“Finally, I find the original source of this criticism (the owner of this blog) to be a bit dubious, since every other week or so, he’ll write an editorial about the wonders of Sentanta who are the chief (only?) sponsor of the site and then link to their site. It’s one thing to be beholden to a sponsor, but I t cheapens the value of this site for the reader when he has go at the competition in this manner.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but the way this blog in general and this thread in particular is having a go at FSC isn’t constructive and isn’t going to lead to anything good. For one, while Sentanta has a competitor, they will strive to make their programming better and keep it affordable. If FSC folds, you can bet they’ll become more expensive and their service will get worse.”

Setanta is not a sponsor/advertiser of this site. As explained previously, I have an affiliate marketing relationship with ITVN only.

I, by no means, am intent on bashing Fox at any given opportunity. Instead, I offer fair criticism, and I’ve been knowm to criticize Setanta on this blog when they make mistakes.

For a positive FSC blog posting, read this posting about two fantastic matches that are coming soon to Fox.

Cheers,
The Gaffer

I agree somehat with people who’ve been having a go at FSW. The anchor’s are more football enthusiasts than experts and Jeremy guy is in such hurry to describe the action that he almost always finishes describing the goals before they’re shown. Amateur stuff.

But, having said that, and being a European who’s lived in the UK, it doesn’t really matter where you are; crap commentators are everywhere. Not Marcelo Balboa crap, mind, but still crap). And FSW does have McMahon who is very good. Also, the back and forth banter between all of them can be quite funny (they don’t take themselves seriously at all, which is a huge plus).

So when you are having a go at the Canadians or the guys in LA, just remember, the grass isn’t much greener on the other side. Commentators and analysts (sports and news) of quality are hard to find.

Personally I’m perfectly happy with the FSC coverage. I like my English footie, but I don’t want or need my life to be consumed by it. I’d probably watch more games on FSC if they had my team (the Blades) every week or had the quality of ManU or Arsenal more frequently. But I’ve also got a life and I don’t need TV to be better than it is.

Finally, I find the original source of this criticism (the owner of this blog) to be a bit dubious, since every other week or so, he’ll write an editorial about the wonders of Sentanta who are the chief (only?) sponsor of the site and then link to their site. It’s one thing to be beholden to a sponsor, but I t cheapens the value of this site for the reader when he has go at the competition in this manner.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but the way this blog in general and this thread in particular is having a go at FSC isn’t constructive and isn’t going to lead to anything good. For one, while Sentanta has a competitor, they will strive to make their programming better and keep it affordable. If FSC folds, you can bet they’ll become more expensive and their service will get worse.

On the other hand Sky doesn’t add a whole lot, even from an English perspective. They deal with issues at a surface level, as if they’re simply pulling headlines from Guardian and putting them to video.

So where is the American supposed to go for learned commentary on football???