Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Wrong again, just logically wrong - If they've paid ? hundreds of millions for those rights, which they have, they they and by extension you clearly HAVE contributed to 'the situation we have today'. Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really

Ok, so the domestic premier league deal is ?6.7 billion, the BBC pay ?211 million for highlights package so a small percentage of the actual deal.

Plus there is the fact that I have to buy a licence fee if I want to watch linear TV and of my ?170 probably less than ?50 per annum goes on football if that. So my "contribution" is certainly less than 6 weeks worth of a subscription to SKY.

The BBC and ITV for that matter have always paid for broadcast rights, but haven't been willing or able to pay the huge sums the other platforms have. Its the huge sums paid by those other platforms that have generated the revenues that have created the situation we have today, which is underpinned by people being willing to fork out the monthly or often multiple monthly fees to watch the game son those platforms. Its the revenue from SKY and others that generate the big bucks.

Your logic is wrong and also your maths.

I'm in no way virtue signalling, merely stating that I have had no part in financing the ludicrous economics of the premier league. Neither have I said other people shouldn't, just pointing out that its their willingness to pay that fuels the economics.

Cheapskating is a interesting phrase, me choosing not to pay for something seems to bother you, not sure why. But its rather ironic that people moan about the money sloshing around the premier league whilst at the same time actively choosing to pay the subscriptions that feed it.

Thats rather the same as moaning about immigration, whilst enjoying the economic and other benefits of it.

[SithHappens]

attempt #2 at this as the first hasn't appeared and I forgot to copy before posting... GGGrrrrrrr

Was Farridge actually at PMQs or was he still in the USA? What was he doing in the USA? Brown nosing the one an American acquaintance of mine refers to as the "fanta flavoured f*ckwit". How did he do that? By claiming that the UK has shut down or is in the act of shutting down free speech.

This from the grifter who has banned some journalists from his party meetings and press conferences for no other reason than they were critical of him/his party.

Pot, kettle, black. Utter waste of space.

No wasn't there. Doesn't seem to take his responsibilities seriously in his role as MP

Still funny to see him getting ripped a new one in congress

https://x.com/Number10cat/status/1963304165007851745

[SithHappens]

I see Angela Rayners property has been subject to vandalism as a result of the news reports yesterday.

Whatever your opinion of her this is surely just wrong.

[MadAmster]

It seems Rayner took legal advice, followed that advice, when questions were raised she sought advice from a KC who then asked questions which she answered. Those answers led her to refer herself to the Independent chap who looks at ethics transgressions and also informed HMRC that she owed them some tax on the house purchase.

If the above turns out to be a true reflection of what happened, then, despite all Badenoch's pleas, it would appear that the only error was following legal advice that turned out to be incorrect, checking that advice and then taking the necessary actions when the advice was shown to be incorrect.

How very dare she?

[Andy_Faber]

I see Angela Rayners property has been subject to vandalism as a result of the news reports yesterday.

Whatever your opinion of her this is surely just wrong.

Hmm, we had a similar discussion before your time, the vandalism/graffiti in question at that time was only met with qualified disapproval

[Andy_Faber]

Ok, so the domestic premier league deal is ?6.7 billion, the BBC pay ?211 million for highlights package so a small percentage of the actual deal.

Plus there is the fact that I have to buy a licence fee if I want to watch linear TV and of my ?170 probably less than ?50 per annum goes on football if that. So my "contribution" is certainly less than 6 weeks worth of a subscription to SKY.

The BBC and ITV for that matter have always paid for broadcast rights, but haven't been willing or able to pay the huge sums the other platforms have. Its the huge sums paid by those other platforms that have generated the revenues that have created the situation we have today, which is underpinned by people being willing to fork out the monthly or often multiple monthly fees to watch the game son those platforms. Its the revenue from SKY and others that generate the big bucks.

Your logic is wrong and also your maths.

I'm in no way virtue signalling, merely stating that I have had no part in financing the ludicrous economics of the premier league. Neither have I said other people shouldn't, just pointing out that its their willingness to pay that fuels the economics.

Cheapskating is a interesting phrase, me choosing not to pay for something seems to bother you, not sure why. But its rather ironic that people moan about the money sloshing around the premier league whilst at the same time actively choosing to pay the subscriptions that feed it.

Thats rather the same as moaning about immigration, whilst enjoying the economic and other benefits of it.

You're wasting your breath Swale, as I said I won't go tit for tat with the blinkered, and in any case your numbers here may or may not be right but you made up three sets of figures last week so your 'form' isn't good in this area

[swaledale]

You're wasting your breath Swale, as I said I won't go tit for tat with the blinkered, and in any case your numbers here may or may not be right but you made up three sets of figures last week so your 'form' isn't good in this area

The numbers are easily checked, which you will have done knowing you, otherwise you'd be telling me I'm wrong, rather than making a snide comment to that effect. AS for having "made up" three sets of figures last week, well again one expects you to provide proof of this, otherwise your just making unsubstantiated inferences, rather like what seems to be your favourite media source.

I'm glad you have described your interpretation of "blinkered", it seems to be your favourite phrase now, but in this instance seems to mean anyone whose views don't accord with your own or someone who has just demolished a point you have made using facts and coherent argument. MM in my dictionary, blinkered can refer to someone who is unable to accept a different point of view, given I've actually agreed with you on a number of occasions recently, but you always seem to disagree with anything I say, perhaps your describing yourself?

So basically your saying, you won't respond when a point you've made has been shown to be untrue and lacking logic. fair enough, it must be galling to be shown up time and time again. perhaps though if you really don't want to debate, you could just refrain from making statements in response to my posts? That way you will both save yourself the embarrassment and my time?

After all you do have "form" for making statements which when asked you seem unable to back up with any evidence or facts.

[swaledale]

Hmm, we had a similar discussion before your time, the vandalism/graffiti in question at that time was only met with qualified disapproval

Such as?

[swaledale]

Oh God, here we go again. ‘Your virtue signalling (lapped up by rA) is just cheapskating really’.

…and your personal comments, point scoring, cheap shots and sad attempts at division are exactly what was being criticised by another poster recently.

On topic. Clearly licence payers are not to blame for the current situation, but those, including myself, who do pay a monthly amount to Sky (and others) specifically in order to have direct access to high quality coverage of live sport, do have to take a proportion of the blame.

Just for the record RA, I have no view on whether one should or should not pay for SKY, personal choice, and at least you recognise that personal choice has a cause and effect.

Still its good to be informed that paying the licence fee is also responsible, and this person supposedly works or worked in finance?

[ramAnag]

Just for the record RA, I have no view on whether one should or should not pay for SKY, personal choice, and at least you recognise that personal choice has a cause and effect.

Still its good to be informed that paying the licence fee is also responsible, and this person supposedly works or worked in finance?

It hadn’t occurred to me that you were evangelising, Swale. I just recognise it takes a bit of sacrifice to go without the live sport that Sky do a very good job of offering when you’re a sports fan, and accepting that I’m not ‘good’ enough to resist it. Tbh I also use Amazon which, given where we live, probably ticks the ‘Green’ box but earns reproach from other quarters and the other night when we had visitors round, I knew he’d be driving so did the responsible thing and got some Brewdog in, but apparently that’s now unethical too.
Can’t do right for doing wrong it seems, but I was just admiring your stance - never to the point of adoration - and agreeing that it is clearly ridiculous trying to extend the (football) blame to licence fee payers.