Christmas Tree

Just what Capello said I know what you mean but I would still rather see him give it a go and mix it up. Thanks Barton

Here, you miserable moaning old boring wanker Did I actually name you you pathetic piece of shit? No but like a clueless cunt of a taxi driver you are you have an uninformed opinion about everything as your last week's worth of posts in many topics show. At your age if you were any good at your advertising career you still be at it but obviously you weren't, which make nmost of what you write even more worthless. So shut it and fuck right off. I have no interest in anything you have to say but will make it my hobby to point out the crap that comes from you. Or if you think it's worth it take me on and have me voted off the board. Unlike skidmark if I lost I wouldn't be back but I doubt you could say the same. So you're not game? Maybe if we play Smith up front? weak as piss

Here, you miserable moaning old boring wanker Did I actually name you you pathetic piece of shit? No but like a clueless cunt of a taxi driver you are you have an uninformed opinion about everything as your last week's worth of posts in many topics show. At your age if you were any good at your advertising career you still be at it but obviously you weren't, which make nmost of what you write even more worthless. So shut it and fuck right off. I have no interest in anything you have to say but will make it my hobby to point out the crap that comes from you. Or if you think it's worth it take me on and have me voted off the board. Unlike skidmark if I lost I wouldn't be back but I doubt you could say the same.

We all know the limitations of smith etc and for me the trick Hughton is missing is giving some of the youth a go instead of those who constantly dissappoint. Whers Vuckic and that Ferguson kid?

Here, you miserable moaning old boring wanker

What a shower today

Highly reccomend the murder mystery thingy as well.....What a giglle that was. Pick the kits up for pennies and each person gets to be a character with various questions to ask and dirty secrets to reveal during the night until every one has to deduct who the murderer is (on of the party is the murderer and has been lying all night). I was Terry Plant the Gardener. Others included Nikki Melons, the waitress, part time page 3 wannabee.

Good luck with it, but when our lass gave it a go it didnt quite look like the picture

Cant see where the service is going to come from and for the first time this season it looks bleak to me. We might only win 3 - 0

Its lovely when you have a player in the team that creates that. We got a glimpse of it with Ben Arfa but prior to him I can think who was the last player who had that sort of effect. I'll have to give it some though. Pedro Definteley, however even if you have a really bland team you can have that person that gets the crowd going when they get the ball, even if they are not in Pedros league. I suppose going by remarks on here, Jonas fills that gap for some where as Barton probably does it a bit for me. Struggling for names inbetween now and pedro.... Bellamy running from the half way line etc....?

Its lovely when you have a player in the team that creates that. We got a glimpse of it with Ben Arfa but prior to him I can think who was the last player who had that sort of effect. I'll have to give it some though.

Exactly. People are going on like we're just waiting for it to become possible here in the UK. It's entirely possible already, it's just not cost effective, no matter how many people say "well I'd pay for both". Like I said last night (and even people that reckon we'll get all games live some time seem to agree), protecting exclusivity is where the big money is, and drip feeding content to the masses gradually. First to the tens of thousands that can get tickets, then to the millions that want to watch a replay later in the day, then to the millions that are willing to pay to see the biggest games of the weekend involving other clubs live. It's analogous to the latest Harry Potter films. They could have made one film, they could have released both at once, millions upon millions would have paid to see both on day 1....but the money men know that if you want to maximise the profit you drip feed your product to maximise the money coming in. Spot on

Yes but the debate seems to be that this would be extra income. It isnt, it is splitting the current fan base over different medias. There is no way a Newcastle subscribed internet match would have anywhere near the draw if the same match was shown on Mainstream sky. This is the bottom line for advertisers. I'm plainly not explaining myself here. Newcastle have say 12 league and cup games a season on sky -that leaves 28 - 36 games not on sky. You are paying the internet subscription for those 28-36 games. Games that are not currently available live. You still subscribe/watch/go the pub for the Sky exclusive matches. These matches already have the platform in place for live internet distribution as can be proved without doubt by the fact I watch them all already. This is not about harming the existing bottom line, this is about providing another pay for view service that currently doesn't exist. This is about generating a new revenue stream with a media that didn't previously exist. There is self evidently a market out there -I am proof of this. I don't claim to know how big it is but it exists. The market for Newcastle games live is larger than most clubs but smaller than for ManU Chelsea Liverpool Arsenal and maybe a couple more. The more powerful clubs have the most to gain -they will make it happen It will benefit Sky/Murdoch as he will be providing the product to be streamed. It will benefit the clubs as they can exploit a previously untapped market. It will not harm the existing deals because it is complimentary not competitive to them. Look at it another way, I am currently watching these games for free -but I am willing to pay for them, while still paying my Sky subscription. How do you imagine the people who sell the rights to these games view this situation? How do you think the people who own the Football Clubs see this situation? Ok, well now Im clearer where your coming from but I still cant see a great deal of Newcastle fans suddenly paying quite a large price for soenthing they can already have for free. I also dont think it benefits any football club to have all games shown live on a Saturday at 3pm.

that was going to be mine. The image itself being a graphic example of the horror of famine. more iconic however for the story of its photographer and his untimely death, still it gave us a great song What story and song is that

Yes but the debate seems to be that this would be extra income. It isnt, it is splitting the current fan base over different medias. There is no way a Newcastle subscribed internet match would have anywhere near the draw if the same match was shown on Mainstream sky. This is the bottom line for advertisers.

So tonight was round two and it was the turn of my 21 years old daughter and her boyfriend to host the night. The Menu. Canapes Starter -- Roasted Asparagus wrapped in Parma Ham. Main -- A Trio of Lamb cutlets served upon a bed of spring onion mash, with roasted vegetables and a mint salsa. Dessert -- Minature meringues and strwberries served with a selection of dipping sauces. Irish coffees This was all underpinned with a murder / mystery who dunnit theme with props and proper role play scripts. What a fantastic night. At 21 I could probably muster up Beans on toast or Pot noodle. The food was fantastic and the murder mystery was a right laugh. The pressure id definitely on and Lamb is now off our menu. Decided to go with a traditional Christmas feast.

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok. Hope your laughing at my grammar which is probably shot condidering my currant state.

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it? What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet? Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue. The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league Premier League - concede further control to the clubs. Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost? You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences. I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before. How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV. Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well. Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc. I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut. I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be. How much do the BBC pay for the MOTD rights? How much do sky pay to show live games? Would either be willing to pay that if 100,000 supporters from each club were watching all of their games live elsewhere. Am I missing something here? Yes you are pretty much missing the whole point. In the beginning there were live games, which people payed to attend The along came Match of the Day showing highlights on the TV, and paying for the privilege. People still pay to go the match Then along came Sky and started showing live games-which they pay for. Match of the Day still exists, and they still pay for the rights. Not only this people still attend live games and pay to get in Now we have the internet which offers the possibilty of live coverage of all your teams games. Some people will be happy to pay for this service. Sky will still Show live gamesMatch of the Day will still exist People will still go the match. There is no reason to think that those who buy a subscription to their own team will suddenly lose all interest in watching Man U vs Arsenal. Its true that this will benefit the clubs with bigger fanbases more, however these are the clubs that have the most power. Probably covered in my earlier post but if I currently pay Sky £20,0000 to show one of my adverts during the match, Im not suddenly going to pay them the same ammount knowing the audience is now split elsewhere, therefore Skys revenues drop and subsequently the money going into the clubs drop.

Doesn't that suppose that internet streaming is a different and valuable market that generates profit on top of tv rights rather than taking revenue from tv. It's not is it? What is the value to the clubs, the FA, The Premier League, the broadcasters or fans in shifting viewers from tv (where we could already watch all of the games if it was of value) to the internet? Clubs - lower ticket sales being on tv every week, all but the top 4 or 5 lose media revenue. The FA - concede further control to clubs than they lost to the Premier league Premier League - concede further control to the clubs. Broadcasters - lose viewers, advertising and subscriptions Fans - Those that go to games - no difference, those that don't can see the same games already available in better quality, but is there the will amongst everyone else to provide that at a reasonable cost? You've based your post on advertising, but half time advertising on Sky Sports is still far less lucrative than it is on ITV...because they don't have the viewing numbers and they generate most of their income via subscription. Subscriptions and advertising would generate even less to 92 separate websites each catering to comparatively tiny audiences. I apid 12 quid a month to Setanta for a season and the only reason I got that was to watch Newcastle - I watched next to nothing on that Channel apart from one or two Newcastle games a month -so I would pay 12 quid a month without any doubt to see every match live.I wouldnt cancel Sky, so it extra money into the system, money that wasnt there before. How many other people are in the same boat as me- I have no idea, but you have thousands of exiles all over the world who would pay good money to subscribe to NUTV. Throw in reserve games, ex players doing interviews, classic old matches and you will get all the obsessives subscribing as well. Now lets say you get 100,000 subscribers at 12 quid a month there is nearly 15 million a year of new money, before you add in text in competions, phone ins, advertising etc. I don't see that this will impact the existing revenue at all -I think its new income and the Premiership will be happy as long as it gets its cut. I am also not convinced the collective bargaining by the Premier League clubs will last for ever anyway. I've seen nmerous claims that the foreign owners of the biggest clubs would preffer to negotiate their own contracts, as happens in Spain Italy and the USA. The Premier League is really only as powerful as the big clubs allow it to be. I cant see how this is new money. Sky arnt going to give up their rights to screen the match live. You seem to implying that it could be screened via sky and the nufc internet at the same time. But advertisers arent going to pay sky the same rate for a newcastle match if they think the audience is split beween internet and sattelite.?

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok.

Try watching a crappy pc picture blown up to big screen.....Horrible You have the commercial vision of a decrepit mole. Dear me your not half fast becoming a condescending tit We were talking about what may happen when the current deal is up in just over two years. Technology on the web may not have developed in that short space of time to be able to supersize a currently crappy unstable stream. Even if it does, you then need to assume that the vast majority is going to run out and upgrade their current pc / tv packages just too watch Newcastle. You deserved ridicule nevermind condescension for your comments on science last night. I just wanted to use the phrase decrepit mole anyway. You're half right basically. You're first sentence is spot on seeing as i find your next 3 idiotic to say the least. Have a wink HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free. Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers. Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues. Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club. Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub. Surely the bottom line is no one is going to pay to watch "nufc internet" when they can have it for free.

Genuine questions rather than argument for why it can't happen..... Why's it only going to be run through the internet? Why wouldn't Sky just have all the games available on TV? If anything won't income go down rather than up? What was a single package of all PL football on Sky, got split between Sky/ESPN/etc to increase income. If you wrap all that back up into a single package aren't you reducing the income.....or making the cost prohibitive to a single payer? You'd also lose the lucrative highlights package being sold to the BBC which is dependent on them being first to show non-televised goals. If making it internet only means you get round the tv exclusivity deal, how do you stop it devaluing that deal...given that we all use an HDMI out of the laptop? Add to this that we all already watch re-routed streams? Wouldnt most just continue to watch re-routed streams for free?

This is not unique to Ashley though... expand ? Ashley is hardly the only owner who's fucked around with his manager and sold players/brought in players the manager wanted/didn't want. Lerner at Villa and the Icelanders at West Ham are two good examples. I think we could still be rid of Ashley and in the same situation with someone else. Obviously I want Ashley gone as soon as possible, but not if it means bringing in someone just as bad or worse. Portsmouth were desperate to be rid of the crook Gaydamak, then they brought in another crook in al-Fahim, then they brought in another crook in Al Faraj...point is, there's worse than Ashley, and as long as he keeps his head down and his mouth shut and supports Hughton in the transfer window, it's time to get over him. Nobody wants him except for loons like the Tree, but we can't go on with him being the focus of our lives as fans. Ashley gets a lot of stick, some of it deserved, but would you care to expand on how HE has fucked around managers and bought / sold players the manager didnt want. My reccolection is that he was the detatched owner and until it all went Pete tong I dont really remember him be involved in any of the day to day sort of decisions. I dont recall Allardyce or Keegan blaming him personally for that sort of thing. Not even sure since Keegan what actual decisions he's made that have been against the wishes of manager or players. Seriouis question btw if your up to it. Keegan said nowt because of the non-disclosure agreement. I think the tribunal made it pretty obvious who was responsible for that. How about forcing Given out of the club? How about bringing in Xisco and Nacho and selling Milner? The '08-'09 season was pretty awful, but surely you haven't forgotten it? There's obvious examples of Ashley responsible for fucking about our manager (one he himself appointed) and bringing in players not wanted/selling players that were wanted. I know what your stock response is going to be - "oh Llambias did those things not wor Mike, he's lily-white" - but the buck stops with the owner. He appointed the cronies, he's responsible for what they do, and as the tribunal said, he made promises to KK that weren't kept and that he never had any intention of keeping. Keegan didnt slag Ashley off prior either. And the stock response is quite correct. Ashley thought he was putting a very good set up in place to run the club on his behalf. I dont think for one minute that he wanted to have any dealings with the day to day running of the club. I'll happily give him a hard time for the decisions he's got wrong, but lets not re-write history.

Try watching a crappy pc picture blown up to big screen.....Horrible You have the commercial vision of a decrepit mole. Dear me your not half fast becoming a condescending tit We were talking about what may happen when the current deal is up in just over two years. Technology on the web may not have developed in that short space of time to be able to supersize a currently crappy unstable stream. Even if it does, you then need to assume that the vast majority is going to run out and upgrade their current pc / tv packages just too watch Newcastle.

Try watching a crappy pc picture blown up to big screen.....Horrible