I agree.
I wish people would just mind their own business and let everyone else do what they want to do with their own dosh.
[Albion] £14.95 to a Brighton foodbank instead - Monday PPV vs. West Brom.
- Thread starter seagullwedgee
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I agree.
I wish people would just mind their own business and let everyone else do what they want to do with their own dosh.
southstandandy
WEST STAND ANDY
- Jul 9, 2003
- 6,053
Totally agree.
Get some friends together, split the cost, make a small social of the evening, see the Albion win our first home match in ages. Win Win.
(Caveat - you need some friends to do this)
To quote Meatloaf two out of three ain't bad
What I find interesting is why you vote Concervative and why you do think those most on benifits are scrounges, my older Brother thinks like you now he's not a bad person as I guess neither are you.
What makes a huge number of people in this country think those on benifits and by inference using food banks are largely scrounges and why those with these views tend to vote Concervative I genuinely would like to know what triggers these views?
Last edited:
banjo
GOSBTS
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Thanks for that Banjo.
DumLum
Well-known member
Wrong post.
DumLum
Well-known member
Um, there is a pandemic. Another reason they should not be charging if it encourages people to mix to save money.
southstandandy
WEST STAND ANDY
- Jul 9, 2003
- 6,053
Apologies - I thought we had the rule of 6 here in Tier 1. My bad if I've got this wrong.
DumLum
Well-known member
Mixing with people to watch a match won't help keep us in tier 1. The virus can still spread if there is only 5 people in a house.
Hopefully some English teachers can donate their time to a grammar workshop for [MENTION=34524]Frankie[/MENTION]?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,150
Still trying to get my head around why so many people seem so opposed to this.
The argument for donating to a food-bank rather than line Sky/BT's pockets doesn't really wash for me.
Sky and BT would rather have been given additional slots for their subscribers/advertisers and made a few quid from increased Now TV/New subscriptions.
I suspect that those moaning the loudest, are people who already had Sky and BT subscriptions, and were looking forward to a bumper crop of Live games for free again this season.
Now that idea has been dashed, they are boycotting PPV in the hopes that the premier league will look to cut a deal with Sky BT for the increased games.
Which is exactly what Sky want. I see there is already an article stating BT and Sky are lobbying to cancel the PPV scheme ( Surprise surprise).
The only parties being hit by the boycott are the clubs. Who saw an option to get some match day revenue from games they would otherwise have got nothing from.
The argument for donating to a food-bank rather than line Sky/BT's pockets doesn't really wash for me.
Sky and BT would rather have been given additional slots for their subscribers/advertisers and made a few quid from increased Now TV/New subscriptions.
I suspect that those moaning the loudest, are people who already had Sky and BT subscriptions, and were looking forward to a bumper crop of Live games for free again this season.
Now that idea has been dashed, they are boycotting PPV in the hopes that the premier league will look to cut a deal with Sky BT for the increased games.
Which is exactly what Sky want. I see there is already an article stating BT and Sky are lobbying to cancel the PPV scheme ( Surprise surprise).
The only parties being hit by the boycott are the clubs. Who saw an option to get some match day revenue from games they would otherwise have got nothing from.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
I've got a novel idea.
If you want to pay and watch, then pay and watch.
If you wish to donate the cash to a food bank or other worthy cause, then do so.
The wonder of choice.
If you want to pay and watch, then pay and watch.
If you wish to donate the cash to a food bank or other worthy cause, then do so.
The wonder of choice.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Can’t be bothered to go back to SKY and set up PPV. Partly it’s a pain in the arse. Partly im pissed off with the greed. I will listen to the commentary.
I support a number of charities and don’t have a point to prove but fair play to those who use this as a trigger to give to a worthy cause.
I support a number of charities and don’t have a point to prove but fair play to those who use this as a trigger to give to a worthy cause.
You're right. I have no idea why folk (basically, Sky/BT's unpaid junior marketing assistants) are telling others that £14.95 is fair/affordable on a thread about giving money to charity. Very weird behaviour.
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
Is it not possible to do both?
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,150
It's telling that you think Sky/BT want this to go ahead.
They don't and never did.
They wanted more games on their subscription channels to increase revenue from new subscriptions/advertising and NowTV day passes.
The boycott is playing directly into their hands. The fewer people sign up the better for them.
They will be claiming they aren't covering their costs and will be campaigning to scrap the idea as soon as possible.
I assume you are already paying for Sky/BT and were expecting to get all these games within your existing subscription?
I'm sure I would feel differently about it if that were the case. Particularly having been given free Albion games last season.
Last edited:
Both sides are claiming the other wanted it - or, at least, set the price.
I couldn't care less about the politics of it, as long as football fans don't get fleeced further and PPV doesn't become the norm.
According to reports, the boycott is working, football authorities are (finally) realising there's a limit to how far fans will be pushed financially AND charities are benefitting.
All good imo!
But make your own choice etc etc.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,150
I take it you already pay for Sky and BT?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,663
Why is this such a big point for you to argue? So what? Maybe people think that Sky/BT is expensive enough as it isn't without PPV? Lots of people have got Sky, then got BT sport on top, plus a license fee, it's just a question of where this greed can possibly end to pay for overpaid primal Donna footballers to get even richer
And no before you ask I don't have Sky or bt or virgin or anything
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Exactly. Football was already an unsustainable financial model. This is a chance to reset and reevaluate whether the sport as a whole can continue in this way. Encouraging new commercial revenue streams isn’t going to help any kind of reset. As supporters, ideally, this is a chance to say enough is enough in terms of bankrolling every increasing transfer fees, salaries and costs generally. Individual choice of course, but seems an easy choice for me.