• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Jimaroid said:
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.
Click to expand...

But when you do watch the streams they are free no? Yes you have dodgy boxes that cost but also free streams which you don't directly or indirectly fund anything
 
HomecountiesJohn said:
Do you know theres a world wide law against piracy? Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But that's the point , you are breaking world wide copy right law yes.. but what does it take money away from? We live in England. You can't view these games. There is no paid (legal) service in which you can watch them

So by, for example, watching a dodgy stream to watch a 3pm game who has money been taken from? Because show me the service in which I could pay to see these games every week on the telly and I'd gladly pay for it
 
The way things are going, if you want to watch the Women's world cup it may have to be on a dodgy stream. 50 days to do and no deal in place to show it in the top 5 european football nations. FIFA want bids nearer what is paid for the mens' rights despite the audience and advertising revenue not being in the same league and despite the fact that the time difference will make the matches harder to watch and to sell to advertisers.
 
pauljames87 said:
But that's the point , you are breaking world wide copy right law yes.. but what does it take money away from? We live in England. You can't view these games. There is no paid (legal) service in which you can watch them

So by, for example, watching a dodgy stream to watch a 3pm game who has money been taken from? Because show me the service in which I could pay to see these games every week on the telly and I'd gladly pay for it
Click to expand...

On a global scale, I am guessing that you are taking money from whoever has paid for rights in that region, or at least diluting their exclusivity. If that were to be let go, the next step would be to stream the live games from any other nation where they pay considerably less than we do in the UK for the rights. I am guessing with a VPN it may be possible to subcribe to Peacock in the USA for $4.99 a month to get half of the premier league matches live. The reason that the Premier League can raki in the cash is by fiercly enforcing regional coverage so as they can charge multiple times for the same product. Even if you have paid for it, that does not give you global rights. I pay my TV licence but cannot listen to BBC radio coverage on holiday
 
GB72 said:
The way things are going, if you want to watch the Women's world cup it may have to be on a dodgy stream. 50 days to do and no deal in place to show it in the top 5 european football nations. FIFA want bids nearer what is paid for the mens' rights despite the audience and advertising revenue not being in the same league and despite the fact that the time difference will make the matches harder to watch and to sell to advertisers.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the BBC stand their ground and pay the going rate, not the FIFA rate. If FIFA think it is worth more, leave it to the market to decide.
 
pauljames87 said:
But when you do watch the streams they are free no? Yes you have dodgy boxes that cost but also free streams which you don't directly or indirectly fund anything
Click to expand...

I don’t understand your point. I generally avoid giving criminals my money.

I do pay for ESPN and Peacock (NBC) that I can use via VPN. It’s a grey area but it’s “legitimate” and a hangover from when I used to do a lot of trips to the states. I will watch a free stream via VPN if its not available anywhere else. More often than not I just do without, I currently hate my football club anyway so it’s not like I’m missing out. ;)
 
Jimaroid said:
I don’t understand your point. I generally avoid giving criminals my money.

I do pay for ESPN and Peacock (NBC) that I can use via VPN. It’s a grey area but it’s “legitimate” and a hangover from when I used to do a lot of trips to the states. I will watch a free stream via VPN if its not available anywhere else. More often than not I just do without, I currently hate my football club anyway so it’s not like I’m missing out. ;)
Click to expand...

This is the one that interests me as to the legality or otherwise of using a VPN to subscribe to coverage from another country. You can get decent coverage for the Premier League from the USA for a fraction of the UK cost and that is something that does tempt me. Under a fiver a month would be good value. i am sure that there have been cases brought against people using streams from Greece and Turkey to get 3.00 matches even if they were legitimate subsciptions as it breached the region restrictions and do this is a big grey area.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Yay, great :rolleyes:. Not content with taking our Russian benefactor away............

Do you think whoever loses on the Utd bid fancies a club at a cheaper price?
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t yet know where I am on the emotional roller coaster these days but I think I’ve always been very suspicious and have never been able to embrace Moshiri’s investment in the club. He’s like a packet of fags, the nicotine hit of money to spend is wonderful for a time but ultimately you knew it was always going to be cancer.

I think it’s criminal where the club have got itself now and there’s a small handful of people to blame. I’d like to see them put to account, even if it means a long and painful road ahead. In some ways I think relegation would have forced change and my current mood is that I’m more concerned that the status quo will remain.

Edit: Didn’t answer the question but that’s my reasonining why I’m not sure a buyout is a realistic prospect to anyone unless they’re really really really stupid. Wonder if Elon Musk is a blue?
 
pauljames87 said:
But that's the point , you are breaking world wide copy right law yes.. but what does it take money away from? We live in England. You can't view these games. There is no paid (legal) service in which you can watch them

So by, for example, watching a dodgy stream to watch a 3pm game who has money been taken from? Because show me the service in which I could pay to see these games every week on the telly and I'd gladly pay for it
Click to expand...
You should be thinking about who the money goes to, not who it is taken from
 
Neilds said:
You should be thinking about who the money goes to, not who it is taken from
Click to expand...
So the free streams online how does that make money for criminals? I'm not talking about the paid IPTV or whatever I'm talking just watching a stream from say Spanish TV that costs no money to watch
 
Fade and Die said:
30 years for dodgy streaming 😱
I wonder if the Premier League who bought the prosecutions are just as vehement when it comes to dealing with Man City and Everton. 😆
Click to expand...
What about the £600 million Chelsea spent. What about the amount that Salford and Wrexham spent. That’s assuming they’re guilty. I am literally wetting my pants laughing about some of the comments re money in football. Let’s give it a go.

The premier league, UEFA and others set up FFP. To protect football clubs from going bust. Allegedly. No it didn’t it set it up to protect those at the top table, and stop others from sticking their nose in the trough on the top table. They don’t want City, Leicester, Newcastle, Brighton and others dining there. They changed the rules to suit. Just outta interest who was in charge of UEFA when FFP was instigated. A certain Michel Platini. Turned out nice again for him didn’t it.
Don't even get me started on Sept Blatter and FIFA. Just Google FIFA and corruption.
The Premier League don't want individual clubs to sort out their own TV deals because the rich/ Big clubs will get richer an and the rest will get peanuts, hence widening the gap. How’s that right.
The premier league wants the status Quo left as it is coz it wants to get richer.
Look at some of the “fit and proper“ owners in the Premier league. seriously. The only thing that’s taken into account is the size of there wallets.
Unfortunately some folks are blinded by the bitterness of clubs doing well at their expense. And Yet blinded by the shenanigans of their own club.
 
Jimaroid said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you pay you tv licence money to the BBC?
 
pauljames87 said:
So the free streams online how does that make money for criminals? I'm not talking about the paid IPTV or whatever I'm talking just watching a stream from say Spanish TV that costs no money to watch
Click to expand...
They’ve got no idea where the money goes,it just fits the narrative.
 
GB72 said:
The way things are going, if you want to watch the Women's world cup it may have to be on a dodgy stream. 50 days to do and no deal in place to show it in the top 5 european football nations. FIFA want bids nearer what is paid for the mens' rights despite the audience and advertising revenue not being in the same league and despite the fact that the time difference will make the matches harder to watch and to sell to advertisers.
Click to expand...
Once money Money is the root problem. FIFA were warned twice that should the World Cup be awarded to OCEANIA aka Australia and NZ. Its games will fall outside of main evening viewing times, Hence a reduced audience, so a reduced audience which watches boring adverts. However FIFA classed this as “ low risk” and went on record and said “ it could get more from the Asian market.
 
Pin-seeker said:
They’ve got no idea where the money goes,it just fits the narrative.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the dodgy boxes that could fund crime

But it's the same as when people used to bang on downloading a movie funded terrorism.. if it costs nothing to download / watch then it funds bugger all
 
Tashyboy said:
What about the £600 million Chelsea spent. What about the amount that Salford and Wrexham spent. That’s assuming they’re guilty. I am literally wetting my pants laughing about some of the comments re money in football. Let’s give it a go.

The premier league, UEFA and others set up FFP. To protect football clubs from going bust. Allegedly. No it didn’t it set it up to protect those at the top table, and stop others from sticking their nose in the trough on the top table. They don’t want City, Leicester, Newcastle, Brighton and others dining there. They changed the rules to suit. Just outta interest who was in charge of UEFA when FFP was instigated. A certain Michel Platini. Turned out nice again for him didn’t it.
Don't even get me started on Sept Blatter and FIFA. Just Google FIFA and corruption.
The Premier League don't want individual clubs to sort out their own TV deals because the rich/ Big clubs will get richer an and the rest will get peanuts, hence widening the gap. How’s that right.
The premier league wants the status Quo left as it is coz it wants to get richer.
Look at some of the “fit and proper“ owners in the Premier league. seriously. The only thing that’s taken into account is the size of there wallets.
Unfortunately some folks are blinded by the bitterness of clubs doing well at their expense. And Yet blinded by the shenanigans of their own club.
Click to expand...


I’m guessing you think “whataboutary” means that’s it’s ok for City to ignore the rules set out ?

So it’s ok for City to break the rules if you believe it’s been set up to protect some clubs - even though for those rules to pass I believe it needs at least 14/16 clubs to vote in favour of it

The people involved in corruption within UEFA and FIFA were all found guilty with people being sent to prison - guess you will be fully behind any sentences carried out towards City if found guilty

As for Chelsea - they will need to balance the books over the period of the players contracts they have bought

What do Salford and Wrexham have to do with it 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
756
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
4LEX
4
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
SaintHacker
The EFL Thread
33 34 35
Replies
688
Views
45K
4LEX
4
Top