By Simon Rice
ITV have won the rights to show highlights of England v Croatia. Hurrah. But hold on - hasn't the game already happened?
Setanta have gracefully bowed to pressure to allow highlights of the
national team playing the national game to be show on terrestrial television - the only problem is the
agreement has come a day late.
England fans wishing to catch a glimpse of Theo Walcott running rings around Slaven's mighty Croats will now be able to do so.
England's performance last night was sublime - which clearly makes the prospect of airing highlight's far more lucrative to ITV than if England had delivered another poor performance.
Do you think the two television companies would have hammered out a deal if England hadn't put in such a good performance last night?
What if the highlight of the match had been Emile Heskey stubbing his toe when presented with England's only chance of the match - would ITV have coughed up the cash?
If the only talking point had been a glimpse of Jimmy Bullard picking his nose on the sidelines would they have bothered making space in the schedule?
If England had lost the match due to a David James calamity on the scale of Paul Robinson's, would viewers want to see it? In this case probably yes.
It's on after the news if you fancy it. If you don't want to know the score...
Or if you do - read the full match report here
What is it about the word "highlights" that suggests that its pluralization requires an apostrophe? Just because everyone on youtube makes this error doesn't mean the broadsheets need to succumb.
Posted by: zzeb | 12 September 2008 at 03:49 AM
Nice post. Really I liked it.
Thanks...
Posted by: Manchester United | 09 July 2009 at 06:47 AM