If someone felt that they had been promised access to tomorrow's game and are entitled to coverage regardless of how the EFL redefines "weekend", how would they go about streaming it for nowt?
You don't need to say this hypothetically. **** em, I've paid for a few Saturday away games this season but after the club's pathetic response I'll be getting any illegal stream I can for the rest of the season and they can shove their tenner up their arse
For all that ifollow continually spam those that have paid for the games with messages about illegal streaming, actual illegal streams of ifollow games of small teams like us are very difficult to find. The vast majority of those believing they'll be watching an illegal stream on Tuesday won't be.
I'm sure if you check you'll have one. There's no guarantee yet whether there will be a stream available or not, I'm sure that if there is one then lots of people will receive one but there's no real point yet so I doubt anymore will be going out tonight.
I think we can all argue the case for illegal streaming and on this particular game get to a consensus that the EFL are a set of whatevers. But it's probably not wise to be openly admitting to using illegal streams or making it obvious you're sending links to illegal streams through DMs. It's a pretty open forum viewed by anyone who wants to take a look.
It would be an interesting court case Why did you use an illegal stream? I paid for it in my season ticket
Speaking purely from what you've posted, you're admitting to more than just the Rotherham game. So I'm not sure what argument you'd be using in court but it would get pulled to pieces. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you on the EFL ruling. Just suggesting folk get a bit wiser on being so open about streaming illegally - whether we agree it's a fair thing to do or not.
I'd counterclaim against the club for misrepresentation. But that doesn't matter, as my OP is purely hypothetical.
It's impossible to send a link to an illegal stream the day before the match has even kicked off. There is no stream. Even if it had, a link to a perfectly legal site that may or may not eventually contain links to a different site isn't illegal if a suspected link sender isn't the one streaming it or forcing anyone to click on anything that may or may not subsequently appear on it. The suspected link sender isn't responsible for what may appear on the site or what a user may choose to do with that content. The suspected link sender may have even been sending £10 for the OP to watch it legally. It's unlikely as the suspected link sender is as tight as a badger's arse but the thread reader hasn't got a clue what the dm was about.
If you'd paid for a meal and the waiter dropped it on the floor would you just pay for another meal or expect them to provide another one without paying again?
Giving @SuperTyke a run for his money there! The terms and conditions we signed in to were dependant on the permissions granted by the broadcasting partner. As that broadcasting partner has decided to rob us all blind on this game there's very little we can do about it in reality.
2 totally different situations!!! A can’t believe folk are getting there knickers in a twist about a game that’s not on IFollow.......like a say either pay a tenner or stop moaning, simples!
Consumer rights act. Terms must not be 'unfair'. Unfair is described as amongst other things contradicting the advertised product or service. People need to stop blindly defending the club just because they say some ******** every time.