For those who haven’t heard, starting this May-June, readers of The Times and The Sunday Times online will be forced to pay a fee or subscription in order to read news from one of Britain’s biggest and most trusted news sources. Some 20 million monthly readers of the two sites will be effected by a change that analysts say will cause “almost all” of the online readers to look elsewhere for their daily dose.

Both sites, currently under the ownership of Rupert Murdoch’s News International, will soon have a £1 per day or £2 per week fee to access articles. Also launching this June is a new site called Times+ which will feature exclusive events, offers and extras and will cost £50 per year as a stand alone subscription.

The new roll out of both sites aren’t short of bells and whistles to tempt long time readers into taking the plunge and subscribing for the once free content. I was recently able to preview the revised sites, and it’s safe to say they definitely have an elegant, glossy design. This risky crossover surely has undergone countless hours of research, design and testing to assure the switch goes off without a snag. It’s safe to say that if there were massive problems, the already weary paying customer may be scared off for good.

One of the major selling points I’ve been able to discern from the new sites are the interactive features that are sure to be unique and informative. To name a few:

• Exclusive photo gallery and online video
• Daily live Q & A – quiz your favorite journalists
• Interactive graphics and more

Still though, are rivals the Guardian and the Telegraph chomping at the bit as one of their competitors enters into the forest of the unknown? In short, Yes. Both are sticking by their tried and true format of free online articles and news. The Daily Mail Online will also stick with their format of free articles saying, “A pay-wall MIGHT make a little money — we will make a lot.” So who will pay for news?

What Does This Mean for Readers of EPL Talk?

The answer to that question of course depends on how much you frequent the site itself for news and articles. Obviously, most readers of this site will peruse the articles from the football section of the Times Online which feature some of the best writers in the UK including, but not limited to Patrick Barclay, Oliver Kay, Gabriele Marcotti and more.

Will You Pay?

James Harding, editor of the Times, recently stated that the paper is “going to lose a lot of passing traffic”, yet also added that the pay basis was “less of a risk than just throwing away our journalism and giving it away for free”. Regardless of your opinion, Harding’s comments were definitely of an interesting perspective from a man who realizes the risk of the new format. But “throwing away our journalism” may be a step too far.

I can’t see myself paying for content when I can get similar and equally as good writing and reporting from other UK based sites. And what’s to become of the highly popular TheGame Podcast? Will the Times attempt to charge for the weekly show that features Nick Szczepanik and Marcotti? This and other variables, such as the impending success or failure of the change over to a paid format are still widely unknown.

I believe that if a paid format is to truly work, what’s being paid for must offer something that one couldn’t simply find elsewhere. In an age where not only every news outlet has a website, but also a mobile app, the market for instant and free information is so saturated it makes a paid format almost laughable.

What’s to become of the new Murdoch method of setting up a paywall for The Times? Will other news sources soon follow Murdoch’s lead? Will such a risky business model thrive or fail in these still volatile economic times?

We’ll all know in a few short months, but until we do, enjoy your free articles on The Times while you can.

Anyone who witnessed the remarkable comeback win by Aston Villa over Everton on Sunday will have no doubt who scored a brace for Martin O’Neill’s side. But The Daily Telegraph headline writers obviously do.

Instead of crediting two goal hero Ashley Young, they mistakingly wrote that fellow teammate Luke Young scored. Anyone who has seen Ashley Young and Luke Young play will know that there’s a massive difference between the two other than their surname.

By the time the Telegraph editorial staff wakes up on Monday morning, chances are they’ll correct the headline mistake. But for the time being, enjoy the above screenshot or read the article now.

For the first 60 minutes at Stamford Bridge on Sunday, the game looked remarkably familiar. Chelsea were passing the ball beautifully around the pitch. Wonderful movement off the ball. Using incredible amounts of imagination and creativity. Yet they couldn’t seem to score that crucial second goal.

Sound familiar?

Chelsea were Arsenal. Luiz Felipe Scolari’s side were a joy to watch, but they wasted chance after chance and failed to put the game out of Arsenal’s reach. Instead it was Arsenal, who played very much unlike the Arsenal we know and admire, that were the most decisive when they took the few chances they received to record an incredible 2-1 victory at Stamford Bridge.

After Johan Djourou’s own goal gifted Chelsea their goal in the first half, it was up to Robin van Persie to capitalize on two gilt-edge chances to win the match for the Gunners. The second was a beautiful twist and turn to kick the ball past the reach of Petr Cech, but van Persie’s first goal was mired in controversy.

My first reaction was that van Persie was completely offside, but TWI co-commentator Robbie Earle was quick to call the goal a correct decision after he noticed that the ball deflected off Ashley Cole into van Persie’s path. After rewinding the play in the game several times, I could see how Earle’s reading of the game was spot on.

Here’s how the rest of the media summed up the controversial incident:

“He looked well offside when he drilled home the equaliser after 59 minutes” — Phil McNulty, BBC Sport.

“As the Brazilian slipped the ball through, Van Persie was clearly offside. Mike Dean waved play on, mysteriously, allowing the Dutchman to beat Cech with a strong right-footed finish.” — Henry Winter, The Telegraph, and

“The first of Robin van Persie’s goals, should have been ruled offside.” — Kevin McCarra, The Guardian.

So, who was correct? Should the goal have stood and did Robbie Earle make the right call that everyone else missed? I’m siding with Earle on this one, but post your feedback below by clicking the comments link.

The biggest news of the past 24 hours is that Manchester United has reportedly tabled an official £20 million bid for Tottenham striker Dimitar Berbatov. Problem is there’s no evidence of an actual bid being made and all we have to go on is a quote from his agent in The Sun newspaper. What is the “money quote” from the agent that “confirms” that the “bid” has happened?

“I cannot make any comment until there is official confirmation from Tottenham or United.”

While the story may be true, it could also be the agent trying to start a price war to raise Berbatov’s price.

What makes the whole affair ludicrous is now the other British tabloids are picking up on the story and regurgitating the news, and all they have to go on is an article from The Sun. Meanwhile, The Daily Mail even had the cheek to call the story an exclusive.

Here’s a breakdown of how the story broke and how the other news organizations rewrote The Sun‘s material without one of them crediting The Sun:

Headline: United’s £20m Berbatov Bid
Newspaper: The Sun
Day/time article appeared in RSS feed: Friday, 8:53pm ET
Number of attributed sources: One
Source: Emil Dantchev, Berbatov’s agent
Number of direct quotes: One (from agent)
Quote from agent: “I cannot make any comment until there is official confirmation from Tottenham or United.”
Article length: 266 words

Headline: Ferguson Turns His Attention To Berbatov
Newspaper: The Independent
Day/time article appeared in RSS feed: Friday, 9:03pm ET
Source: “There are reports” (i.e. The Sun)
Number of direct quotes: Zero
Article length: 965 words (although only 121 words are about the Berba “bid”)

Headline: United Bid For Berbatov
Newspaper: The Guardian
Day/time article appeared in RSS feed: Friday, 10pm ET
Source: “According to reports” (i.e. The Sun)
Number of direct quotes: Zero
Article length: 135 words

Headline: Exclusive: Get Berbatov: Fergie Puts 20m On Table For Spurs Ace
Newspaper: The Daily Mail
Day/time article appeared in RSS feed: Friday, 11:17pm ET
Source: None mentioned in reference to “bid”
Number of direct quotes: Zero
Article length: 628 words (with only 454 about the Berba “bid”)

At 2:48am ET on Saturday, BBC Sport mentioned 20 words about the story and appropriately placed it in their Saturday Gossip Column

Headline: Spurs Striker Dimitar Berbatov Subject Of Bid From Manchester United
Newspaper: The Daily Telegraph
Day/time article appeared in RSS feed: Saturday, 4:06am ET
Source: “According to reports” (i.e. The Sun)
Number of direct quotes: One (the same quote from The Sun)
Article length: 317 words

To me, this is all about selling newspapers. All of these tabloid and broadsheet newspapers want the eyeballs on their website so they can sell more advertising space. And those print newspapers who were able to squeeze the news into their fish wrappers last night will sell more copies today with the headline about Berbatov. As of press time, the only respectable English newspaper that hasn’t written about the story is The Times. That either may be by choice, if they determine the story is to be utter tosh, or they may be trying to write their own version of the story with new facts and quotes. Then again, they may have fallen asleep at the wheel.

And all of this comes from one news story in The Sun which features plenty of hearsay and one innocuous quote.

The British press are quick to criticize football clubs and stars, but isn’t it time that they raise their journalistic standards and refrain from lazy journalism?

What’s wrong with this picture above? Either The Daily Telegraph has a magic crystal ball where they can predict what’s going to happen at Euro 20008 or maybe reporter Jeremy Wilson had a few drinks too many in Zurich?