Media Stories, Rumours and Gossip

[ROTG]

28 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Good, I never have to listen to that. 

Unfortunately I have no choice sometime when preaching in the parish

[JaneB]

53 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Unfortunately I have no choice sometime when preaching in the parish

Why would you be listening to talks*** when you are giving a sermon? 🤔

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, JaneB said:

Why would you be listening to talks*** when you are giving a sermon? 🤔

Modern technology and being able to multi task. 😀

[My Blood Is Blue]

On 17/06/2023 at 11:52, JaneB said:

Sky Sports AXE half of their football reporting team in brutal cost-cutting move | Daily Mail Online

I look forward to seeing them pass the savings on to the customers… or not.

[blueandproud]

The golden age of commentating has long gone.   Brian Moore, the best ever IMO passed away years ago.  John Motson, good though he was, went on for a few years too long and was marginalised by the BBC.  Now we're stuck with stats mad, over excitable individuals masquerading as commentators (Jonathan Pearce is for me the worst offender of this crime).  As for Talk s**t, the less said the better.  Laura Woods is apparently leaving (good riddance, she comes across as a bombastic schoolgirl), and a majority of their presenters are drunkards, gamblers and attention seeking lunatics.  Only All;y McCoist and maybe one or two others are any good.  Martin Tyler has gone on for 10-15 years too long.  They should also get rid of Carragher (who should have sacked after his spitting incident) and Jamie Redknapp, who is just a windbag like his old man, he's only on because of his pretty face.  And the odious Jeff Shreeves and the dim Tim Sherwood should also be booted out as well, I don't know anyone who likes them.

[blueandproud]

On 17/06/2023 at 14:18, JaneB said:

Why would you be listening to talks*** when you are giving a sermon? 🤔

It's aimed at dim, Sun reading white van driving blockheads, unfortunately my muppet colleabout thing they don't agues at work insist on listening to it up until tea time  I'd rather listen to music than people talking bull***t  about subjects they haven't got a clue about, and I'm not interested in their ill-informed opinions either.

 

Rant over for now.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, blueandproud said:

The golden age of commentating has long gone.   Brian Moore, the best ever IMO passed away years ago.  John Motson, good though he was, went on for a few years too long and was marginalised by the BBC.  Now we're stuck with stats mad, over excitable individuals masquerading as commentators (Jonathan Pearce is for me the worst offender of this crime).  As for Talk s**t, the less said the better.  Laura Woods is apparently leaving (good riddance, she comes across as a bombastic schoolgirl), and a majority of their presenters are drunkards, gamblers and attention seeking lunatics.  Only All;y McCoist and maybe one or two others are any good.  Martin Tyler has gone on for 10-15 years too long.  They should also get rid of Carragher (who should have sacked after his spitting incident) and Jamie Redknapp, who is just a windbag like his old man, he's only on because of his pretty face.  And the odious Jeff Shreeves and the dim Tim Sherwood should also be booted out as well, I don't know anyone who likes them.

I do like Hawksbee and Jacobs although the latter gets so over-angry about Chelsea. 

 

[JaneB]

Oh goodness @blueandproud you have gone off on one!!!

Mine was just a silly reply to @ROTG

I haven’t listened to Talks***e for years so I can’t really comment although I get the drift 🤣

[blueandproud]

50 minutes ago, Ham said:

I do like Hawksbee and Jacobs although the latter gets so over-angry about Chelsea. 

 

Paul Hawksbee is a Totttenham supporter but I like him, Andy Jacobs though he a CFC fan I can't stand, every time he rants I say "Oh shut up you div".  After that show, the radio switches over to a music station.

Just now, blueandproud said:

Paul Hawksbee is a Totttenham supporter but I like him, Andy Jacobs though he a CFC fan I can't stand him, every time he rants I say "Oh shut up you div".  After that show, the radio switches over to a music station.  Charlie Baker and Max Rushden however are very poor, lightweight presenters.

 

[Ham]

How the hell is Paramount plus an issue when they don't broadcast PL football FFS? 

I have sympathy for the club here. Explains why we desperately needed a plan b in Stake. 

So according to the PL;

Gambling firm ✅

TV network ❌

[Bob Singleton]

15 minutes ago, Ham said:

How the hell is Paramount plus an issue when they don't broadcast PL football FFS? 

I have sympathy for the club here. Explains why we desperately needed a plan b in Stake. 

So according to the PL;

Gambling firm ✅

TV network ❌

I think it's the more basic - and dare I say it, obvious - issue of a broadcaster having to show another broadcaster's advertising.

Outside of sport, the current PL broadcasters in the UK (Sky, BT and Amazon) show similar content to Paramount Plus. I can understand why the Premier League baulked at this arrangement.

[Mark Kelly]

46 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

I think it's the more basic - and dare I say it, obvious - issue of a broadcaster having to show another broadcaster's advertising.

Outside of sport, the current PL broadcasters in the UK (Sky, BT and Amazon) show similar content to Paramount Plus. I can understand why the Premier League baulked at this arrangement.

The Sky network carries Paramount plus. 

You get it with Sky movies for free. 

And they're  constantly advertising it's shows too. 

Premier league, not fit for purpose shock. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Mark Kelly

[thevelourfog]

Funny how this story emerged a day or two after the Stake story broke and the club got loads of terrible PR over it ...

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Funny how this story emerged a day or two after the Stake story broke and the club got loads of terrible PR over it ...

You're not a fan are you 😂

[Ham]

24 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Funny how this story emerged a day or two after the Stake story broke and the club got loads of terrible PR over it ...

Not funny at all. Not an excuse. 

Just a reason. 

Nanny state gone mad that we're all now horrified that anyone should actually advertise a gambling site like it's ISIS or a puppy farm. 

It's like Ricky Gervais says, be very careful what you are ok with now as it could be considered unacceptable in a few years. 

 

 

[thevelourfog]

9 hours ago, Ham said:

Not funny at all. Not an excuse. 

Just a reason. 

Nanny state gone mad that we're all now horrified that anyone should actually advertise a gambling site like it's ISIS or a puppy farm. 

It's like Ricky Gervais says, be very careful what you are ok with now as it could be considered unacceptable in a few years. 

Can I just shock you? You and I (and Gervais and I) very clearly don't have similar politics. I won't get into that side of things here.

Like you, I have no idea if this story is true. If it is, I'm with you on it being a ridiculous intervention from the PL. The "funny" bit is that absolutely no one was reporting on a prospective deal with Paramount Plus last week. The stories were that Allianz were low-balling us so we walked away, that we had a deal with an unnamed crypto firm where they walked away last minute, or some combination of the two. Then news broke of a deal with Stake, and it went down badly with lots of people. Many supporters but I suspect also powers-that-be within football also.

And then we hear, just after enough of the reaction for it to be clear it's not popular, that we'd actually have a deal with a not controversial firm if it wasn't for the dastardly Premier League.

I know it's boring, but this is exactly why it is not worth investing too much in these reports. Journalists get briefed on the stories that, at that time, the person doing the briefing want other people to believe. It may well be the Paramount Plus story is completely true but I don't think you have to be a hardened cynic to be somewhat dubious of it.

9 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

You're not a fan are you 😂

What makes you think that?!

C'mon, it's ... interesting timing for this detail to be reported, isn't it?

[ROTG]

10 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Funny how this story emerged a day or two after the Stake story broke and the club got loads of terrible PR over it ...

Agree - Something is not right about the Paramount thing.  

If it had any legs, I am sure TB suits would have challenged the PL, because Paramount profile is exactly the type of non controversial sponsorship the PL would like clubs to have and certainly not a conflict of interests

[Mark Kelly]

59 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

What makes you think that?!

C'mon, it's ... interesting timing for this detail to be reported, isn't it?

I do absolutely agree with you that the one real strength they supposedly had was in the financial field and I suppose if we're hard nosed about it £40m for a year isn't too shabby but it's just something else that essentially they cocked up again,

Still , at least they're good at getting "their" message out . 

[thevelourfog]

8 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Agree - Something is not right about the Paramount thing.  

If it had any legs, I am sure TB suits would have challenged the PL, because Paramount profile is exactly the type of non controversial sponsorship the PL would like clubs to have and certainly not a conflict of interests

The other thing it made me wonder about (and perhaps there are reports I've not seen that address this, in fairness) is that there is surely clear rules and guidance available to all PL clubs on what sponsors will be permitted. We know, for example, cigarettes are banned and gambling will soon follow. I assume other types of sponsorship are prohibited and that's why we've not seen, idk, Pornhub or Viagra (might do our attack a favour now I think of it) on football shirts. It would make sense for any such rules to cover TV/media organisations the PL can't really be seen to advertise or endorse.

So would Paramount Plus be the club negotiating in good faith and then having the PL arbitrarily saying "nah", or the club trying to break or simply not knowing the rules and then quite rightly being told no? I suppose it could be the former but the latter seems more likely to me.

I'm not sure it is a briefing that really does us any favours.

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, thevelourfog said:

The other thing it made me wonder about (and perhaps there are reports I've not seen that address this, in fairness) is that there is surely clear rules and guidance available to all PL clubs on what sponsors will be permitted. We know, for example, cigarettes are banned and gambling will soon follow. I assume other types of sponsorship are prohibited and that's why we've not seen, idk, Pornhub or Viagra (might do our attack a favour now I think of it) on football shirts. It would make sense for any such rules to cover TV/media organisations the PL can't really be seen to advertise or endorse.

So would Paramount Plus be the club negotiating in good faith and then having the PL arbitrarily saying "nah", or the club trying to break or simply not knowing the rules and then quite rightly being told no? I suppose it could be the former but the latter seems more likely to me.

I'm not sure it is a briefing that really does us any favours.

As I said earlier as one of the last bastions of paying for the football , I subscribe to Sky and they actually carry and promote Paramount Plus on their platform , you get Paramount Plus for free if you have Sky movies.

What I did read is that Comcast have bought out Sky and they are owned by NBC and that Paramount are owned by CBS two traditional rivals in America so maybe the conflict that the Premier League were so worried about would be between those two broadcasting behemoths rather than Sky and that the Premier League were concerned that whoever shows football in the states would cut up rough?

[xceleryx]

Re the Stake situation. I mentioned it the other day it came up and it being a bit of a smack in the fact to the work The Chelsea Foundation have done re gambling. 

Looks like more has followed.

 

[ROTG]

17 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

The other thing it made me wonder about (and perhaps there are reports I've not seen that address this, in fairness) is that there is surely clear rules and guidance available to all PL clubs on what sponsors will be permitted. We know, for example, cigarettes are banned and gambling will soon follow. I assume other types of sponsorship are prohibited and that's why we've not seen, idk, Pornhub or Viagra (might do our attack a favour now I think of it) on football shirts. It would make sense for any such rules to cover TV/media organisations the PL can't really be seen to advertise or endorse.

So would Paramount Plus be the club negotiating in good faith and then having the PL arbitrarily saying "nah", or the club trying to break or simply not knowing the rules and then quite rightly being told no? I suppose it could be the former but the latter seems more likely to me.

I'm not sure it is a briefing that really does us any favours.

I guess the club will take the stake easy option for this season, and raising the bar “or something “next season and beyond with a company like Numan
 

I’ll get my coat

[Ham]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Can I just shock you? You and I (and Gervais and I) very clearly don't have similar politics. I won't get into that side of things here.

 

I'm not sure what politics has to do with whether or not I feel gambling advertising is the work of the devil or not. 

People are using this latest campaign to beat the club up.  5 years ago nobody would have cared.  

 

[Sciatika]

That letter from CST, who sent one in March, opposing all ticket price increases? Apparently, they support the increase in commercial revenues from £500m to £1bn. What is unclear is where they think the money will come from.

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

I'm not sure what politics has to do with whether or not I feel gambling advertising is the work of the devil or not. 

People are using this latest campaign to beat the club up.  5 years ago nobody would have cared.  

 

I really , after the sanctions , don't give a rats ass what supporters of other clubs or cretins in the media think to be honest. 

It's just "yeah but Chelsea" noise.