Should they pay a fee for radio broadcast matches of the First and Second?: The question of the week Football Notes

After the players' strike that delayed the start of the competition until the desired agreement was signed between LFP and AFE, the agency that manages the threads of domestic championship again has been punctuated by a decision is ever taken by proprio motu power in favor of a purse at the expense of the media. With Mediapro and Jaume Roures of accomplices, the organization headed by José Luis Astiazaran requires radios that want to broadcast live from the field, any party, pass before checkout. A novel measure that's been sitting like a kick where it hurts the guild radio that not only has refused to be squeezed by the LFP but has seen the first time his work has been vilified in all fields of first and Second, with the exception of Sevilla, who vetoed the entry of journalists and whose president, as usual without mincing words, said "The Spanish league is the shit in Europe, 'it up for the distribution of television rights and various pantomimes in which has been immersed in the Spanish championship lately, among them. So, the question that launched the fly in The Question of the Week is:

Should they pay a fee for radio relay first and second games?

Those who say they do say that if the radio broadcast brings benefits for encounters with its various sponsors, to divide part of their earnings. Those who are against it, such as signing above, believe in the right to free information, where the football without the radio is not the same. And football is what it is because many years ago when there were no television rights, was not moving as much money in a business increasingly smelly, radios were broadcasting the meetings for people from their homes, they found out what not offered or television or internet, a tool that was then unimaginable. Roures says that "football can not live without radio." For now, the new schedules have been loaded much of that quintessentially represented by the carousels, the intrigue of the time. This weekend the radio, except in the Sánchez Pizjuán (plasma, plasma, plasma), have had to pull the phone, and television studio. During these days he is scheduled to meet the radios and the LFP to find a way out, but he defends the position that canon seems transferable, so looked at the 'issue AFE' and ended up giving up . Your opinions, as always, the thread of the question .

Last week's answer: Would either shedding Forlan Atletico?

A week ago I wondered if the marriage between the club and the Uruguayan striker mattress should end in divorce. Finally, in recent days, has confirmed his departure to Inter Milan in exchange for 5 million euros. Among the disparate responses, the most valuable was the next to sign our reader quhasar :

But I truly believe it very well. Just signing a striker as super and a great striker Falcao, young and future, as is Adrian. Forlan is great, but their performance last year was disappointing and it is aged. Or sell it now or get nothing, except that I think could cut progression Adrian ... If chips Diego, and end up forming a decent template after losing two great as Agüero and De Gea. But it is true that if you would take out a striker Forlan more ...

In NDF | Question of the Week

>