Christmas Tree

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

This and Asprillia's take are how I think. And to answer the original question about when he will sell, I think never is closer to the mark that the other options. Ashley sees the club as one big billboard/tvc for shite direct. I agree with that, a billboard and a revenue stream. T'internet is the next great income provider for football, with the advantage for the big clubs being the more fans willing to pay, the bigger the rewards. There will be no collective agreement sharing revenue around the premiership or through the leagues when this finally takes off. I know for sure I will be signing up for the NUFC internet tv channel, and without wanting to get too Stevie about it, apart from ManU and Liverpool who in this country would have more subscribers than us. More of us actually are more committed and loyal than the rest, all clubs have their die hards, but I actually do believe that for whatever reason supporting Newcastle stays with you, and is transmitted through the generations to a greater extent than other clubs. I have been exiled for 30 years, I recently went to a wedding where the extended family descended from round the globe, and without exception everybody was bloody obsessed with Newcastle. Kids whose great grandparents had left generations ago where as keen as those(very few to be honest) who still lived there. Henry Winter loves to say "Newcastle on a a thursday looks like any other city on a matchday" I think whats what Ashley is banking on I just cant see this big income that you think is out there coming. First of all, I think it would be pretty hard for the premier league to survive if they all went their own way. Secondly, I dont think that many would sign up for it. If its £60 per year now, what would it cost with live games???£150?? Wouldnt most just watch a stream or go the pub as we do now. If anything I think TV revenue will start to fall when the next deal is done in 2013 Are you talking about NUTV at £60 per year, if so I have no interest in subscribing to that whatsoever. I am talking about when your internet subscription gets you live coverage of every game, That I would buy without hesitation, I would buy that before my SkySports subscribtion without a doubt. The main reason I get Skysports is football, if I could see every Newcastle match without Skysports that is what I would get. I don't think I am alone. This will be the next revolution in football funding, and I beleive Newcastle will be one of the biggest benificiaries. I have long thought this is what has driven Ashley Agreed but I dont think Ashley had any concept of this before buying the land for a super casino football club. Live streaming of every game via a dedicated NUFC channel would easily sell for the £150 CT is quoting. Whats more tempting? buy SKY at £39 a month (£468 pa) in order to get a handful of live NUFC games plus the rest on delayed viewing or £150pa to get them all streamed legally to your computer.Tie that in with an official matchday forum, competitions etc and you're laughing all the way to the bank. It doesnt work like that though. Sky's overall package is what generates the most money for them. Mrs doesnt mond Mr having the sport cause she gets films, disney for the kids etc. Will families want to chuck that for just sports. A purely sports standalone package could never generate the customers or money the sky bundle package has and therefore couln not afford to pay clubs the vast monies they get now. Think howmany people in the north east alone have sky, contributing to our club. Then get rid of all the none nufc fans, the families etc etc and see what your left with. BTW I still think it wouldnt happen due to the imbalance of money to the top clubs leading to a collapse of the leauge.

Sometimes CT you really do come across as an idiot, you are actually using the word intellectual as an insult. That really is quality shite you are posting there. I readily admit my ignorance of the subject, but I would be happy to wager I have a better understanding than you. You however already understand the "bottom line" Its clearly communicated the "whole point" of this is to understand the scarcity of ant-matter. You should probably just ring directory enquiries, ask for CERN, and tell them all to go home. What the fuck does that even mean? Its bad to have a brain? If I personally can't tell you how a particle physics experiment at the cutting edge of scientific understanding in Switzerland will impact your ability to bullshit a passenger while driving your cab we should call a halt to all scientific research as waste of time? Or you already know that this particular avenue of research is a dead end and we should be looking elsewhere to expand our knowledge of the universe? do tell Breathtaking post really... Where to start. In the beginning.......some of us tried to get out of tooner why this was such a big deal. We were ignorant and happily admitted it. Others came along dissing our ignorance and using phrases like yours such as I think we are living in exciting times here, it seems we might be approaching a real leap in understanding and science is poised to make some significant discoveries and only the tip of the iceberg Having read up via the links tooner provided and elsewhere, it is pretty clear that this is all to do with theory rather than the next electricity..... With regard to the"bottom line" comment, that is what the scientist involved have said, not me, its all about trying to figure out where anti matter fucked off too during the big bang. Bit too much misplaced intellectual snobbery on here at times. Another load of bollocks CT and you know it. You "and others" didn't try to get why it was a big deal, you just revelled in your stupidity and tried to mock the "intellectuals"(I notice you use that word as an insult again)because we couldn't tell you how this research would make your frying pan easier to clean or our cab cheaper to run or whatever. I have no idea what this research might lead to, lets have a look at my comment which you found so risible I think.. I don't claim to know like you do, that we might be approaching a lap in understanding. Fuck me to tears I'm really putting on the line there. Scientific research that I don't claim to understand, might be approaching a change in how we perceive and understand the universe. Intellectual snobbery of the worst kind there. Bah... I don't know why I've let myself get sucked in by you. Enjoy being an idiot - it suits you

i completely agree with SB, i think that we are at the cusp of something, they now have material to study that has never before been available.... ....and they're gonna shoot em with lasers. For the love of god, stop acting like a cock teasing virgin and just tell us what you think it is we are on the cusp of........ let me check my crystal ball..... what is so difficult about this? we now have a piece of the puzzle (the physics puzzle) that we never had, we can now study this piece and learn from it. i'm not an astro-physicist (nor do I play one on TV) but it looks to me as if science is poised to make some significant discoveries based on this newly available information Your doing it again what exactly am i doing? you want me to predict the future? I dont know how to put this any clearer. When you say things like " it looks to me as if science is poised to make some significant discoveries", expand on what YOU think that means. No one connected with this at cern is talking in that way, nor are any of the journalists covering the story that I have read. They are all talking about this as one step in a chain of events that one day might help science understand where anti matter went.

Sometimes CT you really do come across as an idiot, you are actually using the word intellectual as an insult. That really is quality shite you are posting there. I readily admit my ignorance of the subject, but I would be happy to wager I have a better understanding than you. You however already understand the "bottom line" Its clearly communicated the "whole point" of this is to understand the scarcity of ant-matter. You should probably just ring directory enquiries, ask for CERN, and tell them all to go home. What the fuck does that even mean? Its bad to have a brain? If I personally can't tell you how a particle physics experiment at the cutting edge of scientific understanding in Switzerland will impact your ability to bullshit a passenger while driving your cab we should call a halt to all scientific research as waste of time? Or you already know that this particular avenue of research is a dead end and we should be looking elsewhere to expand our knowledge of the universe? do tell Breathtaking post really... Where to start. In the beginning.......some of us tried to get out of tooner why this was such a big deal. We were ignorant and happily admitted it. Others came along dissing our ignorance and using phrases like yours such as I think we are living in exciting times here, it seems we might be approaching a real leap in understanding and science is poised to make some significant discoveries and only the tip of the iceberg Having read up via the links tooner provided and elsewhere, it is pretty clear that this is all to do with theory rather than the next electricity..... With regard to the"bottom line" comment, that is what the scientist involved have said, not me, its all about trying to figure out where anti matter fucked off too during the big bang. Bit too much misplaced intellectual snobbery on here at times.

There all it now

"That bloody antipasto,coming over here and taking our scientists, you can't see it mind, it's too cowardly to show it's face, not like our Brave British Matter. I used to vacuum the breadcrumbs out of Freddie's cock crease you know, now that's life experience!"

i completely agree with SB, i think that we are at the cusp of something, they now have material to study that has never before been available.... ....and they're gonna shoot em with lasers. For the love of god, stop acting like a cock teasing virgin and just tell us what you think it is we are on the cusp of........ let me check my crystal ball..... what is so difficult about this? we now have a piece of the puzzle (the physics puzzle) that we never had, we can now study this piece and learn from it. i'm not an astro-physicist (nor do I play one on TV) but it looks to me as if science is poised to make some significant discoveries based on this newly available information Your doing it again

This and Asprillia's take are how I think. And to answer the original question about when he will sell, I think never is closer to the mark that the other options. Ashley sees the club as one big billboard/tvc for shite direct. I agree with that, a billboard and a revenue stream. T'internet is the next great income provider for football, with the advantage for the big clubs being the more fans willing to pay, the bigger the rewards. There will be no collective agreement sharing revenue around the premiership or through the leagues when this finally takes off. I know for sure I will be signing up for the NUFC internet tv channel, and without wanting to get too Stevie about it, apart from ManU and Liverpool who in this country would have more subscribers than us. More of us actually are more committed and loyal than the rest, all clubs have their die hards, but I actually do believe that for whatever reason supporting Newcastle stays with you, and is transmitted through the generations to a greater extent than other clubs. I have been exiled for 30 years, I recently went to a wedding where the extended family descended from round the globe, and without exception everybody was bloody obsessed with Newcastle. Kids whose great grandparents had left generations ago where as keen as those(very few to be honest) who still lived there. Henry Winter loves to say "Newcastle on a a thursday looks like any other city on a matchday" I think whats what Ashley is banking on I just cant see this big income that you think is out there coming. First of all, I think it would be pretty hard for the premier league to survive if they all went their own way. Secondly, I dont think that many would sign up for it. If its £60 per year now, what would it cost with live games???£150?? Wouldnt most just watch a stream or go the pub as we do now. If anything I think TV revenue will start to fall when the next deal is done in 2013

i completely agree with SB, i think that we are at the cusp of something, they now have material to study that has never before been available.... ....and they're gonna shoot em with lasers. For the love of god, stop acting like a cock teasing virgin and just tell us what you think it is we are on the cusp of........

Sounds like the Labour Party is about to implode into civil war... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...hodges-miliband

I love how the thread has been hijacked by the intellectual elite and that they then spend more time attacking those questioning the importance of the news rather than actually getting involved in the topic itself. As interesting as this news may be for Particle physics professors, the bottom line is that its all about trying to understand the scarcity of antimatter in the universe rather than a pre cursor to some great new invention, as clearly communicated by all involved in the experiments. I will happily sit back and watch with interest as the the Brains of the forum discuss spongebobs final sentence......

Good post overall and the bit in bold is the bit thats really frustrating as fans, particularly as NUFC has always been a pretty open book in the past.

for once, skidders has a point. You haven't called anybody a boring cunt lately have you ? LM in "i don't understand , so i will make disparaging remarks" shocker!! while I can understand that you may genuinely not be interested in the topic, the fact that anti-matter (or rather the storage and stockpiling of anti-matter) has only been theoretical until now, makes this one of the most significant scientific milestones of the last 100 years Aye ok. So apart from 'understanding', what actual everyday use is this going to achieve? Good question really from any layman. I read both links and kept thinking........And. I even started to reply twice and thought, fuck it. But as its got going, what is the point and is this research and experiments being carried out with a view to something at the end of it. Not dissing your interest in this btw. fair enough, but how are we to have practical plans for something we've only just now proven exists? i think this is similar: to science debunking the myth that the earth is the center of the universe. or newton's laws. or the theory of relativity. It's interesting because its pushing the envelope of how we perceive the universe, and eventually will lead to more mundane everyday applications of this greater (hopefully) understanding. Thats the bit Im missing tbf. I gather from the article that anti matter used to exist before the big bang and that after the big bang it dissappeared, I just wasnt sure why they were trying to re-create it and what was driving the experiment? IE Was this leading to some great development or breakthrough. Straight forward enough questions I would have thought for a topic of this nature on a football forum. The centre of the universe example makes sense btw. agreed it's really just the tip of the iceburg with this field of study, when looking at the young universe they have all these existing theories of what happened and how it happened, and then when they look at what we have now all the theories fall apart. if they can determine a unifying theory for physics who knows what applications it would have for the everyday experience. personally i'm hoping for flying cars.... Having just had a quick google around I now realise that the Starship Enterprise is powered by an antimatter engine. Now Tooner if you had included this fact in your opening post you would have saved a lot of time. more of a Lucas fan than a Roddenberry fan tbh.....but yeah, and apparently some outfit in arizona has plans for this type of engine. Well they may have to wait a while as the clever lads at CERN reckon it would take "millions and millions of years" to glean enough anti matter to propel an engine.

for once, skidders has a point. You haven't called anybody a boring cunt lately have you ? LM in "i don't understand , so i will make disparaging remarks" shocker!! while I can understand that you may genuinely not be interested in the topic, the fact that anti-matter (or rather the storage and stockpiling of anti-matter) has only been theoretical until now, makes this one of the most significant scientific milestones of the last 100 years Aye ok. So apart from 'understanding', what actual everyday use is this going to achieve? Good question really from any layman. I read both links and kept thinking........And. I even started to reply twice and thought, fuck it. But as its got going, what is the point and is this research and experiments being carried out with a view to something at the end of it. Not dissing your interest in this btw. fair enough, but how are we to have practical plans for something we've only just now proven exists? i think this is similar: to science debunking the myth that the earth is the center of the universe. or newton's laws. or the theory of relativity. It's interesting because its pushing the envelope of how we perceive the universe, and eventually will lead to more mundane everyday applications of this greater (hopefully) understanding. Thats the bit Im missing tbf. I gather from the article that anti matter used to exist before the big bang and that after the big bang it dissappeared, I just wasnt sure why they were trying to re-create it and what was driving the experiment? IE Was this leading to some great development or breakthrough. Straight forward enough questions I would have thought for a topic of this nature on a football forum. The centre of the universe example makes sense btw. agreed it's really just the tip of the iceburg with this field of study, when looking at the young universe they have all these existing theories of what happened and how it happened, and then when they look at what we have now all the theories fall apart. if they can determine a unifying theory for physics who knows what applications it would have for the everyday experience. personally i'm hoping for flying cars.... Having just had a quick google around I now realise that the Starship Enterprise is powered by an antimatter engine. Now Tooner if you had included this fact in your opening post you would have saved a lot of time.

for once, skidders has a point. You haven't called anybody a boring cunt lately have you ? LM in "i don't understand , so i will make disparaging remarks" shocker!! while I can understand that you may genuinely not be interested in the topic, the fact that anti-matter (or rather the storage and stockpiling of anti-matter) has only been theoretical until now, makes this one of the most significant scientific milestones of the last 100 years Aye ok. So apart from 'understanding', what actual everyday use is this going to achieve? Good question really from any layman. I read both links and kept thinking........And. I even started to reply twice and thought, fuck it. But as its got going, what is the point and is this research and experiments being carried out with a view to something at the end of it. Not dissing your interest in this btw. fair enough, but how are we to have practical plans for something we've only just now proven exists? i think this is similar: to science debunking the myth that the earth is the center of the universe. or newton's laws. or the theory of relativity. It's interesting because its pushing the envelope of how we perceive the universe, and eventually will lead to more mundane everyday applications of this greater (hopefully) understanding. Thats the bit Im missing tbf. I gather from the article that anti matter used to exist before the big bang and that after the big bang it dissappeared, I just wasnt sure why they were trying to re-create it and what was driving the experiment? IE Was this leading to some great development or breakthrough. Straight forward enough questions I would have thought for a topic of this nature on a football forum. The centre of the universe example makes sense btw.

If your too dumb to explain the articles, move along.