Anonymous1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 6:49 pm
The figure of dodgy box users in Ireland was estimated at 400,000 recently. No matter what way you dress it up, that level of business being lost has to affect employment in the likes of Sky.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2025/1 ... d-results/
So based on this report, Sky Ireland employs around 900 people. The same article shows that the 'Sky Subscribers' company made £96million in post-tax income, and that this was an increase on the previous year, while also stating that in the same year, Sky Subscribers reduced its workforce by around 9%. To put that in real terms, it let go of (or didn't replace) 800 people.
Based on that ethos, we can say with reasonable certainty that an increase in revenue for the Sky Ireland division would not necessarily lead to an increase in employment. Or to put it another way, Sky Ireland will spend as little on wages as they can to get the job done. I accept that Sky are losing some money to people who have dodgy boxes instead, but I'm not convinced that Sky would employ more people just because they became more profitable. Sure, there would be a short term need for increased technicians for the initial installations, but after that, more recurring subscriptions wouldn't lead to more employment in my opinion.
Anonymous1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 6:49 pm
You’ve hit the nail on the head that a lot of dodgy box users use one to watch the Premier League because they can’t afford all the different subscriptions just like a lot of dodgy boxers users use one to watch GAA games because they can’t afford GAA+, Clubber nor to actually attend the games in person.
Just as you believe it’s morally acceptable to screw over the billionaire owners of media organisations, a lot of people think it’s morally acceptable to screw over the GAA who they believe have priced the average punter out of attending weekly. “Grab all association” etc etc, whether you or I agree with that doesn’t matter, if you think it’s justified to screw certain organisations then others are more than entitled to believe they’re justified in screwing other organisations.
Different people draw their own ethical lines in different places, and some people's only ethical line is to look after number one at all costs. Humanity will always be that way. The reason I made the initial post that I did is because I would like to advocate for a world where people think for themselves and try to assess right from wrong that way. A dangerous policy perhaps, in a world where there are consequences for actions that are illegal but not immoral, and scarily few consequences for actions that are immoral but not illegal.
Society is headed down a very dark road if as individuals, we completely outsource our sense of right and wrong to those who write our laws. We took long enough to break from the shackles of those who imposed religious laws on us.
Anonymous1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 6:49 pm
I agree Clubber provides a good service and would be sorry to see its demise, although I’m sure something would take its place as 24/7tv were showing a lot of Offaly club games before Clubber was established. Conversely, I wouldn’t shed any tears if Sky went out of business.
But I’m grounded in reality and what’s good for the good is good for the gander. If you’re happy to see people using dodgy boxes to screw Sky, an unfortunate negative consequence of that is going to be the likes of Clubber also getting screwed so in that regard this is a “black or white issue”. Either the dodgy boxes stay or they go. And as you say yourself, Clubber are much more vulnerable than Sky here.
I completely accept that Clubber are in a difficult fight here, and what for Sky is a fight for extra money is in Clubber's case, a fight for survival.
There is no law that will allow Clubber to move off dodgy boxes, but for Sky to remain on them - however the option is open to every individual to say to themselves that I could get a dodgy box to avoid lining the pockets of the Murdoch family, but I could also make the conscious decision that Clubber are worth paying for, so I will pay for what I get from them.
Anonymous1 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 6:49 pm
One final point I will make though is that MediaHuis, a Belgian media conglomerate has purchased a significant stake in Clubber. MediaHuis is a billion euro company which owns titles such as the Irish Independent. Many people of your political persuasion would view that newspaper as having a clear editorial slant against your particular worldview and indeed it has endorsed parties in the past.
So I would ask how you can marry working for a company such as that .....
You're not wrong, and yes, to a considerable extent, this is where my argument falls down. I also supply written reports (though not many) to the Irish Independent, and indeed to certain local newspaper titles that are in the Mediahaus Group, most commonly the Sligo Champion and the Kerryman. Like Clubber, they aren't absolutely make or break to my life, but they are part of the pot.
But the thing is, you can't stop there. There are plenty of other outlets that I work for, where my immediate contacts are good, decent people and a pleasure to deal with, but if you trace the ownership of the company back far enough, you start to run into companies and individuals where I have to hold my nose.
I'll admit too that I downloaded the No Thanks app to try and avoid companies that do business in the occupied territories of Palestine, but it's incredibly arduous to follow it religiously so while I've a fair few companies that I will not buy from based on my knowledge of what they do in that part of the world, there are plenty of others probably slipping through the cracks as I fly around trying to get my shopping done in time to pick the wee man up from school. There are plenty more that I'm doing business with, and I don't even realise that I'm probably funding bad people in one way or another. Until 2025, I heard very little about Larry Ellison, and would have known nothing about his companies.
I suppose that's a roundabout way of saying that it's very demanding not putting a foot wrong, even with the best of intentions.
Once again, I guess it's back to the thing of life not being black and white. I'm not perfect, I'm doing my best, and my rationale when it comes to companies that give me work is that I have to write for a lot of companies to earn a pretty average income, and the way it works as a freelance reporter is that you could cut out one or two media outlets but you'd still have to go to the same amount of games, it's very rare that I attend a match for professional reasons for just one outlet.
I'm not complaining. I enjoy my work, I spend a lot of time outdoors, it's family friendly in a lot of ways, and if you bought a house in 2013, you don't have expensive tastes and you're not worried about driving round in a 2011 Avensis with 400,000km on the clock, life west of the Shannon can be affordable. I appreciate the life and the career I have, and am very grateful for it. If I was to cut out all the media outlets where the ownership was problematic however, then that arithmetic would change, leading to negative consequences for my family and I. And at the risk of being (fairly) marked down as ethically impure, I've made peace with the life I've made.
And once again, my apologies to those on here who just want to talk about the hurling final.