The bbc, again.

The good old Daily Mail

180 quid in 5 years at current inflation equates to 213 quid and change.

It is a statement of the obvious used for political point scoring.

The emotive use of the word soar is used to suggest something it is not.

There are strong arguments either way on the mode of funding that requires more serious analysis than space filling crap like this.
Nobody wants to pay anything any more. It's a completely tone deaf move.
 

The absolute hypocrisy of this article taking swipes at other, newer sports media.

After both United and Palace lost at the weekend (both played at the same time) the post match analysis was focused entirely on Michael Carrick and United and didn’t reference Sage and Palace at all.
I defend much about the BBC but not it's extreme partial support of that team.

You want to listen to R5 as I do in the car at the weekend (my missus won't listen to 6 music). Literally no other team is discussed.

I stopped watching MOTD which I renamed The Manchester United Show.
 
Nobody wants to pay anything any more. It's a completely tone deaf move.
That's a different point.

I was criticizing the Mail for putting through an article suggesting corruption, over charging or whatever for wholly inflation led price increases.

Would they publish a similar article about the price of their paper?
 
I defend much about the BBC but not it's extreme partial support of that team.

You want to listen to R5 as I do in the car at the weekend (my missus won't listen to 6 music). Literally no other team is discussed.

I stopped watching MOTD which I renamed The Manchester United Show.
Similar on Sky & TNT. The prelims for a Palace live game are often an interrupted hour or so about the sacred Man United. They might as well make Man U TV free for an hour.
 
I defend much about the BBC but not it's extreme partial support of that team.

You want to listen to R5 as I do in the car at the weekend (my missus won't listen to 6 music). Literally no other team is discussed.

I stopped watching MOTD which I renamed The Manchester United Show.
When Sky started internal discussions about launching Live Premier League football, all those years ago, the working title for Sky Sports 1 was the Man United channel.
 
That's a different point.

I was criticizing the Mail for putting through an article suggesting corruption, over charging or whatever for wholly inflation led price increases.

Would they publish a similar article about the price of their paper?
I think we can guess the answer to that. It's not a different point though is it? You don't raise prices when people think its price should be nothing at all. Unless you're Apple. That's a different point.
 
That's a different point.

I was criticizing the Mail for putting through an article suggesting corruption, over charging or whatever for wholly inflation led price increases.

Would they publish a similar article about the price of their paper?
Of course not the difference being that you are not forced to pay for the Mail. The Licence Fee is a tax that comes with in built in price rise guarantees. Most government departments and other external bodies have to fight for funding and would love the type of sweetheart deal that the BBC gets.

Overlooked, by the Mail last month, because of more controversial stuff, was the suggestion by the MP's committee that BBC funding should be cut because it was trying to be too many things to too many people. They suggested a smaller and a more focused organisation (currently 20,000 people) with a lower funding fee might make people more willing to pay. They have a point, I want abolition of compulsion but if the fee was say £50 I would probably shut up about it.
 
I defend much about the BBC but not it's extreme partial support of that team.

You want to listen to R5 as I do in the car at the weekend (my missus won't listen to 6 music). Literally no other team is discussed.

I stopped watching MOTD which I renamed The Manchester United Show.
There's a rule, I'll give it to you: BBC are Liverpool (real! working class credentials). Sky are Man Utd (populist). Rooney needs to stop messing with this rule or he'll be out on his massive ear.
 
It can feel like it but the natural balance will be restored. BBCs article is actually a dig at Man U when you consider it.
Listening to R5 now.

They have only mentioned Chelsea once as opponents.

The partiality is extreme and highly offensive to Chelsea fans.

Not something I thought I would ever care about.
 
The good old Daily Mail

180 quid in 5 years at current inflation equates to 213 quid and change.

It is a statement of the obvious used for political point scoring.

The emotive use of the word soar is used to suggest something it is not.

There are strong arguments either way on the mode of funding that requires more serious analysis than space filling crap like this.


Would you be interested in paying £200 per year for Man Utd TV? Same thing to me, it doesn't give me anything I want to watch or represent me anymore. It's so wokified and ruined, even on their more serious programming
 
US court just threw out another 10 billion dollar extortion masked as defamation claim fabricated by Trump against the Wall Street Journal

The equally specious claim against the BBC will go the same way any time.
 
US court just threw out another 10 billion dollar extortion masked as defamation claim fabricated by Trump against the Wall Street Journal

The equally specious claim against the BBC will go the same way any time.
Law suits are harder to prove in the US as untrue is not enough, you also have to prove malicious intent and damage. I assume in this case Trump couldn't. However these cases vary state by state, so people try and shop around if they can.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top