|
Post by tommulliner on Sept 7, 2010 17:01:17 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. Any other thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Scarecrow on Sept 7, 2010 17:05:11 GMT 1
It's about bidding for games. Sky has lots of money and can outbid the BBC or ITV. Don't you love capitalism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 17:21:41 GMT 1
Sky have their new found friends in the Tories in kind of power. You can, therefore, forget about the protected list of free to air events. We were on the point of getting Ashes cricket back but our wonderful new hybrid government have already put the mockers on that.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Sept 7, 2010 17:22:38 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] isnt that a contradiction ? in some instances a tv licence can cost more per year than sky sports i know what you mean though, i cancelled sky and just bought a HD freeview recorder not a lot on there and not even got HD round here yet my sky ran out yesterday but it still works today hopefully it might last until after the game
|
|
|
Post by jaytee on Sept 7, 2010 17:43:14 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] You can come to my house to watch the game on a 42" television for only £39.99. Itinerary : 1915hrs - take your seat 1916hrs - Complimentary Jack Russell jumps on your lap. 1945hrs - Action!!! 2030hrs - H.T. Free Lincoln biscuit and glass of water. Use the toilet for only £19.99. (Usual price, £24.99). 2135 - Full time. 2136 - Get told to **** off.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on Sept 7, 2010 17:53:51 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] isnt that a contradiction ? in some instances a tv licence can cost more per year than sky sports i know what you mean though, i cancelled sky and just bought a HD freeview recorder not a lot on there and not even got HD round here yet my sky ran out yesterday but it still works today hopefully it might last until after the game[/quote] £145.50 for 12 months (colour!) tv licence Sky Sports pack is £20 per month to add on to an existing subscription = £240 for 12 months Guess it could work out similar if you just had one SS channel but doubt many people bother doing that as sods law what you want is on another channel.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Sept 7, 2010 18:09:38 GMT 1
2136 - Get told to **** off. Not Coming For evening games im accustomed to that being at 19.55
|
|
|
Post by froggy on Sept 7, 2010 18:24:19 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] Capatalism, its what happens when people keep funding these private corporations. Fans without tickets HAVE to pay to watch their national games nowadays. I thought monopolies were illegal but it seems as if Sky have a monopoly. But heyho, everyone feeds the greedy corporations so it will continue
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Sept 7, 2010 18:25:32 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] The rights will be owned by the Swiss FA so suggest you take it up with them. Not sure where I will find it, got a link to Setanta Ireland last time, was shocked they are still going.
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 18:33:10 GMT 1
I have Sky and pay the full package and can happily afford it (not gloating) soooo bring it on, have everything on Sky as far as I'm concerned. I pay the money, so I should get privileges people who (choose) not to subscribe don't get. Simples...
If I pay £68 month for Sky then I fully expect them and want them to go out there and outbid other corporations with my money.
Plus and this has happened in the past especially with the BBC, they don't even want some of these games. There are plenty of events and sports out there the BBC can broadcast and aren't interested. Hence the demise of Grandstand.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Sept 7, 2010 18:48:57 GMT 1
Bloody hell some left wing drivel without Stalin and Lenin.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on Sept 7, 2010 19:01:35 GMT 1
I have Sky and pay the full package and can happily afford it (not gloating) soooo bring it on, have everything on Sky as far as I'm concerned. I pay the money, so I should get privileges people who (choose) not to subscribe don't get. Simples... If I pay £68 month for Sky then I fully expect them and want them to go out there and outbid other corporations with my money. Plus and this has happened in the past especially with the BBC, they don't even want some of these games. There are plenty of events and sports out there the BBC can broadcast and aren't interested. Hence the demise of Grandstand. What a charming individual.
|
|
|
Post by tommulliner on Sept 7, 2010 19:07:06 GMT 1
You need a TV Licence to be able to watch sky sports in the first place, as you are watching it on a TV. The licence is for your TV. So anyone wanting to watch the game (legally ) will have to pay extra as its on Sky Sports to watch the national team, and that is my argument.
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 19:17:50 GMT 1
Who's the real winner :-)
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 19:19:28 GMT 1
P.S the TV Licence scheme is outdated and doesn't work anymore. I they need to come up with something new. The BBC don't provide enough quality entertainment to justify it anyway and they want more"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 19:28:53 GMT 1
You need a TV Licence to be able to watch sky sports in the first place, as you are watching it on a TV. The licence is for your TV. So anyone wanting to watch the game (legally ) will have to pay extra as its on Sky Sports to watch the national team, and that is my argument. No need to defend your first post, most could see exactly what you meant and agree with you. Holby City for me then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 19:37:45 GMT 1
P.S the TV Licence scheme is outdated and doesn't work anymore. I they need to come up with something new. The BBC don't provide enough quality entertainment to justify it anyway and they want more" I would not hesitate to disagree with that statement. They provide TV Channels, Radio and internet for very little money in comparison with the full Sky package. That is unless you mean we should pay more for the TV licence.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 7, 2010 19:57:25 GMT 1
Now, firstly England V Swizerland is only on Sky Sports isn't it!! This is just my opinion and I'm interested as to others thoughts on the matter, but in my eyes, if The national team are playing, then surly everyone who pays a TV Licence should be elegable to view the game, and not have to pay to watch it. [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Any other thoughts? [/quote] isnt that a contradiction ? in some instances a tv licence can cost more per year than sky sports i know what you mean though, i cancelled sky and just bought a HD freeview recorder not a lot on there and not even got HD round here yet my sky ran out yesterday but it still works today hopefully it might last until after the game[/quote] Thing is you'll never get everything from one Sky Sports channel / package, they'll always spread everything around to make sure you have to keep shelling out extra if you want to see everything, while if you pay the licence fee you know you can watch anything the Beeb secure the rights too.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Sept 7, 2010 19:59:54 GMT 1
I'm still surprised anyone pays to watch footy on tv - quick search on the old net and you can get every premier game all England internationals and events like the Ryder cup, ashes and rugby internationals for free, all with the added benefit of annoying rupert Murdoch in the process.
Personally i think the loss of test match cricket to terrestrial tv hasn't helped the games long term future and there is a danger football could go the same way if they chase money over exposing the game to new audiences
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 7, 2010 20:01:39 GMT 1
P.S the TV Licence scheme is outdated and doesn't work anymore. I they need to come up with something new. The BBC don't provide enough quality entertainment to justify it anyway and they want more" As Town fans we get full coverage on Radio Shropshire, the goals and sometimes some highlights on the Football League Show and also access to the goals via the BBC website. Pretty good really. Isn't your 'I'm alright Jack' attitude more out of date, you sound like that shell suited Harry Enfield character whose name escapes me... Oh no, you're right, being an odious grasping braggart is back in fashion as of the last election!
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Sept 7, 2010 20:23:09 GMT 1
I know some of the England away games rights will get snapped up by the likes of Sky and ESPN as the FA of the home side will just sell to the highest bidder without any thought for the English armchair fan, but I find it frankly scandalous that there isnt even any highlights of tonight's game on any of the terrestrial channels.
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 20:37:35 GMT 1
Well I am Torrie lol
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 20:45:20 GMT 1
Braggart? where in this thread have I said how much I earn or how much money I have... I said "I can happily afford sky"
"Choice" is the key word for me.... I've choose to subscribe to sky and there for get the privilege to watch things that none Sky Subscribes can watch and I think thats a good thing and only right. To go on I even think BT and Virgin customers shouldn't be allowed access to Sky Sports unless they pay the same as a Sky subscriber pays... I know they only get Sky Sports 1 and 2 but it should be all or nothing.
Another example. I choose not to subscribe to Shrews World and so I don't get to see any of the videos or get the interviews etc. I'm not going to moan about that because I've choose not to subscribe.
I've also choose not to subscribe to ESPN
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Sept 7, 2010 21:01:19 GMT 1
Well, maybe the language I used with regard to yourself was a little harsh, mightyshrew, but your initial contribution does basically read ' I can afford it, great, and **** anyone who can't'.
Terry Leahy thinks people should have the 'choice' of which of the five Tesco supermarkets in town they can shop at; n doubt we'll soon have the 'choice' of which Murdoch owned channel we can pay handsomely for the privillege of watching football on.
The alternative for those who can't afford it? **** off and work harder until you can!'
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 21:07:16 GMT 1
Sainsburys.... "try something new today" ok I'll go to Morrisons.
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 21:08:59 GMT 1
ok I don't agree with the "can't afford it? **** off and work harder until you can" I would never go around saying that. I guess I mean its just nice to have something exclusive in return for what I pay for...
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Sept 7, 2010 21:24:56 GMT 1
its just nice to have something exclusive in return for what I pay for... A bizarre comment that shows that there is no hope in the fight against Murdoch's empire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 21:35:01 GMT 1
tv licence fee is a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Sept 7, 2010 21:56:22 GMT 1
It's always going to be the same. Those without Sky will moan, those with Sky will wonder what the big fuss is about... So what's the big fuss all about?
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Sept 7, 2010 22:06:47 GMT 1
Well I enjoyed the game (in HD) :-)
|
|