Andy

Absolutely there has been a change in tone and content over the last few months. I would guess that the owner of the account is either being fed snippets from an insider, or they have allowed their account to be used by someone else who is connected. Or it's the same person as before, they got a few vague tweets right and are now riding on the ITK wave.

Either the PL feel very confident in the stance and position they are taking or they didn't think that Mike Ashley would actually take it legal. The PL wanted to drag it out until it was either dropped by the buyers or settled by appeal one way or the other, so they could make it look like it wasn't their decision whichever way it went. Not sure they expected legal action.

Come on, we didn't just do that. We did go direct at times but that's just nonsense. Aye, that's a terrible take tbh we played some decent stuff.

Yup. Two elbows in six minutes. Both connected. Second one was more of an arm than an elbow, like

Close enough.

Bayern to smash PSG 5-0 in the final with Neymar left in tears please.

Can't see any of the remaining teams stopping this Bayern side like. PSG and City would both have to play at a level they've never reached in this competition before, even then I think they're too good going forward for them.

It's clear that the consortium made this deal very difficult to wave through at almost every turn like. Feel like if we weren't dealing with a potential bottomless pit of money, and for instance, the deal had been led by Peter Kenyon or someone of that ilk, people would be lambasting their role in the way this has played out.

I think the FA's silence may actually be a good thing fwiw. I'd imagine if the deal was completely dead in the water, they'd have came out with a generic statement by now just to stop the flack.

This guy isn’t buying us He has no money or credibility. Sounds like the perfect candidate.

That's my feeling as well. Premier League aren't blameless, and their handling of the situation (particularly communication) has been awful, but they aren't the main reason this failed. The Saudis have made it impossible to wave through at almost every step, every time it seemed close something new came out. All PL had to do was say - FAIL for that reason. But no....they sat quiet for 4 months. PL are totally to blame for this farce. We don't know exactly what's happened behind closed doors, we still only have Staveley's angle and that's been shown to be unreliable. There's been a few occasions where it's seemed close then the Saudis have made another daft decision back home with the Bein situation.

That's my feeling as well. Premier League aren't blameless, and their handling of the situation (particularly communication) has been awful, but they aren't the main reason this failed. The Saudis have made it impossible to wave through at almost every step, every time it seemed close something new came out.

Would expect if KSA complain to government, Masters will be pretty quickly up in front of a Parliamentary Committee to explain why he's damaged their relationship. They pulled Mike Ashley up for suspect working conditions Doubt KSA are bothered enough to complain to anyone. They'll just invest in a different club in a different league, with none of the chew or concessions that this deal comes with.

Ran out of time and Ashley f***ed them by demanding more for the same asset is my guess mate. The Saudi will feel pretty insulted by the way they have been treated honestly. Everywhere they go, the red carpet is rolled out. They won’t take a private members club poking around in the countries affairs well imo They haven't exactly made it easy for the Premier League to accept it, like. We risk painting the Saudis as the plucky heroes who were fucked over by the evil Premier League here, whereas the reality is that they managed to do just about everything possible to shoot their own bid in the foot at almost every possible turn. It was an incredibly difficult deal to accept for the PL that not only ran the risk of alienating their long-term partners but was also seriously morally questionable from the start. I don't buy this "if it was any other club" stuff either. The only people that have been fucked over here are the fans, who have been dragged through this shite - not only by the Premier League, but by the consortium themselves who clearly weren't prepared or adequately positioned to go through the process of purchasing a club from the very start.

Ehhh, makes you wonder how committed to investing they were if they've pulled the plug anyway. Obviously the PL have been a disgrace in how long they've taken to make a call on this - but I can't help but feel that if these guys were going to push us on as a club, they would've stuck in there more than a few months. It's not like waiting it out was costing them significant money, so the "global uncertainty" line suggests that the desire to fund once the sale went through may not have been there anyway. They clearly didn't have the confidence that the deal would ever be approved either way.

Well that's very strange if the takeover is still on. Which if this news is anything to go by it may not be. All the news from the last week has been ominous, despite a section of fans wanting to spin anything as a positive. The fans who spin everything as positive are no more or less tedious than the fans who spin everything as negative, fwiw.

If it happens next week (and that's a big if, like every week) you won't have confirmed it ffs Unless he works for the FA

Well if piracy is the main issue with the PL you would have thought Saudi Arabia would have been working towards been more open to Bein Sports rather than fining them £2m. Unless the PL have already signed off the owners and directors test before this happened, and now the Saudis have nothing to lose

It's pretty obvious that there's a stark contrast between Fred and Jeff going halfies on a service they wouldn't otherwise have bothered with, and an IPTV service that splits that service down to tiny, minute fractions, far outside of the fair use on the account (ie 2 separate IPs at one time). Almost all streaming services limit by simultaneous IPs, since it's almost impossible to prove that Fred wasn't watching on one device while Fred's brother who lives in the same paying household was over at Jeff's watching on his own device. The fair use policies are set up like this deliberately, because sharing between two people is usually considered likely to incur a profit that wouldn't have otherwise existed, rather than a loss. The more fractionalised the one legitimate stream becomes, obviously the more severe the loss becomes. It's a conscious concession, and therefore treated differently by providers to large scale organised piracy.

What should I do about the other games that Sky don't show, which are the vast majority? Should I just not watch them even though I know how to and they're available for free at the press of a button on my phone? Or should I take the stance of "Well I've paid SOMETHING, so I deserve to pirate these ones?" Was just a response to people saying Sky Sports costs at least £33/month or £600+ a year, it doesn't. So without sounding thick, sharing the cost of SS on nowtv means you can use the account on multiple devices? And what do you get for 20quid exactly? Me and my Dad did things a different way, I dont have sky etc, just plusnet, so I purchased BT sport app for 10 and Dad bought sky sports Pl and sky sports football for 10, then we shared accounts, so we have all games covered at 10 each. By sharing accounts you're breaking the law too. I'm pretty sure that isn't true with Now TV? Unless it's changed, all their T&Cs used to specify was that you could stream a maximum of two devices from different IPs simultaneously. Yeah, for your own use. Not to share with a mate to split the cost. Does it now state this in the terms of service like? It's probably, at worst, frowned upon. Doubt anyone would be legally reprimanded for it in a million years. "Breaking the law" is a daft statement. Yeah, I've already acknowledged that. But yes, these things are clearly not designed to be shared around. Same as Netflix. Loads of people split the cost, but it's designed for a family with different viewing habits in the same house, not you and 4 mates just paying less than £2/month each. I just find the idea of people (Not saying you) abusing such systems then taking a moral high ground on piracy somewhat ridiculous. You can dress it up however you want but it's still - ultimately - the same outcome: The rights holder is being deprived of money that they're supposed to get. Just because you're using a legal login with someone's permission doesn't mean shit, because that person isn't allowed to let you use their login. I don't do this but I have when I was younger. It's certainly a better alternative to piracy either way, as the two people splitting would both likely turn to piracy if they didn't do it, meaning £0 income for the provider as opposed to at least one subscription... Which again, is why this sort of thing is not clamped down on. My personal take on the entire thing is a big "fuck them" to the providers anyway. Scummy corporations like sky bleeding money is fantastic, not something I'd ever take a moral high ground over and I'd be quire happy if the lot of them vanished.

What should I do about the other games that Sky don't show, which are the vast majority? Should I just not watch them even though I know how to and they're available for free at the press of a button on my phone? Or should I take the stance of "Well I've paid SOMETHING, so I deserve to pirate these ones?" Was just a response to people saying Sky Sports costs at least £33/month or £600+ a year, it doesn't. So without sounding thick, sharing the cost of SS on nowtv means you can use the account on multiple devices? And what do you get for 20quid exactly? Me and my Dad did things a different way, I dont have sky etc, just plusnet, so I purchased BT sport app for 10 and Dad bought sky sports Pl and sky sports football for 10, then we shared accounts, so we have all games covered at 10 each. By sharing accounts you're breaking the law too. I'm pretty sure that isn't true with Now TV? Unless it's changed, all their T&Cs used to specify was that you could stream a maximum of two devices from different IPs simultaneously. Yeah, for your own use. Not to share with a mate to split the cost. Does it now state this in the terms of service like? It's probably, at worst, frowned upon. Doubt anyone would be legally reprimanded for it in a million years. "Breaking the law" is a daft statement.

What should I do about the other games that Sky don't show, which are the vast majority? Should I just not watch them even though I know how to and they're available for free at the press of a button on my phone? Or should I take the stance of "Well I've paid SOMETHING, so I deserve to pirate these ones?" Was just a response to people saying Sky Sports costs at least £33/month or £600+ a year, it doesn't. So without sounding thick, sharing the cost of SS on nowtv means you can use the account on multiple devices? And what do you get for 20quid exactly? Me and my Dad did things a different way, I dont have sky etc, just plusnet, so I purchased BT sport app for 10 and Dad bought sky sports Pl and sky sports football for 10, then we shared accounts, so we have all games covered at 10 each. By sharing accounts you're breaking the law too. I'm pretty sure that isn't true with Now TV? Unless it's changed, all their T&Cs used to specify was that you could stream a maximum of two devices from different IPs simultaneously.

To be fair, he is very limited as a secondary left back.

The first half was shocking like, it wasn't disciplined or organised, we were just desperately throwing bodies in front of the ball which obviously isn't sustainable. Carroll being stood on the half way line by himself was a bonkers tactic, given that Almiron and ASM were basically full backs but were the closest players to him. Might as well have just stuck ASM up front, at least he might've been able to carry the ball or possess some kind of threat chasing after the hoofs. Second half was an improvement but that isn't saying much.

Possession football isn't working, time to start lumping it to Carroll I reckon