Making the news today....

[difflock]

7 hours ago, Mark J said:

The point is that Channel 4 generate enough money to pay for these things.

In terms of government funding and support initiatives, do you think they stop funding sports too?

 

Yes, absolutely.

Why fund "sports"?

Like I need a smallbore rifle range, but the Government will not fund it nor subsidize my shooting.

So why does football be so heavily subsidized ( you ANY idea what it takes to provide and maintain a Council pitch and changing rooms?) , especially when there are multi millionaire football clubs and multimillionaire  football players that should well be able to fund their "beloved" game?

Hmmmm,

I just remembered the Soviets were big into their state sponsered football clubs, something to do with distracting the proletariat from their woeful plight I suppose.

Edited April 7, 2022 by difflock

[Mark J]

3 hours ago, difflock said:

Yes, absolutely.

Why fund "sports"?

Like I need a smallbore rifle range, but the Government will not fund it nor subsidize my shooting.

So why does football be so heavily subsidized ( you ANY idea what it takes to provide and maintain a Council pitch and changing rooms?) , especially when there are multi millionaire football clubs and multimillionaire  football players that should well be able to fund their "beloved" game?

Fair enough.

Do you think that we should sell channel 4?
 

We, the public, own Channel 4. And this sell-off isn’t a done deal | Armando Iannucci | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Why is the government intent on ruining our world-leading TV industry, asks Royal Television Society vice-president...

 

[PeteB]

78,000 Non Doms......I wonder how many are supporters/sponsors of other parties, but then again, that isn't newsworthy as knocking someone who, in their mind, is trying hard in their job to do well for the country.

[Woodworks]

7 hours ago, difflock said:

Yes, absolutely.

Why fund "sports"?

Like I need a smallbore rifle range, but the Government will not fund it nor subsidize my shooting.

So why does football be so heavily subsidized ( you ANY idea what it takes to provide and maintain a Council pitch and changing rooms?) , especially when there are multi millionaire football clubs and multimillionaire  football players that should well be able to fund their "beloved" game?

Hmmmm,

I just remembered the Soviets were big into their state sponsered football clubs, something to do with distracting the proletariat from their woeful plight I suppose.

I thought sports were funded  to encourage participation and in turn improving our health.

 

As a nation we are in pretty poor shape already without making sport out of reach of many due to cost.

[Mesterh]

12 minutes ago, Woodworks said:

I thought sports were funded  to encourage participation and in turn improving our health.

 

As a nation we are in pretty poor shape already without making sport out of reach of many due to cost.

Well said.

 

 

[daveatdave]

22 hours ago, Mark J said:

very political Tracy Brabin is a ex labor MP who quit her job to take on the role of Mayor with a £120,000 salary plus expenses 

[Mark J]

5 minutes ago, daveatdave said:

very political Tracy Brabin is a ex labor MP who quit her job to take on the role of Mayor with a £120,000 salary plus expenses 

Good for her.

 

[difflock]

8 hours ago, Woodworks said:

I thought sports were funded  to encourage participation and in turn improving our health.

 

As a nation we are in pretty poor shape already without making sport out of reach of many due to cost.

I do appreciate that aspect, but like the Parsons egg, it is good in parts only.

I also "appreciate" the apre-game boozing culture associated with many footballers/Rugby players/Hockey  players and their mostly shite diets. So only good in parts.

Cheers

[David Cropper]

1 hour ago, difflock said:

I do appreciate that aspect, but like the Parsons egg, it is good in parts only.

I also "appreciate" the apre-game boozing culture associated with many footballers/Rugby players/Hockey  players and their mostly shite diets. So only good in parts.

Cheers

Sorry Marcus, its "the Curate's egg". 

[Commando]

Yes Channel 4 is self funding, they buy/commission tv shows and films from independent media companies, if channel 4 was to go then these independent companies will lose a large chunk of their revenue, hence the anticipated loss of 2,400 jobs and 60 companies. 

Life would be pretty dull without art: no music, no films, no painting, no photography, no architecture, no design... 
Art enriches us all culturally, whether you like it or not. 

Personally I couldn’t give a stuff… I would guess 80% of C4 content is utter garbage, bowing to the Libtard, fringe, oddballs of society…
IMHO that sort of content should be on a subscription basis, and not paid for/supported out of the public purse.

“no music, no films, no painting, no photography, no architecture, no design... “

You forgot: No “Naked Attraction”, No “The Pride Collection” in ur list of cultural content 🥱