So Paying for Sky is against the NOPM ethos - What a cock that bloke is (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
SkyBlue_Bear83

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
I know right, he didnt really have a clue what he was talking about

I think the point he was trying to make, if loads of people watch on sky then this means sky are more likely to show Coventry games in the future. The more we are on sky the more money the club receive

He just didnt put the point across very well
 
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Like the bloke but he don't think things through sometimes.

Maybe we should all boycott CWR, or stop paying the license fee - after all, CWR pay the club for commentary rights.
 
S

skyblueiom

Well-Known Member
CCFC said:
I know right, he didnt really have a clue what he was talking about

I think the point he was trying to make, if loads of people watch on sky then this means sky are more likely to show Coventry games in the future. The more we are on sky the more money the club receive

He just didnt put the point across very well
Click to expand...

Think youre wrong, he just reiterated his daft point....bell end (him not you!)
 
leachy19

leachy19

New Member
RegTheDonk said:
Like the bloke but he don't think things through sometimes.

Maybe we should all boycott CWR, or stop paying the license fee - after all, CWR pay the club for commentary rights.
Click to expand...

Someone text that in! or does texting in give a small percentage of the 10p it costs to sisu meaning we are breaching the NOPM rule?
 
Paxman II

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Well he's being a bit pedantic about it but it's never the less a fact that can't be denied especially if you are on the NOPM side and are so set in your belief.
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
Well he's being a bit pedantic about it but it's never the less a fact that can't be denied especially if you are on the NOPM side and are so set in your belief.
Click to expand...

I could find a relationship between toilet paper and CCFC if I wanted to. NOPM would give me a problem.

There are limits to linkages :facepalm:
 
J

jas365

Well-Known Member
The difference is that I will pay the same amount to Sky regardless of whether or not I watch the game (or any other game for that matter). So as far as i'm concerned its not actually costing me a penny to watch us vs Sheff Utd.

Linnell has been even worse than normal today, he's forgotten both the e-mail address and phone number in the last half an hour.
 
Q

quinn1971

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
Well he's being a bit pedantic about it but it's never the less a fact that can't be denied especially if you are on the NOPM side and are so set in your belief.
Click to expand...

I missed linnel waffling on again..so could someone explain how my sky subscription finds it's way into sisu's pocket....this should be good :)
 
C

Covstar

Well-Known Member
He even said if u watch the game in a pub, aren't you going against the NOPM campaign? This guy talks absolute nonsense most of the time.
 
NorthernWisdom

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Forget NOPM, it's Sky monetising football across the board that made the likes of SISU sit up and take note, made football a business rather than a rich man's plaything.

it's for that, as much as their attempts to use sport as a battering ram for a monopoly that stops me subscribing to them.

So in a wider context, want football back? Rebelling against Sky and the evil Murdoch empire is as decent a place to go as any.
 
H

Houdi

Well-Known Member
So Sky Blues fans who have Sky maybe to watch a variety of sports, should cancel their Sky contract or be in breach of NOPM. That's some bizarre thinking, or he is just being pedantic. You have to wonder if CWR is under any threat from SISU, as there seems a huge reluctance on their part to question Fisher on his claims, made many months ago about the new stadium/shirt sponsorship. Week after week fans ask what has happened, only to be with the stock answer, 'Don't know?'
The most contentious period in the club's history, and yet Fisher has seemingly gone to ground, and the local media seem quite happy to let events to just rumble on. The season has been going on for 6 weeks, and I don't remember a single interview with our CEO. If there not breaking a door to interview him now, what is the point of them?
 
Paxman II

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
It's a very poor point and frankly not worth the mention but surely it is true if Sky pay money out to league clubs and then add live match day money to that pot directly to CCFC to broadcast the live game which in turn you are watching on TV, then your subscription however indirectly, is giving money to Otium. Can you argue anything different to that fact?

It's a rubbish point really for what it's worth but it's fact.
 
ohitsaidwalker king power

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
It's a very poor point and frankly not worth the mention but surely it is true if Sky pay money out to league clubs and then add live match day money to that pot directly to CCFC to broadcast the live game which in turn you are watching on TV, then your subscription however indirectly, is giving money to Otium. Can you argue anything different to that fact?

It's a rubbish point really for what it's worth but it's fact.
Click to expand...

and yet you feel compelled to mention it again and underline it.....how very typical.
Those that disagree with the council position re this whole sorry affair paying their taxes are similar hypocrites are they not?- for thats the point you are making isnt it?
 
ps1948

ps1948

Well-Known Member
I think what is called for is a massice chorus of "Stuart Linnell, what a wanker" from the SBA next week at Port vale, and then for someone to ring up and ask if he heard it!
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
It's a very poor point and frankly not worth the mention but surely it is true if Sky pay money out to league clubs and then add live match day money to that pot directly to CCFC to broadcast the live game which in turn you are watching on TV, then your subscription however indirectly, is giving money to Otium. Can you argue anything different to that fact?

It's a rubbish point really for what it's worth but it's fact.
Click to expand...

This kind of thinking is flawed. The reason is you can't tell which money made it where. I mean shit, my school uses a Capita program, owned by Murdoch. Should I refuse to register my kids as I'm indirectly giving money to Sisu?

Its a silly argument and you know it. The boycott is not giving cash directly to Sisu.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
ohitsaidwalker king power said:
and yet you feel compelled to mention it again and underline it.....how very typical.
Those that disagree with the council position re this whole sorry affair paying their taxes are similar hypocrites are they not?- for thats the point you are making isnt it?
Click to expand...

No. To follow this logic, anyone who uses a business that pays rates to the council is helping ACL.
 
Paxman II

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
This kind of thinking is flawed. The reason is you can't tell which money made it where. I mean shit, my school uses a Capita program, owned by Murdoch. Should I refuse to register my kids as I'm indirectly giving money to Sisu?

Its a silly argument and you know it. The boycott is not giving cash directly to Sisu.
Click to expand...

You are right but I already said it was both pedantic and a rubbish point? My view here is just to make the point that it is indirectly giving money to Otium and that is all. It's not saying I'm taking sides just looking at fact and the principal in the argument Mr Linnell was talking about as foolishly silly as it was.
I don't live in Coventry so I don't pay the city's council tax so that's a mute point with me.

When ever we exchange views on these boards it seems that if most can't agree the sentiment as fact, even though it is, that in some way it is wrong to express it?

If you are going to try and have a balanced view and argument then surely you must attempt first to wear the shoes of all sides in the argument? This also applies of course to SISU and ACL. But so many only wear the shoes of one side for the most part. I try not to.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
There were plenty of dicks talking about boycotting Papa John's becuae they sponsor the Football League a few weeks ago.

Just hope nobody finds out that Sisu have shareholdings in Esso and BP, the Jimmy Hiller's will be knackered getting to Northampton on their bikes.
 
ohitsaidwalker king power

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
You are right but I already said it was both pedantic and a rubbish point? My view here is just to make the point that it is indirectly giving money to Otium and that is all. It's not saying I'm taking sides just looking at fact and the principal in the argument Mr Linnell was talking about as foolishly silly as it was.
I don't live in Coventry so I don't pay the city's council tax so that's a mute point with me.

When ever we exchange views on these boards it seems that if most can't agree the sentiment as fact, even though it is, that in some way it is wrong to express it?

If you are going to try and have a balanced view and argument then surely you must attempt first to wear the shoes of all sides in the argument? This also applies of course to SISU and ACL. But so many only wear the shoes of one side for the most part. I try not to.
Click to expand...

Pax.. we know you like to present both sides.... we know we know we know...but you agreed it was a futile point and then represented that futile point again and again, contradicting your own futility statement..

and I think its moot not mute..... which is what Im afraid I have to do to Mr Linnell these days... maybe makes me onesided... oh well at some point declaring colours is best... else ever decreasing circles of ambiguity?
 
S

simple_simon

New Member
Linnel also said a fence was damaged last week on the Hill.
How the hell can you damage an 8ft metal fence?
The police never mentioned it at all so where did this Tosser Linnel get this information and why bring it up.
 
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
No. To follow this logic, anyone who uses a business that pays rates to the council is helping ACL.
Click to expand...

A texter made a similar point, something along the lines of if you don't agree with ACL, then don't pay your rates as this indirectly helps fund them.

Fair play to Linell and Clive at this point, they both started laughing, showing that they understood the bloke was taking the piss out of a ridiculous sky analogy.
 
S

Snozz_is_god

New Member
Probably the first thing you've said that I agree with. Thudddddddddd:eek:

The death of football as we knew it can be traced right back to SKY and the beginning of the Premier League
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top