IT'S a bit disturbing for an old fogey like me to be so much in agreement with those aspiring young writers who make such a good job of football fanzines.

But the truth is that I enjoy most of the content of fanzines - largely because they comment on the things that the fans on the terraces like to moan about. They're written by fresh young minds who know their football - and they're irascibly funny.

I suppose it's the Private Eye in me that makes fanzines like Oxford United's Rage On and Yellow Fever so attractive. But it may also be because the latest opinions shouted from these publications add weight to my own arguments about pay-for-view television.

United's match on Saturday was a sell-out, and with Sky knowing all-too-well that, with Sunderland's huge following, demand was going to exceed supply, they bunged on a £7.95 additional charge to watch it on satellite or cable.

As one who already pays £28 a month for a cable package that includes all the sports channels, why should I have to pay extra? The answer is that it's a way of screwing football fans all the way to the wall, squeezing us 'til the pips squeak!

I said months ago that I wouldn't be submitting to this TV blackmail. Much as I would have liked to have watched the match, either live or on screen, I refused to pay the more money to the TV company - and I hope every other U's fan who couldn't get to the game did likewise. Instead, I hope fans tuned to the excellent live coverage on Thames Valley FM.

I agree with Paul Beevers of Rage On, who says it's the larger clubs who will reap the benefits of pay-for-view, and not teams like Oxford, Swindon or Reading.

I also agree with Dan Curtis of Yellow Fever who says pay-for-view will merely make football's elite even more untouchable and send smaller clubs closer to part-time status.

Even Sunderland's supporters agreed the historic match at the Manor was a step in the wrong direction for football, and a fanzine spokesman said he was embarrassed his team was involved in the inaugural pay-for-view game. On the other hand we should not blame Oxford United for agreeing to the take part - they're in desperate need of cash and this was one way they could boost their coffers, on top of a bumper 'gate' of 9,000. But the screen take-up is estimated at around 10,000, which would have netted less than £80,000 - hardly the sort of money to get BSkyB excited.

Although I get to as many live games as I can, I admit to being an armchair football fan too - which means watching sport practically fills my week!

But the whole pay-for-view issue stinks as far as I'm concerned. The hype surrounding Saturday's screening fails to hide the fact that Sky is working to strengthen its grip on our national game at the expense of the true supporter and, in particular, the smaller league clubs.

The answer's simple. Boycott the scheme. If there's no money in it for Sky, it won't happen in the long term. LET me admit to being useless at predictions . . . and when my heart rules my head, I'm even worse than usual.

It's no surprise to many of my colleagues, but as a result of believing Wales were going to sweep all before them in the Five Nations rugby campaign, I now languish firmly at the foot of our in-office sweepstake of predictions!

Story date: Wednesday 03 March

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.