Sky's the limit
PUBLISHED: 13:44 30 October 2009 | UPDATED: 16:40 10 September 2010
I am not a fan of what Sky Sports have made football, but have been a subscriber for years. I feel sorry for the fans when fixtures are moved to suit the broadcasters, but what would I think if Chelsea vs Manchester United was not televised on Sunday at 4pm?
I am not a fan of what Sky Sports have made football, but have been a subscriber for years. I feel sorry for the fans when fixtures are moved to suit the broadcasters, but what would I think if Chelsea vs Manchester United was not televised on Sunday at 4pm? I'm always annoyed when the times of Norwich games are moved from Saturday 3pm, but each time we've been televised, I've not gone and watched it on the box instead. Admittedly I could not have gone to the Leeds game as it was too far to go for this part-timer, but the MK and Sunderland games? I would have been there had it not been on TV.
If ever there was a bundle of contradictions in one paragraph that was it.
And so begins the rush for Paulton Rovers tickets. An allocation of but five hundred of which the away season ticket holders have first dibs on, as so they should. Then it's the priority two's, season ticket holders with ten stubs from last season. Gemma and I are part of this group. And I suspect that the remaining three hundred or so tickets won't go much further than this. Two of this second priority group will not be applying as Gemma and I will be watching the game from the safety of the sofa, armed with a remote control and cups of tea.
Anyone care to guess the reason for our stay away? It's on TV, although this is only one of the reasons for not travelling 150+ miles south-west to see City play. Family visits and Gemma's golf were scheduled but could easily have been re-arranged, and we could have applied in hope, more than in expectation for a ticket. But we're staying at home, and are more than happy to let others collect their tour of duty medals.
Paulton would have cost me the best part of three figures to go. I would have had to pay for a pair of tickets, train fares for us both, or three quarters of a tank of petrol, parking, plus some food and drink. Ditto my no-show at Leeds. MK would have cost less, as would the home cup match at Sunderland. But if I added all these numbers up had I attended these games, the total cost would have been a large proportion of the cost of my season ticket.
Or looking at it another way, by staying away when the game is televised I've saved most of the money I spend on my Sky Sports Subscription, hypocrite that I am.
And a few words on last week's 1-0 win against Swindon, and even more contradictions. I left Carrow Road feeling a little disappointed in last week's game yet we won at a canter. I wanted George Francomb to be put under more pressure to see how good a defender he really he is, but he was given the freedom of the right side of the pitch and I didn't really find out. I wanted Swindon to show more attacking nous but was impressed by the way that City squeezed the life out of the game. I wanted Grant Holt to close the opposition full backs down in the corner, but when he's out there having busted a lungful full of air to make a tackle, I'm disappointed that we don't have our main goal threat in the penalty box.
I always complain about diving but when a City player goes down too easily (and there are some in the current team that do this) I conveniently turn a blind eye. I always want the decisions to go for us, but when the referee gets it so very wrong, such as at Gillingham, all I ask for is consistency from the officials. Oh well.
I like to consider myself quite a fair minded football fan, but after all those contradictions I don't think I am. In fact if I found someone who said they are a fair-minded football fan, I don't think that I would believe them. Perhaps I'm making the mistake of judging everyone by my own standards. Or maybe not.
Perhaps I want football to be fair but only when it suits me.