WINTER NEWS

Just been looking at the propossed televised matches for the next round of the FA Cup.. How imaginative of the tv people the choices are. The top 6 clubs in the prem basically fill the slots. Obviously worked out by a committee of geneuses (is that the plural of that word?).

 

Crazy isn’t it? We can all watch the Premier League on Sky. And whatever BT Sport are calling themselves now. And Amazon.

 

Some of us chose not to watch Sky.

Tues 12th Nov..........Barnet...v...Newport C..........2nd round replay..........ITV4.

Wed 13th Nov..........Stockport C...v...Aldershot..........2nd round replay..........BBC2.


Thurs 4th Jan..........C Palace...v...Everton..........3rd round...........ITV4.

Fri 5th Jan..........Spurs...v...Burnley..........3rd round..........ITV1.

Sat 6th Jan..........Sunderland...v...Newcastle..........3rd round..........ITV1.

Sat 6th Jan..........Middlesboro...v...Aston Villa..........3rd round..........BBC1.

Sun 7th Jan..........Arsenal...v...Liverpool..........3rd round..........BBC1.

Mon 8th Jan..........Wigan...v...Man U..........3rd round..........ITV1.


Okay..........I can understand.

Arsenal...v...Liverpool.
Sunderland...v...Newcastle
Middlesboro...v...Aston Villa.....maybe a chance of an upset.

But the earlier rounds of the Cup is about the little guys.

Watford...v...Chesterfield.....the away team is top of Div 5 and might surprise Watford.
Peterborough...v...Leeds.....might be interesting.
Wimbledon...v...Ipswich.....more interesting than Spurs...v...Burnley.

 

I know that Plym... that's why I said it. I was expecting some grief from Sensible but I think he's become a closet Sky watcher.

 

Once the BBC did the FA Cup....but ITV have muscled in recently.....I prefer the BBC commentary .......and same with the Rugby....which we might be losing soon.

 

I have one sky channel on my box and that is sky news. I just don't see why they need to pick the obvious like all prem games or an excuse to put on Newcastle when their oposition isn't. Spurs, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle, Aston Villa and Man U. That really took a programming genius didn't it. The FA Cup is about upsets and fairy tales not the prem leading lights. I don't care about foreign audiences they should be catering for the UK market.

 

I pay Virgin Media £86 per month, for which I get:

1. A 1 gigabyte internet connection with no download limit.
2. Landline phone with free calls 24/7. I only ever use my mobile but it’s in constant use by my other half.
3. Digital TV boxes in 2 rooms with: Sky Sports and BT Sports, Virgin Movies, Sky Movies, Sky One, Sky News etc and Netflix.

The sports channels do mess up the fixture list I admit but it’s irresistible value I’m afraid.

 

I have no problem if people want to pay for sky sport but personally I don't, This particular load of televised games is not sky led it's the terestrial channels.

 

Who are merely trying to compensate for the spending power of the online providers. It’s a battle they’ve lost.

But I agree, they could try to do something different. Pick the interesting games as you suggest.

Unfortunately, this fanatic Government has struck another blow against the BBC this week by refusing to allow a full inflationary rise in the TV licence. Like the quality papers ( as per my previous list), the BBC is a vital part of our constitutional and cultural life.

 

The BBC got a large increase in income in recent years by charging us older pensioners for our viewing.....one of the eroded perks....just like the freedom pass not starting until 9am for buses.....plus the trains starting at 9.30 am.....which causes a crush on the trains to go up town.....with so many working from home and staggering their start times when they do travel...it seems pointless to keep pensioners off the trains until 9.30am.

 

They aren't keeping pensioners off anything. A pensioner can travel at any time if they pay the same as other people have to. It's a choice not to and to travel after certain times. It sort of amuses me when I hear that pensioners are on fixed incomes and therefore it implies they can't afford something. The vast majority of pensioners I know do not need a heating allowance to survive or a top up for that matter. They do not need concessions in a host of other things either. There are however plenty of young families who are in poor paid jobs who could do with a few quid more. There are plenty of charity paid for things in this world that could do with a Government hand out such as Hospices and Air Ambulence. Local Authorities who are being starved of a lot of finance. I don't care whether people think all Councils waste millions or not. I give you Rwanda as an example of Central Government wasting cash which they slate local authorites for. You cannot keep cutting money for local services and increasing the number of things local authorities are made to be responsible for and expect them to fund it.

 

It was not the BBC that suddenly started charging pensioners for their licence. It was a Tory government which stopped paying a pension benefit to pensioners through the BBC funding mechanism.

The BBC is not a social service: the government is and is responsible for pensioners having to pay for their TV licences.

It was a bad benefit anyway, unfocused and going to pensioners whether they were rich or poor. Benefits should go to those who genuinely need it. We’ve all just been lobbed £500 for high energy costs whether we need it or not. No wonder we’re paying far too much tax.

 

Been reading that Schumacher hasn't got much cash in the pot for the January window.....so a limited situation to strengthen the squad.....unless we off-load a few peripheral players to release some cash on wages.

Whittaker and Mumba of course soaked up the money with their £1 million transfers......both look like they need some down time along with Azaz......but we need a deeper squad to be able to do that.....that's where the bigger clubs out gun us.

 

Surprising amount of talk going around regarding Schumacher and the Stoke job.....and not just from panicking pasoti .

 

65 pages on Schumacher going to Stoke now on pasoti....the talk now is who will be our new manager....what the hell is happening....a top club maybe but struggling Stoke how can that be.

Even talk of Warnock filling in until the end of the season....and then bringing in a longer term manager in the summer.....would suit Warnock who lives over the border....and has a record of keeping teams up.

No denial from Schumacher that he isn't going ?

 

Now 73 pages.

Already 12 pages of who the next manager might be ???

 

Local BBC news said merely that he had been given permission to talk to Stoke. Whilst very worrying that is not the same as he has signed for them. I have given up trying to fathom why some would leave one place for another that is less of an attraction. I cannot see what Stoke has going for it that isn't 100 times better here. The area is great if you don't crave the nightlife of London and Manchester. His family are settled and reputed to like it here. He is the last Manager you would put on a sackable list. He is liked/loved by the fanbase who are willing to forgive mistakes. He has always known the financial score here and the Board talk to him openly sos there is no hidden anything. So, you would have to ask why go to Stoke.

 

Well i like warnock, but no thanks to that boring football..
it will be difficult for who ever comes in if Shuey is going..

Lampard??

 

Rather have somebody who is a good Manager Joe. He's just a famous name who hasn't got a clue and failed at everywhere else. Will we promote from within again? I missed out wages in my previous post. Read that he could get multiple times his present wages at Stoke so I suppose it wouldn't be hard to see why he would go. Thing is though that he won't get the same leeway there as here so unless he hits the ground running then he could find himself out of work altogether very quickly.

 

I can't see Stoke City going very far very quickly. They are owned by the Bet365 Coates family, who in 2022 had to write off £120m of club debt run up in previous attempts to move the club forward. That's a lot of cash to lose even if you're filthy rich and as Sensible says, is likely to make them trigger happy if results don't improve,

As we saw recently at Home Park, they do not play the nimble footed style of football Schumacher has espoused at Argyle. Given recent financial shocks, I can't imagine a full reshaping of the squad is likely any time soon.

Hitching your wagon to a team who finished 14th 2 years ago, 5th from bottom last season and are currently 2 places below Argyle, who've had 5 "permanent" managers in the last 5 years is a good way to ruin a promising future. So if he thinks a big salary increase in the short term is a priority then good luck to him but to me it looks like poor judgement and I think if he hangs on, he can do a lot better..