Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[Silver-Tiger]

Also if you're worrying about streams, it's more likely a poor connection on your part as the streams are (or were before these new rules) absolutely flawless

Nah. Literally got stream links off you for champions league last year. On sky and dropped BT and I found myself without CL on one of the weeknights. The links were cat. Have an excellent broadband connection and top hardware so no issues on my end.

I understand you not having the justification to purchase it. That makes sense. But saying non paid for streaming is perfect is wrong.

100% not absolutely flawless.

Navixsport or whatever it is. May be good now. Probably won't be around too long. Probably go down when you're watching it. Mobdro and all that shite not dependable. You just put up with it and think it's perfect.

But as I said. My thoughts are only valid if you can afford it. If you can't. Do whatever ya want. That's not aimed at you dobby btw.

[Emmet]

.

[Theresa]

Horrendous day of travel yesterday, train to Milan ended up breaking down, replacement train horribly late, missed two connections, last train late as well. In total took 12 hours to get door to door in that would have been a 5 hour drive. Trains were double booked, people arguing over reserved seats, I ended up sitting in doorwell with the two dogs in travel case looking out the window. Had a great time away from everyone.

I can see why Deutsche bahn are investing 85 billion into the rail network. Engines overheating apparently.

Where ya headed in Italy? Am on the amalfi coast atm headed to Rome soon then over to Croatia. If there’s a chance crossover beer in there somewhere let’s do it

[Guest]

Just want to make it clear I’m not sports shaming Dobby either, this is a wider forum and societal issue. If you’ve ever been on here giving out about any of water protesters, dole cheats or insurance fraud and you also stream sports GTFO. Fully endorse streaming marvel movies though if you are into that shite

[Lazare]

Don't consider it anyway immoral to stream sports or download movies from mega corporations, fuck em, they can take the hit. Bit of a weird line you're taking on this one PSV.

Downloading music though is totally different imo, unless it's Taylor Swift or someone. Guys scraping a living together creating art shouldn't have to put up with cunts robbing their money.

[ArmaniJeans]

Gone Fishing with Paul Whitehouse and Bob Mortimer on BBC2 is excellent - it's a not-a-lot happens program with the two of them just having a yap with some token attempts at catching a fish on various rivers. Really works though.

2nd series starts Friday night BBC2 8pm.

[eamonhonda]

Don't consider it anyway immoral to stream sports or download movies from mega corporations, fuck em, they can take the hit. Bit of a weird line you're taking on this one PSV.

Downloading music though is totally different imo, unless it's Taylor Swift or someone. Guys scraping a living together creating art shouldn't have to put up with cunts robbing their money.

If you use Spotify or Google music you're pretty much robbing them anyway.

[Lazare]

If you use Spotify or Google music you're pretty much robbing them anyway.

True-ish I suppose.

At least something is going to them though. Also, those platforms create a lot of awareness of artists, leading to other revenue streams, gigs etc

[eamonhonda]

Id be happy enough as a musician if people illegally downloaded my music but filled out my gigs

[CHDad]

Id be happy enough as a musician if people illegally downloaded my music but filled out my gigs

Most musicians aren't as talented as they think they are. Just very very lucky. This should be their attitude, work for the millions. Spoiled bastards.

[Lazare]

Sky once had the balls to charge people €1.50 a minute for the privilege of calling up enquiring about becoming a customer.

Them wanting to charge me €25 to replace their faulty remote is a grudge I will always hold.

Stream away, and feel good about it.

[Kayroo]

Don't consider it anyway immoral to stream sports or download movies from mega corporations, fuck em, they can take the hit. Bit of a weird line you're taking on this one PSV.

Downloading music though is totally different imo, unless it's Taylor Swift or someone. Guys scraping a living together creating art shouldn't have to put up with cunts robbing their money.

So your view on theft is that it's ok once the person you're stealing from can afford it?

[6starpool]

So your view on theft is that it's ok once the person you're stealing from can afford it?

I'd download a car.

[DeadParrot]

So your view on theft is that it's ok once the person you're stealing from can afford it?

I think the service providers need to catch up with the technology.
I download precisely zero music since Spotify family offer kicked off and download a fraction (indie wnload nothing I stream but that's a definition issue I'm unsure of) of the tv/movies I used to since netflix/Disney/wwe network got going.
At present, the only tv/movies I stream are items that are unavailable to me.
E.g sports. 3pm kick offs /supporter packages or I follow. TV. Episodes that won't broadcast here. Amazon prime exclusives that I was paying for but cannot see here.
Give people the means to legally use the technology that exists to consume their media and they will.
Ignore that it exists and people will use it anyway.

[careca]

I dont watch enough to justify it. Have all the CL games on Virgin now. So the only PL games I watch are United and then the big games and derbies. Some weekends I wouldnt even watch a game. The very odd occasion when a stream has crashed I've just popped over to the pub and had a couple of pints watching it. Couldn't justify the extra €45 a month virgin quoted to add sports.

Give the kid a break, can't expect Dobby to fork out for that

[Lazare]

So your view on theft is that it's ok once the person you're stealing from can afford it?

No, not in general. Only in this case.

I believe Sky forcing me to pay €25 to replace their faulty product is theft. Eye for an eye.

[The Situation]

Tbf as humans our ability to justify something to ourselves is far more dependant on the repercussions of the action/offense with morality being a very distant afterthought.

[elbows]

https://youtu.be/NwrmtOKfSnE

[The Istanbul]

So your view on theft is that it's ok once the person you're stealing from can afford it?

Beat me to the punch

[Guest]

Tbf as humans our ability to justify something to ourselves is far more dependant on the repercussions of the action/offense with morality being a very distant afterthought.

There is probably some element of truth to that but it seems like something more applicable to the decision-making of children over adults.
Morality is rarely a distant memory in the decision-making process of adults imo.

[ionapaul]

Surely stealing from a rich person that can afford it *is* less bad than stealing from someone who can't? Still wrong, but on a sliding scale of good to bad, stealing from the rich isn't as far along as stealing from the poor.

[Trippie]

Where ya headed in Italy? Am on the amalfi coast atm headed to Rome soon then over to Croatia. If there’s a chance crossover beer in there somewhere let’s do it

I'm inbetween Treviso and Venice for next two weeks, then bologna for a week, Genoa for a week and back to Milan end of the month.

[Lazare]

Whether you hand back that overpaid change tenner to the spar girl or not is a good indicator of where your morality is at.

Whether you watch a patchy stream of Chelsea or not is not.

[Guest]

Surely stealing from a rich person that can afford it *is* less bad than stealing from someone who can't? Still wrong, but on a sliding scale of good to bad, stealing from the rich isn't as far along as stealing from the poor.

Perhaps from a utilitarian perspective you could argue that point as the reduction in the wealth of the one stolen from leads to a smaller reduction in utility than the utility gained by the robber therefore leading to a justification of "the result justified the means".

However if you take the opposing deontological view which is basically Kant "that the ends don't justify the means" then the idea of stealing can never be justified irrespective of the result.

*Kayroo to plug any holes there

[Goodluck2me]

Don't consider it anyway immoral to stream sports or download movies from mega corporations, fuck em, they can take the hit. Bit of a weird line you're taking on this one PSV.

Downloading music though is totally different imo, unless it's Taylor Swift or someone. Guys scraping a living together creating art shouldn't have to put up with cunts robbing their money.

Some unusual cognitive dissonance on that one... what about indie movie producers they ok? How many oscars or box office sales do they need to qualify for the download pass?

Surely stealing from a rich person that can afford it *is* less bad than stealing from someone who can't? Still wrong, but on a sliding scale of good to bad, stealing from the rich isn't as far along as stealing from the poor.

It’s equally bad to do both, the repercussions for the recipient is all that differs. Punching a woman and a professional boxer in the face are both wrong, the latter is more likely to be able to deal with it, but it’s equally wrong.

[ionapaul]

I'm obviously on the wrong side of the philosophers here; I truly believe that (taking an above example to the Nth degree ) kicking Hitler in the face is not as bad as kicking a new-born baby in the face.

[Keane]

Is it wrong to climb a tree to watch a match over the wall rather than pay a tenner to go in the gate?

[Hectorjelly]

All property is theft

[The Situation]

There is probably some element of truth to that but it seems like something more applicable to the decision-making of children over adults.
Morality is rarely a distant memory in the decision-making process of adults imo.

I dunno there's a very large proportion of us who can steal 1000's worth of sport/music/tv shows online over our life time without blinking. Whereas most of those wouldn't dream of stealing a can of coke from a shop and what's more would probably dawn our outrage cap if we saw someone doing so. It's fair to say the former is far worse in terms of scale and takes a bigger moral leap yet we can justify it far more readily. It's completely the potential of repercussion that's guiding our decisions.

[DeadParrot]

Perhaps from a utilitarian perspective you could argue that point as the reduction in the wealth of the one stolen from leads to a smaller reduction in utility than the utility gained by the robber therefore leading to a justification of "the result justified the means".

However if you take the opposing deontological view which is basically Kant "that the ends don't justify the means" then the idea of stealing can never be justified irrespective of the result.

*Kayroo to plug any holes there

You can justify anything with Kant as long as you as specific with your maxim.

e.g
you could make the argument that Sky/BT are using people as a means to an end by demanding money of them in order for those people to observe events carried out that contribute to human happiness.. As such, satellite tv, and on a larger scale, free market capitalism, fails to adhere to Kant's principles in the formula of humanity.

Kant isa great man for absolutes but he falls down in the real world.
He was against wanking as it reduced the party to a means of sexual gratification
(I'm sure there is a getting your end away pun there )

[V for Vendetta]

Just want to make it clear I’m not sports shaming Dobby either, this is a wider forum and societal issue. If you’ve ever been on here giving out about any of water protesters, dole cheats or insurance fraud and you also stream sports GTFO. Fully endorse streaming marvel movies though if you are into that shite

You’re right to point out the hypocrisy sir but a bit like Solksjaer I just wonder sometimes about your place on the high horse. What makes you uniquely qualified for calling everyone else out? Are you the man without sin who can cast the first stone? If so do you not have a higher calling then needling everyone here on their illegal downloading? Maybe you don’t and maybe this is the crime that is leading to the rest of worlds ills...

I personally feel like illegal downloading is so easy right now that it’s akin to growing fruit on the side of the road and being outraged when passers by eat some...it doesn’t make it right but it’s going to happen wholesale.

Ultimately for sports the fans are the value so monetizing the fans/viewers in a way that isn’t likely to fall prey to piracy will ultimately win out. I expect sport viewing will be “free” again for all in the future but they’ll extract value from the fans in different ways. A bit like Spotify really. Premium Sports tv is like the last days of cds imo.

[V for Vendetta]

I'd download a car specs to a 3D printer and make it

FYP.

[Silver-Tiger]

Premium Sports tv is like the last days of cds imo.

You're right to an extent. So enjoy it.

In 5 years you'll be spending more when you have separate subscriptions for NFL Gamepass, Premier League Pass, Leinster TV, PGA Tour live. F1 Pass or whatever floats your boat.

Here and bargain alerts on boards will be flooded with how to get them for 3 quid cheaper using a Turkish VPN. Torture.

[V for Vendetta]

All property is theft

You’ve changed man! I remember a ruthless professional poker player now it’s like comrade HJ. The Fitz burned you good whatever happened.

[Lazare]

The point that seems to be missed here with all the high horsing is that the main revenue stream of TV companies is advertising and sponsorship. The market value of which is actually enhanced by illegal streaming.

There is no way these corps aren't using streaming stats to boost revenue.

Same with TV shows and movies and product placement revenue.

[V for Vendetta]

You're right to an extent. So enjoy it.

In 5 years you'll be spending more when you have separate subscriptions for NFL Gamepass, Premier League Pass, Leinster TV, PGA Tour live. F1 Pass or whatever floats your boat.

Here and bargain alerts on boards will be flooded with how to get them for 3 quid cheaper using a Turkish VPN. Torture.

Do you not think a Spotify will arise? Charging more and more to a smaller elite doesn’t maximise sport revenues in the same way that charging more for cds was doomed to failure. Spotify is worth more now than all of the music industry 15 years ago.

[Guest]

I dunno there's a very large proportion of us who can steal 1000's worth of sport/music/tv shows online over our life time without blinking. Whereas most of those wouldn't dream of stealing a can of coke from a shop and what's more would probably dawn our outrage cap if we saw someone doing so. It's fair to say the former is far worse in terms of scale and takes a bigger moral leap yet we can justify it far more readily. It's completely the potential of repercussion that's guiding our decisions.

The example is perfectly fine but the crux of what impacts the morality of it for me at least is not the repercussions but rather the proximity to the stealing.
You make the decision to steal online but it's an abstract mode of stealing, it's the physical act of stealing the can of coke rather than the repercussions that guides your morality.

It feels somewhat analogous to the trolley problem:

You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?

Obviously we know the ethical decision we take in the above example, however if you change it ever so slightly to:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

It's been proven that people make different decisions due the proximity of the moral dilemma, the lever offers an abstraction to the decision while physically pushing the person leads to a difference in morality. People take different decisions even though they are the exact same moral dilemma.
It's not precisely the same but I do think the abstraction of the action impacts moral decisions significantly such as online media etc.

[Keane]

I dunno there's a very large proportion of us who can steal 1000's worth of sport/music/tv shows online over our life time without blinking. Whereas most of those wouldn't dream of stealing a can of coke from a shop and what's more would probably dawn our outrage cap if we saw someone doing so. It's fair to say the former is far worse in terms of scale and takes a bigger moral leap yet we can justify it far more readily. It's completely the potential of repercussion that's guiding our decisions.

There's something about that description that jars with me for some reason.

How do you assign a value to my watching or not watching something, when my watching or not watching makes no difference to it.

If Sky decide to jack up their prices by 100X am I now stealing millions 'worth'? Feels like nonsense somehow.

[Hectorjelly]

Also the last thing Soccer teams need is more money.

[Lazare]

Some unusual cognitive dissonance on that one... what about indie movie producers they ok? How many oscars or box office sales do they need to qualify for the download pass?

.

You seem to have missed the mega corporations bit Joe.

Having said that, I probably wouldn't have stopped to think about that when it comes to movies. Certainly do with music though as it's what I'm interested in.

Watch about one movie a year though.

[ionapaul]

Tool now available on Spotify! Finally...

[Silver-Tiger]

Do you not think a Spotify will arise? Charging more and more to a smaller elite doesn’t maximise sport revenues in the same way that charging more for cds was doomed to failure. Spotify is worth more now than all of the music industry 15 years ago.

Every sport will have their separate packages. So if say Dobby who literally just wants to watch United. He'll pay for it because it will be cheaper than paying for sky. Will have easy access to it and will actually be flawless. They weren't getting money from him. They will then.

But i'll have to have Prem league package. NFL package and PGA's service.

So i can see me shilling out more a month that i am at the moment. And there's plenty like me that will have to add on Rugby and Horse Racing, F1, Cricket.

The sport nut will be getting hit.

[Keane]

It feels like there's an element of this where for intellectual property or whatever, willingness to pay somehow comes into play.

Like for a match, if I'll watch it if it's free but never in a million years pay a tenner to watch it (i.e. just won't bother watching it) - is there any sense in which Sky have lost out on a tenner from me? Maybe they've lost a euro that I might have theoretically paid but the tenner was never in the stars for them.

It's seems different to stealing say a can of coke where I've now deprived the owner of the opportunity to sell it to someone else.

[Guest]

On the ethical questions and what V4V said about 3D printers reminded me of an interview question I was asked a while back:

Given the background you know and company's ethos, please write a short argument (~ 250 words in length) detailing whether or not <insert company name> should support a business that wants to sell plans for 3D printed guns.

We recommend reviewing the following article as a starting point:
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-...-guns-bullets/

I thought it was a pretty good question tbf.

[newbie2]

[V for Vendetta]

It feels like there's an element of this where for intellectual property or whatever, willingness to pay somehow comes into play.

Like for a match, if I'll watch it if it's free but never in a million years pay a tenner to watch it (i.e. just won't bother watching it) - is there any sense in which Sky have lost out on a tenner from me? Maybe they've lost a euro that I might have theoretically paid but the tenner was never in the stars for them.

It's seems different to stealing say a can of coke where I've now deprived the owner of the opportunity to sell it to someone else.

Listen to the freakonomics podcast with the founder of Spotify about two months ago. These were his exact thoughts on the music industry which lead to the development of Spotify. Basically the publishers were leaving a lot of money on the table by offering a binary choice and price point (which was easily able to be digitized and stolen). Offering a lower price model and more choice expands the market and makes it more valuable. However there are winners and losers. More and varied sports get a profile and seen by a wider audience but the top tier sports may not make so much directly and will have to generate more revenue from selling merchandise to a larger audience.

[V for Vendetta]

Every sport will have their separate packages. So if say Dobby who literally just wants to watch United. He'll pay for it because it will be cheaper than paying for sky. Will have easy access to it and will actually be flawless. They weren't getting money from him. They will then.

But i'll have to have Prem league package. NFL package and PGA's service.

So i can see me shilling out more a month that i am at the moment. And there's plenty like me that will have to add on Rugby and Horse Racing, F1, Cricket.

The sport nut will be getting hit.

For a while maybe. But the future sports nut is watching egames on their personal devices and not remotely interested in traditional sport that costs money to access. In the long run the big name sports go into a death spiral.

[Denny Crane]

Do you not think a Spotify will arise? Charging more and more to a smaller elite doesn’t maximise sport revenues in the same way that charging more for cds was doomed to failure. Spotify is worth more now than all of the music industry 15 years ago.

Could be the future, but doesn't bode well that Spotify doesn't make money, nearly all their revenue goes to their top artists, and nothing to the small guys.

[Keane]

Listen to the freakonomics podcast with the founder of Spotify about two months ago. These were his exact thoughts on the music industry which lead to the development of Spotify. Basically the publishers were leaving a lot of money on the table by offering a binary choice and price point (which was easily able to be digitized and stolen). Offering a lower price model and more choice expands the market and makes it more valuable. However there are winners and losers. More and varied sports get a profile and seen by a wider audience but the top tier sports may not make so much directly and will have to generate more revenue from selling merchandise to a larger audience.

Sounds like the streamers are the real heroes.

[V for Vendetta]

Could be the future, but doesn't bode well that Spotify doesn't make money, nearly all their revenue goes to their top artists, and nothing to the small guys.

For every Tesla there’s an Amazon. Mr market seems to believe that they are doing alright.

[Kayroo]

An awful lot of arguments here about the morality of theft don't stand up to even the smallest scrutiny.

Let's take Lazare's basic first one - theft is justifiable if the theft is perpetrated against someone who can afford it. That's not a justification of the theft, it is a mitigation of the outcome. The theft remains morally unjustifiable.

If the principle that theft was justified by the resources of the victim, then people should have little problem walking in to Marks and Spencers and taking food off the shelf and walking out the door without paying. Or walking out of an Apple Store with a stolen iPhone. The argument that it denies the vendor the ability to sell to another person is without merit. That would only be true if the item stolen was unique. In a mass production world there is little logical difference between a stolen can of coke and a stolen intellectual property.

Lazare's second point "ah sure it's all ad revenue anyway so the streams just boost that" again misses the central point - that is a mitigation of a morally unjustifiable act, not a justification of the act itself.


The simple fact is that theft is morally wrong. There are any number of ways to justify why someone would steal, but the act itself does not become a moral good just because of those reasons. Engaging in self-serving justification doesn't alter that.

You stole something. Therefore you are a thief. Are you as morally culpable as someone who robs a bank? No. But let's not kid ourselves as to the basis of the act. You intentionally consumed a commercial service from someone else without their lawful permission for your own use and gratification and without paying them for that service. That is theft.

[hotspur]

Isn't it rather perverse that football went from being freely broadcast to those who paid for their TV licence to being bought by an odious media mogul, making people pay through the nose for it, to swell the coffers of one of the richest people in the world and help pay Paul Pogba hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for not giving a damn?

It's an ugly wealth transfer. I'm no comrade Zod, but football was the people's game, still is, but it being taken over by Murdoch is what the real theft is, and it doesn't matter that he paid money for it.

Isn't it €60 a month extra now to watch live football on Sky Sports, BT Sport, and Premier Sports? You can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but it was stolen from us and sold back as a luxury item.

[Solksjaer!]

I used to look in the window of the telly shop in Crumlin shopping centre at the rugby on Saturdays . Colour Tv's baby lots of them.
I'd be hooshed away from the window but could still see from outside Hector greys.

V4V gone on my grudge list. ( I'll think of something)

[AndyFatBastard]

Also the last thing Soccer teams need is more money.

This is Carlos Tevez's leaked payslip from 2012. Look how much tax he pays. The Premier League combined contributed a total of £3.3 billion in tax to the Treasury in 2016-17.

Soccer teams making money is a good thing. Let them make all the money in the world, and we can take half of it to pay for schools and hospitals.

[Keane]

Isn't it rather perverse that football went from being freely broadcast to those who paid for their TV licence to being bought by an odious media mogul, making people pay through the nose for it, to swell the coffers of one of the richest people in the world and help pay Paul Pogba hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for not giving a damn?

It's an ugly wealth transfer. I'm no comrade Zod, but football was the people's game, still is, but it being taken over by Murdoch is what the real theft is, and it doesn't matter that he paid money for it.

Isn't it €60 a month extra now to watch live football on Sky Sports, BT Sport, and Premier Sports? You can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but it was stolen from us and sold back as a luxury item.

Ooof, that was like a kick in the gut - well put.

[bohsman]

Micro transactions the way to go imo. I would happily pay a couple of euro for a good stream of a sporting event I want to watch (paid 4euro for Cork City v Bohs a couple of weeks ago) I do pay for Netflix and Spotify. No legal route to watch a lot of the sports and TV I want to watch so I have no issue watching a shit stream thats worth about what I paid for it.

[Kayroo]

Isn't it rather perverse that football went from being freely broadcast to those who paid for their TV licence to being bought by an odious media mogul, making people pay through the nose for it, to swell the coffers of one of the richest people in the world and help pay Paul Pogba hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for not giving a damn?

It's an ugly wealth transfer. I'm no comrade Zod, but football was the people's game, still is, but it being taken over by Murdoch is what the real theft is, and it doesn't matter that he paid money for it.

Isn't it €60 a month extra now to watch live football on Sky Sports, BT Sport, and Premier Sports? You can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but it was stolen from us and sold back as a luxury item.

There was very little live football on television prior to Sky Sports coming along. The idea of matches on tv weekly wasn't really as prevalent as it is now. No football league match was shown live on British television between 1960 and 1983.

ITV showed one match a week on Sunday afternoons from 1983 to 1992. The "people's game" was sold to Sky by the clubs after they decided to quit the football league and set up their own Premier League. The advent of regular weekly football on television has grown since then.

So football wasn't stolen from the people. It created a version of itself and sold itself. Blame Leeds United, Manchester United, Tottenham, Arsenal, Everton etc. for that one.

[Guest]

Micro transactions the way to go imo. I would happily pay a couple of euro for a good stream of a sporting event I want to watch (paid 4euro for Cork City v Bohs a couple of weeks ago) I do pay for Netflix and Spotify. No legal route to watch a lot of the sports and TV I want to watch so I have no issue watching a shit stream thats worth about what I paid for it.

I'm sure you've used one at some point but I quite like the NBA/NFL League Pass option, I haven't signed up this year but I've shared the NBA pass with a mate, £12.50 a month each, 1200+ games, it can be obtained cheaper using a VPN but given the volume of games I feel it's good value.

[Guest]

Isn't it rather perverse that football went from being freely broadcast to those who paid for their TV licence to being bought by an odious media mogul, making people pay through the nose for it, to swell the coffers of one of the richest people in the world and help pay Paul Pogba hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for not giving a damn?

It's an ugly wealth transfer. I'm no comrade Zod, but football was the people's game, still is, but it being taken over by Murdoch is what the real theft is, and it doesn't matter that he paid money for it.

Isn't it €60 a month extra now to watch live football on Sky Sports, BT Sport, and Premier Sports? You can't put the genie back in the bottle now, but it was stolen from us and sold back as a luxury item.

Opera now is cheaper to go to and all!

Could always go watch Bohs or Pat's if you want to watch old school football

[Silver-Tiger]

There was very little live football on television prior to Sky Sports coming along. The idea of matches on tv weekly wasn't really as prevalent as it is now. No football league match was shown live on British television between 1960 and 1983.

ITV showed one match a week on Sunday afternoons from 1983 to 1992. The "people's game" was sold to Sky by the clubs after they decided to quit the football league and set up their own Premier League. The advent of regular weekly football on television has grown since then.

So football wasn't stolen from the people. It created a version of itself and sold itself. Blame Leeds United, Manchester United, Tottenham, Arsenal, Everton etc. for that one.

Yeah this. @hotspur what are you on about? Sounds great and Keane loved it but you never had it like this. Ever.

You had MOTD. You still have that.