I’ve encountered a new extreme form of Strasbourg Syndrome
It’s a type of Remoaner that believes - seriously - that the Tory government has somehow confected or greatly exaggerated the Covid crisis, so as to mask the terrible damage of Brexit, preventing a national change of mind
It’s a rare yet exceptional new variant. Worth a look just for its flamboyant severity
I thought the EU invented Covid in a lab in Brussels to demonstrate the superiority of pan-EU sourcing.
Pan EU sourcing is fantastic actually. Sadly, in this crisis, vaccines needed to be sourced, not pans.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
It’s slightly difficult to put myself into the head of a fan of a big club - but doea Spurs against Real Madrid have the same appeal aa Spurs against West Ham, Spurs against Leeds, etc.? European football all well and good, but a bit of a diversion really. The link between fan and club has already been stretched just about to breaking point.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Might it not entice the not as committeds? Watching Spurs or Man Utd play Real Madrid or Barca every other weekend might tempt many footie casuals (not those type of casuals)
I suspect that it would be more popular outside Europe. The Chinese and other Asians are a big fanbase, albeit one that never goes in person. They follow "their" team avidly.
I bet the Tories are secretly quite pleased this has come out, all that stuff about lobbying, nobody will be talking about that compared to the 100s of hours of coverage of a footy super league...
"It is also why — turning to the primate known as Homo sapiens — an absence of shame is a leading indicator of a culture heading for disaster, a point noted by, among others, the historian AJP Taylor.
And this brings me to what I think is a fundamental misinterpretation of today’s lobbying scandals. Many have analysed these through a legalistic prism. Did anyone break the rules? Can we bring formal proceedings? This misses a deeper point. This isn’t about the nuances of law but the brazenness that has infiltrated elites. A critical mass of politicians have become, well, shameless."
And - "We also have to repair the moral fracture that extends across the West. Integrity was once a precious strength of our societies in relation to other parts of the world held back by nepotism and kleptocracy."
This.
Totally.
I've just watched ep 4 of Line of Duty and Hastings asked his boss a deadly serious existential question.
In a very grave and angry but dignified manner -
"What's happened to us? When did we cease to give a monkey's about honesty and integrity?"
At which point I spoke loudly to the telly, obliterating whatever the dissembling reply was -
"When we made Boris Johnson PM in a landslide."
I mean it.
Before condemning the electorate entirely, we must always remember the nature of the alternative that it was offered.
Ok. Not totally unfair comment. Perhaps they deserve another chance and I'll grant them it. Just the one. But it's not so much blame or condemnation. It's more that's when I realized that honesty and integrity had become more liability than asset at the top of politics. Johnson being openly contemptuous of these things and having this fact working for not against him.
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
Chief minister of Delhi, India (population approximately 20 million) says they're facing an "acute shortage of oxygen" due to increase in COVID cases, and that "OXYGEN HAS BECOME AN EMERGENCY" in Delhi
Rather than having red and green list countries, why not restrict travel to the fully vaccinated?
Or just have no travel. By which I mean nearly none - not for business-types especially. Merely delivery and supply.
One thing's for damn sure, and that's that we got CV19 here in the UK from others travelling to us. (That sounds very xenophobic, but its not what I mean at all - its just travel that's caused this)
Actually I'll go a little further. There are some people in the UK who are responsible for mass manslaughter. They knew they shouldn't have travelled and yet they did. They probably self-excuse themselves, but they're completely guilty.
But that's as true for going to the shops, or to a park, as it is to international travel.
I'd guess as follows;
A flight - very likely you'll give whatever you have to others. The longer the flight the more likely.
A shopping trip - slightly likely
A walk in a park - quite unlikely
International travel has in my view been akin to drink-driving for the last year or so.
Well, yes, that's why I suggested limiting all travel to fully vaccinated people (presumably with negative covid tests too).
Rachel Reeves has cropped up in a few programmes I've been listening to lately (and I see she was on Marr today). She is, of course, tipped to replace Dodds as shadow chancellor. I'm not saying she is on maneuvers as such but she is clearly ambitious and well-regarded by the party and I'm getting the feeling that she could become a leading candidate for next leader.
Reeves is widely available at 20/1 and 22/1 with various mainstream bookies but is 33/1 with W Hill. The exchanges: 20 with BF and 22 with Smarkets.
I think 33/1 WHills is worth a punt but, even better, I've just placed a bet at 50/1 with Betway (though they limited my stake).
50/1 (or 33/1) is a great bet - even if just for trading purposes.
If she takes over from Dodds she will rival Burnham and Raynor for favouritism IMO.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Might it not entice the not as committeds? Watching Spurs or Man Utd play Real Madrid or Barca every other weekend might tempt many footie casuals (not those type of casuals)
I suspect that it would be more popular outside Europe. The Chinese and other Asians are a big fanbase, albeit one that never goes in person. They follow "their" team avidly.
Selling shirts to people on Asia is what's driving it. That plus the idiot American owners like Kroenke who thought Arsenal would always get Champions League football and then suddenly Arsenal weren't in it and Arsenal lost £60m in TV rights and prize money.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
Chief minister of Delhi, India (population approximately 20 million) says they're facing an "acute shortage of oxygen" due to increase in COVID cases, and that "OXYGEN HAS BECOME AN EMERGENCY" in Delhi
Shit. That was what happened in so many places. Most recently in Peru. That is a horrible, horrible sign.
And with one leap, Boris was free. Set up enquiry, draw everyone else into it, and be seen to fix it. For all his faults, it seems very unlikely he’s got any links to lobbying. Not because he wouldn’t have if it came up, but because that just wasn’t his career.
"It is also why — turning to the primate known as Homo sapiens — an absence of shame is a leading indicator of a culture heading for disaster, a point noted by, among others, the historian AJP Taylor.
And this brings me to what I think is a fundamental misinterpretation of today’s lobbying scandals. Many have analysed these through a legalistic prism. Did anyone break the rules? Can we bring formal proceedings? This misses a deeper point. This isn’t about the nuances of law but the brazenness that has infiltrated elites. A critical mass of politicians have become, well, shameless."
And - "We also have to repair the moral fracture that extends across the West. Integrity was once a precious strength of our societies in relation to other parts of the world held back by nepotism and kleptocracy."
This.
Totally.
I've just watched ep 4 of Line of Duty and Hastings asked his boss a deadly serious existential question.
In a very grave and angry but dignified manner -
"What's happened to us? When did we cease to give a monkey's about honesty and integrity?"
At which point I spoke loudly to the telly, obliterating whatever the dissembling reply was -
"When we made Boris Johnson PM in a landslide."
I mean it.
I have been boring on about integrity and honesty and character for bloody years - not just here but at work and to anyone who will listen. It increasingly feels utterly hopeless and pointless, indeed, a laughable waste of time.
Honestly, I feel as if my life’s work has just shown me to be a mug, that I am a naive fool for expecting people to at least try and do the right thing, to at least try to be competent. Oh well.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
This is far worse
The poll tax was certainly unpopular, but the dislike built over time as people realised how it worked
This is in a different, ahem, league. People react like they have been scalded. Instant distaste, if not disgust. Reflexive. From almost everyone
The timing alone is terrible. I am certain they did not expect this outraged hostility. Some must be panicking
Sky sports suggesting this is kite flying to give them influence over the European Champions league and no doubt increasing their income
I'm sticking with my original theory. This is something the big clubs DO want (especially in Spain and Italy), but they are testing the waters, as they know it is controversial.
They will have seen the immediate reaction, hence no announcement at 9.30. Turns out it is wildly unpopular and they might get thrown out of their domestic leagues, a particular disaster for the English clubs, who are in the most lucrative league of all
So instead they will use it as leverage to get more cash from and guaranteed access to the UCL, and the idea will be shelved, again
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Might it not entice the not as committeds? Watching Spurs or Man Utd play Real Madrid or Barca every other weekend might tempt many footie casuals (not those type of casuals)
Football, more than most sports, needs you to care who wins. When it's arbitrary team of mercenaries x vs arbritrary team of mercenaries y it loses much of its appeal. And we wouldn't just support the British teams because these British teams are trying to take the game for themselves and screw everyone else. Once upon a time, British teams in Europe generally had the support of the nation. I'd say that ended, ooh, about the time of the Premier League when the big clubs collectively decided the small clubs should just jolly well know their place.
I predicted Labour would be drawn into it and listening to Marr and Sophy Ridge this morning it is clear they believe this is across politics
I am sure that is what the Tories will try to put across. The problem is not lobbying per se, indeed lobbying is an essential part of democracy. The problem is conflict of interest, as @Cyclefree has so eloquently written in a recent header. Labour do not have that same conflict of interest as they have not been in power for a decade (London and Wales excepted).
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
It's not up to the national associations though, FIFA has basically said they'll be made ineligible for national sides, UEFA has said the same for the Euros.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
Rather than having red and green list countries, why not restrict travel to the fully vaccinated?
Because that discriminated against people who may not have been offered a vaccine yet
Fair enough - although take the US. It's one thing to allow people from the US (who are fully vaccinated and have furnished the required negative Covid test), but it's another thing to allow for *all* people from the US, especially given that vaccine hesistancy in some states is super high.
Given the borders are likely to remain de facto closed for the time being, and that every adult in the UK will be offered a vaccine within the next two or so months, this is likely to be a short term problem.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
"It is also why — turning to the primate known as Homo sapiens — an absence of shame is a leading indicator of a culture heading for disaster, a point noted by, among others, the historian AJP Taylor.
And this brings me to what I think is a fundamental misinterpretation of today’s lobbying scandals. Many have analysed these through a legalistic prism. Did anyone break the rules? Can we bring formal proceedings? This misses a deeper point. This isn’t about the nuances of law but the brazenness that has infiltrated elites. A critical mass of politicians have become, well, shameless."
And - "We also have to repair the moral fracture that extends across the West. Integrity was once a precious strength of our societies in relation to other parts of the world held back by nepotism and kleptocracy."
This.
Totally.
I've just watched ep 4 of Line of Duty and Hastings asked his boss a deadly serious existential question.
In a very grave and angry but dignified manner -
"What's happened to us? When did we cease to give a monkey's about honesty and integrity?"
At which point I spoke loudly to the telly, obliterating whatever the dissembling reply was -
"When we made Boris Johnson PM in a landslide."
I mean it.
I have been boring on about integrity and honesty and character for bloody years - not just here but at work and to anyone who will listen. It increasingly feels utterly hopeless and pointless, indeed, a laughable waste of time.
Honestly, I feel as if my life’s work has just shown me to be a mug, that I am a naive fool for expecting people to at least try and do the right thing, to at least try to be competent. Oh well.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do. Sky already lost the rugby, the tennis, parts of the cricket.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky have put a lot of effort into diversifying their portfolio. Obviously the Premier League is an important part of their offering, but they've tried hard to attract non-sports subscribers in recent years.
Rather than having red and green list countries, why not restrict travel to the fully vaccinated?
Or just have no travel. By which I mean nearly none - not for business-types especially. Merely delivery and supply.
One thing's for damn sure, and that's that we got CV19 here in the UK from others travelling to us. (That sounds very xenophobic, but its not what I mean at all - its just travel that's caused this)
Actually I'll go a little further. There are some people in the UK who are responsible for mass manslaughter. They knew they shouldn't have travelled and yet they did. They probably self-excuse themselves, but they're completely guilty.
But that's as true for going to the shops, or to a park, as it is to international travel.
I'd guess as follows;
A flight - very likely you'll give whatever you have to others. The longer the flight the more likely.
A shopping trip - slightly likely
A walk in a park - quite unlikely
International travel has in my view been akin to drink-driving for the last year or so.
Well, yes, that's why I suggested limiting all travel to fully vaccinated people (presumably with negative covid tests too).
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
It blows my mind that anyone subscribes to the long list of junk on Sky still but I suppose it still makes sense if you want the live sport (in particular the football). Once they lose their middle-man role in proving a distribution platform to the "content creators" what are they for?
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
It's not up to the national associations though, FIFA has basically said they'll be made ineligible for national sides, UEFA has said the same for the Euros.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
The bodies whose views I care least about are the corrupt machines of UEFA and FIFA. I dislike this idea, but it’s been a fantasy of mine for years that the big nations would tell FIFA where to stick it and set up a rival to the World Cup. Same with the Euros. Get the big European and South American nations united and FIFA can be slain.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
This is far worse
The poll tax was certainly unpopular, but the dislike built over time as people realised how it worked
This is in a different, ahem, league. People react like they have been scalded. Instant distaste, if not disgust. Reflexive. From almost everyone
The timing alone is terrible. I am certain they did not expect this outraged hostility. Some must be panicking
Sky sports suggesting this is kite flying to give them influence over the European Champions league and no doubt increasing their income
I'm sticking with my original theory. This is something the big clubs DO want (especially in Spain and Italy), but they are testing the waters, as they know it is controversial.
They will have seen the immediate reaction, hence no announcement at 9.30. Turns out it is wildly unpopular and they might get thrown out of their domestic leagues, a particular disaster for the English clubs, who are in the most lucrative league of all
So instead they will use it as leverage to get more cash from and guaranteed access to the UCL, and the idea will be shelved, again
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky have put a lot of effort into diversifying their portfolio. Obviously the Premier League is an important part of their offering, but they've tried hard to attract non-sports subscribers in recent years.
The problem they have is that they aren't big producers of their own content and what they have made is normally shit e.g. Gangs of London. Now they have / had a deal with HBO to show stuff on Sky Atlantic, and initially HBO were really funny about the idea of streaming apps, but they now have HBO Max.
I predicted Labour would be drawn into it and listening to Marr and Sophy Ridge this morning it is clear they believe this is across politics
I am sure that is what the Tories will try to put across. The problem is not lobbying per se, indeed lobbying is an essential part of democracy. The problem is conflict of interest, as @Cyclefree has so eloquently written in a recent header. Labour do not have that same conflict of interest as they have not been in power for a decade (London and Wales excepted).
But as Marr pointed out to Reeves Carwyn Jones had ignored the code and all she could say is that Wales is different
And indeed in the same programme Marr accused Ed Davey of being a lobbyist
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky have put a lot of effort into diversifying their portfolio. Obviously the Premier League is an important part of their offering, but they've tried hard to attract non-sports subscribers in recent years.
The problem they have is that they aren't big producers of their own content and what they have made is normally shit e.g. Gangs of London. Now they have / had a deal with HBO to show stuff on Sky Atlantic, and initially HBO were really funny about the idea of streaming apps, but they now have HBO Max.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
It’s slightly difficult to put myself into the head of a fan of a big club - but doea Spurs against Real Madrid have the same appeal aa Spurs against West Ham, Spurs against Leeds, etc.? European football all well and good, but a bit of a diversion really. The link between fan and club has already been stretched just about to breaking point.
I don't know but people I'm sure will get used to it.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
It blows my mind that anyone subscribes to the long list of junk on Sky still but I suppose it still makes sense if you want the live sport (in particular the football). Once they lose their middle-man role in proving a distribution platform to the "content creators" what are they for?
The coverage of Sport by Sky is the only reason I remain a subscriber
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky have put a lot of effort into diversifying their portfolio. Obviously the Premier League is an important part of their offering, but they've tried hard to attract non-sports subscribers in recent years.
The problem they have is that they aren't big producers of their own content and what they have made is normally shit e.g. Gangs of London. Now they have / had a deal with HBO to show stuff on Sky Atlantic, and initially HBO were really funny about the idea of streaming apps, but they now have HBO Max.
Chernobyl was produced by SKY
It was, and....I think that's their own real success.
Riviera. Delicious. A Discovery of Witches. Gangs of London Tin Star
I don't think anybody is talking about those shows, let alone paying £50+ a month to sub to Sky for them.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
I agree that it should fail or succeed on its merits, actually. But if the rest of football shows some balls and tells them to go, walk out the door, etc, then I think it will fail. A handful of big clubs will be left peddling a product no-one wants. And Manchester, sadly, will be left with two pointless stadiums. Theatres of indifference.
The one thing Sky is still better than the competition at is the coverage of sport e.g. the Masters last week, Butch Harmon, legend of the game, coach to many of the best players, incredible insight and knowledge..
Amazon for all their dough, terrible coverage when they try sport.
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
It's not up to the national associations though, FIFA has basically said they'll be made ineligible for national sides, UEFA has said the same for the Euros.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
For the record, I think it's a really stupid idea.
But FIFA and EUFA are so corrupt, it'd be good to shake them up somehow.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Might it not entice the not as committeds? Watching Spurs or Man Utd play Real Madrid or Barca every other weekend might tempt many footie casuals (not those type of casuals)
Football, more than most sports, needs you to care who wins. When it's arbitrary team of mercenaries x vs arbritrary team of mercenaries y it loses much of its appeal. And we wouldn't just support the British teams because these British teams are trying to take the game for themselves and screw everyone else. Once upon a time, British teams in Europe generally had the support of the nation. I'd say that ended, ooh, about the time of the Premier League when the big clubs collectively decided the small clubs should just jolly well know their place.
It has been arbitrary teams of mercenaries as you say for some time. Wasn't London Colney at one time the third biggest French City after Paris and London?
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky have put a lot of effort into diversifying their portfolio. Obviously the Premier League is an important part of their offering, but they've tried hard to attract non-sports subscribers in recent years.
The problem they have is that they aren't big producers of their own content and what they have made is normally shit e.g. Gangs of London. Now they have / had a deal with HBO to show stuff on Sky Atlantic, and initially HBO were really funny about the idea of streaming apps, but they now have HBO Max.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
It's not up to the national associations though, FIFA has basically said they'll be made ineligible for national sides, UEFA has said the same for the Euros.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
The bodies whose views I care least about are the corrupt machines of UEFA and FIFA. I dislike this idea, but it’s been a fantasy of mine for years that the big nations would tell FIFA where to stick it and set up a rival to the World Cup. Same with the Euros. Get the big European and South American nations united and FIFA can be slain.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
I agree that it should fail or succeed on its merits, actually. But if the rest of football shows some balls and tells them to go, walk out the door, etc, then I think it will fail. A handful of big clubs will be left peddling a product no-one wants. And Manchester, sadly, will be left with two pointless stadiums. Theatres of indifference.
I agree with the football showing some balls bit. Hopefully they do.
"It is also why — turning to the primate known as Homo sapiens — an absence of shame is a leading indicator of a culture heading for disaster, a point noted by, among others, the historian AJP Taylor.
And this brings me to what I think is a fundamental misinterpretation of today’s lobbying scandals. Many have analysed these through a legalistic prism. Did anyone break the rules? Can we bring formal proceedings? This misses a deeper point. This isn’t about the nuances of law but the brazenness that has infiltrated elites. A critical mass of politicians have become, well, shameless."
And - "We also have to repair the moral fracture that extends across the West. Integrity was once a precious strength of our societies in relation to other parts of the world held back by nepotism and kleptocracy."
This.
Totally.
I've just watched ep 4 of Line of Duty and Hastings asked his boss a deadly serious existential question.
In a very grave and angry but dignified manner -
"What's happened to us? When did we cease to give a monkey's about honesty and integrity?"
At which point I spoke loudly to the telly, obliterating whatever the dissembling reply was -
"When we made Boris Johnson PM in a landslide."
I mean it.
I have been boring on about integrity and honesty and character for bloody years - not just here but at work and to anyone who will listen. It increasingly feels utterly hopeless and pointless, indeed, a laughable waste of time.
Honestly, I feel as if my life’s work has just shown me to be a mug, that I am a naive fool for expecting people to at least try and do the right thing, to at least try to be competent. Oh well.
No. Better for the soul to have a finger in the dam than in the till.
And I sense a change coming. Something big followed by a reckoning.
It blows my mind that anyone subscribes to the long list of junk on Sky still but I suppose it still makes sense if you want the live sport (in particular the football). Once they lose their middle-man role in proving a distribution platform to the "content creators" what are they for?
Sky is investing in content creation, with new studio facilities and lots of new shows. They are owned by Comcast now so there are a lot of other channels and film studios to work with.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
Erhhh, when all the apps are built into your tv, that's as passive as it comes. I don't even need to worry about which HDMI output the Sky box is on.
As for Disney, they have 100m subs in just over a year of being about, that is f##king infinity and beyond stuff.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
Yes a streaming service would make sense. But looking at Man City as a good example, you are only playing the bottom 10 (15?) PL clubs as an easy source of points atm. And you are presumably happy with that?
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
Clearly you aren’t fresh from LoD
Never watched it nor interested in it. Always strikes me as a bit of a terrestrial Game of Thrones *
ie the metropolitan North London types always bang on about it but more of the population is concerned about Corrie
Sounds like winter could be terrible here... This virus is a nasty beast.
More likely easily tweaked rna vaccine booster to target the variants. I wouldn’t worry yourself.
Pretty shit for India, this summer
Reported deaths there are 1,625 today I've read reliable-sounding journalism that says they are under-reporting deaths by a factor of 5-10 That means today in India probably 8,000-16,000 died of Covid-19
Horrendous. No wonder they are running out of oxygen in Delhi
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Spurs vs Real Madrid is important in the CL because it has meaning - the winner will be making progress to winning the CL.
Spurs vs Real Madrid might not be important in a ringfenced superleague if both are bid table or lower.
Spurs vs West Ham is important even if both are mid table because of local and historical rivalry.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
Yes a streaming service would make sense. But looking at Man City as a good example, you are only playing the bottom 10 (15?) PL clubs as an easy source of points atm. And you are presumably happy with that?
I like it that you can get a team like Leeds (yes, not bottom 4 but...) who can come and beat us. It adds something to the game. Also, remember, it wasn't that long ago we were playing Wycombe and York City. We were lucky in the timing of our ownership changes but the idea that such as Super League would wall off 12 clubs from everyone else fills me with dread.
This banned from international football...how is it any different from English Rugby saying they won't select anybody who doesn't play in Premiership or New Zealand rugby the same with those not based in NZ / Australia.
I never understood how that is legal.
Because they never made it a legal rule, just a "selection policy"? A coach is entitled to select who he/she likes, for whatever reason
The national coach will be given a policy not to select Superleague players. That ends the international career of anyone in Barca, Real, Man U, Chelsea. A pretty high price to pay, especially when these players are already earning squillions and don't really need more, so money is less of an inducement (unlike the owners)
I can see players as well as fans rebelling
Here's the thing: imagine that Super League players were picked by the Colombian, Egyptian, etc., national teams. And our national team was losing out due to missing out on some superstars. The pressure - at that point - to select them would be huge.
It's not up to the national associations though, FIFA has basically said they'll be made ineligible for national sides, UEFA has said the same for the Euros.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
The bodies whose views I care least about are the corrupt machines of UEFA and FIFA. I dislike this idea, but it’s been a fantasy of mine for years that the big nations would tell FIFA where to stick it and set up a rival to the World Cup. Same with the Euros. Get the big European and South American nations united and FIFA can be slain.
Couldn't agree more.
See also what India is trying to do through the ICC, shamefully egged on by the ECB and our Aussie mates so long as it brings in the cash.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
Erhhh, when all the apps are built into your tv, that's as passive as it comes. I don't even need to worry about which HDMI output the Sky box is on.
As for Disney, they have 100m subs in just over a year of being about, that is f##king infinity and beyond stuff.
Disney has 100m+ subs, mainly from signing deals with the likes of Sky and other big platforms (such as Verizon) when they add on 10m or more to their total off the back of one deal. Look at how many they are signing up off the back of their "own" efforts.
There is a reason why these companies are signing deals with the likes of Sky, they realise in most cases (Netflix excepted) that their brands and offerings are not strong enough to gain mass traction
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Spurs vs Real Madrid is important in the CL because it has meaning - the winner will be making progress to winning the CL.
Spurs vs Real Madrid might not be important in a ringfenced superleague if both are bid table or lower.
Spurs vs West Ham is important even if both are mid table because of local and historical rivalry.
That is among Spurs and West Ham fans in England.
Yes of course but happily or sadly domestic fans are not the target of this move I imagine.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
Yes a streaming service would make sense. But looking at Man City as a good example, you are only playing the bottom 10 (15?) PL clubs as an easy source of points atm. And you are presumably happy with that?
I like it that you can get a team like Leeds (yes, not bottom 4 but...) who can come and beat us. It adds something to the game. Also, remember, it wasn't that long ago we were playing Wycombe and York City. We were lucky in the timing of our ownership changes but the idea that such as Super League would wall off 12 clubs from everyone else fills me with dread.
Yes but you (Man City) might be the WBA to Real Madrid's Man City in this new League!
A “huge” backlog of patients in hospitals caused by the coronavirus pandemic could take up to five years to clear, NHS Providers has said. Around 4.7 million people were waiting to start treatment at the end of February - the highest figure since records began in August 2007 - according to data from NHS England.
Kinda shows that the NHS was, in the end, despite everything, overwhelmed by COVID.
I'm on the waiting list for surgery at the mo. Will be interesting to see how long I have to wait.
Does it? Surely it's more a case of not being able to do elective surgery for fear of spreading COVID.
Well yeah, but elective surgery is a big part of the NHS.
The NHS exists to do things like elective surgery. It doesn't exist simply to sustain itself.
I know, but there's a difference between not doing stuff as a precautionary measure and not doing stuff because the hospitals are overflowing with COVID patients.
Plenty of overtime for NHS staff in the years to come, for sure.
We have a friend who is a obgyn at Portland. She is currently helping out at Chelsea & Westminster - they have a backlog of 6,000 smear tests - for £100 a day. So far they have founded several cancer cases that would have been picked up earlier
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Spurs vs Real Madrid is important in the CL because it has meaning - the winner will be making progress to winning the CL.
Spurs vs Real Madrid might not be important in a ringfenced superleague if both are bid table or lower.
Spurs vs West Ham is important even if both are mid table because of local and historical rivalry.
That is among Spurs and West Ham fans in England.
Yes of course but happily or sadly domestic fans are not the target of this move I imagine.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
Erhhh, when all the apps are built into your tv, that's as passive as it comes. I don't even need to worry about which HDMI output the Sky box is on.
As for Disney, they have 100m subs in just over a year of being about, that is f##king infinity and beyond stuff.
Disagree. I have a smart TV and never use its functions. Faffing about with apps on a smart TV is rubbish, as is farting about throwing stuff from your phone or laptop.
Cable is better.
I have Virgin multi room and like it. Sky Q is a similar platform I believe.
As for Disney+, unless you are a Adult Fan of Superheroes there’s sod all on it bar (the unquestionably excellent) Mandalorian.
"It is also why — turning to the primate known as Homo sapiens — an absence of shame is a leading indicator of a culture heading for disaster, a point noted by, among others, the historian AJP Taylor.
And this brings me to what I think is a fundamental misinterpretation of today’s lobbying scandals. Many have analysed these through a legalistic prism. Did anyone break the rules? Can we bring formal proceedings? This misses a deeper point. This isn’t about the nuances of law but the brazenness that has infiltrated elites. A critical mass of politicians have become, well, shameless."
And - "We also have to repair the moral fracture that extends across the West. Integrity was once a precious strength of our societies in relation to other parts of the world held back by nepotism and kleptocracy."
This.
Totally.
I've just watched ep 4 of Line of Duty and Hastings asked his boss a deadly serious existential question.
In a very grave and angry but dignified manner -
"What's happened to us? When did we cease to give a monkey's about honesty and integrity?"
At which point I spoke loudly to the telly, obliterating whatever the dissembling reply was -
"When we made Boris Johnson PM in a landslide."
I mean it.
When Ali Campbell hounded David Kelly to his death?
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
That would be the same clubs who are all facing financial ruin because they've lost matchday revenues. Even the financial powerhouse clubs like Spurs, Man U and Arsenal have basically said the business model becomes untenable without matchday revenues.
My dad and I have both agreed that we'll give up our season tickets at Spurs if they join this idiot league and we'll probably pick a small local club to go to matches.
You wouldn't be interested in seeing Spurs v Real Madrid, etc?
Week in, week out? No
Well I am a conservative in most things including the footie. But I am also a free market capitalist and if they want to go and do this then fine. It will stand or fall on its merits.
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
I'm a Man City firm but I hate this idea. I know what you mean that it will fall or succeed on its merits but I suspect a fair bit of this - for the six English clubs - is to grab more of a share of the pie for the PL pot.
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
Yes a streaming service would make sense. But looking at Man City as a good example, you are only playing the bottom 10 (15?) PL clubs as an easy source of points atm. And you are presumably happy with that?
I like it that you can get a team like Leeds (yes, not bottom 4 but...) who can come and beat us. It adds something to the game. Also, remember, it wasn't that long ago we were playing Wycombe and York City. We were lucky in the timing of our ownership changes but the idea that such as Super League would wall off 12 clubs from everyone else fills me with dread.
Yes but you (Man City) might be the WBA to Real Madrid's Man City in this new League!
Whereupon the mid table mediocre Man City gets an offer to relocate to Shanghai or Singapore foe £Xbn.
There's going to be no long term demand for two Manchester and three London clubs in this scheme.
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
Perhaps the clubs, having spent the past year without them, have realised that fans are or need not be the biggest revenue contributors.
Stick the it on ppv or team up with a steaming service, fund it via an oil- rich searcher of good PR and Bob's your uncle.
You don't need a superleague to ditch Sky and the multitude of network middlemen around the world. You have an EPL app (or Champions League app) that carries every game wherever you are in the world. Just the same as for the American sports. It would be trivial to earn more money than they do now and it would send Sky bust as well which would be amusing.
Would that send sky bust? Are they basically dead without football? Is this the whole of Sky, or just Sky sports?
Sky already in trouble.....Their retail offer was the footy plus tv shows / movies first in the UK. Problem is now the second part increasingly not true, which just leaves the footy. Other sports they are being squeezed by BT Sports, Amazon and the elephant is what Disney / ESPN decide to do.
Sky's strategy is actually quite smart. They are trying to push everyone to the Sky Q product where they end up aggregating everyone else's proposition in a user friendly format. Their bet is that people will get sick of having to switch between services and will just want one play where they can watch content. The other advantage is that it makes their programming cost base (which is their main cost) a lot less fixed and more variable (they replace fixed price contracts with revenue share)
Yes, the problem is it relies on Disney, Netflix, etc continuing to play nice and Sky Q is a very expensive product. Increasingly everybody has all the apps for Netflix built into their telly, you don't need a big dustbin on the side of your house nor even a specialist box.
Don't forget that TV is quite a "passive" activity i.e. most people want to come home and relax, and not want to think too much about things, which plays into Sky's hands. They want one place where they can find content easily.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
Erhhh, when all the apps are built into your tv, that's as passive as it comes. I don't even need to worry about which HDMI output the Sky box is on.
As for Disney, they have 100m subs in just over a year of being about, that is f##king infinity and beyond stuff.
Disney has 100m+ subs, mainly from signing deals with the likes of Sky and other big platforms (such as Verizon) when they add on 10m or more to their total off the back of one deal. Look at how many they are signing up off the back of their "own" efforts.
There is a reason why these companies are signing deals with the likes of Sky, they realise in most cases (Netflix excepted) that their brands and offerings are not strong enough to gain mass traction
Agreed.
It’s not clear to me why PBers think Disney+ is so great.
I have the channel and have spent all of 60 minutes watching it (two episodes of The Mandalorian).
I haven't seen something as unpopular as this, ever. This must have been what the poll tax was like, universally unpopular.
This is far worse
The poll tax was certainly unpopular, but the dislike built over time as people realised how it worked
This is in a different, ahem, league. People react like they have been scalded. Instant distaste, if not disgust. Reflexive. From almost everyone
The timing alone is terrible. I am certain they did not expect this outraged hostility. Some must be panicking
But millions - such as myself - are totally uninterested in football and are very open to any change which might undermine the game and the wider public obsession with it. Not true of the Poll Tax..
I predicted Labour would be drawn into it and listening to Marr and Sophy Ridge this morning it is clear they believe this is across politics
I am sure that is what the Tories will try to put across. The problem is not lobbying per se, indeed lobbying is an essential part of democracy. The problem is conflict of interest, as @Cyclefree has so eloquently written in a recent header. Labour do not have that same conflict of interest as they have not been in power for a decade (London and Wales excepted).
Indeed - and as we saw with the Expenses Scandal in 2009 . the party in Government at the time is most vulnerable electorally.
The (not necessarily representative) fans of big six clubs I know on facebook are noisily relinquishing their fandom on facebook. Of course, this is what football fans do. But still.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/18/labour-drawn-greensill-row-emerges-key-starmer-ally-works-lobbying/
Chief minister of Delhi, India (population approximately 20 million) says they're facing an "acute shortage of oxygen" due to increase in COVID cases, and that "OXYGEN HAS BECOME AN EMERGENCY" in Delhi
So, your objection doesn't really apply.
Now I practically have to support the super league.
Rachel Reeves has cropped up in a few programmes I've been listening to lately (and I see she was on Marr today). She is, of course, tipped to replace Dodds as shadow chancellor. I'm not saying she is on maneuvers as such but she is clearly ambitious and well-regarded by the party and I'm getting the feeling that she could become a leading candidate for next leader.
Reeves is widely available at 20/1 and 22/1 with various mainstream bookies but is 33/1 with W Hill. The exchanges: 20 with BF and 22 with Smarkets.
I think 33/1 WHills is worth a punt but, even better, I've just placed a bet at 50/1 with Betway (though they limited my stake).
50/1 (or 33/1) is a great bet - even if just for trading purposes.
If she takes over from Dodds she will rival Burnham and Raynor for favouritism IMO.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/03/will-keir-starmer-sack-anneliese-dodds-shadow-chancellor
(It's a bit late - so I may re-post this tomorrow morning.)
Pretty soon people will get used to that level of football and will look back in wonder when people tell them that once Man City used to play Sheffield United twice a season.
And also there will be a hierarchy pretty much as there is today in the PL. I mean Man Utd are never going to be relegated so Man U fans are only concerned with winning the PL.
Honestly, I feel as if my life’s work has just shown me to be a mug, that I am a naive fool for expecting people to at least try and do the right thing, to at least try to be competent. Oh well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9484107/France-Covid-Mass-vaccination-centre-forced-close-lack-demand.html
https://twitter.com/UKcitizen2021
They will have seen the immediate reaction, hence no announcement at 9.30. Turns out it is wildly unpopular and they might get thrown out of their domestic leagues, a particular disaster for the English clubs, who are in the most lucrative league of all
So instead they will use it as leverage to get more cash from and guaranteed access to the UCL, and the idea will be shelved, again
Once upon a time, British teams in Europe generally had the support of the nation. I'd say that ended, ooh, about the time of the Premier League when the big clubs collectively decided the small clubs should just jolly well know their place.
Honestly, this is a completely disaster idea for English football and I'm worried that these clubs are too pigheaded to back out now.
Out in London tonight. As the last few nights, none of the pubs were full
Given the borders are likely to remain de facto closed for the time being, and that every adult in the UK will be offered a vaccine within the next two or so months, this is likely to be a short term problem.
Integrity is a much valued trait to be fair
However, if it does happen, I suspect the buyer of the rights will be Amazon - they have become more aggressive in the past six months on sports rights
And indeed in the same programme Marr accused Ed Davey of being a lobbyist
Sounds like winter could be terrible here... This virus is a nasty beast.
Fat cats in the park. Bentleys for goal posts...
Riviera.
Delicious.
A Discovery of Witches.
Gangs of London
Tin Star
I don't think anybody is talking about those shows, let alone paying £50+ a month to sub to Sky for them.
But if the rest of football shows some balls and tells them to go, walk out the door, etc, then I think it will fail. A handful of big clubs will be left peddling a product no-one wants. And Manchester, sadly, will be left with two pointless stadiums. Theatres of indifference.
If Sweden was the control group for lockdowns then very sadly France may end up being the control group for not vaccinating a country.
Amazon for all their dough, terrible coverage when they try sport.
It was very popular among those who were excessively charged under domestic rates.
But FIFA and EUFA are so corrupt, it'd be good to shake them up somehow.
Re the likes of Netflix, Disney+ etc deserting Sky, absolutely not at least short term. The thing that is driving their share prices at the moment are their subscriber numbers. A deal with Sky is great for them because they can immediately tell the stock markets they have added c. 10m subscribers (for the UK and Ireland) straight off the bat. Lose that deal, their sub numbers go down 10m and they have to spend a lot of marketing to rebuild. Plus, hearing some quite bad things about Disney+ in the US
And I sense a change coming. Something big followed by a reckoning.
Yes.
As for Disney, they have 100m subs in just over a year of being about, that is f##king infinity and beyond stuff.
ie the metropolitan North London types always bang on about it but more of the population is concerned about Corrie
Reported deaths there are 1,625 today
I've read reliable-sounding journalism that says they are under-reporting deaths by a factor of 5-10
That means today in India probably 8,000-16,000 died of Covid-19
Horrendous. No wonder they are running out of oxygen in Delhi
NEW THREAD
Spurs vs Real Madrid might not be important in a ringfenced superleague if both are bid table or lower.
Spurs vs West Ham is important even if both are mid table because of local and historical rivalry.
That is among Spurs and West Ham fans in England.
There is a reason why these companies are signing deals with the likes of Sky, they realise in most cases (Netflix excepted) that their brands and offerings are not strong enough to gain mass traction
They still are but as the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants.
Arsenal and Tottenham are huge rivals.
They still would be as the Beijing Arsenal and Shanghai Hotspurs.
The billions of Asia are the target.
Cable is better.
I have Virgin multi room and like it. Sky Q is a similar platform I believe.
As for Disney+, unless you are a Adult Fan of Superheroes there’s sod all on it bar (the unquestionably excellent) Mandalorian.
There's going to be no long term demand for two Manchester and three London clubs in this scheme.
It’s not clear to me why PBers think Disney+ is so great.
I have the channel and have spent all of 60 minutes watching it (two episodes of The Mandalorian).
Of course, this is what football fans do. But still.