• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Football and money

It's like anything, you pays your money a takes your pick.

My mate pays far more to play his golf down the road.

I like my football and don't mind paying for it.

I just get don't all the bellyaching - especially when so many pirate the matches as well.

Edit: How much does it cost to down the pub to watch a match, for say 3 pints and your a smoker + Kabab?
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I still pay for a streaming service. Not because of the price, but the service.

I get to watch any match, any time on any device I choose - in SD or HD depending on my connection.

If there was an above board service that allowed me to do that then I'd pay for it. I'm not paying for any service that blacks out 3pm matches because some brickty northern clubs can't sell their seats.
Click to expand...


I live 6000 miles away and watch any tottenham match I choose to and never pay any penny, you're a mug if you pay anything with hundreds of internet channels showing our games and I watch HD games with no interruption or picture break up
 
parklane1 said:
20/20 cricket is the modern game and ( imo) is not proper cricket and is the way they have gone because proper cricket is losing money hand over fist, one reason for this is that since the BBC lost rights to the likes of Sky the new generation was lost.

Its also a day out with bands and gimmicks, as I say Stop! Hammer time and it really does not effect me seeing my team , but Sky are one of the reasons that has turned our great game into
the money game it has become and ( imo) that is a great pity.
Click to expand...

Test cricket is and always will be to me numero uno, but that came at a price. You see that Cricket in the 90s documentary on SkySports and the lifted the top players from counties to get England to where they are now, otherwise County would be number one and Counties like Essex (my second love after Spurs) would have Cook in his best years and more fans through the gates.

I agree also on 20/20 but again reverting back to Essex, the club would not survive without it now
 
SpreadEx has this chart on returns for betting on one team to win each PL game. If I understand correctly, you only win with West Ham and Leicester. No wonder bookies like this sort of betting.

premier_league_table_of_betting_15-16_smaller.png
 
jts1882 said:
SpreadEx has this chart on returns for betting on one team to win each PL game. If I understand correctly, you only win with West Ham and Leicester. No wonder bookies like this sort of betting.

premier_league_table_of_betting_15-16_smaller.png
Click to expand...

Just stumbled across this. It makes a lot of sense, would have liked a 'profit' column as well.

i.e. Leicester = £492-£380= £112 profit.
 
The way they do it makes it look like a positive return for betting on 16 of 20 clubs. That is much better for business than showing a loss on 18 of 20.
 
parklane1 said:
And in the meantime they are starving the fans of tomorrow to be able to see the game that they would love, hence the rise in streaming. Its even worse for those who used to watch Test cricket on the free channels.
Click to expand...

It's the main reason I have Sky to watch Test cricket, the ability to watch England play around the world in the winter is great. I can't stand 20/20 cricket and it is draining the talent from county cricket and virtually decimating the West Indies test team.
 
What utter stinking stoat thrusting nonsense, you sell someone for £80m and buy someone for £80m and that is £80m spent? Twaddle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back