stevegrant

As graced by such luminaries as Gaby Roslin...

Fair enough - can't say it looks much different to FM10, really, but until I've got one alongside the other I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Not convinced the social networking stuff will take off, really, but I suppose with the current craze for Twitter and other SM tools, they've got to try and shoehorn it in somehow.

What's new about the TV Match view?

I'm sure there's some sort of competition-related conflict of interest where a chairman of a rival club is allowed full access to a club's books...

The FT has been a paid-for subscription service for years. The model works with that publication because it is specialist information and analysis that may not be readily available elsewhere. The Times' website hits have fallen through the floor as a result of the paywall - I've got vague recollection of reading a report which suggested a 90+% drop - which would suggest that it's not working for them. Unless all other newspapers go down the same route (which I'm pretty certain they won't), they'll have a problem because, for me, there isn't enough exclusive content in The Times to warrant paying for online access when similar content is available for free elsewhere. The BBC are incredibly unlikely to ever make their content paid-for, so there will always be that source, which renders Murdoch's idea fairly irrelevant, IMO. Some people will draw comparisons with the model in place here, but there are clearly massive differences. Firstly, you don't have to pay to access the site at all. In fact, the majority of users don't pay. For most people, three posts per day is enough, so they have that option of using the site in the same way they always have done for free. Obviously as a consequence, they'll have adverts on the site (unless they've got an ad blocker installed), so they are still generating revenue for the site without actually having to pay themselves. Then we come onto the subscribers - there are generally two "types" of subscribers from what I can tell: there are those who subscribe because they want to be able to use all the features that are only available to paid subscribers, and then there are those who subscribe just because they want to contribute towards the continued running of the site. There appear to be a surprising number of people falling into the latter category, based on the number of subscribers who have low post counts. As we explained at the time, the whole reason for switching to the subscription model was to ensure the site remained self-sufficient. Under the previous donations-based structure, it became a law of diminishing returns - after the first wave of donations, there was plenty of money to run the site for about a year, but when we then asked for further donations, we received a much lower sum, which would obviously only keep the site running for a shorter period of time. With donations, I think people are happy to donate initially but feel a bit put out if they're then asked to contribute again a few months later. I seem to remember there was a bit of an issue with someone who donated a fairly significant sum then trying to claim immunity from being banned because they had contributed that much more to the forum than most other people. With the subscriptions model we now have in place, there are two options, it's either free but slightly limited, or a fiver with everything included, which keeps things much easier and settled. To pick up on a couple of other points that have been made on this thread, it does feel as though it's been quieter lately, but then a look at the figures (3746 have logged in in the last month) would suggest otherwise. I guess it's all in comparison to the massive floods of traffic we had with Markus Liebherr's death and then the Pardew sacked/Adkins appointed saga, and clearly it's going to seem quieter compared to those occasions when everyone wants to have their say. Not everyone has something to say on a given topic, obviously. With reference to the lack of news articles on that part of the site, I can only apologise for that. My excuse being that I'm in the process of moving house, and simply haven't had the time to write articles recently - I've not posted much on the forum recently for the same reason. I'll try to plug the gaps in the next week or two, but I'll also be on the lookout for a couple of people who are interested in writing news articles, match reports, etc for the site.

Politician in "saying things to win votes and adopting a different policy when he/she gets into power" shocker.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/football-league-blog/2010/sep/22/championship-already-decided History suggests they're already ****ed in terms of their footballing survival...

Get the iPlayer downloader app, then you can download it and watch it offline.

It'll be on iPlayer, I'd have thought...

Series 8 is out on DVD... http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/12159741/Spooks-Series-8/Product.html

My favourite line from tonight's episode: "So the country will have to struggle on without pornography and Minesweeper for a few hours? Do it!"

True, but there's usually a surge straight after the final whistle as well.

It's been down all weekend

For those who were on the forum during and immediately after the game yesterday, how did it go? In particular, was it quicker than normal? Did it fully crash (with the "Database Error" message) at all?

I've said no such thing, as you're well aware. If you want to retain your membership, I suggest you watch what you say.

History tells us it doesn't matter whether they're coining in the sales revenue or not, there will always be fundamental problems with the game on release day.

Should point out that at no point was I using work time to do this... Also, quite difficult to test what we need to test without actually having hundreds of people online at once. We've got just over 200 online at the moment, but that's fairly standard for mid-afternoons. The proof of the pudding will be at 5pm tomorrow, but it's likely to be a bit of a trial and error scenario to get the database config absolutely right.

Isn't this a relatively simple case of corporate theft?

Somerset have given up on the run chase, still need about 140 off 9 overs. Notts just about scraped to 400, and now need 3 wickets in 16 overs to win the title.

The title race is looking a bit interesting, though!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/promotions/8003821/Two-for-one-cricket-tickets-for-England-v-Pakistans-One-Day-International-at-The-Rose-Bowl.html Two for one deal now...

All young players get media training these days - essentially taught how to be as diplomatic and bland as possible.

There's perhaps some basis in the suggestion that as he knew/suspected that his card was marked in terms of his future at the club, he wasn't as motivated and driven as he was last season before all the speculation started. That would appear to explain the lack of fitness and stamina - we weren't too bad last night until we conceded the first goal after an hour or so, but then you could see the confidence and any remaining energy drain from the players and we were never going to get back into it from that point. (I should add that the players' character needs to be questioned at this stage as well - last season, we conceded first on countless occasions but still went on to win games) The fitness is the main thing I hold Pardew responsible for at this stage. The recruitment policy is a bit of a grey area because of the management structure within the club. We know about the transfer committee, comprising Pardew, Cortese, Reed and Burke, and it's possible that there simply wasn't a consensus of opinion among those four as to which players we should bring in in attacking positions. I think someone suggested recently that there was an issue regarding whether we'd sign either Papa Waigo or Michail Antonio (or both) on permanent deals, with AP favouring Antonio and NC favouring Waigo. Given the egos and stubbornness of both of them, if there was a disagreement over this, it's very hard to see either of them backing down from their position, and as a result, we ended up with neither. If this is the case, then both are equally responsible. I'd expect him to be fairly active in the loan market once he's had a couple of games to assess which areas of the squad he feels would be benefited the most from a couple of additions. Personally, I think we're OK defensively, but our problems in midfield and going forward leave the defence far too exposed. As a result, I'd like another striker and at least one pacy winger, preferably one who can take corners as well.

The thing that confuses me the most about that particular issue is that last season, the match tickets were £24 in the wings and Northam stand. Then at Christmas, they brought in the £2 matchday surcharge (which made sense, particularly if anybody had seen some of the pre-match queues at the ticket office). This season, they've reduced the matchday price by £2 to £22, but brought in the transaction tax, claiming (justifiably, to an extent) that all departments within the club have to be self-sufficient. Surely the best way to ensure the ticketing operation remained self-sufficient/profitable/whatever* would have been to maintain last season's pricing structure, as they'd have brought in much more money? It's more a psychological thing than a numbers thing - once people start to be charged add-ons over and above the price of the ticket itself, many will raise objections. However, if the price itself covers any costs, they don't mind paying. It's the "stealth" feel that gets people irritated, IMO. * - that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

This, I imagine. It's clearly in Sky's interests to get as many customers switched over to their HD packages as quickly as possible, for most customers that means an extra tenner a month. If they can convert all of their 10m subscribers to HD, that's a scary amount of extra revenue, even if half of them are on promotional deals for the HD part of the subscription.