-
Posts
5224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by spongebob toonpants
-
At least the first ball was better than last time
-
I guess I'm not going to care then
-
This post is dry humour gold and deserves far greater recognition. I haven't got enough self confidence to believe I actually get the joke. My unhappiness compounded by the fact I don't know which smilie is appropriate to illustrate my self doubt and confusion What's not to get though? It's preceeded by Rob trying to be as offensive as all of his considerable arrogance can muster, obviously looking to bait the Irish lads, and all he gets back is Ewerk pretending he can see through his subtlety. Graham Linehan would be proud of it and I can't really think of a much higher compliment tbf. So what you are saying is my post was too dry.....
-
the sky poster for the ashes is sooooooooo bad its magnificent. I genuinely pulled over to the side of the road when I first saw it to fully contemplate its awesomeness Uploaded with ImageShack.us my oh my
-
This post is dry humour gold and deserves far greater recognition. I haven't got enough self confidence to believe I actually get the joke. My unhappiness compounded by the fact I don't know which smilie is appropriate to illustrate my self doubt and confusion
-
We borrowed it of course. We have our own fiat currency, its a license to print money - literally
-
I'm a real glory hunter when it comes to the cricket. if England have are winning I will be following it avidly, and absolutely loving it if they are stuffing the Aussies. A close series with will have me obsessed, and full of jingoistic bombast if we win - but to be honest losing wouldn't really affect me in the slightest. I hope we win because I will thoroughly enjoy it, but if England aren't winning I will lose all interest, and genuinely not care. Bit of a no lose for me.
-
Man Utd's Anderson a Toon target
spongebob toonpants replied to loonyTOON's topic in Newcastle Forum
Chances of this happening fairly close to zero -
Man Utd's Anderson a Toon target
spongebob toonpants replied to loonyTOON's topic in Newcastle Forum
Chances of this happening fairly close to zero -
It depends how you define crap. There is a trade off between excitement and technique, and since before the beginning of time our football has extolled the virtues of effort and commitment over them fancy dan foreigners with their technical ability, tactical awareness and boring football. The undoubted commercial success of the premier league, and the ensuing import of quality foreign players, has allowed the claim of the best league in the world to have some basis in fact - but also allowed the false belief that home grown players were "world class" to become widespread. English players still are way behind tactically and technically, and now the imports aren't actually the very best any more the English teams will start to fall away in Europe is my guess. Apart from the odd aberration English teams still really don't know how to defend, Mourinho's Chelsea with Carvalho as the brains being the best example I can think of. This leads to a load of goals and excitement, mistakenly promoted as great attacking play, when in reality the majority of players just don't know how to defend or tackle The Shawcross tackle that broke Ramseys leg summed it up for me. The whole debate was whether it was intentional, was he malicous or just whole hearted etc, with the concensus being it was just one of those unavoidable, unlucky things. He said something along the lines of I won't change the way I play, and was praised for his courage and determination. Taking Man and ball is still considered something to be encouraged, but in reality its physicality being preferred to technique. However though there is something exciting about seeing a full blooded challenge, it certainly gets the crowd going and can energise players and fans alike. Is the Premier League crap, if you care about being able to tackle properly, being able to defend, if the most important thing is technique and tactical awareness then yes it is pretty crap. England will forever be shown up and embarresed in International competition until our whole attitude to the game changes. If you want exciting football with big tackles loads of goals, and now that our richest teams aren't monopolising the best players in the world, a league where anybody can ibeat anybody, then no English football isn't crap, its much more entertaining than its continental counterpart. I couldn't really give a Fuck about England winning anything anyway - so fuck off back to Yugoslavia you moaning twat
-
Iconic moments captured in picture.
spongebob toonpants replied to Christmas Tree 's topic in General Chat
-
You talk pure pish as I'll point out on another thread in a minute, but you're right, all the great wars generally start when it's warm historically, no one can be arsed when it's cold. Same with any conflict, football hooliganism always did and always has taken a nose dive when it's cold, it's why we never play the mackems when it's warm, you might laugh but it's true. I disagree with you but you are correct??!11!!??
-
Iconic moments captured in picture.
spongebob toonpants replied to Christmas Tree 's topic in General Chat
-
Win a chance to be Kitman for the day
spongebob toonpants replied to Christmas Tree 's topic in Newcastle Forum
Prize should be yours by right- I would be furious if I was you -
I think its possible he could develop into a decent player. if he came back and stepped up the way the other members of the back four seem to have done (Simpson not Perch obv) then I think he would definitely be of value to the squad. I don't hate him as much as Alex, but I do think Alex has him nailed. A better full back than centre half, bigger on the gob than the talent, and a bit of a coward. Having said that though I do think he has a bit of potential, and I think he might have the desire to make it. It's possilble he has already been taken down a peg or two by Carrol, and the clubs response to the jaw breaking. And maybe now he is obviously not the local hero anymore it might focus his mind. Actually a thought that has just occurred to me, and this supports Alex's belief that he is a coward. He might not have the guts to leave Newcastle. I was pretty surprised when he didn't leave after he got belted. maybe he hasn't got the nerve
-
I'm certainly enjoying the season much more than I expected. Tiote, even with the tendency to yellow cards, has been transformative to the team. The fact that Ben Arfa actually did pitch up here was a (short lived) unexpected result. Carroll has been a revelation, and so many of the team have performed better than expected. I think every member of the first choice outfield players has performed at a higher level than I expected. I realise there the possibility of the season going horribly wrong from this point is to say the least greater than zero, but I am looking forward to it, which is a huge step forward from my pre season foreboding Oh and I lurve Chris Suiton
-
He only played 33 times but is still a legend to all that saw him play. That tells you all you need to know. In all the "what if" moments in Newcastle's history, the thought of what we might have become if he hadn't been injured is perhaps the biggest regret
-
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
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. It will be interesting to see how it developes. Everybody agrees that the future will be driven by the desire to extract the maximum revenue from the product. It seems logical to me that this is a new market to exploit -
I saw him play, and I think I may have said this before, my main memory is not so any specific action, but more the electric atmosphere and excitement whenever he got the ball. I was only a kid but I knew I was seeing something special.
-
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
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. The audience won't be split for Sky matches, the internet will be showing matches not available on Sky. Your advert for a previously unbroadcasted match will now be seen by more people not less -
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
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? -
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
The model that has evolved though, evolved without the internet. And I don't see why you think its a given that this will have a negative impact on Sky, its an addition not an alternative. I already watch the Newcastle games on the internet, but I will still watch the Saturday lunchtime game,and Match of the Day and the Sunday game on Sky, -unless its Blackburn Wigan or whatever. Maybe the live Sky games aren't included in the internet so you are only paying for the games you weren't already going to see on Sky. As people have said you can already watch all games live on the internet, that genie is out of the bottle. This is about generating new revenue from the opportunity, and the continued evolution of the model as the media developes Its much more likely that Murdoch will have his hand in the internet pie as well. The sky cameras will still be at the ground, obody buys a Sky subscription for goals on SUnday- he can sell the feed to th club -everybody wins -
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
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 games Match 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. -
So, when do you think Mike Ashley
spongebob toonpants replied to LeazesMag's topic in Newcastle Forum
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. -
We had one of those- you lost