MOTD Goal of the month

[WTF11]

The "team goal finished by DLC is in the hat for goal of the month (and frankly I think it's by far the best of the bunch, even as a LUFC supporter!).

Vote if you can (via the BBC website, Match of the Day page).

[WTF11]

And LEEDS UNITED WIN!!!!

[WTF11]

I know I'm not the most popular of "contributors" here, but I thought the prospect of LUFC competing (and winning!) In a UK nationwide competition for the best PL goal of December might get past personal prejudice. Mayne not.

A LAW, really?

[Rev72]

Most were in bed when you posted this you melt.

Congratulations Leeds United and fully deserved


MOT

[WTF11]

Started the thread at just before 11.00pm UK time (about 6pm Eastern standard). "Early to bed, early to rise....."?😉

[spaldy]

Well, since you brought it up....

Since I don't live in the UK I can't view BBC highlights or vote on things like this.

Obviously a brilliant set of minds went into making the BBC such a parochial entity that no one other the UK residents can't view their material. That makes total sense since the premier league only interests UK residents.

[WTF11]

Well, since you brought it up....

Since I don't live in the UK I can't view BBC highlights or vote on things like this.

Obviously a brilliant set of minds went into making the BBC such a parochial entity that no one other the UK residents can't view their material. That makes total sense since the premier league only interests UK residents.

The BBC as a broadcaster is funded entirely by the license fee which is a mandatory requirement on ALL who watch UK terrestrial TV on all channels and all streaming services associated with them.

Nothing remotely parochial about the BBC, just a funding structure that prioritises UK viewers as they pay the piper.

Btw, I recognise that a broader viewing audience for BBC output is achieved via commercial deals with broadcaster and media outlets elsewhere but they are a relatively insignificant amount compared to the funds generated by the license fee.

[spaldy]

I would be very curious as to who they reached out to at in the US.

The prem is a large and growing audience here. In fact, I think a lot of sports fans would put it above Hockey and possibly even Pro basketball. The NBA has struck all kinds of "deals" with broadcasters and many games aren't available unless you buy a "season pass" which is pretty hefty. The product itself bears little resemblance to real basketball. Like olympic wrestling vs "world championship wrestling". It's a farce of a product. In Indiapolis we have a pro team (of which we get to pay 2% of every dollar we spend on food, drinks and lodging to support this team yet there are no broadcasts on the local TV or cable channels unless you buy the pass.

In the end, when you don't remain visible in the sport or entertainment local world you'll become irrelevant. The short sided greed eventually will lead to the team moving since the interest level drops off over time. I really could care less if they left town and I got to keep an extra 2% of my money when I go out.

[BelfastAndy]

Billy and Rev go to bed early. Billy is first to rise, followed by Rev about 10minutes later - after he sorts the lollipop sticks and roll of masking tape. After some spooning, Rev reads Billy 'Little Red Riding Hood'.

[WTF11]

Billy and Rev go to bed early. Billy is first to rise, followed by Rev about 10minutes later - after he sorts the lollipop sticks and roll of masking tape. After some spooning, Rev reads Billy 'Little Red Riding Hood'.

Eeeeeeeeewwwwww!😳😳😳

[WTF11]

I would be very curious as to who they reached out to at in the US.

The prem is a large and growing audience here. In fact, I think a lot of sports fans would put it above Hockey and possibly even Pro basketball. The NBA has struck all kinds of "deals" with broadcasters and many games aren't available unless you buy a "season pass" which is pretty hefty. The product itself bears little resemblance to real basketball. Like olympic wrestling vs "world championship wrestling". It's a farce of a product. In Indiapolis we have a pro team (of which we get to pay 2% of every dollar we spend on food, drinks and lodging to support this team yet there are no broadcasts on the local TV or cable channels unless you buy the pass.

In the end, when you don't remain visible in the sport or entertainment local world you'll become irrelevant. The short sided greed eventually will lead to the team moving since the interest level drops off over time. I really could care less if they left town and I got to keep an extra 2% of my money when I go out.

I have no idea as to who the BBC may have commercial relationships with in the US, but as always in the present day, the dollar/pound/yen will dictate.

What IS ironic when it comes to "national" broadcasters is that PBS makes it's content available worldwide, and as far as I can gather, for free. And its content is absolutely first class, as good as anything the BBC can claim fame for. The series on the war.in Vietnam (as an example), is peerless, without a shadow of doubt.

[spaldy]

Billy and Rev go to bed early. Billy is first to rise, followed by Rev about 10minutes later - after he sorts the lollipop sticks and roll of masking tape. After some spooning, Rev reads Billy 'Little Red Riding Hood'.

Looks like post of the year for 2026 is already locked up

[spaldy]

NPR became indistinguishable from CGTV, Korea Central TV and Iran International.

PBS's old stuff was journalism and investigative with a human interest angle. The last couple of decades it was nothing but propaganda. There is an inherent conflict of interest in goverment handing out tax dollars to broadcast "news". PBS confirmed that theorem every day they broadcast.

In the era of Internet access throughout the US the concept of a government media empire is outdated. Use the billions of dollars they recieve to upgrade the internet for everyone.... including the rural areas that still lack access to high speed internet.

[WTF11]

NPR became indistinguishable from CGTV, Korea Central TV and Iran International.

PBS's old stuff was journalism and investigative with a human interest angle. The last couple of decades it was nothing but propaganda. There is an inherent conflict of interest in goverment handing out tax dollars to broadcast "news". PBS confirmed that theorem every day they broadcast.

In the era of Internet access throughout the US the concept of a government media empire is outdated. Use the billions of dollars they recieve to upgrade the internet for everyone.... including the rural areas that still lack access to high speed internet.

The internet, whether it's high quality infrastructure or not, is most definitely NOT the equivalent of what you probably think of as the "traditional" broadcasters, simply because the internet is a mechanism, it produces nothing but "routes" that the content producers use to distribute their content. There is very limited governance there, little or no verification of ANY of the accuracy of content and most certainly no ability to challenge the veracity of what a content provider uploads.

As a stateside dweller, you might welcome the wild west environment, but the usual winners in conflicts at the time of the historical wild west were those with the biggest guns, not necessarily those who had truth and honesty on their side. Same now.

[spaldy]

Obviously, the biggest guns are controlled by the government. They always win when they give the money to report the "news" to their broadcaster of choice.

The press in the US is given absolute control and legal immunity to report the news. They abrogated that right and just started reporting what they were told to say. Few examples in American history show a greater dereliction of a constitutional right than the "reporting" during the pandemic.

Whether us old people like it or not the days of traditional journalism are over. The younger generation uses the internet as their information source. TV news broadcast/ Newpaper ratings are dying. The only ones that will be relevant in the future will be single source, censor approved, "news and information" in countries such as N Korea, Cuba, China and Iran.

Tying back into the thread. I really do find it incredible that the BBC bans highlight reels in the US. Such an incredibly short side view of the world. I understand the funding mechanism in onerous to the average UK resident but the cost exists whether a US resident can view it or not. Why not broaden that potential number of viewers which would increase the Ad revenue and potentially lower the cost the the UK taxpayer?