shotshy
Vital Champions League
After doing a bit of research it appears that bbc are the top payers.I'm not cool with the bloated salaries. Just object to the BBC being singled out as wasters when their competitors are even worse.
After doing a bit of research it appears that bbc are the top payers.I'm not cool with the bloated salaries. Just object to the BBC being singled out as wasters when their competitors are even worse.
Is that because they employ women?Sneaking outside the TV employee debate for a second, it seems to me that, in general, one of the main reasons for employers "relieving employees of their employ" has nothing to do with equalising ethnicity and gender, but everything to do with either re-employing them at a cheaper cost or getting in someone else to do the job at cheaper cost. Basically, cost-cutting, because they can !
Could you share the sources for that please? As far as i know sky and bt pay much more. The likes of richard keys, neville and carragher and the like are/have been on over 2m a year.After doing a bit of research it appears that bbc are the top payers.
You are confusing general taxation with a specific tax on viewing broadcasts.
So, no it’s not true.
Example. Road fund license. Specifically for driving on the highways.
I don’t own a car, I don’t pay it
Example. BBC license. I don’t watch bbc but still have to pay it to watch commercial channels.
So , it’s quite different.
Then on top of that, they spaff millions up the wall on average talent.
English football crowds are middle aged, white and male, there's no reason why a football panel "banter" show can't reflect that. We'll find out soon enough what the new line up isBack to the original post - I expect the new panel will be less middle aged, white and male. This is in tune with how things are at the moment. Not saying it’s right or wrong, just how it is.
I watched it briefly, they had Tony Pullis, Tim Sherwood, Clinton Mackenzie and someone else, all rather bland.Did anyone watch it? I didn't as I don't have sky, just wondered what the new line up was, and whether it was any good?
I suppose Sky are "updating" or "refreshing" their look to be more up to date. I totally get that and if they are attempting to mirror the country's race and gender demographic, thats fine too, its only right that they try to appeal to all. Only the ratings figures will tell if it was, commercially, the best thing to do.
As alluded to above, the so called "average" football fan is still white, male and somewhere just below middle aged (I'm guessing a bit here based on comments on this board and my own circle of football fan mates) and I do wonder if any will feel that the show no longer fits their needs. Time will tell. Have to say it doesn’t bother me as I never watch it but I think it will bother some enough to turn off.
Agree that new subscribers are key but I'm wondering if it will be at the cost of some of the "old" ones? If I'm watching a live match, I'm not too bothered who the commentators or pundits are as they are secondary to the action (and there is an increasing number of alternative commentaries you can listen to whilst watching.)Agree to a certain extent but our perceptions involve people, who actually watch football and always have. Football has been swallowed more and more by TV and covid is accelerating the process. The game belongs to the millions, who never go and it is that demographic the companies are addressing. As you say viewing figures will decide on the succes or otherwise of any changes.
The monster needs ever bigger viewing figures and who knows what they will resort to in the search for new subscribers.
Did anyone watch it? I didn't as I don't have sky, just wondered what the new line up was, and whether it was any good?