Thread removed and its reference removed

[king canary 7,606]

23 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Hoggy, if you read one of my posts properly you will see I spent a whole season purchasing iFollow then to have it taken away when we went into the EPL. So the club couldn't give a monkeys about me then. Get lost we are in the EPL was the attitude.

I don't want to sound patronising but I don't think you understand how these things work.

Broadcasting rights aren't negotiated by the individual club, they are done with the league. So when we're in the Premier League using iFollow isn't up to us.

[TIL 1010 4,746]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

As far as I'm aware the only person who's mentioned you on this thread is...you?

He was clearly pointing the finger in my direction if you look back to yesterday, just join up the dots kc.

' However this particular link followed a spat with a poster who consistently follows me around, making personal comments. '

City1st has trotted that line out several times with regard to me following him around but he usually says snidey comments.

Edited December 4, 2020 by TIL 1010

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I don't want to sound patronising but I don't think you understand how these things work.

Broadcasting rights aren't negotiated by the individual club, they are done with the league. So when we're in the Premier League using iFollow isn't up to us.

So what was I supposed to do last season? Even though there was any amount of streams out there, not watch them because it was illegal? And I wasn't stealing from the club.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So what was I supposed to do last season? Even though there was any amount of streams out there, not watch them because it was illegal? And I wasn't stealing from the club.

This is where the grey area is for me. I had no problem whatsoever in using streams when there was literally no other way for me to be able to watch the matches. I just feel that now the club is offering a way to watch the matches legally from which it benefits financially, we should use that rather than fleecing the club by watching illegal streams.

[king canary 7,606]

8 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

This is where the grey area is for me. I had no problem whatsoever in using streams when there was literally no other way for me to be able to watch the matches. I just feel that now the club is offering a way to watch the matches legally from which it benefits financially, we should use that rather than fleecing the club by watching illegal streams.

Yeah this.

Some may say that makes us hypocrites and I'm not claiming to be some bastion of morality. But I think there is a pretty clear and understandable difference between streaming a game that isn't available anywhere in the UK and streaming a game you can easily watch legally this season.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

14 hours ago, Flying Dutchman said:

I reported the thread for be a posting of an illegal link. I'm not hiding. 

There was also nothing personal about it. I barely pay attention to you. The indication that it was personal is entirely arrogant on your part. It wasn't, and it isn't all about you believe it or not.

I pretty much post as often as I am online. This used to be a lot, but recently it isn't that much really, my life and family keep me much more busy now. I normally only check a few threads (at the top) at a time these days.

Probably explains why last night was the first time I've really paid attention to it, because apparently that needs justifying to you.

The reasons have mostly been addressed by various people above, I'm not going to rehash the same things.

I have never used an illegal link, seriously. And I have previously paid to watch my team play in the games i don't get free access to.

If I couldn't afford it or didn't believe it represented value for money, I simply wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't steal anything else if I couldn't afford it or thought it was too expensive for what I was getting.

Lose your unjust sense of entitlement maybe.

You can post all the imagined justifications you want, you can play the victim, you can make it all about people attacking you if you like. I couldn't care less who you are and I most certainly don't follow you around. Like I said, if anything I don't actually pay attention to you.

Bottom line is you posted an illegal link. It got removed and rightly so. Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names for thinking that illegal links SHOULD be taken down, was also taken down.

You have no moral high ground here. You are disgusting.

Get over it.

No, this is wrong. It was me who reported  Bill.  

I'm reportacus.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

This is awkward

I reported Bill as well

 

 

...or did I

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

This is where the grey area is for me. I had no problem whatsoever in using streams when there was literally no other way for me to be able to watch the matches. I just feel that now the club is offering a way to watch the matches legally from which it benefits financially, we should use that rather than fleecing the club by watching illegal streams.

That is a contradictory post Wolfie.

I feel there is a lot of hiding behind the stuck with the league rules etc.

The £15 for watching matches didn't last very long. It was a pathetic grab by the EPL.

iFollow was £5. Now it is £10. If they made money on £5, they are just being greedy at £10. Some say £10 is nothing. Fine. So how about £1000 a season ticket. Its only £20.

Remember, not every club is signed up to iFollow.

I went to my first match in 1960 but followed the club since 1957 but Dad wouldn't let me go to the matches.

I have loved the club ever since. But I realise that we have a Commercial and Finance Director who both want our money. Good for them.

But instead of milking a good system, why not make it attractive. When all you chaps are back in the ground, iFollow will be decimated. What then? Double it to £20? Or put it back to £5?

I am not prepared to accept the doubling of it. Its hardly a match day experience. I have a season ticket for my local rugby club because even at their level, I get the complete match day experience. For £6 a game. And a cheaper pint of Guinness than Carrow Road. Why do so many drink in Wetherspoons before the game? Are they guilty of not suppirting the club?

 

[king canary 7,606]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is a contradictory post Wolfie.

I feel there is a lot of hiding behind the stuck with the league rules etc.

The £15 for watching matches didn't last very long. It was a pathetic grab by the EPL.

iFollow was £5. Now it is £10. If they made money on £5, they are just being greedy at £10. Some say £10 is nothing. Fine. So how about £1000 a season ticket. Its only £20.

Remember, not every club is signed up to iFollow.

I went to my first match in 1960 but followed the club since 1957 but Dad wouldn't let me go to the matches.

I have loved the club ever since. But I realise that we have a Commercial and Finance Director who both want our money. Good for them.

But instead of milking a good system, why not make it attractive. When all you chaps are back in the ground, iFollow will be decimated. What then? Double it to £20? Or put it back to £5?

I am not prepared to accept the doubling of it. Its hardly a match day experience. I have a season ticket for my local rugby club because even at their level, I get the complete match day experience. For £6 a game. And a cheaper pint of Guinness than Carrow Road. Why do so many drink in Wetherspoons before the game? Are they guilty of not suppirting the club?

 

I'm confused, when was iFollow £5? I assume you're talking about the £5 per month that gave audio commentary wherever you are? If so you're talking about an entirely different thing.

There isn't any hiding though- up until this season clubs charging a fee per game to watch in the UK wasn't allowed by any leagues due to TV contracts. The only thing that has caused this to be an option is covid.

[Bill 1,788]

Still no nearer having it explained why the non link thread was taken down so quick. Nothing was in it that has not been posted in this 'hread - which suggests we have a 'moderator' within our midst (non pinkun) which, if true, is rather disturbing because we have no recourse to knowing whether decisions are being taken for personal reasons. or not.

As to the bizarre notion that those watching the stream are stealing money from the club, one that seems to be held by those who I am well aware of previously moaning at me. However, if I am so disgusting in my actions over this then why no complaint before ?

Finally to re-iterate Alex's words. This was no more than an act of goodwill, which seems to have merely highlighted the spirit in which some on here toward their fellow man (or woman). I consciously held off from posting any link till just before kick with the thought that those who were able to pay the money would have done so by then.

And the guff about when links are down, the payments go up is absolute ballcocks, as the links I have posted actually come from someone within the industry - which supply games to media sources worldwide.

Otherwise, my conscience on this matter is clear

 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is a contradictory post Wolfie.

I feel there is a lot of hiding behind the stuck with the league rules etc.

The £15 for watching matches didn't last very long. It was a pathetic grab by the EPL.

iFollow was £5. Now it is £10. If they made money on £5, they are just being greedy at £10. Some say £10 is nothing. Fine. So how about £1000 a season ticket. Its only £20.

Remember, not every club is signed up to iFollow.

I went to my first match in 1960 but followed the club since 1957 but Dad wouldn't let me go to the matches.

I have loved the club ever since. But I realise that we have a Commercial and Finance Director who both want our money. Good for them.

But instead of milking a good system, why not make it attractive. When all you chaps are back in the ground, iFollow will be decimated. What then? Double it to £20? Or put it back to £5?

I am not prepared to accept the doubling of it. Its hardly a match day experience. I have a season ticket for my local rugby club because even at their level, I get the complete match day experience. For £6 a game. And a cheaper pint of Guinness than Carrow Road. Why do so many drink in Wetherspoons before the game? Are they guilty of not suppirting the club?

I'm sorry, but my post isn't contradictory at all. You've brought in a whole load of other variables unrelated to my original point. My logic is sound here: the club has given me a legal way to watch matches, which costs me money but benefits the club. I therefore choose to do that, and believe it is right to do that, rather than use a free yet illegal means of watching matches.

How long you've supported the club, or the relative value of supporting your local rugby club, are totally irrelevant to what I've said in my post. You raise some interesting points worthy of debate, but nothing that renders my logic above to be contradictory.

I'm with you on the rugby, for what it's worth - it's still free to go and watch Norwich RUFC, and the wife and I often do when NCFC aren't playing.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm confused, when was iFollow £5? I assume you're talking about the £5 per month that gave audio commentary wherever you are? If so you're talking about an entirely different thing.

There isn't any hiding though- up until this season clubs charging a fee per game to watch in the UK wasn't allowed by any leagues due to TV contracts. The only thing that has caused this to be an option is covid.

In our Championship winning season, I watched our games, technically illegally, on iFollow using a VPN. Only people outside of the UK were supposed to be able to watch the games. And it was £5 per game. And they knew we were using it because my account was registered to my home address and a payment from my bank account. But they were making money so turned a blind eye.

Its gone up 100% with more people watching it. The good old British attitude. 

[king canary 7,606]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

In our Championship winning season, I watched our games, technically illegally, on iFollow using a VPN. Only people outside of the UK were supposed to be able to watch the games. And it was £5 per game. And they knew we were using it because my account was registered to my home address and a payment from my bank account. But they were making money so turned a blind eye.

Its gone up 100% with more people watching it. The good old British attitude. 

Right but you've surely got to be aware as to why the club could offer the £5 a game service to overseas fans in the Championship but not in the Premier League? It isn't anything about them 'not giving a stuff' it is that overseas broadcast contracts for the Premier League are a massive source of income and if the clubs offered games for £5 a pop that revenue stream would be killed off.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

35 minutes ago, king canary said:

Right but you've surely got to be aware as to why the club could offer the £5 a game service to overseas fans in the Championship but not in the Premier League? It isn't anything about them 'not giving a stuff' it is that overseas broadcast contracts for the Premier League are a massive source of income and if the clubs offered games for £5 a pop that revenue stream would be killed off.

Really? Why not give it a try. As I said, they knew we were using it then but said nothing.

[king canary 7,606]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Really? Why not give it a try. As I said, they knew we were using it then but said nothing.

You're coming across as painfully naive on this.

We don't have the option to 'give it a try.' We're bound by the TV contracts the Premier league signed when we're in their league and those contracts are exclusive. 

[DAVID SEWELL 24]

3 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

He was clearly pointing the finger in my direction if you look back to yesterday, just join up the dots kc.

' However this particular link followed a spat with a poster who consistently follows me around, making personal comments. '

City1st has trotted that line out several times with regard to me following him around but he usually says snidey comments.

Have you ever wondered why people do that?

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

"Why do so many drink in Wetherspoons before the game? Are they guilty of not supporting the club?"

That's a nifty retort. I like it. Highly extrapolated of course and drinking in Weatherspoon's is perfectly legal, if somewhat demeaning.

Quality and price have some place in this debate and on both counts IFollow have fallen short in the past. With a better product now established perhaps all they need is some sort of package for the season and they might, just might, have a winner on their hands ... some what belatedly.

The two other issues, that of the legality of streams and that of supporting the club in it's, somewhat perpetual, hour of need are really quite separate.

I have never actually felt that I am breaking the law when using streams in the past, there are millions doing it at the same time after all. This never makes it right, but it helps.

There are, of course, many other ways to support NCFC but as has been pointed out this need be reciprocal for the most part. I guess it might be, for the most part.

I'll stick with a competent IFollow for the rest of the season and be glad of the fact that I will not have to negotiate the trickery, the scammery and the tittery (?) that is the necessary evil that causes the streamers to profit and exist in the first place. 

They'll come and then go, and rather like the naughty boxes we all invested in this will depend upon the progress into the inevitable of the arrival of pay-per-view 3pm footie on a regular basis. 

The question of this monster decimating attendances in the ground and therefore de-funding the clubs is a non-starter in my view. City, for example, have a potential countywide and worldwide paying audience that outstrips the numbers present  on match days many times.

That 'match-day experience' will never be replaced and it has, for many, already become more than just watching ninety minutes of football in an upright position (and then rushing home to join the queue for the PinkUn.) It is now more a family/social/comfortable experience in it's own right. You only have to look at the quality of stadia around the country (with few exceptions like Luton) to accurately assess the agreeability and facilities that they offer to realise this. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

Anyone who takes their own beverage flask, light snacks and whiskey miniatures (winter matches) to Carrow road is stealing from the club.
Let’s have a crusade of morality across the board. 

[king canary 7,606]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Anyone who takes their own beverage flask, light snacks and whiskey miniatures (winter matches) to Carrow road is stealing from the club.
Let’s have a crusade of morality across the board. 

**** me this is desperate.

Its perfectly legal to take your own food into the ground. Eating or drinking is also not required at the game. 

Its just a stupid comparison.

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

**** me this is desperate.

Its perfectly legal to take your own food into the ground. Eating or drinking is also not required at the game. 

Its just a stupid comparison.

 

Not really, there’s good bargains to be had at the kiosks, I picked up 3 half pint plastic bottles of Heineken for £11.50 last match I attended. They do meal deals too for those treating the little ones. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

Bar those with tickets (being season / casual etc) no one has the divine right to watch the match. 

I accept some people cant get tickets for various reasons, including logistics, costs, availability, etc, BUT just because you cannot physically attend, IF the match isnt chosen to be covered by live tv (Be that Sky / BT / BBC / prime whoever ) you dont have the right to watch on a stream, as there are no other options available. 

Im not that old, but I remember the Sunday 4pm kick off on ITV was the only live match we had, and we thought we were lucky. 

Doesnt make you less of a supporter. 

Oh and people saying I pay my way to the club as I subscribe to Sky / BT, so i can stream if I like. Thats like having two trolleys of shopping in the suppermarket, and paying for the first one, then saying, because ive paid for those in going to have these for free! 

Oh and Bill, I usually ignore your posts, but respect this is an open forum. I beleive the person who reported you has admitted to it, however they wouldnt have been able to get the post removed, SPD / Admin would have done that, if they agreed with the reasoning, so why dont you send them a PM to ask what rules were broken, so you and others dont do it again. Then youd know. 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Greavsy

[TIL 1010 4,746]

2 hours ago, DAVID SEWELL said:

Have you ever wondered why people do that?

My irony meter just broke with regard to you commenting about a post where an accusation was made about being followed around the forum by a poster. Mind you i have missed you not posting since May so good to see post No.49 of which virtually without exception have been aimed at me.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

You're coming across as painfully naive on this.

We don't have the option to 'give it a try.' We're bound by the TV contracts the Premier league signed when we're in their league and those contracts are exclusive. 

I'm not being naive. You do not understand what I am saying.

I was paying £5 a game when in 18/19 we won the Championship.

We are now back in the Championship, and it has doubled to £10.

So I am not going to pay double the price.

Its just greed.

So rather than have me paying £5 and getting £3.50, they are getting sweet fanny adams.

Some of you are naive to think that the club is doing everything with the fans at heart.

I'm not saying the Club is bad. I love the club. Delia has done us proud, but the money men at the club think of the income before anything else. We are not being run by our favourite aunty in her pinny making jam tarts for the River End. 

[DAVID SEWELL 24]

11 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

My irony meter just broke with regard to you commenting about a post where an accusation was made about being followed around the forum by a poster. Mind you i have missed you not posting since May so good to see post No.49 of which virtually without exception have been aimed at me.

Must be because your such a pleasant fellow......

[TIL 1010 4,746]

8 minutes ago, DAVID SEWELL said:

Must be because your such a pleasant fellow......

You must remind me why you joined this forum but then again your posting history gives it away.

Edited December 4, 2020 by TIL 1010

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

Some people need to remove their haloes and let everyone decide what personally is right for the individual.

I doubt very much many if any have not broken the rules when it comes to not paying for what they morally should.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Midlands Yellow

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

1 hour ago, DAVID SEWELL said:

Must be because your such a pleasant fellow......

I'm not Tilly's biggest fan, but your vendetta is just pathetic. Bore off.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Still no nearer having it explained why the non link thread was taken down so quick. Nothing was in it that has not been posted in this 'hread - which suggests we have a 'moderator' within our midst (non pinkun) which, if true, is rather disturbing because we have no recourse to knowing whether decisions are being taken for personal reasons. or not.

As to the bizarre notion that those watching the stream are stealing money from the club, one that seems to be held by those who I am well aware of previously moaning at me. However, if I am so disgusting in my actions over this then why no complaint before ?

Finally to re-iterate Alex's words. This was no more than an act of goodwill, which seems to have merely highlighted the spirit in which some on here toward their fellow man (or woman). I consciously held off from posting any link till just before kick with the thought that those who were able to pay the money would have done so by then.

And the guff about when links are down, the payments go up is absolute ballcocks, as the links I have posted actually come from someone within the industry - which supply games to media sources worldwide.

Otherwise, my conscience on this matter is clear

 

Well, I for one don’t think you’re a bad or disgusting person, Bill - I can see why you’ve done what you do, and I see it as a kind gesture rather than one that was born with the sole intention of fleecing the club, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the main subject. Conversely, I’ve met your adversary Tilly on a couple of occasions, and despite what some may think like ‘David Sewell’ (apparently), he’s a top bloke too. I’m pretty sure that John probably doesn’t agree with much I say on all things City, but the way I see it is, we all share a common love irrespective of how we want to see the club run etc, and personally I totally respect his opinions on such matters.

To Pink’un posters in general, one thing I’ve always found amusing is long running spats on a message board. Seen it happen so many times where a poster has met another poster before or after a game and actually found after any battles they’ve had in internet land, in ‘real life’ they actually get on pretty damn well! It’s good to have differing opinions - I’d hate if everyone had the same opinion as say myself, you need different viewpoints to open your eyes sometimes.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

1 hour ago, DAVID SEWELL said:

Must be because your such a pleasant fellow......

Hello, Dave’s back in town.

No doubt some way behind the game as usual

[king canary 7,606]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not being naive. You do not understand what I am saying.

I was paying £5 a game when in 18/19 we won the Championship.

We are now back in the Championship, and it has doubled to £10.

So I am not going to pay double the price.

Its just greed.

So rather than have me paying £5 and getting £3.50, they are getting sweet fanny adams.

Some of you are naive to think that the club is doing everything with the fans at heart.

I'm not saying the Club is bad. I love the club. Delia has done us proud, but the money men at the club think of the income before anything else. We are not being run by our favourite aunty in her pinny making jam tarts for the River End. 

I don't think anyone is claiming the club does everything with the fans at heart.

However I do disagree that the £10 per game charge is just 'pure greed.' 

For a club like us, losing a years worth of match day income is huge. I doubt the ifollow streams even come close to filling that gap but every little helps in this kind of environment.