FA Cup

[Deutsch Wolf]

What if all (or at least, most of) the money for the Wolves games went directly to Wolves?

Mind you, we have a proportion of fans who think there's nothing wrong with buying concession tickets in the South Bank and ripping the club off...and then get very huffy if anyone pulls them up on it and/or they get caught, so who knows.

 

[The Bear]

Oh I'd be one of the first signing up for it. Loads wouldn't though.

Depends if the money they made offset the cost of doing it all. I doubt you'd get huge numbers signing up for it though so they'd probably price it quite heftily, which would put more people off. I could imagine clubs charging £250+ for the season. Most people might think that was too prohibitive, especially if they went to some games as well.

Maybe they could start off by offering an online AST. The diehards would still go away, but those that weren't would be able to see the away games streamed. I'm sure the majority of fans only go to home games. I reckon I'd sign up for that for say, £100. Then I could still go to home games I wanted to.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

Thing is, what DW says is spot on and things are different here to the UK maybe. Ie. We pay sky about €70 a month for their package Inc. Sport (but no movies). On top of that (because there is no broadband where we are I'm paying €45 a month for satellite broad bad (sic) for so many megabytes or whatever a month. If we pay €71 a month I can get unlimited broadband, get a 'box' and view any channel (so I'm told). Loads are doing it over here because the broadband coverage is crap, the old fashioned TV signal is 'patchy', satellite TV is expensive and we're having to pay for it all. There are companies here advertising 'boxes', satellite installations, packages etc. Only problem seems to be that you can't record. Point is surely; providers need to drop their prices (here) because they are not competitive and aren't giving value for money. End of the day, I want to watch The Ashes but everything has a price.

Aye same up here, where I am nearly everyone seems to have a box and the ones that haven't have SKY mainly due to being in"dead" areas where the internet is crap (which will probably improve over time, so less reason to have SKY) would say a ratio of 10:1 illegal to legal. Heard first hand of people cancelling full SKY package and being phoned up the following week by SKY and offered everything completely free for 12 months.

By the way (so i am told) you can get ones that record.

 

[arklowolf]

Aye same up here, where I am nearly everyone seems to have a box and the ones that haven't have SKY mainly due to being in"dead" areas where the internet is crap (which will probably improve over time, so less reason to have SKY) would say a ratio of 10:1 illegal to legal. Heard first hand of people cancelling full SKY package and being phoned up the following week by SKY and offered everything completely free for 12 months.

By the way (so i am told) you can get ones that record.

Thanks. I was told that recording would be possible 'very soon', that was by the satellite broadband provider who want us to upgrade to the unlimited usage package.

 

[Siggy]

There are numerous ways to get the sports cheaper than Sky, some cost more than others. The free stuff is garbage so I would always pay, it just depends on how much you want to pay in return to watch decent quality football. I obviously wont post any links here but if anyone has questions relating to streaming or an alternative method feel free to PM I quite like that sort of thing

 

[Tredman]

Paying for piracy is bonkers when, with a bit of negotiation, sky can be had very cheaply.

 

[Siggy]

As an example quite a lot of people don't realise you can pay for NowTV for a days pass (6.99 I think) rather than commit to 6 months or more of Sky Sports. I am not saying everyone should illegally stream only that there are many options available outside of a standard Sky Sports subscription.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

 

[Parkins left foot]

As an example quite a lot of people don't realise you can pay for NowTV for a days pass (6.99 I think) rather than commit to 6 months or more of Sky Sports. I am not saying everyone should illegally stream only that there are many options available outside of a standard Sky Sports subscription.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Have used Sky via Now TV for that a number of times - BT don't offer any day passes so a thanks to Siggy for (hopefully) sorting me out for next weeks game

 

[Quirkafleeg]

@Silvio (The TWF version)

 

[darlowolf64]

Following appeal, Ikeme suspension reduced from 3 games to 2!?
Claim of "excessive punishment" upheld but not the claim of "wrongful dismissal"

 

[Aikiwolf]

Following appeal, Ikeme suspension reduced from 3 games to 2!?
Claim of "excessive punishment" upheld but not the claim of "wrongful dismissal"

That makes no sense whatsoever!

I can only think the fa have thought "that diving shit deserved a push but we can't rescind it because he did push him".

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

That makes no sense whatsoever!

I can only think the fa have thoughgt "that diving shit deserved a push but we can't rescind it because he did push him".

It's just totally made up on the hoof. Good work FA.

 

[darlowolf64]

That makes no sense whatsoever!

I can only think the fa have thoughgt "that diving $#@! deserved a push but we can't rescind it because he did push him".

I have absolutely no idea what that decision is about... Frank, have you got a clue??

 

[The Bear]

Weird. How can the punishment be correct, yet excessive in this case?


They obviously feel the red card was harsh but won't go against their ref. The FA making it up as they go along to protect the ref again IMO.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

Sad on Carl, but it gives us a great opportunity to see what Burgouyne can do in a massive match.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Weird. How can the punishment be correct, yet excessive in this case?


They obviously feel the red card was harsh but won't go against their ref. The FA making it up as they go along to protect the ref again IMO.

Which was entirely and completely predictable. I am amazed that they have even reduced it at all.

 

[Parkins left foot]

May have been a dive (hard to tell from the highlights I have seen) but Ikeme should know better than to do that - as Paddy said suprised that they have reduced the ban (though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at anything the FA does)

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I have absolutely no idea what that decision is about... Frank, have you got a clue??

I may be wrong, but basically I think the disciplinary panel have agreed with Wolves, but if the referee insisted he felt excessive force was used then they were almost certain to accept that. The fact the suspension was reduced makes me think that had the panel had the option of overruling the original red card decision then they would have. They couldn't so they reduced the ban to two games. Whether or not the panel felt the Norwich player dived is irrelevant.

 

[The Bear]

How can they not have the option of overturning the red card? Of course they can.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

How can they not have the option of overturning the red card? Of course they can.

The referee was not incorrect in law, the appeal therefore was based on his interpretation of excessive force. And as I have said before, whoever thought of putting the words "excessive force" into the laws of the game should be taken to task.