Chris_R

Heat death of the universe.

Watch your letterbox. And your greenhouse.

I know he's a weird fucker but surely that's sarcasm. Sarcasm from me or him ? Yes

Wow. What was the outcome? Process extended by another 2 months.

Guess it's next week again, then?

Actually a fair bit of my refusing to have sky was refusing to line Ashley's pockets. So if this goes through, I'll tell you what, I'll subscribe for a year in celebration. Seems only fair.

Erm, you're taking me the wrong way. I've never had Sky, either my own or someone else's. But I still watch all the football. I'm just saying the people who account share can't take the moral high ground over those who pirate. That's all.

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.

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.

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. How? Were in the same household Fair enough on both points.

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.

To come back to this, we're only owned by Ashley because of his ability to get his tatty chav clothes shop plastered all over TV and for the revenue Sky brings in to him. You can argue that without Sky we'd not get the Saudis, but without Sky we'd not have gotten Ashley either.

You can only really have that if the money is centralised. Which the PL are keen to avoid because it'll reduce their revenue overall. The moment people can pick and choose their games, they'll pay less overall. The PL WANT people to be paying to multiple subscribers, for games they don't want, to maximise their revenue. Nothing will make them reform their model whilst it keeps working for them. Unfortunately, as happened with music streaming and Spotify, and video streaming and Netflix, and video games and Steam, before those channels become available you need something like Napster, The Pirate Bay etc to come along and threaten to fuck things up. Thus far, the PL are resisting change and whilst people remain complicit in their business model, they'll remain resistant to change. History has shown time and again that piracy does NOT kill industry, it just reforms it into something more consumer friendly. I'm one such potential customer who is presently disenfranchised by the current business model and actively wants to pay for a good quality product. I just won't allow myself to be mugged off for it.

Oh fuck, I forgot Amazon. What's Prime, £80/year? Stick that on too. £640/year. Bargain.

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. That's a fair point. But I'm sure the terms of it say you can't share logins, so your proposed solution of splitting it with a mate is little better than piracy anyway unless, again, you're saying "Well I've paid something so I deserve to flout the rules". But I'll grant you £200 for a year of Now TV if that is indeed the price next year, but I can only see £25/month on their website at a quick glance today. You're still only getting a fraction of the games though, so per Newcastle game it's still way more than the £10 day pass they do per game. That's closer to value for me, but it still leaves me wondering what to do about the games which are NOT available? If piracy is to be stopped, every game needs to be watchable. At a fair price. BT Sport seems to be £30/month so that's another £360 a year I'd need to pay to get a few more games legally so we're back to £560 already as things stand, unless I'm to satisfy myself with just watching a handful and missing the rest, or choosing which IP provider I pay and which one I pirate from.

Would love a PPV option as that would be a lot more cost effective for me than ordering a package with a lot of matches and channels I don't watch or use. However I think it would be more ammunition for the bigger clubs to claim more of the TV money when they can show to increased buy rates to their matches compared to smaller teams which again would make things more uneven then they already are so I am a bit torn on whether it's a good or bad idea. This is the problem with PPV, or at least the perceived problem. Brighton would end up getting far less revenue than Man U, especially under that model, so the majority of smaller clubs will always vote against the few larger clubs to prevent this. I don't know the solution, but I know trying to charge me hundreds of pounds to watch a few matches with Sky then a few hundred more to watch a few more matches on BT isn't acceptable to me.

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?"

That was my immediate thought but then wondered if sticking Dubs or Given in for the likes of the 4-3 Liverpool game might make more sense? Something a bit more open, they can affect it more by holding them to a couple less goals, rather than the fine margin of the Man U game? I was 6 at the time though so I could be completely wrong. Can you use all three gems in one match? If we win the Man U game its a 6 point swing, beating Liverpool is only 3. I also think Given or Dubs 100% save Cantona's shot and they had nothing else all game You can't factor that in because with different teams, different play would have ensued and Cantona wouldn't have had that same shot.

Except that the victims of this piracy are now us fans as the takeover is stalled! Whilst you may have a general point about piracy which I accept, the victims of my personal piracy certainly are NOT us fans. I've never used BeOUTQ, nor have the overwhelming majority of us, nor have I ever paid for any pirated content. The avenues I use are totally free and therefore unlikely to result in the people in question attempting to take over a football club. Anyway, I've avoided paying for Sky for 25+ years, saving* probably 12k+ in that time. In no version of reality is getting this takeover through worth that amount of money to me, so I still say I've chosen wisely. * I say saving, I'd never have paid it anyway so I'd contest that this is not lost revenue to the PL because the alternative to piracy for me isn't to buy Sky, it's to just not watch the games.

Yeah Sky is normally £48/month for football, so that's what, £576 a year for a handful of Newcastle games. Fuck that. I guess if you place actual value on watching Watford vs Aston Villa or whoever too then fair enough it makes it a better deal, but I just watch us. I have Netflix for normal TV and don't need anything more there either, so I place no value on their "normal" channels either. I'd just be paying £48/month for whatever Newcastle games they show. No thanks. And whilst I do feel a twinge of remorse at pirating "watchable" Newcastle games, I feel absolutely none at streaming them when they're not even on in the UK. That is a victimless crime to me.

This for me. I'd take Beardsley, Asprilla and Srnicek out. I loved Pav, but he was erratic. Same for Tino. And Beardsley was 35 by this point and very much on the wane. Replace them with ASM, peak Shearer, and peak Given, and I think you've got a great chance of a different outcome. There's also an argument for keeping Srnicek in and swapping out one of Howey or Albert (Probably Howey) for a non-broken Woodgate. Win this game and we win the league, simple as that.

Fair enough, but I didn't "go off on one to try and prove it's negative". You literally quoted my first words, "not necessarily". I didn't try to prove anything, I just offered an alternative thought on the tweet. Anyway, whatever. I need a beer.

I never said people shouldn't have hope. I simply expressed an alternative view, that maybe something else was happening. This is a discussion forum, right?

Dare we hope they have moved on from the issue of piracy Not necessarily. Christ give it a rest man. 'Dare we hope?' NO!! BRING IN THE NEGATIVITY HOSE!! Apologies for making relevant, valid points on a football forum in the appropriate thread related to the takeover. I didn't realise we all just had to blindly suck each other off and say how it'll definitely go through with no hiccups and there's nothing preventing it happening. After all, it's only been 13 weeks so clearly nothing's up and nothing I say could possibly be correct anyway. Thanks for putting me right.