"tim (moved to sweden)" <tim_in_sweden2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3r4ligFhorlmU1@individual.net...[color=blue]
>
> "DaveJ" <davej@nospampleze.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:diihk6$pij$1@news.e7even.com...[color=green]
> >
> > "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
> > news
oldy-269714.11161610102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
> >> Awesome news.
> >>
> >> Now I can watch some WC next July with some good food and drink.[/color]
> >
> > Possibly not, isn't planned to become law for at least 3 years... Also[/color][/color]
if[color=blue][color=green]
> > Sky charges continue to rocket and the Tap Room smokers stay away you[/color][/color]
may[color=blue][color=green]
> > find most pubs turning into Taverna style places without 'entertainment'[/color]
>
> Pubs are not, by definition, places of 'entertainment'
> It's just that someone discover that providing entertainment
> is revenue positive. It will continue to be provided whilst that
> remains true.
>[color=green]
> > (apart from those which have turned into houses or blocks of flats).[/color]
>
> true.
>
> tim
>
>[/color]
The TV bit of my local makes less than the 'sit around and have a chat'
bit - the regulars are at least as entertaining as anything I've seen on the
box..
For interest, a quote from The Publican yesterday:
"Licensees have been unhappy about the satellite operator having control of
so much sport and, in particular, Premier League football, because of price
hikes they have suffered in recent years. A poll on thepublican.com in July
revealed that 85 per cent of licensees were considering removing Sky after
the latest price hikes.".
Full article here
[url]http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=18807&d=11&h=24&f=23&dateform[/url]
at=%25o-%25B-%25Y