Swansea away 5.2.21 NOT on Ifollow

[Greavsy 2,412]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

if you can point out the victim in either crime

sorry Bill, Bar this one reply im not going to play your tiresome game and reply to anymore of your comments. If you want to have a conversation about Streams and such like then start your own. If you cannot work out who the victims are then I feel even sorrier for you than I did before.  

I started this thread to make people aware that tonight's match wasnt on IFollow not as a platform for you to start again.  

[Mello Yello 2,277]

Defund the BBC..... 

[Bill 1,788]

13 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

So by your argument KG - If you are short of cash / income its ok to stream & break the speed limit? 

Can I quote you in court? 😉 

Borrowing DVDs is one thing, but advertising various illegal streams on here is move like copying and distributing said copies. i doubt any on here have done that.

now now, Greasy

editing your post by adding the bit highlighted in red hardly suggests you trying to distance yourself from this subject - and if you note I was merely taking your argument one step along, nothing else

as to your moral outrage, how come we heard nothing from you and the other self-righteous when links were posted previously this season, never mind numerous seasons before ?

[Greavsy 2,412]

As you can quite clearly see from the time stamps I was editing it whilst you were replying. 

I refer you to my previous comments and wont be responding to you further. Im gutted that ive responded when I said I wouldnt, but I wont any more. I just wanted to defend your weak allegation of me changing my post, which clearly isnt the case. 

If you want another thread about  justifying streams etc, then start your own. I'm sure you know how. 

Goodbye Bill - i wont miss you. 

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

now now, Greasy

editing your post by adding the bit highlighted in red hardly suggests you trying to distance yourself from this subject - and if you note I was merely taking your argument one step along, nothing else

as to your moral outrage, how come we heard nothing from you and the other self-righteous when links were posted previously this season, never mind numerous seasons before ?

 

[NeymarSmith 130]

I can't believe this getting spoken about again.

If you can afford it, and want to, spend the money get sky/bt/ifollow. Wonderful. Give yourself a big clap. You have helped the club.

 

If not, if you can't afford it, or you want to enjoy a stream for free, then equally good for you. The people watching the streams aren't doing anything wrong, they are enjoying the sport they love with the team they love! 

 

It's not bills fault the club don't get money for that. He is just passing the good deed on to the few (or many - but perhaps not everyone admits it) who either can't afford it or don't want to pay it. I for one are grateful that he bothers, he doesn't have to, so long as he can see it, why would he care.

Anyone who watches the footy on a stream who hasn't paid for it is not really doing anything different then the customer who pays his builder cash. They save a bit, and the builder is happy. Are you one to then say they are depriving the government as no tax was paid on it? Have you just never done that and insist that you do.

 

Ffs, if you want the stream enjoy it. If you don't, shut up about it.

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

30 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

So by your argument KG - If you are short of cash / income its ok to stream & break the speed limit? 

Can I quote you in court? 😉 

Borrowing DVDs is one thing, but advertising various illegal streams on here is move like copying and distributing said copies. i doubt any on here have done that. 

 

I didn't mention any site Greavsy. And the mods have stopped allowing the posting of said sites. And I'm not advocating anyone else to break the law.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of life.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

So the banner running along the bottom of the screen on IFollow warning that it is illegal to stream games and is a piracy offence is just not true and scaremongering then ?

Edited February 5, 2021 by TIL 1010

[Bill 1,788]

odd how it was not me who raised the subject of streams, nor put any argument about them - but it was me you chose to rant at

strange folk these 'moralists'

Lord Longford was one, got his knickers in a twist if anything fruity was shown on the TV

but thought nothing of visiting some heinous criminals in the nick

 

ps I hope I don't have to suffer the pious words of some moral 'do gooder' if I am ever send down as a tv pirate

[Greavsy 2,412]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I didn't mention any site Greavsy. And the mods have stopped allowing the posting of said sites. And I'm not advocating anyone else to break the law.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of life.

Agreed KG - you didnt and as far as I am aware never have mentioned a site. That was a general comment and not directed at you. Apologies if it came across that way. 

[Greavsy 2,412]

10 minutes ago, NeymarSmith said:

I can't believe this getting spoken about again.

If you can afford it, and want to, spend the money get sky/bt/ifollow. Wonderful. Give yourself a big clap. You have helped the club.

 

If not, if you can't afford it, or you want to enjoy a stream for free, then equally good for you. The people watching the streams aren't doing anything wrong, they are enjoying the sport they love with the team they love! 

 

It's not bills fault the club don't get money for that. He is just passing the good deed on to the few (or many - but perhaps not everyone admits it) who either can't afford it or don't want to pay it. I for one are grateful that he bothers, he doesn't have to, so long as he can see it, why would he care.

Anyone who watches the footy on a stream who hasn't paid for it is not really doing anything different then the customer who pays his builder cash. They save a bit, and the builder is happy. Are you one to then say they are depriving the government as no tax was paid on it? Have you just never done that and insist that you do.

 

Ffs, if you want the stream enjoy it. If you don't, shut up about it.

 

 

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. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

So the banner running along the bottom of the screen on IFollow warning that it is illegal and is a piracy offence is just not true and scaremongering then ?

But the main and bulk argument has been that its robbing the club. So instead of doubling the price why not keep it the same price as before and get me and others to use it.

And if anyone says that it isn't the clubs fault the price has gone up, I shall laugh. Because of greed, they have lost me using iFollow. And in Cornwall the match is blocked on Radio Norfolk. Why? I pay my licence fee. Why should you get it and not me?

The iFollow service is pretty awful as well.

[Greavsy 2,412]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But the main and bulk argument has been that its robbing the club. So instead of doubling the price why not keep it the same price as before and get me and others to use it.

And if anyone says that it isn't the clubs fault the price has gone up, I shall laugh. Because of greed, they have lost me using iFollow. And in Cornwall the match is blocked on Radio Norfolk. Why? I pay my licence fee. Why should you get it and not me?

The iFollow service is pretty awful as well.

Its BBC LOCAL radio that supplies the commentary KG. I do take your point though - it should be a level playing field for all. 

You used to be able to change your region on SKY and pick up all local news programs. Not sure if that still works, and would work for radio / on BT etc. Im sure you have tried. 

[TIL 1010 4,718]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

And if anyone says that it isn't the clubs fault the price has gone up, I shall laugh. 

IFollow is provided under contract to the EFL and the price is not set by the Club. Your £10 payment is made to EFL not to the Club and they subsequently receive a percentage of that tenner.

 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

Strange that some of the biggest companies in the world, including betting and gambling , now advertise on streaming sites. 

Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to pay full price for everything all the while, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Once the world becomes perfect and motorists don't exceed the speed limit and multi millionaire footballers don't break the law by having their haircut, perhaps I'll listen.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes 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. 

That is not an argument. It may be illegal to watch streams but where is the theft compared to say shoplifting. Theft from Tesco involves a loss to them because of costs. The club loses nothing if I watch a stream.

Before lockdown was invented, illegal streams were around and SKY etc were not showing every match such as 3pm Saturday games. They knew there were illegal streams but their profits increased. Was that through increased subscribers or higher premiums? Illegal streams had not affected them.

My argument is based purely on the greed of doubling the tariff. Why can't they see there wouldn't be streams if the price wasfair.

[hogesar 9,615]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

IFollow is provided under contract to the EFL and the price is not set by the Club. Your £10 payment is made to EFL not to the Club and they subsequently receive a percentage of that tenner.

 

Spot on. And KG is also getting confused because it was a commentary only option unless you were living abroad. Now its £10 for a video service.

Also, for those saying there's nothing wrong with watching illegal streams - the key is in the word 'illegal'. If you don't agree with the moral standpoint then bare minimum from a legal one you're in the wrong. If you're comfortable with that then fine but don't lie to others about the legality.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

IFollow is provided under contract to the EFL and the price is not set by the Club. Your £10 payment is made to EFL not to the Club and they subsequently receive a percentage of that tenner.

 

So the club have not taken their share of the price doubling? They are giving it to Kings Lynn to help them out instead because they don't agree with doubling the price?

[Greavsy 2,412]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is not an argument. It may be illegal to watch streams but where is the theft compared to say shoplifting. Theft from Tesco involves a loss to them because of costs. The club loses nothing if I watch a stream.

Before lockdown was invented, illegal streams were around and SKY etc were not showing every match such as 3pm Saturday games. They knew there were illegal streams but their profits increased. Was that through increased subscribers or higher premiums? Illegal streams had not affected them.

My argument is based purely on the greed of doubling the tariff. Why can't they see there wouldn't be streams if the price wasfair.

BUT Tescos are a large profit making company like SKY / BT and the rest so in theory can afford it. 

The club / SKY / BT absolutely DO lose out if you watch a stream. Yes one person is hardly going to make a difference, but nor is one shoplifter from Tescos *. 

*other shops are available. 

[TIL 1010 4,718]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So the club have not taken their share of the price doubling? They are giving it to Kings Lynn to help them out instead because they don't agree with doubling the price?

And if anyone says that it isn't the clubs fault the price has gone up, I shall laugh

This is what i replied to kg and on that point you are wrong because you have suggested that the club are the cause of the price now being £10 when that is not the case at all. The club have their hands tied over this matter as i explained in my previous post.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Spot on. And KG is also getting confused because it was a commentary only option unless you were living abroad. Now its £10 for a video service.

Also, for those saying there's nothing wrong with watching illegal streams - the key is in the word 'illegal'. If you don't agree with the moral standpoint then bare minimum from a legal one you're in the wrong. If you're comfortable with that then fine but don't lie to others about the legality.

No I am not wrong Hoggy. I watched virtually every game live and in video

Two seasons ago. If you used  a VPN, the iFollow platform thought I lived in California. At that time, only non UK could watch video. I contacted iFollow because I didn't want to end up paying a fiver and being blocked. They said they couldn't care less, they knew what was happening but it was all income to them and the club.

In fact what was happening was illegal. Nobody resident in the UK should have been watching the game. But as far as iFollow were concerned, it was the agreement that no 3pm Saturday games could be shown live in the UK with the FA and media platforms and not their problem.

Just now, TIL 1010 said:

And if anyone says that it isn't the clubs fault the price has gone up, I shall laugh

This is what i replied to kg and on that point you are wrong because you have suggested that the club are the cause of the price now being £10 when that is not the case at all. The club have their hands tied over this matter as i explained in my previous post.

But answer my point. If the club did not agree to the price rise but it was iFollow who increased it, then their greed will put them out of business.

But if the club gained financially out of the doubling of the price and agreed to that price rise then we have a moral issue.

[hogesar 9,615]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

No I am not wrong Hoggy. I watched virtually every game live and in video

Two seasons ago. If you used  a VPN, the iFollow platform thought I lived in California. At that time, only non UK could watch video. I contacted iFollow because I didn't want to end up paying a fiver and being blocked. They said they couldn't care less, they knew what was happening but it was all income to them and the club.

In fact what was happening was illegal. Nobody resident in the UK should have been watching the game. But as far as iFollow were concerned, it was the agreement that no 3pm Saturday games could be shown live in the UK with the FA and media platforms and not their problem.

But answer my point. If the club did not agree to the price rise but it was iFollow who increased it, then their greed will put them out of business.

But if the club gained financially out of the doubling of the price and agreed to that price rise then we have a moral issue.

The fact you were wrongly using a VPN to access iFollow and their pricing for the outside UK market doesn't mean you now have the right to complain about the prices for UK-based customers. 

iFollow are doing exceptionally well if the figures so far are to be believed. That doesn't mean it's ok for people to go watch illegal streams and not support their football club.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

But answer my point. If the club did not agree to the price rise but it was iFollow who increased it, then their greed will put them out of business.

But if the club gained financially out of the doubling of the price and agreed to that price rise then we have a moral issue.

You really are going round in circles kg and as for not answering your point i did answer your point about your suggestion it was down to the club that we are now being charged £10. Are you now saying that club should have said to the EFL that they don't agree and withdraw from their contractual obligations to IFollow ?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

The fact you were wrongly using a VPN to access iFollow and their pricing for the outside UK market doesn't mean you now have the right to complain about the prices for UK-based customers. 

iFollow are doing exceptionally well if the figures so far are to be believed. That doesn't mean it's ok for people to go watch illegal streams and not support their football club.

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.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You really are going round in circles kg and as for not answering your point i did answer your point about your suggestion it was down to the club that we are now being charged £10. Are you now saying that club should have said to the EFL that they don't agree and withdraw from their contractual obligations to IFollow ?

Not at all. Same as I am not expecting them to give me £15 back because they are now, during the same season, selling it for £35.

Are they doing that out of the goodness of their hearts. No? They are selling off excess stock. Its business. They are not going to start selling them for £100 are they.

You say, the club has no say in what iFollow charges. But they accept the increase. A fledgling system that could provide a great service especially for us expats and an income for the club. Yet you lot will naturally abandon it 23 times a season when things return to normal. So will the price go up again? Or will it return to a fiver so that more people watch it?

Typical British attitude really. Bus is half empty so double the fare, not reduce it and get more on.

[king canary 7,577]

14 minutes 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.

Your entitled to not use their service of course. But generally that means you don't get the product. You want to not pay the price but still get the service. Entitlement.

If Sky put their price up tomorrow I'm perfectly entitled to choose not to pay it but it means I don't get the product. 

[ncfcstar 287]

31 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

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.

The product everyone who isn't using a VPN receives has changed though, and that is why the price has doubled.  The fact you paid less and used a VPN to receive a video feed too is completely irrelevant to the cost for users purchasing an iFollow pass domestically.

If i walked out of Tesco with a 2 for 1 deal on my favourite beverage, but the week after it was back to full price, am I entitled to complain because the same offer isn't available any more?

I do agree that the club don't miss out on what they would never receive, but for everyone who has no intention of paying the £10 fee there will be someone who thought about it but then just watched a stream and cut it whichever way you like but that is missed revenue. 

I don't have an issue with someone choosing to stream, and I doubt the EFL/iFollow care much either because finding a stream that works for 90 minutes and provides the same quality as iFollow can be very very time consuming.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

38 minutes ago, king canary said:

Your entitled to not use their service of course. But generally that means you don't get the product. You want to not pay the price but still get the service. Entitlement.

If Sky put their price up tomorrow I'm perfectly entitled to choose not to pay it but it means I don't get the product. 

SKY has been around for thirty odd years and started slowly and with offers to get more subscribers. 

As I said, iFollow could be brilliant for football and surely in its infancy should be trying to keep what they have, increase their market and become a real force for good in the game.

And there is some disingenuous aspect here, that season ticket holders are watching home games for nothing.

[ncfcstar 287]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And there is some disingenuous aspect here, that season ticket holders are watching home games for nothing.

Well that's just not true.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

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.

[Jerrykerry 223]

3 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Strange that some of the biggest companies in the world, including betting and gambling , now advertise on streaming sites. 

Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to pay full price for everything all the while, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Once the world becomes perfect and motorists don't exceed the speed limit and multi millionaire footballers don't break the law by having their haircut, perhaps I'll listen.

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.