Swansea away 5.2.21 NOT on Ifollow

[Jerrykerry 223]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

What has this pandemic done to people? As I explained to Bilious , I am totally ambivalent  about streams, people will do what they will do. At the moment iam getting Sky Sports and BT sports for 27€ a month, this ends in May, I will not renew, they will then make me a better than full price offer, if it gets to around €30 a month ill take it, but not till August or whenever next season starts.  I also use ifollow, I also dont. Until this season there were often info on links openly posted on this board with no real issues.... ive done it myself, both asked for and provided links. I just dont get why people are getting their knickers in a twist about it, some cant even grasp the issue, take  Bilious( please!)...he thinks I have a moral issue with streams, I dont, I just think he's a bit of a plonker for being so egotistical about providing a link, like he's some kind of hero. Yet , because of this, and his lack of ability to actually comprehend  what I meant , he has assumed I am against streams, where actually in this case ,it was a personal dig at him and his inflated ego.....yet when you disagree with him on a topic , he thinks its a personal attack on him.....cretin!!

Live and let live , if Sky et al considered streaming a real threat, then they'd be doing more than running a banner a cross the screen a few times a match, yes , it may well be illegal( ish) to watch a stream, but its the providers of streamswho really have to watch their butts. 

I doubt many people who can comfortably afford I follow would bother with the hassle of finding a stream, dont sweat the small stuff lads, all it really means is that more people get to watch......many of whom cant afford a tenner a game.

Not ish.

Illegal.

Totally.

It's really simple stuff and any justification means you advocate breaking the law.

If I fancy an extra few bits I can't afford in a shop you're OK with me just nicking them yeah?

[hogesar 9,657]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

But surely the point you are all missing is the club is not being robbed. Yes they are not gaining but if Til is correct and that it doesn't involve the club in running iFollow but they just receive money from it depending on how many watch, then it isn't costing the club a penny. You can't lose something you never had.

And of course I'm entitled to complain if the price has doubled. That others started paying a tenner this season doesn't nullify my argument. I as a user had my price doubled, with knowledge of the club, and I chosenot to use that service, so in fact the club have now lost out.

You're not entitled to, because the price you were paying was never supposed to be available to you. Fair play for taking advantage of it via a VPN, if they're not bothered about it then why should you be (I don't believe that's the case any longer), but you can't then complain for paying the actual price for UK Subscribers.

The point isn't being made on an individual basis. What is being said is in general, watching an illegal stream when there is a legal option which also helps the club during a testing period of time might be seen as immoral on a legal, social and football-supporting level.

To say it isn't costing the club assumes that every single person who watches an illegal stream would never part with £10 if those illegal streams were never available.

[JackDuck 5]

People will do whatever they feel is right for them I guess. I'm not going to judge them. Many people - me included, justified using streams in the past by telling themselves "There was no other way for me to watch it!" but that doesn't make it any less illegal. So instead of vilifying others just realise not everyones barrier for 'what is right' is going to be at the same point as ours is. No need to go haranguing others just because we have suddenly decided to go straight 😉

[NeymarSmith 130]

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

So again - if you cant afford it - its ok to break the law (which it is)! unbelievable. Does that apply to peoples weekly shopping too? That will ease the burden on the foodbanks. 

But it's not as simple is it.

So you never have paid a laborer cash instead of putting it through the books and saving vat?

And isn't it illegal to be streaming the match, not to actually just watch it Via a.stream

[Greavsy 2,412]

7 minutes ago, NeymarSmith said:

But it's not as simple is it.

So you never have paid a laborer cash instead of putting it through the books and saving vat?

And isn't it illegal to be streaming the match, not to actually just watch it Via a.stream

You pay a worker cash, it's up to him if he declares or not. You have not input over that. No all companies are VAT registered, so paying cash makes no difference. 

Openly advertising streams is, in my opinion, as bad as streaming the match. The authorities did go after the streamers rather than the viewers, but thats akin to stopping drugs suppliers rather than the users, as it gets a bigger impact / result. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Greavsy

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

38 minutes ago, Jerrykerry said:

Not ish.

Illegal.

Totally.

It's really simple stuff and any justification means you advocate breaking the law.

If I fancy an extra few bits I can't afford in a shop you're OK with me just nicking them yeah?

What I think is irrelevant, its  whether you think its worth risking it, pesonally I dont, if you  or anyone wants to live with the consequences of your actions, go ahead. Just dont get all high and mighty with me about it , Mr Outraged. Maybe your neighbours , or you for that matter are a little late payng your t.v. licence...It isnt the crime of the Century.

Happy curtain twitching.

 

[king canary 7,599]

I wonder how many people who are justifying watching streams as fine would have been OK with messing with the wiring to get your neighbours sky sports 20 years ago or would happily have snuck past the stewards into Carrow Road without a ticket.

I'd guess not many- it's the fact streams are so easy and accessible and the risk is so minimal at this point that people do it and forget its actually still stealing.

[Greavsy 2,412]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I wonder how many people who are justifying watching streams as fine would have been OK with messing with the wiring to get your neighbours sky sports 20 years ago or would happily have snuck past the stewards into Carrow Road without a ticket.

I'd guess not many- it's the fact streams are so easy and accessible and the risk is so minimal at this point that people do it and forget its actually still stealing.

Doesn't make any of it right though. 

[Bill 1,788]

21 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

You pay a worker cash, it's up to him if he declares or not. You have not input over that. No all companies are VAT registered, so paying cash makes no difference. 

Openly advertising streams is, in my opinion, as bad as streaming the match. The authorities did go after the streamers rather than the viewers, but thats akin to stopping drugs suppliers rather than the users, as it gets a bigger impact / result. 

you get sillier by the minute

do you seriously think that if ''Mr Big' is nicked then all the adducts will shrug their shoulders and say

'well that is me done with drugs, then "

and what happened to your stating that "not as a platform for you to start again " ?

good to see the halo not sitting too well on the head of the self righteous 😇

 

 

[JackDuck 5]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I wonder how many people who are justifying watching streams as fine would have been OK with messing with the wiring to get your neighbours sky sports 20 years ago or would happily have snuck past the stewards into Carrow Road without a ticket.

I'd guess not many- it's the fact streams are so easy and accessible and the risk is so minimal at this point that people do it and forget its actually still stealing.

Well a quick forums search of "King Canary AND Stream" instantly reveals this

"Watching football out here feels a bit illicit like watching **** or something. I have to stream it illegally off the internet and cos its 10am I have to beware not to wake up the roommate. So my illicit encounters are just with who evers available!"

So it was Ok for you back in 2008. And probably some time after. This is my point. Let's not be hypocrites.

1 minute ago, Bill said:

 

 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,222]

1 hour ago, Jerrykerry said:

Strange how little brain power you have.

But it does explain your ludicrous match thread  comments.

Let's spell this out.

It's not the companies paying to advertise on the streaming sites.

People sign up for affiliate accounts and then post the adverts on those sites they own.

If the companies find out, they ban the affiliate.

So its nothing to do with what you claim at all.

Do you exceed the speed limit Maryberry, I bet you do?

[Capt. Pants 4,222]

Anyway is this shoite football match actually on Now TV, I can't see it listed?

[Greavsy 2,412]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

Anyway is this shoite football match actually on Now TV, I can't see it listed?

It's on sky, so by default should be on now tv. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Greavsy

[king canary 7,599]

8 minutes ago, JackDuck said:

Well a quick forums search of "King Canary AND Stream" instantly reveals this

"Watching football out here feels a bit illicit like watching **** or something. I have to stream it illegally off the internet and cos its 10am I have to beware not to wake up the roommate. So my illicit encounters are just with who evers available!"

So it was Ok for you back in 2008. And probably some time after. This is my point. Let's not be hypocrites.

 

2008? ****ing hell I was 20.

Weirdly enough peoples attitudes change over time.

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, JackDuck said:

Well a quick forums search of "King Canary AND Stream" instantly reveals this

"Watching football out here feels a bit illicit like watching **** or something. I have to stream it illegally off the internet and cos its 10am I have to beware not to wake up the roommate. So my illicit encounters are just with who evers available!"

So it was Ok for you back in 2008. And probably some time after. This is my point. Let's not be hypocrites.

cheers for that

I did post similar pointing out that two of the main protagonists had posted of their watching streams

oddly, or not, the whole threads were taken down

which makes me question just what is the motive for someone like King Canary

Edited February 5, 2021 by Bill

[king canary 7,599]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

cheers for that

I did post similar pointing out that two of the main protagonists had posted of their watching streams

oddly, or not, the whole threads were taken down

which makes me question just what is the motive for someone like King Canary

Let me guess, is the motive that I'm also another poster who has it in for you?

[JackDuck 5]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

2008? ****ing hell I was 20.

Weirdly enough peoples attitudes change over time.

That isn't my point.

Your justification was probably that you had no other way of getting the game. This is why I streamed games too. 

You or someone on this thread mentioned that football clubs are hard up during current times, that applies to people too. What if they really don't want to justify another tenner on a 90 minute football match but don't want to lose connection with the club they've spent thousands of pounds supporting. Especially with the toll the pandemic may be having on peoples mental health. Most would agree looting during a riot is wrong, but more will justify stealing to feed a starving family, even though not everyone will.

My point isn't that I think its right because I don't. I just don't agree with the vilification of those who choose to still do it. Especially when it's so repetitive.

[Foxy2600 300]

7 hours ago, hogesar said:

How on earth is this even vaguely relevant? Did the BBC promise you some live Norwich games before you paid your license?

No it’s not even remotely relevant - and that’s why I love Pinkun and have never been back to WotB.... not since I made the completely and utterly extremely tentative connection between Lineaker and his ability to freelance and rubbish Brexit, Tories, whilst endorsing  Rubber Boat People and BLM all the while taking the 1.7m for doing what you or I could do.

[Van wink 2,994]

37 minutes ago, JackDuck said:

That isn't my point.

Your justification was probably that you had no other way of getting the game. This is why I streamed games too. 

You or someone on this thread mentioned that football clubs are hard up during current times, that applies to people too. What if they really don't want to justify another tenner on a 90 minute football match but don't want to lose connection with the club they've spent thousands of pounds supporting. Especially with the toll the pandemic may be having on peoples mental health. Most would agree looting during a riot is wrong, but more will justify stealing to feed a starving family, even though not everyone will.

My point isn't that I think its right because I don't. I just don't agree with the vilification of those who choose to still do it. Especially when it's so repetitive.

Evening Jack, you only joined the forum an hour ago and already have two likes from Billy, you don’t ride a horse do you 🤣

Are you Billy’s invisible friend 😉

Edited February 5, 2021 by Van wink

[Krul Mistress 36]

7 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Just at a local level, the bbc provides commentary for every norwich game, home and away, so can't ask for better coverage of your team than that. 

The licence fee is excellent value compared to other platform charges, but you aren't comparing like with like I'm afraid. 

It's free to listen to the radio, you only have to pay for a TV

[hogesar 9,657]

1 hour ago, NeymarSmith said:

But it's not as simple is it.

So you never have paid a laborer cash instead of putting it through the books and saving vat?

And isn't it illegal to be streaming the match, not to actually just watch it Via a.stream

It is illegal to watch an illegal stream yes.

[hogesar 9,657]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

2008? ****ing hell I was 20.

Weirdly enough peoples attitudes change over time.

Yeah, I mean if you go back to 2008 HOGESAR WANTED DELIA OUT. 

If that doesn't back up your changing attitudes point nothing will.

[......and Smith must score. 1,340]

8 hours ago, Fuzzar said:

The BBC is ridiculously good value, considering its enormous and varied output.

The BBC might be ridiculously good value or not but the problem is you have to pay £157 even if you never watch it.

It should be a subscription service like most other channels.

[hogesar 9,657]

31 minutes ago, Foxy2600 said:

No it’s not even remotely relevant - and that’s why I love Pinkun and have never been back to WotB.... not since I made the completely and utterly extremely tentative connection between Lineaker and his ability to freelance and rubbish Brexit, Tories, whilst endorsing  Rubber Boat People and BLM all the while taking the 1.7m for doing what you or I could do.

Sorry mate I'm totally lost.

[king canary 7,599]

1 hour ago, JackDuck said:

That isn't my point.

Your justification was probably that you had no other way of getting the game. This is why I streamed games too. 

You or someone on this thread mentioned that football clubs are hard up during current times, that applies to people too. What if they really don't want to justify another tenner on a 90 minute football match but don't want to lose connection with the club they've spent thousands of pounds supporting. Especially with the toll the pandemic may be having on peoples mental health. Most would agree looting during a riot is wrong, but more will justify stealing to feed a starving family, even though not everyone will.

My point isn't that I think its right because I don't. I just don't agree with the vilification of those who choose to still do it. Especially when it's so repetitive.

The bit in bold is key for me. Streamed. Past tense.

I certainly haven't been as militant in my anti streaming view before this season. But this season the circumstances changed.

1) The club has a sizable income black hole that they need to fill

2) For the first time ever, you can legally stream every single Norwich City game.

I know lots of people can't afford £10 a game. Personally I can't justify spending £460 to watch every league match this season. So what do I do? I pick and chose and pay for the games I'm happy paying for, the rest I follow on twitter or the radio.  You say 'what if they don't want to justify spending another tenner?' The answer is simple- don't and do something else. 

I also just kind of wish those who choose to do this would just own it- say 'yeah its stealing, yeah I could pay for it but I don't want to.' Instead you get all these tortured justifications about how it actually isn't wrong and other people do it so blah blah blah. 

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind but there you go. The absolute minimum for me though is if you're on this thread justifying stealing the coverage then you sure as **** don't get to moan about how much the club spends on transfers similar. 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by king canary
typo

[king canary 7,599]

25 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Evening Jack, you only joined the forum an hour ago and already have two likes from Billy, you don’t ride a horse do you 🤣

Are you Billy’s invisible friend 😉

He's far too polite to be anything to do with Bill.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

He's far too polite to be anything to do with Bill.

Don’t be confused by a false moustache and a big red nose😉

[TIL 1010 4,737]

32 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Evening Jack, you only joined the forum an hour ago and already have two likes from Billy, you don’t ride a horse do you 🤣

Are you Billy’s invisible friend 😉

He is quickly finding his way around the forum and is currently looking at a thread about streams dated 2015. I hope you are not suggesting he is a multiple account holder ?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, ncfcstar said:

Well that's just not true.

It’s because they are at home and their season ticket holders get all their home games free, just like we do.

That was posted on Tuesday before the Millwall game in response to a question of why it wasn't free to season ticket holders against the Lions.

Its why some posters haven't referred to it. Some, not all, are labelling us with disdain while watching it for free.

•  
•  
• Quote

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

He is quickly finding his way around the forum and is currently looking at a thread about streams dated 2015. I hope you are not suggesting he is a multiple account holder ?

No no, a time traveller 😁