simple - if you can’t afford it then you make a choice about what you can have

How many would try and get onto a golf course without paying what’s needed to play ?

I suspect most would just play a less expensive alternative

 

[Jimaroid]

I must be the exception then. I have pretty much every subscription you can imagine, but still can't get all the games and it's worth it simply for the Saturday afternoon games at 3.

That being said, with Saints being a shambles season tickets are now more worthwhile so the dodgy stick is less required.

Nah, I do get your point. I am no holier than thou, and when faced with no other choice I do also watch streams of the “Not Televised” matches. But I do also try to do my best to pay into the system where I can elsewhere. As a digital content creator (and obviously also a consumer) all my working life, piracy is problem I have fought with from many perspectives both commercially and morally.

This case in point is an extremity and it’s clear why it’s been made an example of. At other ends of the scale, there is a milder set of issues and the severity of the offence becomes diluted. It’s a bit like speeding. We all break the law on occasion but there’s a world of difference between 15% and 50% over the limit.