• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Total Sport

scott934 said:
Difference is PDC was just a bloke with dodgy political opinions, not really doing any harm. Comparing him with the Saudi state is laughable.
Click to expand...
so why did SAFC get such a hammering over it. when up the road it is just a matter of fact thing. proportionality gone out the window.
why hatred pointed to safc, when It was just a daft lad that had some dodgy ideals as opposed to the saudis human rights record
 

soapster said:
so why did SAFC get such a hammering over it. when up the road it is just a matter of fact thing. proportionality gone out the window.
why hatred pointed to safc, when It was just a daft lad that had some dodgy ideals as opposed to the saudis human rights record
Click to expand...
Because the media don't really care, if the Saudi's pump money in and make the mags the next Man City that's good for the Premier League brand and the media that cover it.
 
soapster said:
I think I heard the call you refer to. I agree he came across as being really concerned. I can understand his concern. What did I think about PDC appointment. was he a fascist. We got some stick over that and a number of people said they would not go to the games, because they had been instructed by the miners union, not to go. They even wanted their banner back. the club really got some stick and some of the interviews and stuff said was way over the top. One journalist on tv was speaking with real hatred. Did we care when we won at SJP and PDC dirty knees.

yet up the road, the media refers to the Saudi money etc as a matter of fact issue (which it is) but is not attacking the club with any venom. Should they be getting attacked with venom?

it is a moral dilemma. is there anything a supporter can do, against that. probably not as we cant do anything really against owners of the club in any case except protest.

they had to accept what MA done, so should they just accept the new group.

In law could the premier league stop the takeover. they tried, but caved in at the end.

who will pay the for the license
Click to expand...
Our games where on metro radio for a few years. Another commercial station may be interested. At least ask the question.
 
Upthere said:
Heard on Saturday that no matter, whether we’re home or away we’re on the other frequency rather than the normal frequency on the radio. For years it has been the away team, whether this was Sunderland or Newcastle were on the main frequency and the home game on the other; shocking really
Click to expand...
Its a disgrace really ,not every supporter has a dab radio or freeview..........so Sunderland supporters have to pay for a new radio and Newcastle don't!In the scheme of things its not the end of the world but does show the complete bias of radio Newcastle to the heed loppers!
 
scott934 said:
Difference is PDC was just a bloke with dodgy political opinions, not really doing any harm. Comparing him with the Saudi state is laughable.
Click to expand...
This is correct to a degree. for what its worth I wasn’t entirely comfortable with pdc as manager and thankfully it was short lived. The main difference is them lot say things like they have the best owners in the world. The lack of awareness is astonishing.
oddbod said:
Its a disgrace really ,not every supporter has a dab radio or freeview..........so Sunderland supporters have to pay for a new radio and Newcastle don't!In the scheme of things its not the end of the world but does show the complete bias of radio Newcastle to the heed loppers!
Click to expand...
It’s a right fk on cos I like to listen to our away games when I’m out and about or at a local game. Means I had to buy aportable dab radio. Even at home smart speakers don’t broadcast local live bbc sports events (unless that’s changed).
 
Last edited:
Prague insurance man said:
Our games where on metro radio for a few years. Another commercial station may be interested. At least ask the question.
Click to expand...
I am sure they were also on sun FM. The question is cost
scott934 said:
Because the media don't really care, if the Saudi's pump money in and make the mags the next Man City that's good for the Premier League brand and the media that cover it.
Click to expand...
so what you are saying is that money talks. what was this all about again
 
Last edited:
I have thought for a while why does the BBC not get up to speed and allow you to log in to an account maybe with your TV licence No. to allow you to keep listening to football broadcasts
 
flipflop said:
I have thought for a while why does the BBC not get up to speed and allow you to log in to an account maybe with your TV licence No. to allow you to keep listening to football broadcasts
Click to expand...

Because the broadcasting rights the BBC pay for don’t cover internet streaming. Someone would have to pay is the crux of the problem, it’s not a technology issue at all.
 
Sumdumgi said:
Because the broadcasting rights the BBC pay for don’t cover internet streaming. Someone would have to pay is the crux of the problem, it’s not a technology issue at all.
Click to expand...
I agree

when I listen to the match on the radio, its ok.

However if I try to listen to it via alexa, via bbc sounds, it will not broadcast the match as says it is due to licensing or copyright issues.
 
soapster said:
I think I heard the call you refer to. I agree he came across as being really concerned. I can understand his concern. What did I think about PDC appointment. was he a fascist. We got some stick over that and a number of people said they would not go to the games, because they had been instructed by the miners union, not to go. They even wanted their banner back. the club really got some stick and some of the interviews and stuff said was way over the top. One journalist on tv was speaking with real hatred. Did we care when we won at SJP and PDC dirty knees.

yet up the road, the media refers to the Saudi money etc as a matter of fact issue (which it is) but is not attacking the club with any venom. Should they be getting attacked with venom?

it is a moral dilemma. is there anything a supporter can do, against that. probably not as we cant do anything really against owners of the club in any case except protest.

they had to accept what MA done, so should they just accept the new group.

In law could the premier league stop the takeover. they tried, but caved in at the end.

who will pay the for the license
Click to expand...
The Premier League and EFL should have an owner’s test that is truly “fit and proper”, and not merely an exercise in box ticking.
 
Hendonbeach said:
Dodgy political opinions ? He idolised Mussolini who peached Fascism and put it into practice .Which caused countless deaths and untold misery .
Click to expand...
In what respect? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but Mussolini wasn't the genocidal maniac that some of his more notable contemporaries were.
 
chriswallace85 said:
In what respect? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but Mussolini wasn't the genocidal maniac that some of his more notable contemporaries were.
Click to expand...
In the respect that he invaded Ethiopia in 1935 with a modern army ,when the primitive Ethiopia army resisted he order chemical warfare .With his airforce dropping mustard gas on civilians (bit like the Saudis in Yemen)There are varying accounts of many were killed ,200 ,000 seems to most agree on ,the vast majority civilians.
 
Hendonbeach said:
In the respect that he invaded Ethiopia in 1935 with a modern army ,when the primitive Ethiopia army resisted he order chemical warfare .With his airforce dropping mustard gas on civilians (bit like the Saudis in Yemen)There are varying accounts of many were killed ,200 ,000 seems to most agree on ,the vast majority civilians.
Click to expand...
And the Ethiopans used dumdum bullets and mutilated captives.

One doesn't cancel out the other of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top