|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Dec 6, 2007 18:25:00 GMT
Why blame Murdoch, Surely the FA and the clubs are to blae for allowing it to happen!
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Dec 6, 2007 18:30:24 GMT
They are indeed, but I'm sure as hell not going to contribute to the business that paid for it all.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 6, 2007 19:05:58 GMT
Thanks Kenilworth, that was my opinion on the way all this started and you have confirmed it with a clarity which I could not manage myself. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Dec 7, 2007 1:20:40 GMT
At the end of the day, Sky gives its customers what it wants, how they want it and now when they want it. We cant deny its a great piece of business they have done because lets face it, its pretty cheap for what you get compared to 15 years ago. Not denying the fact that broadcasting a f00king lot of the games in todays leagues does ruin the game, but isnt all the fault of sky. You can say that high ticket prices has caused this, and of course as mentioned before, the very fact that Premiership clubs receive by far the mjaority of the money given to the league. It is a growing market and it hasnt stopped yet. In 10 years time, players will be earning 150k a week, 200k a week, ticket prices for a Championship match will be £50 and all this whilst Sky offer you a package for £37.99 a month where you can now have a virtual wank courtesy of channel 906. (Not that I know this channel ) If you dont understand simple business then you wont grasp the concept of what is ruining football, especially as 90% of the population are hypocrits in the way they go about it. Add ignorant to that aswell as they miss the fact the product gets cheaper, more people buy into this, more money is pumped into entertainment. It is a bloody vicious circle.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Dec 7, 2007 8:51:49 GMT
I got sky when I met the wife. Before that I went the pub and watched as much footie as my gutts could take. Now for the price of 1 day on the piss a month I can watch as much footie as the wife can take. Sorry chaps but I cant live without it.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 7, 2007 13:56:00 GMT
Thanks Kenilworth, that was my opinion on the way all this started and you have confirmed it with a clarity which I could not manage myself. Cheers. So with your new found clarity, John who do you hold responsible? The Romans for offering the bribe or Judas for selling everyone else down the river and accepting? I'm going to take a wild guess and say you would blame the Romans or in this case Sky.
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Dec 7, 2007 14:04:14 GMT
Does it really matter who takes most of the share of the blame? The fact is that Sky money has hijacked the game, probably irreversibly.
Given the state of the Murdoch stranglehold on our media, something which our cross-media ownership laws were supposed to prevent, but our politicians are too scared to tackle, we're faced with one minor way we can opt out of Murdoch's empire.
It's in the hands of the supporters, or more accurately the fanzine, where we choose to site our message board and who we choose to give our advertising revenue to.
I can understand Smudge's original decision to take the income from Rivals to fund the continuation of the Oatcake. Buy all other things being equal I'd rather we didn't give our patronage to a website owned by the man responsible for injecting all the cash into the game that means my club is now totally unable to compete.
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 7, 2007 14:36:45 GMT
kenilworth touches on the nub of this problem
Its not really about Sky but Murdoch and all he stands for
Difficult for many to comprehend but I would guess that no unelected person has had as much control of our country since the Magna Carta
Exaggerated maybe but with his control of large chunks of the media in the UK Murdoch almost decides who is going to govern us never mind what we are going to watch
And Murdoch is now in the process of perpetuating his dynasty through his son Kevin who is moving from Sky to take the helm at Murdoch's castle in the US
In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what the Oatcake does? Maybe not but the Oatcake does at least have a choice which is more than you can say for many of Murdoch's victims
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Dec 7, 2007 14:51:31 GMT
Murdoch buys Beliefnet - the worlds largest online spiritual site
About Beliefnet Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness.
Whether you're exploring your own faith or other spiritual traditions, we provide you inspiring devotional tools, access to the best spiritual teachers and clergy in the world, thought-provoking commentary, and a supportive community.
Beliefnet is the largest spiritual web site. We are independent and not affiliated with any spiritual organization or movement. Our only agenda is to help you meet your spiritual needs.
[http://www.beliefnet.com/url]
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 7, 2007 15:47:22 GMT
[quote author=kenilworthstokies board=Potters thread=1196844396 post=1197036254
Does it really matter who takes most of the share of the blame? The fact is that Sky money has hijacked the game, probably irreversibly. [/quote]
We obviously see the problem differently and if you seriously want to target the issue it certainly does matter where the "blame" lies.
Firstly I say again I am not in any way attempting to defend the Murdoch empire in any way shape or form. I am as concerned by his domination of the media as the next person.
It is my view that the root cause of the problem is the elite clubs who decided to sell the rest of football down the river and restructure to enable themselves to gain the maximum cash they could. They then compounded this by then voting to keep the vast majority of the new income from Sky and sticking two fingers up to the lower league unworthies.
The fact that Sky were able to dangle the carrot in the first place was a symptom of the ever increasing single minded greed that was beginning to envelop the PLC football clubs.
It has always been my understanding that you attack the cause of the problem not the symptom?
|
|