If Texas goes blue on election night Trump is finished – politicalbetting.com

System

If Texas goes blue on election night Trump is finished – politicalbetting.com

By far the biggest and most intensive state election battle is going on in Texas where polls currently have Trump leading by just over 1%.

Read the full story here

FrancisUrquhart

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

TheScreamingEagles

I said if Biden wins Texas I'd eat a pizza with pineapple on it.

For the first time in my life I'm looking forward to eating such a pizza.

(It won't happen, Texas will back Trump.)

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

TheScreamingEagles

Personally I think this is a ruse by the PL to force the government to let fans back in the grounds.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

TheScreamingEagles

Trump's going to lose by killing enough of his supporters.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1314615357529759745

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/cog_ink/status/1314417552202686464

FrancisUrquhart

Surely a better solution would have been to continue to televise every game on Sky / BT, but the EPL to get a share of ad revenue on those games / small % on the subs.

Also EPL really missing a trick not to use this opportunity to launch a SoccerFlix type channel. See if £10 a month type package could work.

TheScreamingEagles

Wow and fnarr.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1314614923721404425

HYUFD

Unlikely, Texas looks to be back in the Trump column again now

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314583853718269953?s=20

While other swing states he won in 2016 outside the Midwest are also moving back his way too which would make the rustbelt again the region that decides the presidency

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314582383472054274?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314581348875735041?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314310112413188098?s=20

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

Trump's going to lose by killing enough of his supporters.

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1314615357529759745

Super spreader on chief....

CorrectHorseBattery

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/if-dominic-cummings-can-drive-19070873

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

Sandpit

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

TheScreamingEagles

Twitter Slows Down Retweets Ahead of U.S. Election

Social-media company to make sweeping changes to how posts are shared including making it harder for certain content to go viral

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-taps-breaks-on-viral-posts-around-u-s-election-11602259324

FrancisUrquhart

One group of people who will be loving the greedy EPL decision, the IPTV resellers.

Richard_Nabavi

I have a reasonably large bet on Trump winning Texas.

It's a bet I hope to lose, and not only because I have an open buy on Biden on the spreads

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Twitter Slows Down Retweets Ahead of U.S. Election

Social-media company to make sweeping changes to how posts are shared including making it harder for certain content to go viral

Do they call it flattening the curve?

FrancisUrquhart

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

That or launch PremFlix and charge £10-15 a month for all you can eat.

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.

These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.

Sandpit

The massive efforts from everyone involved in Formula 1 to arrange their season in the middle of a pandemic finally met their match today. Whoever thought that going to the Eiffel mountains in Germany in October might result in it being foggy for the whole day?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.weather-prevents-running-in-eifel-grand-prix-fp2-to-cap-action-less-day-at.JvchHR40dGqXcEHOfNGAG.html

FrancisUrquhart

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.

These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.

The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

That or launch PremFlix and charge £10-15 a month for all you can eat.

Latency is a major problem.

Last year the Amazon feed was running nearly 2 minutes behind the live action.

People were getting goal alerts on their phones 120 seconds before the goal went in on their TV.

Ruined the live in betting as well.

Stocky

I can`t think of much that would make me less likely to comply than a recommendation by Oprah Winfrey

TheScreamingEagles

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.

These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.

The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.

Blame the government who think it is fine to let people into the cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall but not football stadia.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

Have the police literally got nothing else to do?

williamglenn

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

Toby Young is on the case.

https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1314615995030482945

CorrectHorseBattery

Has Toby Young acknowledged Starkey was racist yet?

williamglenn

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Yes, It cost me £70* to renew, and enter a lottery for seats when crowds are permitted again. The money is credited against next season if no games played.

*usually £525

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

Toby Young is on the case.

https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1314615995030482945

You can think that both Grimes and Young are total knobs, but are on both the right side in this case.

FrancisUrquhart

I await the BBC and Frankie Boyle coming under similar police investigation for incitement to murder white people.

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

Toby Young is on the case.

https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1314615995030482945

Brexit broadcast tonight in Wales, castigating the "Woke" Government in Cardiff.

The fightback starts today!

Foxy

Stocky said:

I can`t think of much that would make me less likely to comply than a recommendation by Oprah Winfrey

You may not be the target audience.

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally I think Darren Grimes is a nob end but this is worrying.

Darren Grimes under police investigation after David Starkey interview

Commentator to be interviewed on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred over comments made by historian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/

Have the police literally got nothing else to do?

Time to defund The Met.

stodge

Evening all

Rather like this morning's piece, I don't actually agree with the premise.

As for this morning, looking back at the Economist/YouGov poll on 30/9, Biden led by 14 points among women (Clinton won by 13 in 2016) while among men Trump led 47-46 (a group he won by 11 in 2016).

I would therefore argue Trump's position among men since 2016 has deteriorated far more than his position among women. I'd go further and say the issue for Trump is (and this may surprise) white men.

On topic, I moved Texas into the red column last night from TCTC. I think among the past 15 polls from the Lone Star Stare, Biden has led one and been tied in three. The premise of the thread is right but only inasmuch as IF Texas goes blue, the likes of Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Ohio will likely be blue as well and Biden will be heading for 350+ in the EC votes.

Biden doesn't need Texas and with a general 3-5% swing across many states, I would say a Republican hold by 2-5 points looks the most likely at this time.

Stronger polling for Trump this morning with Trafalgar suggesting a 4-point lead for the President in Arizona. I'm not crabbing it because it's Trafalgar (and there are some on here who think it the only pollster worth following) but you'll forgive me if I seek further evidence before moving Arizona out of the blue column.

Georgia remains TCTC for me despite a new poll showing Trump ahead 48-46 so well within margin of error at this time.

Clinton won New Jersey by 14 in 2016 and the latest Farleigh Dickinson poll suggests Biden is up 53-38.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2020/201009/final.pdf

The poll detail confirms a lot of what I have suspected for some time. Trump is an inspirational President in that he inspires both a degree of near cult-like worship but also a degree of unparalleled contempt. He has polarised the electorate into two sharply divergent camps - those with him and those against him. For all who claim the former will be enough (and there's enough of them to stop a Biden landslide), there's enough of the latter to hold up the Biden vote and see him over the line.

That's my view as of now - my map is 284-161 to Biden with 93 TCTC.

Peter_the_Punter

@HYUFD Personally I've never had it in the blue column and I doubt that will change by Election Day, but if Trump is going to win you'd expect him to be close to the +9 he won by in 2016. The best I can find for him in the past two months is a pair of +7s (YouGov & Rasmussen).

He's got a few points to find then.

Roger

Stocky said:

I can`t think of much that would make me less likely to comply than a recommendation by Oprah Winfrey

Why?

dixiedean

Williamson giving his full attention to the big story in Universities.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/09/williamson-accuses-english-universities-of-ignoring-antisemitism

dixiedean

TheScreamingEagles said:

Trump's going to lose by killing enough of his supporters.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1314615357529759745

WH spokesperson says he isn't. Clear as mud then.

Alistair

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

FrancisUrquhart

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Richard_Nabavi

Matt a bit close to the bone with this one. Funny though!

https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1314612153425559553/photo/1

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

Sky and BT aren't making any profit on these matches.

See my post at 6.43 about the PL not being able to do what they like with the regular non UK broadcast matches.

HYUFD

Peter_the_Punter said:

@HYUFD Personally I've never had it in the blue column and I doubt that will change by Election Day, but if Trump is going to win you'd expect him to be close to the +9 he won by in 2016. The best I can find for him in the past two months is a pair of +7s (YouGov & Rasmussen).

He's got a few points to find then.

To win clearly yes, however I think it is more likely to be neck and neck on election night in the EC with Trump scraping home and Biden winning the popular vote than a clear Trump win

Pulpstar

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

Wisconsin is all the excuse Biden needs to pack SCOTUS and all lower state courts in all honesty.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.

These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.

The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.

Blame the government who think it is fine to let people into the cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall but not football stadia.

Presumably because those venues have spent a lot of time and money on convincing the authorities they could operate a reduced capacity safely.

What are the actual issues with premier league grounds? I’m assuming it’s more related to co-ordinating arrivals and departures, behaviour inside the ground, city centre locations, fans without tickets etc., than the risks of catching a virus when 2m from anyone else and wearing a mask.

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

BiB - I'm almost certain that that is not the case. It wouldn't make a huge difference, but any change to the set of packages as set out three years ago could be argued to have an effect on the value of the existing packages.

Sky paid x billion for Packages B to E. They'll show say, West Ham 11 times. Let's say BT/Amazon show the another seven times. That leaves 20 untelevised.

If those games can now be purchased by West Ham fans, that could hurt Sky as some fans may choose the extra games over the Sky subscription.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

Except Labour are polling far higher than the SPD who are third behind the Greens in Germany now, it would take wholesale movement of Corbyn 2019 voters from Starmer Labour to the Greens not just a trickle for the same impact to be seen here.

Plus part of the reason for that movement in Germany is the SPD are in coalition with the CDU, there is near zero chance of a Conservative and Labour grand coalition here

TheScreamingEagles

Four in ten locked-down students found to have Covid in mass Manchester testing pilot

Public health officials handed out hundreds of tests to locked down students in Manchester Metropolitan University halls of residence at the end of September

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/four-ten-locked-down-students-19081942

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Apparently one of the big reasons why the EPL aren't keen on PremFlix going forward is that they would then be responsible for production of not only the matches, but all the supporting shows needed to create enough content to support the channel / service. And you need to do this in 100 different langauges.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

Four in ten locked-down students found to have Covid in mass Manchester testing pilot

Public health officials handed out hundreds of tests to locked down students in Manchester Metropolitan University halls of residence at the end of September

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/four-ten-locked-down-students-19081942

Herd immunity....

tlg86

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

I called it a few weeks ago. I really think the Greens can get more votes than the Lib Dems at the next election.

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.

Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.

These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.

The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.

Blame the government who think it is fine to let people into the cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall but not football stadia.

Presumably because those venues have spent a lot of time and money on convincing the authorities they could operate a reduced capacity safely.

What are the actual issues with premier league grounds? I’m assuming it’s more related to co-ordinating arrivals and departures, behaviour inside the ground, city centre locations, fans without tickets etc., than the risks of catching a virus when 2m from anyone else and wearing a mask.

Brighton and plenty of lower league teams carried out successful pilots/tests.

They saw the examples in other countries which allowed in fans without incident.

But then Boris Johnson pulled the rug from under them without explanation.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

Sky and BT aren't making any profit on these matches.

See my post at 6.43 about the PL not being able to do what they like with the regular non UK broadcast matches.

So it is all EPL greed then, if Sky / BT doing it at cost.

HYUFD

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

I called it a few weeks ago. I really think the Greens can get more votes than the Lib Dems at the next election.

Not more seats though, most Green target seats are held by Labour, most LD target seats are held by the Tories so the LDs will get Labour tactical votes but not the Greens

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Apparently one of the big reasons why the EPL aren't keen on PremFlix going forward is that they would then be responsible for production of not only the matches, but all the supporting shows needed to create enough content to support the channel / service. And you need to do this in 100 different langauges.

The other issue is that under the current model the broadcast partners pay about 50% of each season's monies well upfront.

Under a PremFlix this money would be delayed/spread out over the season, so the clubs would be effectively £1billion in arrears which is bad for their cashflow so they'd need a bridging loan of sorts.

tlg86

HYUFD said:

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

I called it a few weeks ago. I really think the Greens can get more votes than the Lib Dems at the next election.

Not more seats though, most Green target seats are held by Labour, most LD target seats are held by the Tories so the LDs will get Labour tactical votes but not the Greens

I'm more confident of the Greens winning at least one seat than I am for the Lib Dems.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Apparently one of the big reasons why the EPL aren't keen on PremFlix going forward is that they would then be responsible for production of not only the matches, but all the supporting shows needed to create enough content to support the channel / service. And you need to do this in 100 different langauges.

The other issue is that under the current model the broadcast partners pay about 50% of each season's monies well upfront.

Under a PremFlix this money would be delayed/spread out over the season, so the clubs would be effectively £1billion in arrears.

I would imagine, in the same way as modern transfers are funded by a middle man offering finance that wouldn't be an issue.

I think it was the Athletic that did some number crunching and they could realistically have a larger income from £15 a month subscription for PremFlix than their deals with Sky/BT/Amazon combined.

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

Sky and BT aren't making any profit on these matches.

See my post at 6.43 about the PL not being able to do what they like with the regular non UK broadcast matches.

So it is all EPL greed then, if Sky / BT doing it at cost.

I haven't seen it confirmed that Sky/BT are not making any profit.

Gallowgate

HYUFD said:

Unlikely, Texas looks to be back in the Trump column again now

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314583853718269953?s=20

While other swing states he won in 2016 outside the Midwest are also moving back his way too which would make the rustbelt again the region that decides the presidency

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314582383472054274?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314581348875735041?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314310112413188098?s=20

Let's look at these one by one. Changes from previous poll in brackets.

YouGovUS, Texas
Trump 50% (+2)
Biden 45% (-1)

University of Georgia, Georgia
Trump 48% (+1)
Biden 46% (-1)

Trafalgar, Arizona
Trump 48% (+2)
Biden 44% (-1)

InsiderAdvantage, Florida
Trump 46% (-)*
Biden 43% (-)*

*No previous polling.

So all relatively small movements. Could very well be MOE. Definitely too early to say that things are moving back to Trump.

Peter_the_Punter

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@HYUFD Personally I've never had it in the blue column and I doubt that will change by Election Day, but if Trump is going to win you'd expect him to be close to the +9 he won by in 2016. The best I can find for him in the past two months is a pair of +7s (YouGov & Rasmussen).

He's got a few points to find then.

To win clearly yes, however I think it is more likely to be neck and neck on election night in the EC with Trump scraping home and Biden winning the popular vote than a clear Trump win

Definitely possible, although I'd place that at the extreme end of the Trump/Biden spectrum. A Biden landslide would be equally probable.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

Sky and BT aren't making any profit on these matches.

See my post at 6.43 about the PL not being able to do what they like with the regular non UK broadcast matches.

So it is all EPL greed then, if Sky / BT doing it at cost.

I haven't seen it confirmed that Sky/BT are not making any profit.

Sky and BT insiders insist they will only charge production costs to the Premier League and any profit will go back to the clubs, though no formula has been agreed on how much will go to those clubs involved in the pay-per-view match.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/fans-will-have-to-pay-15-to-watch-matches-not-already-scheduled-for-tv-wbd0z02rz

TheScreamingEagles

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Apparently one of the big reasons why the EPL aren't keen on PremFlix going forward is that they would then be responsible for production of not only the matches, but all the supporting shows needed to create enough content to support the channel / service. And you need to do this in 100 different langauges.

The other issue is that under the current model the broadcast partners pay about 50% of each season's monies well upfront.

Under a PremFlix this money would be delayed/spread out over the season, so the clubs would be effectively £1billion in arrears.

I would imagine, in the same way as modern transfers are funded by a middle man offering finance that wouldn't be an issue.

I think it was the Athletic that did some number crunching and they could realistically have a larger income from £15 a month subscription for PremFlix than their deals with Sky/BT/Amazon combined.

But that's an additional cost.

The other issue is a Premflix would bugger up the PL equal share of most of the TV money.

Those clubs that get watched the most would demand more of the proceeds.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

Sky / BT have bought the rights to a set of games. The EPL can do what they like with those not under contract.

I ak sure Sky / BT are getting their cut from providing the PPV platform (and I presume made clear a minimum price for this), but for instance you know Sky / BT don't actually own the rights to old games, the EPL do.

Sky and BT aren't making any profit on these matches.

See my post at 6.43 about the PL not being able to do what they like with the regular non UK broadcast matches.

So it is all EPL greed then, if Sky / BT doing it at cost.

I haven't seen it confirmed that Sky/BT are not making any profit.

Sky and BT insiders insist they will only charge production costs to the Premier League and any profit will go back to the clubs, though no formula has been agreed on how much will go to those clubs involved in the pay-per-view match.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/fans-will-have-to-pay-15-to-watch-matches-not-already-scheduled-for-tv-wbd0z02rz

It's poor PR from them that they've allowed this situation to develop. The fact that games are being divided between the two with a clear picking order isn't good either. Sorry, but I don't believe them. They would be yelling from the rooftops if they weren't making anything out of it.

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.

Well these matches aren't matches that would be normally be shown, so what's the complaint?

Season ticket holders have to stump up as well....

Have any PL clubs actually taken season ticket money yet?

Surely the least they could have done is say season ticket holders could get each match at a reduced rate (or ability to buy package of games at a set price), given how much they will have spent at the club over the years.

The issue is the Sky/BT involvement.

If the home team was setting the price, then there wouldn't be an issue. Don't like how much your club's charging? Take it up with them.

No, the EPL met and agreed this idea and price point among themselves. Only Leicester City said no and Man Utd said I don't think the price is right.

Okay, but Sky/BT would have a case to sue the PL if they did anything without their consent. There's definitely a PR offensive to exonerate Sky/BT of any guilt, but ultimately they have the power.

IIRC the normal 200 matches a season that aren't shown on TV there's clauses in the current contract that allows the PL to make those matches available to customers via a streaming service (other than Amazon) but Sky and BT have a right of veto.

Sky and BT vetoed it because a PremFlix damages their model, now if they veto it, then the PL can make their domestic non streaming broadcasters help produce and distribute those matches at cost.

Apparently one of the big reasons why the EPL aren't keen on PremFlix going forward is that they would then be responsible for production of not only the matches, but all the supporting shows needed to create enough content to support the channel / service. And you need to do this in 100 different langauges.

The other issue is that under the current model the broadcast partners pay about 50% of each season's monies well upfront.

Under a PremFlix this money would be delayed/spread out over the season, so the clubs would be effectively £1billion in arrears.

I would imagine, in the same way as modern transfers are funded by a middle man offering finance that wouldn't be an issue.

I think it was the Athletic that did some number crunching and they could realistically have a larger income from £15 a month subscription for PremFlix than their deals with Sky/BT/Amazon combined.

But that's an additional cost.

The other issue is a Premflix would bugger up the PL equal share of most of the TV money.

Those clubs that get watched the most would demand more of the proceeds.

I wonder how this PPV move is being shared out? Just the teams involved in the match or is it a big pot? And what if its Liverpool vs WBA, still an equal share?

Mexicanpete

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

A little while before Labour/Green crossover, but getting closer.

Alistair

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

Wisconsin is all the excuse Biden needs to pack SCOTUS and all lower state courts in all honesty.

I ran the calculations back in 2018, to take 50% or more of the seats in Wisconsin the Dems would have to win the statewide vote by 14%.

rottenborough

Perhaps @Cyclefree can enlighten us, but I suspect that pubs would prefer to be in a Lockdown Area 3 (Red) and be forced to close and receive the money from Sunak's new scheme than be in the amber zone and be allowed to open but have few customers and have to constantly police whether people are really in a social support bubble or live in the same house?

Anabobazina

Have to say, the state polling today is worrying me that Trumpton is coming back.

But I’m skittish. Very skittish.

Gallowgate

Anabobazina said:

Have to say, the state polling today is worrying me that Trumpton is coming back.

But I’m skittish. Very skittish.

It's likely to swing back after the highs of last week, but that'll be good for Dem turnout I think.

Still think Trump will win, like.

dixiedean

rottenborough said:

Perhaps @Cyclefree can enlighten us, but I suspect that pubs would prefer to be in a Lockdown Area 3 (Red) and be forced to close and receive the money from Sunak's new scheme than be in the amber zone and be allowed to open but have few customers and have to constantly police whether people are really in a social support bubble or live in the same house?

Maybe. But I doubt the employees would.

nico679

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Unlikely, Texas looks to be back in the Trump column again now

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314583853718269953?s=20

While other swing states he won in 2016 outside the Midwest are also moving back his way too which would make the rustbelt again the region that decides the presidency

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314582383472054274?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314581348875735041?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314310112413188098?s=20

Let's look at these one by one. Changes from previous poll in brackets.

YouGovUS, Texas
Trump 50% (+2)
Biden 45% (-1)

University of Georgia, Georgia
Trump 48% (+1)
Biden 46% (-1)

Trafalgar, Arizona
Trump 48% (+2)
Biden 44% (-1)

InsiderAdvantage, Florida
Trump 46% (-)*
Biden 43% (-)*

*No previous polling.

So all relatively small movements. Could very well be MOE. Definitely too early to say that things are moving back to Trump.

Texas I think will stay with the GOP especially after the blatant voter suppression on several fronts . Arizona will go Dem , Georgia just about stays with the GOP and Florida impossible to call . Biden doesn’t however need any of those states , Trump needs them all .

kinabalu

stodge said:

Evening all

Rather like this morning's piece, I don't actually agree with the premise.

As for this morning, looking back at the Economist/YouGov poll on 30/9, Biden led by 14 points among women (Clinton won by 13 in 2016) while among men Trump led 47-46 (a group he won by 11 in 2016).

I would therefore argue Trump's position among men since 2016 has deteriorated far more than his position among women. I'd go further and say the issue for Trump is (and this may surprise) white men.

On topic, I moved Texas into the red column last night from TCTC. I think among the past 15 polls from the Lone Star Stare, Biden has led one and been tied in three. The premise of the thread is right but only inasmuch as IF Texas goes blue, the likes of Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Ohio will likely be blue as well and Biden will be heading for 350+ in the EC votes.

Biden doesn't need Texas and with a general 3-5% swing across many states, I would say a Republican hold by 2-5 points looks the most likely at this time.

Stronger polling for Trump this morning with Trafalgar suggesting a 4-point lead for the President in Arizona. I'm not crabbing it because it's Trafalgar (and there are some on here who think it the only pollster worth following) but you'll forgive me if I seek further evidence before moving Arizona out of the blue column.

Georgia remains TCTC for me despite a new poll showing Trump ahead 48-46 so well within margin of error at this time.

Clinton won New Jersey by 14 in 2016 and the latest Farleigh Dickinson poll suggests Biden is up 53-38.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2020/201009/final.pdf

The poll detail confirms a lot of what I have suspected for some time. Trump is an inspirational President in that he inspires both a degree of near cult-like worship but also a degree of unparalleled contempt. He has polarised the electorate into two sharply divergent camps - those with him and those against him. For all who claim the former will be enough (and there's enough of them to stop a Biden landslide), there's enough of the latter to hold up the Biden vote and see him over the line.

That's my view as of now - my map is 284-161 to Biden with 93 TCTC.

I like the way you're doing this. The evolving picture. Let's see where you have it on eve of poll.

Sandpit

Anabobazina said:

Have to say, the state polling today is worrying me that Trumpton is coming back.

But I’m skittish. Very skittish.

Pelosi drawing attention to the fact that Biden is getting senile, and wishing for no news about a vaccine today, isn’t exactly helping to get her party’s vote out either.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1314621897812979715?s=20

FrancisUrquhart

Donald Trump will hold his first on-camera interview tonight since his coronavirus diagnosis.

He will receive a "medical evaluation" during a Fox New appearance from Dr Marc Siegel, a Fox contributor, according to the network.

Foxy

A great twitter thread, some of my most eminent colleagues seem to be signing the Great Barrington Declaration.

Alongside Dr Crippen, and Dr Shipman I see Dr IP Freely (Urologist) and Dr Barnard Castle (Optometry) have joined the petitioners.

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1314563294963937286?s=09

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314619925315694592?s=20

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8823807/Congressman-demands-UK-government-strip-Meghan-Harry-titles-election-interference.html

RobD

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314619925315694592?s=20

That's not in their power.

isam

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

The Greens overtaking the Lib Dems is perhaps a significant milestone if you look at trends in Germany.

I called it a few weeks ago. I really think the Greens can get more votes than the Lib Dems at the next election.

Esp as Sir Keir agrees with Boris more than Jezza

Foxy

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314619925315694592?s=20

There is a nasty streak amongst Royalists certainly. Hell hath no fury than a Royalist scorned.

Peter_the_Punter

FrancisUrquhart said:

Donald Trump will hold his first on-camera interview tonight since his coronavirus diagnosis.

He will receive a "medical evaluation" during a Fox New appearance from Dr Marc Siegel, a Fox contributor, according to the network.

And that will fool how many people?

FrancisUrquhart

Foxy said:

A great twitter thread, some of my most eminent colleagues seem to be signing the Great Barrington Declaration.

Alongside Dr Crippen, and Dr Shipman I see Dr IP Freely (Urologist) and Dr Barnard Castle (Optometry) have joined the petitioners.

twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1314563294963937286?s=09

Was James as outraged when we had the lockdown absolutist letter with Bob the bloke who cleans the test tubes and the masters students in philosophy included as world leading medical experts?

CarlottaVance

NI seems well out of control:

https://twitter.com/EmmaVardyTV/status/1314626981347106818?s=20

IanB2

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

Wisconsin is all the excuse Biden needs to pack SCOTUS and all lower state courts in all honesty.

OT, something like 40% of the entire world’s cranberry harvest comes from Wisconsin.

Foxy

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

A great twitter thread, some of my most eminent colleagues seem to be signing the Great Barrington Declaration.

Alongside Dr Crippen, and Dr Shipman I see Dr IP Freely (Urologist) and Dr Barnard Castle (Optometry) have joined the petitioners.

twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1314563294963937286?s=09

Was James as outraged when we had the lockdown absolutist letter with Bob the bloke who cleans the test tubes and the masters students in philosophy included as world leading medical experts?

No idea. Just enjoying the creativity of the piss takers.

Gallowgate

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

Wisconsin is all the excuse Biden needs to pack SCOTUS and all lower state courts in all honesty.

OT, something like 40% of the entire world’s cranberry harvest comes from Wisconsin.

I did not know that.

IshmaelZ

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314619925315694592?s=20

You've already done this. It's an ill-formed question because there's half a dozen equally pettifogging and pointless things it could mean, some more possible than others and some of which have already happened.

IanB2

nico679 said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Unlikely, Texas looks to be back in the Trump column again now

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314583853718269953?s=20

While other swing states he won in 2016 outside the Midwest are also moving back his way too which would make the rustbelt again the region that decides the presidency

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314582383472054274?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314581348875735041?s=20

twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314310112413188098?s=20

Let's look at these one by one. Changes from previous poll in brackets.

YouGovUS, Texas
Trump 50% (+2)
Biden 45% (-1)

University of Georgia, Georgia
Trump 48% (+1)
Biden 46% (-1)

Trafalgar, Arizona
Trump 48% (+2)
Biden 44% (-1)

InsiderAdvantage, Florida
Trump 46% (-)*
Biden 43% (-)*

*No previous polling.

So all relatively small movements. Could very well be MOE. Definitely too early to say that things are moving back to Trump.

Texas I think will stay with the GOP especially after the blatant voter suppression on several fronts . Arizona will go Dem , Georgia just about stays with the GOP and Florida impossible to call . Biden doesn’t however need any of those states , Trump needs them all .

I hope so. I would have won a lot of money had Biden taken Texas, but it was a trading bet, and I have already cashed out my modest profit.

HYUFD

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314619925315694592?s=20

You've already done this. It's an ill-formed question because there's half a dozen equally pettifogging and pointless things it could mean, some more possible than others and some of which have already happened.

The news about the Republican congressman however only broke today

nico679

At this point in the key swing states . I think it’s over for Trump in Michigan. 20% have already voted there , Biden has increased his lead and the plot to kidnap the governor has shone a light on Trumps Stand Back and Stand By comments.

IshmaelZ

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

A great twitter thread, some of my most eminent colleagues seem to be signing the Great Barrington Declaration.

Alongside Dr Crippen, and Dr Shipman I see Dr IP Freely (Urologist) and Dr Barnard Castle (Optometry) have joined the petitioners.

twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1314563294963937286?s=09

Was James as outraged when we had the lockdown absolutist letter with Bob the bloke who cleans the test tubes and the masters students in philosophy included as world leading medical experts?

No idea. Just enjoying the creativity of the piss takers.

Any sign of Dr Seymour Butts (Colo-rectal)?

IanB2

Gallowgate said:

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

Arizona.



🤷‍♂️

Trump bounce in most recent fieldwork then

Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.

I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016

Penn is closer than Wisconsin.

Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.

Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).

I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).

Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.

Wisconsin kicked out one time Favourite and PB hotly tipped for the 2016 nomination (!!!) Scott Walker in 2018.

Unemployment in Wisconsin last month was 6%, below the 7.9% rate of unemployment across the US, the GOP also still won most US representatives in Wisconsin in 2018 despite losing the House overall

Only because the Wisconsin map is gerrymandered as fuck.

Wisconsin is all the excuse Biden needs to pack SCOTUS and all lower state courts in all honesty.

OT, something like 40% of the entire world’s cranberry harvest comes from Wisconsin.

I did not know that.

Hot off the press

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLU1o8VOr7M