11 years jail for this? Really?

[bcfcredandwhite]

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

[Ciderhead433]

Maybe trying to deter it as soon as they were caught and the service was stopped other sites have started. 

Like any illegal produce that makes money always someone will risk it.

 

[RobinTuga]

It also speaks to the ridiculousness that is football pricing in England that these schemes find so much success. Over here in Portugal for example you can get pretty much every Premier League game for just 10 euros a month and you can choose if you want it through your cable provider or online streaming.

 

 

[Bristol Rob]

30 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

I think what this tells us, is that people who hurt children aren't given long enough sentences. 

 

[Bris Red]

Just shows how broken the judicial system is in this country when Child abusers and rapists are getting less sentences then somebody facilitating streaming of football matches.

[Silvio Dante]

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

[cheese]

It's always been the case that the property of the rich is more valued than the lives of the working class.  And it probably always will be.

[Guest Dennis Potter II]

What an awful sentence. Way way too long. What this says about Britain is terrible. The sentence is far far too long for this. This sort of length should be reserved for murder. If for crime, then for robbing poor people or perhaps stealing large sums from the public. But this? This helped poor people - football access is extortionately expensive. What a sickening sentence. 11 years. Where is Britain headed?

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, Bris Red said:

Just shows how broken the judicial system is in this country when Child abusers and rapists are getting less sentences then somebody facilitating streaming of football matches.

Because rapists and child abusers don't hurt rupert murdoch or powerful people in government 

[LondonRobin]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

Edited May 30, 2023 by LondonRobin

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

[Midred]

2 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

It's also somehow seen* that mostly financial crimes don't hurt anyone. That's why they have the open prisons for bankers, pension misappropriation and politicians. 

*seen - that it only affects the poor and lower middle class.

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, LondonRobin said:

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

I thought Murdoch had nothing to do with Sky and that they have been owned by Comcast for the last 4 or 5 years, I must be wrong.

If Murdoch is the 'victim' does that make those who might have been exploited in the laundering of the money 'beneficiaries?'.

To wash that much dirty money is likely to be near impossible to do without moving it through shady means, could be drugs, terrorism, people smuggling or sex workers.

 

[Gimme Shelton]

According to some every evil in the world is Murdoch's fault,he probably owns the judge who gave this sentence.

[robinforlife2]

Whilst sentences for some other sentences are clearly too low, a judge faces little choice.

The ring leader is the only person who has got 11 years here, the remainder got 3 - 5.5 years, although one, got higher than this as he was also found to have child pornography on his computers.

The sentencing guidelines are clear and because it is more than £500,000 it is automatically category one, and because it triggers more than 3 sections on the high culpability chart, it would always be category 1, culpability 1. The unquestionable facts for high Culpability are, 1: A leading role, in a group run fraud, 2: Involvement of others on the basis of influence, 3: Sophisticated nature & planning, 4: Activity over a sustained period of time.

Therefore on 1A, the guidelines are 5-8 years, with a starting point of 7 years, based on £1,000,000. The maximum sentence that can be given is 14 years, so had he not pleased guilty, he would have got 14 years, as £7m is at the top of all the scales, so he was looking at 14 years, before 30% credit for guilty plea, which brings sentence to 11 years.

Because it is a non violent crime, he will automatically be released after 5 and a half years.

The others sentences range from 3 years (would be  out in 13 and a half months on tag) to 5.5 years (will be leased after 2 years 9 months, not eligible for tag).

Another mans sentence was higher because of the sex charges he pleaded guilty on.

11 years may seem harsh, but it's top of the category and top of the culpability. If no one else was involved, and it was just him, he would have got possibly 7-8 years, but he was the ring leader, the planner and I suspect money laundering and tax avoidance comes into it as well, as there is no way this income would have been fully declared.

 

The person outlining the lady who stole 100K of benefits, up to 100K can be a suspended sentence if there is enough mitigating factors. The range is 18 months to 4 years, anything under 2 years can be suspended. She may have had many reasons, why it was deemed in the best interest to give a suspended sentence and it was within the range.

The minute, you are hitting £1m, you are top of the category and that's 6 years minimum. It's not so much the category that determines the sentence, but more the culpability, which is why he got the maximum. 

[Silvio Dante]

43 minutes ago, LondonRobin said:

Bear in mind who the victim, is in this case Rupert Murdoch, I couldn’t care less if he get defrauded out of 7 million as he probably avoids paying 7million tax a year also. Furthermore think about the people who benefit from their “crime”, football supporters who are getting priced out of games or can’t attend for a worthy reason, get to watch their team at a lesser expense from the comfort of their homes. It’s a bit different to a gang defrauding pensioners by preying on their vulnerabilities. Hence why we can’t just look at it as a “7 million pound fraud case” IMO - Also do we actually know they are involved in other illegal activities.

You’re kind of missing the point.

This gang aren’t some kind of Robin Hood group who are saying “Rob the rich and give football to all” and are operating in an altruistic way. They’ve seen a way to make money through fraudulent means and exploited it. They, in all likelihood, don’t even like football. If it wasn’t corporations, it’d be someone else - and next time could easily be a more vulnerable group. As @Bristol Rob puts it very eloquently, that kind of cash from illicit means needs laundering - and this isn’t like with John Palmer now where they go in Barclays Bedminster. It 100% will be going into the dark market as part of that process.

Inherently a crime has been committed - irrespective of how you class the “victim”.  If it wasn’t streams it’d be something else illegal. So, the question is not whether you dislike Murdoch (not involved, and FWIW I dislike him and his entire empire) or think football should be cheaper. It really is as simple as whether you think a £7m fraud warrants 11 years in prison. And conflating it with other crimes, the “beneficiaries” of the fraud, the “victim” or the subject matter is just noise. 
 

It really is that simple.

[Red Skin]

Sadly, money and protection of corporations matters more than people in our society.  

Edited May 30, 2023 by Red Skin

[Red-Robbo]

38 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Whilst sentences for some other sentences are clearly too low, a judge faces little choice.

The ring leader is the only person who has got 11 years here, the remainder got 3 - 5.5 years, although one, got higher than this as he was also found to have child pornography on his computers.

The sentencing guidelines are clear and because it is more than £500,000 it is automatically category one, and because it triggers more than 3 sections on the high culpability chart, it would always be category 1, culpability 1. The unquestionable facts for high Culpability are, 1: A leading role, in a group run fraud, 2: Involvement of others on the basis of influence, 3: Sophisticated nature & planning, 4: Activity over a sustained period of time.

Therefore on 1A, the guidelines are 5-8 years, with a starting point of 7 years, based on £1,000,000. The maximum sentence that can be given is 14 years, so had he not pleased guilty, he would have got 14 years, as £7m is at the top of all the scales, so he was looking at 14 years, before 30% credit for guilty plea, which brings sentence to 11 years.

Because it is a non violent crime, he will automatically be released after 5 and a half years.

The others sentences range from 3 years (would be  out in 13 and a half months on tag) to 5.5 years (will be leased after 2 years 9 months, not eligible for tag).

Another mans sentence was higher because of the sex charges he pleaded guilty on.

11 years may seem harsh, but it's top of the category and top of the culpability. If no one else was involved, and it was just him, he would have got possibly 7-8 years, but he was the ring leader, the planner and I suspect money laundering and tax avoidance comes into it as well, as there is no way this income would have been fully declared.

 

The person outlining the lady who stole 100K of benefits, up to 100K can be a suspended sentence if there is enough mitigating factors. The range is 18 months to 4 years, anything under 2 years can be suspended. She may have had many reasons, why it was deemed in the best interest to give a suspended sentence and it was within the range.

The minute, you are hitting £1m, you are top of the category and that's 6 years minimum. It's not so much the category that determines the sentence, but more the culpability, which is why he got the maximum. 

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the sentence broke sentencing guidelines, merely that it is a reflection that our legal system gives higher weighting to property crime against corporations than it does to many crimes against the person. 

[alexukhc]

20 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

Sadly, money and protection of corporations matters more than people in our society.  

Jackpot

[bcfcredandwhite]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I get what the OP is saying,  conflating one sentence with another for an unrelated crime is never helpful (FWIW I do agree that the Baby P sentence was lenient. The Bulger comparison is really unhelpful as the perpetrators were minors when undertaking so subject to different guidelines. There’s a whole other topic about the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation or deterrent there when the two have gone different routes, but not for this thread).

So, you have to take the crime in isolation. And although I “get” that this may be seen as lower level, the truth is there is never a victimless crime. This was inherently a fraud that netted £7m. Do I think Sky prices would have reduced for others had £7m come their way? Probably not. But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

More seriously, these “lower level” crimes are often windows into funding of more serious operations - not necessarily by the perpetrators here, but by their associates who they would have engaged with in setting up and running of the operation. The £10 fee partially finds its way into some darker places.

Do I think Sky and BT cost too much? Hell yeah. Do I think sentencing for some crimes could be more? Yes. Do I, however, think that the perpetrators of a £7m fraud (that likely funnelled money into worse operations) deserve a long stretch? Absolutely.

Take football out of it. Read it as a £7m fraud then ask if the sentence is just or not.

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

[robinforlife2]

19 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the sentence broke sentencing guidelines, merely that it is a reflection that our legal system gives higher weighting to property crime against corporations than it does to many crimes against the person. 

It's not just corporations though. Every football club in the Premier League is affected by this fraud. It's not a case of someone just having it off, with sky. It's a case of someone creating something which was illegal, knowing it was illegal, and using methods which are illegal, to benefit to the tune of £7m. They also had STORED everyone's payment details and card details on files, again illegal. Now the police have access to all this. If you use Paypal / World Pay etc , the payment details are never given to the seller, so these people literally used a program and payment software so they knew your card details. The fact is, the group running this, were not football fans, it was an OCG, who probably used the mother to fund other matters, and why did they store everyone's payment records ?

Forget that it's someone selling football streams, this is a £7m fraud, and the likely hood is, those who paid, could and would have ended up targets of frauds in the future.

[IAmNick]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

But it is a base fact that committing a crime that denies income to the provider has the impact of pushing prices up on the remainder of the providers wares.

I don't think that's a fact at all. Sky just pocketed less cash than they would have - they will push their prices up as much as they possibly can get away with regardless. They're not keeping them low because they're thinking "Oh we've made loads of dosh this year let's give Joe Bloggs a break on his bill next year and not raise it". If sky get 5x the subscribers next year I am SURE they will not be dropping their price by 20% or whatever as a result, they'll be Scrooge McDuck diving into an even bigger vat of gold coins.

[robinforlife2]

8 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

[Bristol Rob]

19 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

A well thought out and articulate response, with some excellent points raised 

I take your point about comparing fraud with murder as being different - but I guess I have my own ‘serious crime’ meter which places murder at the top followed very closely by rape and sexual crimes, with assault and GBH in the middle along with serious fraud, with minor theft and petty crime at the bottom. 
I also feel that the victim of this particular type of fraud is not straightforward or comparable to a victim of a direct theft, or where someone has promised goods or services but taken the money and not delivered. 
For example, if don’t like the prices of goods in my local Waitrose or Miller & Carter, then I can go to Lidl for my shopping and Wetherspoon for a beer, without Waitrose or M&C sending the boys around. In a ‘free’ country like we claim to be we should ENCOURAGE competition, not ban it. 
With football broadcasts, competition has been completely suspended TO PEOPLE IN THE UK, but choices are readily available in other countries by way of BEIN Sports and other foreign broadcasters. These foreign companies have already PAID Sky for the rights to broadcast UK matches, so Sky isn’t missing out on revenue - they have been paid - only possibly not as much as they would like in the monopoly that they hold on sports broadcasting. 

The question of showing 3pm games is a different matter but closely related. Broadcasting 3pm games is prohibited in the UK because the FA believes everyone would sit indoors watching a televised match instead of attending the ground in person. We can debate whether this theory is true or not forever, but we won’t know for sure unless it’s trialled. I happen to disagree with the FAs stance and would point out that broadcasting music festivals and big concerts or other events live doesn’t deter people from attending them and I think that would be the same for football. Anyway, this ‘gang’ were providing an (illegal) service, but basically if you want to watch a 3pm Saturday match on TV in the UK there is no alternative but to watch via a dodgy stream. In this case, although a crime is being committed, there really is NO victim. Nobody is losing money, nobody is being hurt, nothing is being damaged - it’s just the FA rules being broken. 
Yes, confiscate their equipment, take their illegal earnings and possibly give them a community service order, but keeping them in prison costs the struggling taxpayers yet more money and is IMHO unnecessary. 

Okay, a few challenges.

Firstly, I would wager that in the laundering of the money they received, many many people have been hurt.

Secondly, the news this evening said how they were big on selling the idea of the 3pm kick offs, so clubs up and down the country have - probably not to a great extent, but some - seen potential supporters out off from going to a game, would a usual armchair fan spent £25 quid on a League One game, if they could spend £2.50 on a Premier League game.

When Sky bid, they bid with a blended cost, knowing that they will have affiliated broadcasting companies who will pay them for their content, the more accessible that content is, the less it is worth. So despite the fraudsters making millions, the knock on to others, including Sky and BT is likely to be even greater.

Does the 3pm blackout need a review? Yes.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not.

Is televised sport too expensive, maybe. But if clubs are going to pay players upwards of half a million quid a week, some of that money has to come from somewhere.

[Silvio Dante]

28 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I don't think that's a fact at all. Sky just pocketed less cash than they would have - they will push their prices up as much as they possibly can get away with regardless. They're not keeping them low because they're thinking "Oh we've made loads of dosh this year let's give Joe Bloggs a break on his bill next year and not raise it". If sky get 5x the subscribers next year I am SURE they will not be dropping their price by 20% or whatever as a result, they'll be Scrooge McDuck diving into an even bigger vat of gold coins.

FWIW I did say that Sky wouldn’t have dropped their prices had they received £7m, I was more talking a generic. Any business you price in losses from fraud/theft to bottom line and factor that into your top line. So, the base point is if there was no theft/fraud in anything, businesses wouldn’t need to factor that and therefore the top line wouldn’t need adjustment before prices were set. I totally agree they ain’t dropping prices by 20% if they get 5x subscribers though!

 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, robinforlife2 said:

It's not just corporations though. Every football club in the Premier League is affected by this fraud. It's not a case of someone just having it off, with sky. It's a case of someone creating something which was illegal, knowing it was illegal, and using methods which are illegal, to benefit to the tune of £7m. They also had STORED everyone's payment details and card details on files, again illegal. Now the police have access to all this. If you use Paypal / World Pay etc , the payment details are never given to the seller, so these people literally used a program and payment software so they knew your card details. The fact is, the group running this, were not football fans, it was an OCG, who probably used the mother to fund other matters, and why did they store everyone's payment records ?

Forget that it's someone selling football streams, this is a £7m fraud, and the likely hood is, those who paid, could and would have ended up targets of frauds in the future.

 

Tough to feel sorry for the PL or its multimillionaire participants either,  however that isn't the point.

I feel in the UK we punish crimes against property too stringently and crimes against the person too lenientlly. 

 

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

 

Tough to feel sorry for the PL or its multimillionaire participants either,  however that isn't the point.

I feel in the UK we punish crimes against property too stringently and crimes against the person too lenientlly. 

 

Difficult to argue against that. If the perceived punishment needs to act as a deterrent, then you are better off robbing a Rolex off a wrist than robbing a Post Office.

[weepywall]

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

[Bristol Rob]

6 minutes ago, weepywall said:

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

Apples and Oranges, unfortunately.

Should have got life, meaning life.

[cheese]

4 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Unbelievable, and yet I was watching a show on BBC this morning about a woman who ripped off social security to the tune of £100k , she got a 2 year SUSPENDED sentence. It just goes to show ,it's not the crime, but the amount of cash ,that matters !

I'll raise you Michelle Mone - not even been prosecuted yet

[Shelton’s Love Gravy]

6 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

He is going to get bummed too.

And burgled.

Seems a tad disproportionate, I would agree.

It’s not like he’s murdered someone or made anyone into sausages.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Shelton’s Love Gravy

[Port Said Red]

The authorities used terrorist legislation in US and Canada to arrest and detain Adam Lackman, they took all his equipment and removed his rights to a legal defence. Presumably he will never be able to pay the fine he received, but quite how you live the rest of your life paying what you can, I don't know.

https://troypoint.com/tvaddons-kodi-repository-to-pay-millions-in-damages/

[And Its Smith]

11 years for the ringleader in a  £7m worth of fraud? Maybe 2-3 years more than I would have expected but fraud is treated very seriously so not massively surprised 

[robinforlife2]

11 hours ago, weepywall said:

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

Did he get done for Manslaughter or Murder? If it's the latter, it would be life, with a minimum of 15 years, which very rarely does someone get out on 15 years. If it was Manslaughter, as a dangerous and violent crime, they would have to serve two thirds, so they would serve 10 years, before release, plus likely they would have an extended license as well.

The fraud case is auto release on 5.5 years. So there is quite a difference in the sentencing.

[ralphindevon]

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

[robinforlife2]

1 minute ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

A good point, however there is very little that can be done about people streaming, unless their details ate known. With this case, because the OCG held everyone's details on file (which is illegal), the authorities now have the details of everyone using the platform. The likelihood will be a letter sent to each, making it clear that a case of copyright could be brought against them, but won't providing their details are not linked to further platforms in the future. To ignore said letter and be found using them at a later date could leave you open to prosecution. This is a breakthrough case and will certainly lead to others.

[Bristol Rob]

14 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

Like you, I also pay for Sky and BT and I have been tempted with IPTV etc previously, but....

When you suddenly find yourself in a massive hole because your account details have been sold on the black market and your credit score is shot because you knowingly gave your payment info to someone who you knew to be a bit iffy, don't expect your bank to rush to help you. 

I'm sure there are ways to protect yourself, and it probably won't be long until you can transfer crypto to a wallet in exchange for access, but I'd think twice before keying in details to anyone.

The cost of Sky and BT (and Prime) is hefty, but if I had to choose between getting subscription television or going to watch live games, it would be live football every time. 

Maybe the answer lies in some sort of tie-in between clubs at all levels and content providers where 3pm kick-offs are available for a small fee to those who are already affiliated with a particular side. 

[ralphindevon]

12 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Like you, I also pay for Sky and BT and I have been tempted with IPTV etc previously, but....

When you suddenly find yourself in a massive hole because your account details have been sold on the black market and your credit score is shot because you knowingly gave your payment info to someone who you knew to be a bit iffy, don't expect your bank to rush to help you. 

I'm sure there are ways to protect yourself, and it probably won't be long until you can transfer crypto to a wallet in exchange for access, but I'd think twice before keying in details to anyone.

The cost of Sky and BT (and Prime) is hefty, but if I had to choose between getting subscription television or going to watch live games, it would be live football every time. 

Maybe the answer lies in some sort of tie-in between clubs at all levels and content providers where 3pm kick-offs are available for a small fee to those who are already affiliated with a particular side. 

Yeah I share your concerns, despite friends telling me they’ve all been fine for the last couple of year’s it’d be just my luck……

Like you I much prefer watching live football, I’d rather watch Buckland Athletic live than a premier league game on tv.

So with all the new platforms all getting a piece of the action I’m hoping more and more pay to view events will happen. My main sport on tv is cricket, the football I’m happy to pick and chose as long as the price is right. 

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

Yeah I share your concerns, despite friends telling me they’ve all been fine for the last couple of year’s it’d be just my luck……

Like you I much prefer watching live football, I’d rather watch Buckland Athletic live than a premier league game on tv.

So with all the new platforms all getting a piece of the action I’m hoping more and more pay to view events will happen. My main sport on tv is cricket, the football I’m happy to pick and chose as long as the price is right. 

Same here - the cricket coverage that the dedicated sports channels have been producing for a number of years now is exceptional. 

At some point, something will have to give, either broadcasters decide that the cost of having the rights to film the content is too much and withdraw from the process, leaving whoever is left to come in and bid well below what they might have done previously, or - and this is my guess - that after the latest contract ends, the Premier League decide that they'll not be putting it out to tender and will instead be looking at producing their own content, with every game available as-live in every territory and at a cost that it region appropriate. I'd have thought something like that, delivered through an app (either on a fixed (smart television) or mobile device) would be a money spinner, with more money going to clubs that attract the biggest audience, rather than prize money being handed out based on league positon, and via an app they'd have a greater opportunity to control the content and disable apps where they suspect streaming originates from. 

They'll find a way to protect the 'big 6' and to stop them from wanting to join some European Super League, make lots of wealthy people even more wealthy and take fans for every penny they can. The only hope would be that people with Season Tickets etc get less expensive coverage as fans bring the atmosphere, which in turn makes the product more interesting. 

[supercidered]

14 hours ago, alexukhc said:

Jackpot

Adrian Lewis?

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Same here - the cricket coverage that the dedicated sports channels have been producing for a number of years now is exceptional. 

At some point, something will have to give, either broadcasters decide that the cost of having the rights to film the content is too much and withdraw from the process, leaving whoever is left to come in and bid well below what they might have done previously, or - and this is my guess - that after the latest contract ends, the Premier League decide that they'll not be putting it out to tender and will instead be looking at producing their own content, with every game available as-live in every territory and at a cost that it region appropriate. I'd have thought something like that, delivered through an app (either on a fixed (smart television) or mobile device) would be a money spinner, with more money going to clubs that attract the biggest audience, rather than prize money being handed out based on league positon, and via an app they'd have a greater opportunity to control the content and disable apps where they suspect streaming originates from. 

They'll find a way to protect the 'big 6' and to stop them from wanting to join some European Super League, make lots of wealthy people even more wealthy and take fans for every penny they can. The only hope would be that people with Season Tickets etc get less expensive coverage as fans bring the atmosphere, which in turn makes the product more interesting. 

If broadcasting revenues are ever under threat the big 6 will then turn the screw by demanding ownership of the TV rights to their own games, under threat of joining a breakaway super league.

[Bristol Rob]

 

 

[TheReds]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

 

You outing @Davefevs

[bcfcredandwhite]

15 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

 

14 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Okay, a few challenges.

Firstly, I would wager that in the laundering of the money they received, many many people have been hurt.

Secondly, the news this evening said how they were big on selling the idea of the 3pm kick offs, so clubs up and down the country have - probably not to a great extent, but some - seen potential supporters out off from going to a game, would a usual armchair fan spent £25 quid on a League One game, if they could spend £2.50 on a Premier League game.

When Sky bid, they bid with a blended cost, knowing that they will have affiliated broadcasting companies who will pay them for their content, the more accessible that content is, the less it is worth. So despite the fraudsters making millions, the knock on to others, including Sky and BT is likely to be even greater.

Does the 3pm blackout need a review? Yes.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not.

Is televised sport too expensive, maybe. But if clubs are going to pay players upwards of half a million quid a week, some of that money has to come from somewhere.

Again, some fair comments/challenges here. Just to address some of them:

- The Inland Revenue missing out on tax: The group could hardly declare their income on their Tax Returns !!! Maybe if it was legalised the revenue would receive a boost (like some 'soft' drugs - but that's another topic for the politics board)!!
- I never argued that it was not illegal and I always acknowledged that it deserved punishment.
-  'People being signed up are victims now as their details have been compromised' - This begs the question of the the definition of the label 'victim', as these people were willing, sometimes eagerly or even desperately willing, consumers of and participants in this illegal activity. They were certainly put 'at risk' by deciding to sign up to the scheme, but they went into it knowing it was illegal and took the chance anyway. 
- 'This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football' - Football was their 'product' and the current rules around broadcasting gifted them a gap in the market that they easily filled. They themselves may not be football fans - just like a drug dealer may him/herself not be an addict, but they sell drugs. This lot sold football. To argue that it has nothing to do with football is like saying drug dealing has nothing to do with drugs or pimping has nothing to do with prostitution. 

There are also some 'unknowns' which we can debate but it's impossible to conclude:
- For example; 'many people have been hurt through the laundering process' - this as maybe - we can ASSUME, but we really don't know HOW the money was laundered, so cannot tell for sure who, if anyone, was hurt in the process. It was not laundered very well - if at all - considering the group got caught and the figure of £7m was uncovered. I suppose the police and authorities will have some idea but we on this thread don't.
- People would happily pay £2.50 to watch a Prem match on TV, rather than go and watch their own team in their local stadium - if a 'fan' thinks like that then they can't really call themselves a true fan. I personally wouldn't but that's me. YES - if I couldn't get to Ashton Gate on that day for some reason and a Prem match was on then I would probably watch it, but it would NOT replace my passion for going to see the team I support play in person. I would guess (but cannot prove it) that this would be the same for most 'proper' fans too. Either way it's not possible to prove until/if the rules are relaxed - then we would see. 
I would argue that it is possible, if you have the broadband, the knowhow and the patience, to watch almost ANY live match NOW via dodgy streams, yet football attendances do not seem to be dropping. Even if they DO start to drop I would suggest that this has more to do with the cost of living rather than a true fan abandoning his/her club to become an armchair plastic. The cost of living may push people this way, but it would only last as long as the COL crisis then they would be back at their clubs again. That's only my OPINION of course and it can't be proven either way. 

Good debate BTW. 

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

I have never quite understood why people pay for IPTV and give their details over to any Tom,Dick and Harry,there are plenty of free APKs that show sports films etc(with no buffering)where you don’t have to give any details,just use a VPN to change your IP

[TheReds]

43 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I have never quite understood why people pay for IPTV and give their details over to any Tom,Dick and Harry,there are plenty of free APKs that show sports films etc(with no buffering)where you don’t have to give any details,just use a VPN to change your IP

Plenty of people won't know what an IP is, let alone a VPN. 

[weepywall]

4 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

Did he get done for Manslaughter or Murder? If it's the latter, it would be life, with a minimum of 15 years, which very rarely does someone get out on 15 years. If it was Manslaughter, as a dangerous and violent crime, they would have to serve two thirds, so they would serve 10 years, before release, plus likely they would have an extended license as well.

The fraud case is auto release on 5.5 years. So there is quite a difference in the sentencing.

To be honest I'm not sure what he was done for, can't remember now,  it was over 30 years ago.

[SecretSam]

Industrial scale fraud, sure, bang him/her/them up.

But...it's the comparatives: the pathetic sentences handed out to rapists (say), or people who kill whilst driving, or Tories...

[bcfcredandwhite]

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, TheReds said:

Plenty of people won't know what an IP is, let alone a VPN. 

That number is rapidly diminishing though, VPNs get bundled in with cyber security software nowadays, my 83 year old father in law uses one I set up for him and doesn't even know it. 

[Bristol Rob]

3 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

That number is rapidly diminishing though, VPNs get bundled in with cyber security software nowadays, my 83 year old father in law uses one I set up for him and doesn't even know it. 

You say that, but do you remember how outraged people were on behalf of others when the stadium went cashless?

[ralphindevon]

4 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

You can always subscribe to Robins TV, for the season or per match and use a VPN, hundreds or probably thousands do it every game.

You’re not really supposed to but even the club are aware this goes on and this way it’s not a dodgy stream with ads popping up but a properly produced programme that the club get money for. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 30/05/2023 at 19:57, robinforlife2 said:

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

I briefly heard on the radio that the money they made from this would likely fund other organised crimes such as guns, drugs etc.

[Sleepy1968]

8 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

You can always subscribe to Robins TV, for the season or per match and use a VPN, hundreds or probably thousands do it every game.

You’re not really supposed to but even the club are aware this goes on and this way it’s not a dodgy stream with ads popping up but a properly produced programme that the club get money for. 

Yep. I attend 100% home games (subject to illness) and 0% of away games. I have a sub to robinstv, and one to sky (which i may drop due to cost). I know that if a city game I don't attend is being televised I will watch it somehow. I'd rather give the money to city, but would resort to illegal streaming if that was the only remote option available.

Last season I even signed up to livescorebet because I thought they were streaming the facup replay at swansea. (They claimed they were, but didn't )

[daored]

5 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

Similar position to yourself, don’t live in Bristol and three kids under the age of 3 just not practical to go to games. I would happily buy to watch games on TV similar to during covid period. I also wouldn’t be against the club increasing price to reflect a match day ticket price 

[Baba Yaga]

22 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

I think if paying for streams became widespread then the clubs income would go down not up. Obviously you have to travel far but I think even more local people would stop going to games and pay much more than £10 (much more so when you factor in food, drink etc) when there is a cheaper alternative on offer. For every fan that does this you would need probably at least 2-3 new people streaming before it made more money.

Reading the details of the new TV deal I think lots more games won't be Saturday 3pm in a seasons time making people less keen to go every game and also at some point the clean air zone will expand making travel more costly or a bigger ballache. I think either the streams would have to be quite a bit higher than £10 for this to be profitable and I would also worry that streaming would fall off in a big way if the team were doing poorly so paying game by game wouldn't work.

Also if the 3pm blackout was lifted like you also mentioned then many people could already have premier league games on a subscription at the same time City play lots of games, personally I think that would hurt lower league clubs at the expense of the bigger clubs.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Baba Yaga