Committed to fleecing sports fans

I lamented their scheduling of events to suit the armchair fan, but what I find ironic is the bully-boy tactics they can adopt towards those same viewers.

I'm a huge sports fan and one of my main loves is cricket, something I see less and less of nowadays.

The reason for this is Sky now has exclusive rights of all live cricket that is played in this country and, not being a subscriber, I can only rely on watching Test matches and the like in a pub.

However, about 18 months ago, the landlord of my local was paid a visit by someone representing Sky, saying he wasn't paying business rates and would have to stop showing Sky Sports unless he stumped up the near £600 it would cost to have a legitimate contract.

Now you have to understand the dynamics of my local pub. It's a busy little local - little being a key factor here - with a loyal customer base. The locals like their sport, particularly rugby, but football and cricket as well.

It's not, however, a pub where masses of lads would (or could, given it's size) go to watch the football, so the Sky was there to provide a service to the regulars, not to attract more customers and reap massive profits.

The landlord did his sums and decided that it wasn't viable to pay the fees so now we only get the odd game of football and Six Nations rugby. Which is actually a pity, given the Welsh team's performance this year.

Sky did offer to provide loads of promotional material so that people would go there to watch the football, but the guv'nor knew that the influx of new customers, would see an exodus of his old.

I don't know the dynamics of the Grapevine pub in South Oxhey, but I do know that last month it got hit with a fine of £4,000 for not having a legitimate Sky contract, and that I feel a tad sorry for the licensees, but much more so for the customers who could now miss out on sporting events if the pub decides it's not economical to pay the proper fee.

As co-licensee Susan Bunning said, it's disgraceful what Sky charge, and a representative from Sky's response that they are "committed to protecting the interests of legitimate customers" is nothing short of infuriating.

The truth is, they are committed to fleecing as much money out of sports fans as they possibly can.

The banding for a business licence depends not on the pub's turnover or clientele, but on how much the property is worth. That's hardly fair.

Many pubs need to show sport in order to keep the tills ringing. Many of them can't afford to pay the full rate, so show events illegally.

And if Sky had the nous to introduce lower, fairer, charges they might find their profits actually increase as more landlords choose to sign up or go legit.

STICKING on the theme of pubs, it was my mate's birthday last week, and it's become a bit of a tradition that we undertake the gruelling task that is the Bushey pub crawl.

Believe me, it is gruelling because the previous two occasions have seen me get home in an almighty mess and waking up the next morning with very sparse memories of what occurred the night before.

This year was no different, but there was a slight variation on the previous years' crawls, namely that we were missing two pubs.

The King's Head in Little Bushey Lane and the Lazy Fox (formerly the Queens Arms) were both sadly no longer on the route as both have closed.

I heard the King's Head was practically sold overnight and will now become a housing development, but I was unaware that the Lazy Fox had closed. Unfortunately, it seems that this little gem will also be knocked down and turned into flats.

If Bushey's pubs keep closing at this rate, next year's pub crawl will be a lot less heavy on the head, but will be a lot heavier on the heart.

ANOTHER week, another story that highlights why our Council Tax is too high. Last week we learnt that Caroline Tapster, the chief executive of the county council, earns £188,500 a year - two grand more than Tony Blair.

Apparently, the salary reflects the responsibilities within the post.

I'm all for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, but this woman controls Hertfordshire - rough population of a million - while the Prime Minister is responsible for nearly 60-million people.

Say what you want, but you can't convince me that Ms Tapster is more important than Mr Blair. Her name hasn't even got the same ring to it, has it?

I'm not suggesting we slash the chief executive's salary by a 60(although it's an idea) but how does she sleep at night knowing fire stations are closing and communities are funding their own PCSOs?

Actually, the answer to that is probably quite soundly, in a luxurious bedroom most of us could only dream of affording.