|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 5, 2007 8:46:36 GMT
This is not anti Smudge - he deserves his venture to succeed
However the old Oatcake run by Rivals has now been taken over by Sky who are responsible for most of the problems with football in England
Murdoch controls our newspapers, news via Sky, Internet via Myspace and now has football messageboards
Murdoch also has massive control over all UK governments, ditto Australia
Only the Beeb stands in his way which is why he attacks it non stop
Any messageboard EXCEPT Rivals should be our aim
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Dec 5, 2007 8:58:42 GMT
I'd agree with that. Sky is responsible for milking as much out of the common man as possible, irrespective of the damage it's doing to the game. It's one of a cloud of shitehawks trying to extract their pound of flesh out of everybody else's passion. I fail to see why we should voluntarily read their message boards and consume their advertiser's messages.
|
|
|
Post by daverichards on Dec 5, 2007 8:59:00 GMT
Boycott All his stuff
|
|
|
Post by bettyswallocks on Dec 5, 2007 9:10:33 GMT
very much agree with you there. Even though there is alot of football on show at the moment sky are fucking it up by having a few games on a saturday a few on a sunday oh and a few on monday, what the fook is wrong with one game on a sunday and the rest on saturday? Apart from showing alot of football what have sky done to help the game? Fek all to lower league clubs the cunters
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 5, 2007 13:22:38 GMT
Can't stress too much how important it is for the Oatcake not to form part of a group including The Sun, Sky etc under Murdoch
Ultimately we vote with our feet?!
|
|
|
Post by 606Stokie on Dec 5, 2007 13:23:28 GMT
Im all for it
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 5, 2007 13:49:32 GMT
Do you ever stop to think before you put your foot in it Paul?
Please change your user name to Thickasabrick and then volunteer to donate a part of your salary to Smudge.
The sentiments regarding Sky are ill thought through while I'm at it. They plow millions into football for the privilege of broadcasting it. They don't tell football how to spread the money around the clubs and divisions.
Thats down to the "Big" clubs. That is where you should be directing your anger.
|
|
|
Post by fuggers on Dec 5, 2007 14:01:15 GMT
Odd that a moderator wouldn't want people to jump ship isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Dec 5, 2007 14:04:59 GMT
Oh right, so Murdoch held no sway over the FA and the creation of the premiership then? Well hush my conspiratorial mouth.
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Dec 5, 2007 14:28:11 GMT
Its doing itself no favours at the minute ..its slow, always errors and no one on it.
|
|
|
Post by paula_m on Dec 5, 2007 14:32:36 GMT
I must admit it's giving me a headache ... hence my visit here
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 5, 2007 18:11:40 GMT
MW
Your attempts at persuasion and reason sadly fall well short of the mark - don't take up mediation for a living
I understand that Smudge has a vested interest in Rivals and may well have little option but to follow them to whomsoever they have sold their souls to
We Stoke fans also have an interest in this venture and I feel obliged to point out the credentials of our messageboard owner to those who may not be so well informed
Once informed then our posters can make their choice with their eyes wide open. I know as you do that the vast majority will follow the crowd to wherever we end up
If its with Sky then it wont include me
We can argue about the impact of Sky on football in this country but I suspect the vast majority of football club fans will wish that they could turn the clock back
Beyond football Murdoch (Sky's owner) is widely regarded as the head of the most pernicious, evil empire seen in the business world in living memory
Murdoch broke Fleet Street and attempted to take over the rest of the UK newspapers with a campaign based on selling his own titles at a loss to undermine the independents.
Sky recently took a share in ITV (their only commercial competition in the UK ) to block a takeover. That share is currently under investigation
Murdoch constantly attempts to undermine the Beeb - his only media competition worldwide
Through his UK media outlets Murdoch has been able to take a hold on our governments that is truly worrying to anyone interested in free speech
In the US Murdoch owns Fox News TV which has to be the worst lying media outlet in the US though the US citizens are used to being manipulated
In Australia Murdoch has a hold similar to that in the UK
Murdoch owns MySpace - the largest social networking site on the planet and only this week he has bid for the largest religious website in the world
Should we be worried about being sold to the most detested media man on the planet?
PS If Smudge needs some help then I am happy to oblige
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 5, 2007 18:20:32 GMT
Oh right, so Murdoch held no sway over the FA and the creation of the premiership then?
It isn't about creating the Premiership. That in its own right is nothing more than a branding exercise just the same as calling the second tier The Championship is.
It is about the divying up of the money that comes in for TV rights. That was the choice of the Chairman. The Premiership Chairman decided on their own to give seven tenths of nothing to clubs outside the elite group.
Can't you remember the then Oldham Chairman, who unbelievably were in the top flight when the premiership was formed bleating that the top flight big clubs (and he included fooking Oldham in that) should give the rest of football even less of the TV revenue that was being proposed!
I'd love to hear that idiots view today.
It isn't down to Murdoch where the money goes. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by pulisjr on Dec 5, 2007 18:25:17 GMT
It's one of the worst forums i've ever seen anyway
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 5, 2007 18:29:11 GMT
Paul,
You have missed the point.
I'm sure Smudge will thank you himself for calling for a boycott of one of his sources of income which you are able to use for free at your leisure.
I'm sure you apply such high and misplaced priciples to everything you do in your life. I think little of Murdoch and his general business ethics of lack of them but as you well know that is not the point.
Anyway, it isn't really my problem. I'm just stunned by your ability to leap without thinking which is exactly what you have done.
As it happens what Rivals have done with the new site is shocking and Smudge will move this site if they don't sort it out prompto. However that is his decision and I doubt he needs your intervention while he sorts it out. I think you owe him that opportunity, don't you.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 5, 2007 18:30:35 GMT
Mark, I can see where you are coming from in defending Smudge's decision to stay with Rivals/Sky and it is a reasonable position to take.
However, I do think you are being naive about the Sky payments to the Premiership, though. It isn't a question of Sky handing money over to football and then leaving it to football to divi it up. There are separate contracts. Sky have one contract (worth hundreds of £ millions) to broadcast Premiership games and another contract of a fraction of that size to broadcast a smaller number of Championship and Div 1 and Div 2 games.
So each season each of the Premiership clubs get from TV rights £30 million to £50 million whilst Championship clubs get less than £2 million. Of course the Premiership clubs COULD choose to give more to the Championship clubs - but they choose to give around £11 million to relegated clubs for up to two years and around £1 million each to the other Championship clubs. The Premiership decides how that money is distributed - the Championship and Football League clubs have no say in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 5, 2007 18:34:48 GMT
"The Premiership decides how that money is distributed - the Championship and Football League clubs have no say in the matter. "
But that is my whole point, John. Nothing more and nothing less.
People seem to think Sky decide these matters.
It is decided by the Chairman of the "elite" clubs. It is them we should be having a pop at. They set up the seperate Premiership body seperate from the Football League. They decide how much money is trickled down the pyramid.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Dec 5, 2007 18:56:47 GMT
Moving from Rivals in protest of Sky would just be tokenism in my opinion, lets face it a lot of people who use the oatcake are Sky subscribers anyway. How much extra were they making from each display of that Guiness Fantasy Rugby banner at the top of the old board? Not a lot from the oatcake I imagine, and those same banners are all over other message boards such as Football365 which is 20x* busier than the oatcake. The sentiment is a nice one, but at the end of the day it will make no difference to sky, but a significant difference to a man whose living is (to my knowledge) dependent on the fanzine that he has worked hard for decades to build up.
* I just invented that number, but it's damn busy.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 5, 2007 18:59:09 GMT
Yes, Mark, but Sky CHOOSES to have a separate contract with the Premiership clubs. So it is Sky which has put 95% (?) of its football money in the hands of the Premiership. Thankfully the Sky monopoly is being slighty eroded with the arrival of groups like Setanta but they still have a near monopoly. I hate monopolies - they gave us things like old style BT who said if I wanted a phone I had to rent (not buy) it from them.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 5, 2007 22:06:23 GMT
No that is not it John.
The Premiership decided to set up its own governing body to look after the interests of the clubs in that set up seperste from the Football League. Therefore Sky, Setanta and antone else has to bid for Premier League matches with that governing body and with the Football League for the rest.
I stress I'm not defending Sky, Murdoch or anyone else here but blame where blame is due and in this case it is with the self interested chairman of the so called elite clubs.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Dec 6, 2007 10:28:55 GMT
I take it by Wisemasters stance, he never watches premiership matches, so won't if Stoke get promoted. Never watches SKY and has never watched SKY, and indeed hasn't got or never had a sky digi box. Never has or never will read one of Murdochs newspapers.
Well fair play to you Paul for your stance. I'm sure you will miss going to Stoke if we get promoted.
H
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 6, 2007 13:26:00 GMT
RAF
No my hands are not totally clean either. I have Sky but will be disposing of it very soon
As for watching football in the Prem then I have no option if I want to watch football at that level but to watch via Sky. I would like it to be different - but it isn't. Were there a major boycott then I would happily join in as I am doing on a personal level
As fo the Oatcake, I have alerted our members to what is on offer - if they chose to join a Sky board then they do at least do so with that knowledge.
I certainly won't join a 'Sky Oatcake' board though I will read it
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 6, 2007 13:31:46 GMT
I think we've lost sight of the true enemy: The Romans!
Seriously SKY/Murdoch AND the G14 led elite clubs are the enemy.
personally I dont,& never have,subscribe to SKY,I hant paid for a Murdoch papers since 1989/Hillsboro (that wasnt the only reason but it brought the matter into focus) e.t.c. e.t.c.
It may be a forlorn battle but its worth fighting as best as we can individually & collectivly.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Dec 6, 2007 13:33:45 GMT
"I certainly won't join a 'Sky Oatcake' board though I will read it "
Surely whether you post or not is irrelevant to the number of sponsorship hits they will get if you are still reading it?
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 6, 2007 13:37:49 GMT
I'll try not to read it too often
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Dec 6, 2007 13:43:18 GMT
Have to say that I've had sky sports since it was introduced in the early '90's! Unfortunately, a boycott will never gain enough mass support to change the way the revenue is distributed, the masses are 'hooked' and anyway most people are just too lazy to take any direct action (myself included I suppose!) Problem is that I'm totally nuts on football, ALL football, whether played at the Brit or anywhere else and at the moment there simply is no choice apart from Sentana, which I've managed to resist so far. So sorry guys, no principles so no help from this quarter!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 14:12:09 GMT
Ethical forum posting is a bit too much for me. I've given up on principle - look what a Labour Government did riding on the back of a century of political principles.
Specifically... As far as I see it, Smudge is the official sensor on the Rivals Oatcake MB. So as far as that is concerned, I am happy that my right to free speech is uninhibited. I am only here, not there, because the Rivals interface is stupid and I cannot tollerate it.
Generally... If you don't like Murdoch there is little you can do about it and all the boycotts in the world will not make any difference. If you enjoy Sky watch it. If you like The Times, read it. If you do social networking get a MySpace account. If you like Rivals then go a posting on there.
Or if you can do without all the things you like you can wallow in your own misery, safe in the knowledge that you are doing something on principle.
Do you what you want to, it will not change anything anyway.
|
|
|
Post by POS51 on Dec 6, 2007 17:58:51 GMT
I cant understand why they had to meddle with in anyway.
Its like anything that is 'new and improved', normally translates into 'ruined and useless'
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 6, 2007 18:01:18 GMT
malvern
You may be right short term but all empires crumble eventually - often started by individuals taking away the odd brick in their base
I believe that all opinions count and Murdoch has enough enemies for an organised boycott to have a significant effect
His shares in ITV have been referred to the Monopoly Commission or similar - so theres a start
I might take him on myself (organise a boycott) when I have time
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Dec 6, 2007 18:20:31 GMT
In the late 1980s Murdoch had business aims to expand his media empire ever wider, and part of that plan was to get Sky dishes into as many homes as possible. One of the main drivers for consumers purchasing Sky subscriptions was the ability to watch wall-to-wall football coverage, and Murdoch knew this would be the case.
To beat BSB (remember them?) and the terrestrial channels long-term Murdoch initially paid well over the odds to purchase exclusive footy coverage rights - effectively outbidding the other broadcasters to buy the consumers' subscriptions in the short term.
To do this he needed to bypass the existing TV rights negotiations, which were owned by the Football league on behalf of all 92 clubs. Sky was instrumental in floating the idea of a breakaway 'elite' league, which once floated, the chairmen of the elite clubs snapped his hand off to buy into. Hence the the Premier League.
The offer of the money from the Murdoch empire came first, the Prem breakaway came afterwards. Murdoch bought football, the elite clubs' chairmen pocketed the cash and starry-eyed FA facilitated the whole stinking deal. The gutless Football League were unable or unwilling to stop their top clubs being stolen.
Murdoch was instrumental in this whole sordid process. He rightly bet his wedge that the game would be greedy enough to come along for the ride.
Ergo, fuck him and fuck Sky.
|
|