(10-04-2010 19:24 )colino Wrote:  I had the chance to go to the game, but after watching it on tv, i'm glad i didn't. The 1st half was like watching paint dry and to be fair the 2nd half wasn't a great deal better.....put that with paying £7 for a chilli dog at Wembley and you can see why i was so pleased that i didn't go!!

Who was the smart arse who thought that it was a good idea to water a rock hard surface?? Smart move that, the 1st half was like watching dancing on ice!! Spend nearly a billion quid on as new stadium, but in the quest for revenue forget just about the most important aspect, the playing surface......How many times has the pitch at Wembley been relaid now? 10?

Yes, it was a pen, but i'm not certain that it would have changed the end result. We've just got too many guns at our disposal for Villa to be honest. Still, now i can relax and sit and watch tomorrow's game......Now that Portsmouth are already relegated they've got bugger all to worry about apart from enjoying themselves, so i reckon it'll be a lot closer than people think.

(10-04-2010 19:27 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:20 )cosmonaut Wrote:  The FA get the same revenue whatever teams are in the final. It makes no difference.

It does to how they can sell the game overseas. Man U v Chelsea is much more attractive to the Far East market than Cardiff v Portsmouth.

(10-04-2010 19:39 )sasquatch Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:27 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:20 )cosmonaut Wrote:  The FA get the same revenue whatever teams are in the final. It makes no difference.

It does to how they can sell the game overseas. Man U v Chelsea is much more attractive to the Far East market than Cardiff v Portsmouth.

It's been sold overseas already.

(10-04-2010 19:42 )thinwhiteduke Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:39 )sasquatch Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:27 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:20 )cosmonaut Wrote:  The FA get the same revenue whatever teams are in the final. It makes no difference.

It does to how they can sell the game overseas. Man U v Chelsea is much more attractive to the Far East market than Cardiff v Portsmouth.

It's been sold overseas already.

The game has been sold not the advertising rights.

(10-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  The fact that a Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U/Liverpool final is a far more attractive proposition than a Blackpool vs Barnsley final to overseas viewers/investors is beyond dispute, surely?

I go to the far east a lot, and i can tell you quite catergorically that NOTHING sells better or has more viewers there than a final with Man Utd in it, a lower league F.A cup final would have viewers and potential future investors switching off in droves.

(10-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  The fact that a Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U/Liverpool final is a far more attractive proposition than a Blackpool vs Barnsley final to overseas viewers/investors is beyond dispute, surely?

(10-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  The fact that a Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U/Liverpool final is a far more attractive proposition than a Blackpool vs Barnsley final to overseas viewers/investors is beyond dispute, surely?

(10-04-2010 20:00 )admin Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  The fact that a Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U/Liverpool final is a far more attractive proposition than a Blackpool vs Barnsley final to overseas viewers/investors is beyond dispute, surely?

Your argument is irrelevant as neither Blackpool nor Barnsley made it to the semi-finals anyway. The point in question is m100's claim that the FA fixed the match today to make sure that Chelsea beat Aston Villa.

(10-04-2010 20:00 )admin Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 19:54 )colino Wrote:  The fact that a Chelsea/Arsenal/Man U/Liverpool final is a far more attractive proposition than a Blackpool vs Barnsley final to overseas viewers/investors is beyond dispute, surely?

Your argument is irrelevant as neither Blackpool nor Barnsley made it to the semi-finals anyway. The point in question is m100's claim that the FA fixed the match today to make sure that Chelsea beat Aston Villa.