sephjnr

23 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

The corridor of uncertainty.

It used to be called Bourneville Boulevard, or where football managers got their contracts.

1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said:

What's wrong with wanting action, excitement and spontaneity? Isn't that what makes footie great? Why would anyone want that eliminated?

I don't. I want the refereeing to get better and the organisation is refusing to do that. Getting rid gets them off the hook, and keeping decisions down to 10 seconds or 60 at the most is an improvement on the shower of shit that it is now - down to the implemenation, not the concept.

Without tech to help them they're imposing a ceiling as to how good they can be, and at the same time they're demanding people give them more respect for its own sake - these aren't compatible concepts.

26 minutes ago, downendcity said:

It's that a system that was introduced to help referees, now seems to usurp the referees authority and the panel appear to increasingly want to get more involved with the game.

That's the point - they want people to see that it looks like they're being usurped and made to look stupid, and they don't want to improve what 'sacrosanct' control they believe they have. Almost every other sport that has reviews is operating at a smoother, less disruptive rate than VAR is taking and this is deliberate. And the horde on this thread that just want to get rid of it and just want ACTION! EXCITEMENT! SPOTINAIETY! blah will be the first to whine when it's us on the wrong end of the Keith Stroud gang yet-a-friggin-gain.

We really cannot have it both ways because of the EGOS, not the technology. It's the ******* egos.

To repeat myself:

Ten seconds to decide if it's worthy of checking, then sixty maximum with the referee straight away. That way they're all looking at it together, not framing it like the ref's being scolded.

Better cameras that are faster and show the movement of the ball-to-foot smoother, if they insist on pinpointing and using the lines.

and as a new suggestion, managers get one challenge per half, if the decision stands they lose a sub.

20 hours ago, Gazred said:

By definition...

I'd say Gow doesn't fit but Flint could.

So, Cornick.

JFC we were in Holiday mode from the get-go.

Herc from The Wire, with even less brains.

5 hours ago, The Humble Realist said:

How has a player who has played less than 90 minutes for us got a 9 page post 

How did Harry Cornick get a song from the get-go and has 4 goals total if you include the Forest shootout?

Bit rich for NL.TV to charge a tenner separately for each game instead of one price to watch any of the games on that night.

22 minutes ago, phantom said:

How would a side with a capacity of 10k make more moeny being at home against a team that could hold 40k?

Make more money for their selves of their own volition including match day revenue. Which - in a similar vein to the EFL selling off online TV to Sky - is now reliant more on handouts from the PL who are DESPERATELY trying to ringfence for their own control even further.

There should have been a provision to guarantee home draws for non-PL teams vs PL. That would be much fairer to increase revenue instead of nebulous donations to 'grass roots', which I suspect is slang for 'bypass the other professional outfits and establish our own training facilities'.

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I know there’s a thread for this, but this…

…saves the hassle of replays and midweek rd5 matches causing a headache re new broadcast times.

And ****** non-PL teams out of more matchday revenue.

Taunton vs Weston-Super-Mare tomorrow night, if Weston win Taunton are down outright.

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I read that as ‘ big pussies’ . 

Don't let Silvio read this thread, he may put a whack on it.

3 hours ago, One Team said:

Great to have Pompey back in the Championship with us, proper football clubs and fans. 

Great to see some of the Cotts lads getting promoted again!

Cotts himself got sent down to the National League last night as Forest Green can't cover the difference now.

3 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

They've linked to their Now TV options for non Sky customers. Its 11.99 for the day or £26 for the month. Not massively different to RTV or iFollow. It won't be three figures a month. 

Can't see any issue with this, we look to be increasing our revenue with this deal as shown by Dave. 

The issue is that it will still be whatever Sky feels like streaming. And the question as to whether or not that revenue granted by the league (instead of taken from customers) can be declared as a mitigator in financial reports is still unanswered.

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I really hope Sky Stream has a record or watch later option.

This is the issue I have - if the delivery is just having more matches for their existing channels then this is not an improvement for the average viewer. If Sky themselves start an on-demand service that can sit alongside or replace either their main broadcasts or NOW then that's an option that wil markedly increase revenue from people who don't want to pay three figures a month. Such was the main way of breaking Sky's dominance for good, and if they've bought the right to it in-house that's one of their main problems no longer being an issue.

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As Mr P states, clubs are expected to receive circa £2-2.5m extra in revenue from the EFL as a result.  In return, I expect online broadcasting revenue to decrease.  These are our Broadcasting revenues in recent years:

This will include plenty more than RTV, ie RTV is a smallish percentage of these…and this will go down.

We will undoubtedly see lower attendances (like for like) and all the revenue that comes from that.

I can only assume the £2-2.5m more than makes up for any lost revenues?

In terms of how it can be reported to be FFFP compliant I don't see - at face value - how it's an equivalent. There may be some allowances for this, I don't know.

8 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Looks like it’s a 50% increase on the current deal, whether that relates to each club seeing 50% more will be seen but if it does it would bring in more then the club makes off streaming games. 

That's revenue to the EFL itself, not the clubs. It's taking control of the cash directly out of the clubs so I don't see they can report online streaming as revenue in any cases of FFFP questionning.

Source (EFL)

Massive step backwards IMO. Way to get people more reliant on Sky's bloated, outdated subscription models. Also taking money directly out of the clubs' pockets.

On 30/03/2024 at 10:41, Ronnie Sinclair said:

I read the other day that they are moving to Nike next year - I can’t imagine a German kit that isn’t Adidas it’s just wrong !

*googles Adi Dassler's political affiliations* ... ... 0.0

On the bright side, that should ease the demand on Plymouth tickets amirite

NOW WIN THIS GODDAMN GAME

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

I'm lost @sephjnr what do you mean?

There were only 5 required away games for West Ham, there are 9 here.

9 minutes ago, shahanshahan said:

Ticket details have just been announced. Maximum allocation of 1,739 tickets, and first priority goes to season ticket holders who have been to nine or more away games

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/plymouth-away-set-for-priority-sale/

Good luck to you @ollywhyte

By that logic, Plymouth are a bigger club than West Ham.

The absolute neck of this club.