Deano wasn't told the same wasn't he? No wonder so many good players didn't get picked up if that was their criteria.
I confess I don’t know but I would doubt it. And there’s more than 92 pro clubs in England too, several more in the National League.
Hull City wear amber and Leeds wear white. Both things are true but they have zero correlation. Again, weird argument. If you support your club, you support your club. If there's 20 other professional clubs in your country or 200, I don't see how the number impacts your ability or desire to go to your home ground and watch your club play.
If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to make compelling and factual points in favour of it, so far you have yet to do that. Considering I've actually cited studies into the impact of televising games which suggest there is a very minimal if any impact, it would be interesting to see the counter-points that supposedly exist, supporting this 'obvious' view point.
So you can’t see the link between actions to maintain matchday income, and the economics of maintaining a professional football team? I can’t help you any more mate, you can’t follow clear explanations.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Me suggesting that providing streams for away fans to watch their team when they previously couldn't and giving them an avenue to contribute more income to their club, is not in any way arguing for a reduction in matchday income. The fact you can't see that is quite strange.
Away fans won't have access to the streams? News to me. All good, we can agree to disagree on which sets of fans will predominantly use the streams, but I would be staggered if the availability of streams today has had a material impact on any home gates.
Syd, go back and read again what I’ve written about the impact on home fan numbers. Or go to bed, it’s 1am and you’re tired.
Is this the post you're referring to? Full of speculation and supposition but no grounding in fact. Guess we'll see how it comes out in the wash, but again, I'll be staggered if there's a material impact on home gates.
If it is speculation and supposition, it is still the reason that the entire football system has been that way for 30 years. I’d take their word over yours, my friend.
Simply arguing "It's right because that's the way it's always been" is a flawed argument, or nothing would ever change. But as said previously, this is where we agree to disagree and whatever will be will be.
It's 3:00 p.m Saturday afternoon. All 92 of the teams in the top 4 leagues in England have a match that k.o. at that time that day. That's 46 games around the country (can't remember if Cardiff or Swansea are playing at home). Manchester City vs Liverpool (Sat 3:00 p.m. k.o.) is the only match being televised/streamed live. There's a persistent drizzling rain forecast over most of the U.K. predicted to start @ 1:30 and last until 6:30 p.m Many local pubs are predicted to be showing the streamed live match. Will the attendances at the other 45 non televised matches go up, go down or remain the same ?
I should have put more than the 92 in England just in case any readers had consumed enough ale to make it less than clear.
My mate in Accrington lives in the next street to me, has a 70 inch TV, subscribes to the streaming service and has a very large beer fridge. His missus is visiting her mother's for the afternoon. He's invited 6 of his other mates (Stanley fans naturally - I know most of 'em) and me (BYOB the cheap bastard) to watch the Man City game. I'm wondering if I should accept his invitation because I'd have to nip out into his back garden at half-time for a ***. His missus would murder him if she caught the whiff of cigarette smoke when she got back. It's a dilemma.
