[Albion] £14.95 to a Brighton foodbank instead - Monday PPV vs. West Brom.

[southstandandy]

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.

Fair enough, but why have the rule of 6 at all? What about 50 odd people in a pub watching the game?

I'm pretty sure loads of people will go into the pubs to watch it (my local in Shoreham is already fully booked on Monday from 5pm) which I would of thought poses more of a risk than a controlled group of 5 of us in a large living room and spaced apart watching the game (from only 2 households).

Christmas will likely be the same. Does anyone really believe that people will keep their social groups down to 6 over the festive period (assuming we are still under the same Tier structure)? I agree we should stick to the limits and as a family we personally will, but I can see this being abused across the country and not just in Tier 1.

 

[goldstone]

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?

Why do (did) I usually vote Conservative? Largely because the alternatives were generally Labour (not a hope in hell I'd vote for a party called "Labour" ... now if they changed their name to Social Democrats or something then maybe but unlikely), or Liberal who are far far too left for me ... and wanted to keep us in the EU. Recently I've voted UKIP and would probably vote again for a Farage party. He is the best politician we have. I am so opposed to Boris's policies concerning this Covid nonsense, and so unimpressed with the clowns in his cabinet that there's little chance I'll be voting Conservative for a long time and certainly not while he's in charge.So next election the chances are that my vote will be up for grabs.

Why are people on benefits mostly scroungers? Well mostly you just have to look at them. Single mothers with multiple kids from multiple fathers. Why should my taxes support such people? They should be neutered. Marcus Rashford's mother is a case in point. Three kids, different fathers? I didn't hear anyone asking where his father was when his mother was crying herself to sleep. No. It's always the bloody taxpayer who's expected to help out when fathers disappear and mothers continue having more kids with different men who also walk out. I'm not sure just how much help responsible people are expected to provide for the irresponsible. There has to be a limit.

 

[Mackenzie]

Why do (did) I usually vote Conservative? Largely because the alternatives were generally Labour (not a hope in hell I'd vote for a party called "Labour" ... now if they changed their name to Social Democrats or something then maybe but unlikely), or Liberal who are far far too left for me ... and wanted to keep us in the EU. Recently I've voted UKIP and would probably vote again for a Farage party. He is the best politician we have. I am so opposed to Boris's policies concerning this Covid nonsense, and so unimpressed with the clowns in his cabinet that there's little chance I'll be voting Conservative for a long time and certainly not while he's in charge.So next election the chances are that my vote will be up for grabs.

Why are people on benefits mostly scroungers? Well mostly you just have to look at them. Single mothers with multiple kids from multiple fathers. Why should my taxes support such people? They should be neutered. Marcus Rashford's mother is a case in point. Three kids, different fathers? I didn't hear anyone asking where his father was when his mother was crying herself to sleep. No. It's always the bloody taxpayer who's expected to help out when fathers disappear and mothers continue having more kids with different men who also walk out. I'm not sure just how much help responsible people are expected to provide for the irresponsible. There has to be a limit.

Was Hitler just misunderstood?

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

would PPV really be so terrible? those that cant go to the game then have a choice. Sky/BT/other will always show some games so they can get the subscriptions.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Why do (did) I usually vote Conservative? Largely because the alternatives were generally Labour (not a hope in hell I'd vote for a party called "Labour" ... now if they changed their name to Social Democrats or something then maybe but unlikely), or Liberal who are far far too left for me ... and wanted to keep us in the EU. Recently I've voted UKIP and would probably vote again for a Farage party. He is the best politician we have. I am so opposed to Boris's policies concerning this Covid nonsense, and so unimpressed with the clowns in his cabinet that there's little chance I'll be voting Conservative for a long time and certainly not while he's in charge.So next election the chances are that my vote will be up for grabs.

You vote for Nigel Farage, then listen to what he says.

[tweet]1319172209403961346[/tweet]

 

[Wozza]

would PPV really be so terrible? those that cant go to the game then have a choice.

A few thousand would pay to watch Brighton & Hove Albion. Hundreds of thousands would pay to watch Man Utd. And that's just the UK.

Doesn't take a genius to see where that would head...

Sky/BT/other will always show some games so they can get the subscriptions.

That's a rather large assumption.

If nothing else, it assumes Sky/TV will always have the rights and not, say, Amazon Prime.

 

[Whitechapel]

would PPV really be so terrible? those that cant go to the game then have a choice. Sky/BT/other will always show some games so they can get the subscriptions.

It would give Sky & BT even more reason to push for the staggered kick-off times we have now to become permanent. If it became the norm then prices would undoubtably start to rise, eventually taking the choice away from more and more low-income families. Once fans are in the stadiums you can bet they'll look at removing the exemptions on pubs getting the PPV games for free too. This is why I used the frogs in hot water analogy the other day, because Sky & BT are never going to reach a point where they're happy with how much money they're making, they will always be looking to push for more money. A games live on Sky? Well unless you buy the PPV+ version they'll be adverts during stoppages in the game now. Well, the PPV model is working so well for Premier League games why don't we extend the service, F.A Cup games are now on the PPV. £15 a game for the PPV? We'll offer you an away game ST for £250, but you don't get any money off if your games are shown on normal Sky etc etc.

It's staggering how many people don't seem to realise that giant corperations like Sky/BT aren't your friends and will push as far as they can. Give them an inch and they'll take a yard and if people kick off too much they'll withdraw half a yard and act like they've done something nobel. Once something is an established moneymaker for them there's only one way it's going to go from there

 

[BLOCK F]

Wrong post.

DumLum, as I said, mind your own business.
I shall do as I please, and will spend my honestly earned dosh in any legitimate way I choose.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Why are people on benefits mostly scroungers? Well mostly you just have to look at them. Single mothers with multiple kids from multiple fathers. Why should my taxes support such people? They should be neutered. Marcus Rashford's mother is a case in point.

****ing hell.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

****ing hell.

Don't get him started on black women or disabled women on TV.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Don't get him started on black women or disabled women on TV.

He won't be starting on anything on here for a while.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's staggering how many people don't seem to realise that giant corperations like Sky/BT aren't your friends and will push as far as they can. Give them an inch and they'll take a yard and if people kick off too much they'll withdraw half a yard and act like they've done something nobel. Once something is an established moneymaker for them there's only one way it's going to go from there

good to have debate, seems there's lots of assumptions. this isnt about Sky/BT, they are the transfer medium for the Premier League, they set the terms. Sky (or any broadcaster) is making most their money off the subscriptions and the advertising. PPV is driving traffic to these, not much in it for them directly as they pay the producer (the PL) most the revenue. so they'll keep their main money maker (subs) going, while adding new content. PPV for all games sounds like more games to see, i expect it would lead to season ticket packages (subs by another name), means more choice right? the risk is to clubs not attracting crowds if everyone watches at home instead, is that net problem if the clubs are getting equal distribution of revenues as they do now?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

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

Because the poster in question is arguing that people who are saying they will pay for the PPV games are "unpaid Sky/BT Marketing assistants".
The reality is that Sky/BT don't want PPV.

Anyone who is already paying for it, will still get the service paid for.
Just not the free extra games they got last season.

Those who don't have the subscriptions, get the choice to pick which games they want to watch.

In our club's case.
They have refunded season ticket revenues and hope to recoup some lost revenues from PPV.
Sky will not give a **** if it fails.

 

[Justice]

70 people paid to watch Burnley

 

[Medwayseagull]

He won't be starting on anything on here for a while.

Any chance of making it a few years ?

 

[chaileyjem]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sky-sports-bt-premier-league-22901105
"A top Sky source has revealed that both [Sky and BT] companies would happily see the pay-per-view service binned as they continue to deal with the fallout.
He said: “Sky is not happy to be involved in showing the pay-per-view games. We never thought it was a good idea and nothing’s changed since it started.
It is damaging the reputation of Sky Sports to be linked to this scheme – and that feeling is shared at BT. Everyone here would prefer for it to stop.”

 

[dazzer6666]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sky-sports-bt-premier-league-22901105
"A top Sky source has revealed that both [Sky and BT] companies would happily see the pay-per-view service binned as they continue to deal with the fallout.
He said: “Sky is not happy to be involved in showing the pay-per-view games. We never thought it was a good idea and nothing’s changed since it started.
It is damaging the reputation of Sky Sports to be linked to this scheme – and that feeling is shared at BT. Everyone here would prefer for it to stop.”

Of course they don’t like it - their whole business model is almost entirely based on subscriptions and the extension of PPV would basically ruin it. Not sure why so many think it’s the ‘thin end of the wedge’ for the broadcasters [emoji2369][emoji2369]

I reckon we’ll see PPV end pretty sharpish, or at least get significantly modified.....can’t imagine the numbers currently paying, balanced against the negative publicity, are making it worthwhile.

 

[DumLum]

Fair enough, but why have the rule of 6 at all? What about 50 odd people in a pub watching the game?

I'm pretty sure loads of people will go into the pubs to watch it (my local in Shoreham is already fully booked on Monday from 5pm) which I would of thought poses more of a risk than a controlled group of 5 of us in a large living room and spaced apart watching the game (from only 2 households).

Christmas will likely be the same. Does anyone really believe that people will keep their social groups down to 6 over the festive period (assuming we are still under the same Tier structure)? I agree we should stick to the limits and as a family we personally will, but I can see this being abused across the country and not just in Tier 1.

I'm sure 50 people in a pub is worse. Wasn't having a go at people watching a football match together at home if they are sticking to the rules. I just think charging £15 for a game will obviously encourage people to watch together and it will not help.

 

[jcdenton08]

70 people paid to watch Burnley

Really or whoosh?

 

[LamieRobertson]

good to have debate, seems there's lots of assumptions. this isnt about Sky/BT, they are the transfer medium for the Premier League, they set the terms. Sky (or any broadcaster) is making most their money off the subscriptions and the advertising. PPV is driving traffic to these, not much in it for them directly as they pay the producer (the PL) most the revenue. so they'll keep their main money maker (subs) going, while adding new content. PPV for all games sounds like more games to see, i expect it would lead to season ticket packages (subs by another name), means more choice right? the risk is to clubs not attracting crowds if everyone watches at home instead, is that net problem if the clubs are getting equal distribution of revenues as they do now?

Wonder if people boycott NowTV ..their one off tenners are PPV just in a slightly different format