The death of competition

[garyshawsknee]

The German league seem to share their top four a bit more. Off the top of my head they don't seem to have a team who dominates for years on end.

But they run their game far better and fairer than most league,i'm sure thats no coincedence.

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.

If you think about it for more than two seconds, it's NOT what Sky want. Any TV company who has invested the money Sky has across the league wants "events" to sell more advertising.

Check the TV ratings and cross them with the socio-geo demographics of their fanbase and they're as good as it gets. An advertisers dream.

Nice line is psycho-babble Mark ;-)

It still boils down to creating and then selling an event. Once a new boy joins the competetive set then the marketeers will create the event. The last thing Sky want is to restrict the number of events by artificially restricting the number of competetive teams.

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

But they run their game far better and fairer than most league,i'm sure thats no coincedence.

For all its faults, the Premier League is a lot less unfair than Spain or Italy because it insists, against the EU's best efforts, on negotiating a collective TV deal. That means a far more even spread of TV money than individually negotiated deals do.

[andrew08]

I've been listening to Keys and Gray on Talksport this week, mainly because I can now 'like' other footy now we're safe. Anyway apart from the shock of the station changing from 'Talkspurs' to 'Talkhammers' since I last heard it (the week before we lost to Newcastle away !) I was even more shocked at the former faces of Sky tutting about players wages being so high.

Does anyone else remember when Sky first came on the scene and the first deals were struck ? The talk was all about subsidised away travel and low ticket prices, no mention of obscene player salaries. I suppose the Jack Walker money started the salary race at Blackburn.Man City and Chelsea are just an extension of that and the rest of the clubs are just trying to stay competitive.

[Tony Boucher]

Take your point, but you've cherry-picked your dates somewhat - it's 4 different teams including 1995, which takes Portugal out of your list & is 1 worse than Spain, Italy, Holland & Belgium. 

I'd say there are 3 teams (4 at a push) who could win it next season, so it has improved since say, the early 2000s & despite their finances, you wouldn't say the rest of the league is any further behind than in previous years.  In fact, this has been one of the tightest leagues for a long while, from top to bottom, which could be a blip, or it could mean we're all getting closer.  The top 4 certainly aren't as untouchable as they used to be.

Mark Kelly - Once ManUre's debt is paid off, I find it hard to believe the Glazers will stick around to build a better team - they'll be hoping for a new buyer to give them a vast profit & move on.  The new owners start again by borrowing money against the club's value, in order to buy the club & another cycle of paying-off a huge loan begins

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.

If you think about it for more than two seconds, it's NOT what Sky want. Any TV company who has invested the money Sky has across the league wants "events" to sell more advertising.

Check the TV ratings and cross them with the socio-geo demographics of their fanbase and they're as good as it gets. An advertisers dream.

Nice line is psycho-babble Mark ;-)

It still boils down to creating and then selling an event. Once a new boy joins the competetive set then the marketeers will create the event. The last thing Sky want is to restrict the number of events by artificially restricting the number of competetive teams.

Yeah, sorry about that, sins from a former life. (winky)

Obviously there will be some major "events" involving other teams but week in, week out, Man United deliver the audiences, indifferent of who they are playing. You should see the Premier League channel that goes out across the world, where they have callers Skpeing in to give their views. It's then when it hits you just how big Man Utd have become. Same thing with MUTV. Nobody comes close to them.

[timeoutbigbar]

Having just read over the Albrighton and Downing chat logs, when asked what their aim was for next season, left a boring predictability of 'europe and maybe a cup if we're lucky'.  That's what it has come to, yet we still manage to get ourselves excited every season.  Absolutely no idea why.

[john e]

so we have a league that is a wash with money, yet most clubs are in massive debt, thats not SKY's fault, thats the chairman and administraters of the clubs.

a lot of the money has come from SKY but the  its spent by the respective clubs, its just to easy to put the whole blame onto SKY tv, and make them the scapegoat,

they put on a product that people want to see, i dont like talking about football as a product, but thats the way it is nowadays.

the only way forward to a more competitive league, is the formation of a European super league for all the big club and big money franchises,
 and let the rest of us get on with it without all the razamataz and OTT bollox that we have now

[Woofles The Wonder Dog]

Obviously there will be some major "events" involving other teams but week in, week out, Man United deliver the audiences, indifferent of who they are playing. You should see the Premier League channel that goes out across the world, where they have callers Skpeing in to give their views. It's then when it hits you just how big Man Utd have become. Same thing with MUTV. Nobody comes close to them.

Agreed that Man Utd and similarly Liverpool have a head start in terms of default big audience pull. But in order to maximise advertising revenue Sky's marketeers have to have something else to bite on. They need a story to sell and so a wider competetive spread of teams is just what they want. Any conspiracy theories that Sky want to restrict the money and success to a few elite clubs has about as much logic to it as one of Gazza's 9/11 theories.

As I mentioned before, Wigan vs Stoke is never normally going to be an event they can froth up into something for Sooooper Sunday, but Man City vs Spurs for 4th place sadly is.

And if in some alternate universe what's happening at the bottom could happen near the top Sky would pebble-dash the insides of their corporate underwear, because it's turned a number of otherwise unsellable games into marketing events this Survival Sunday.

[timeoutbigbar]

so we have a league that is a wash with money, yet most clubs are in massive debt, thats not SKY's fault, thats the chairman and administraters of the clubs.

a lot of the money has come from SKY but the  its spent by the respective clubs, its just to easy to put the whole blame onto SKY tv, and make them the scapegoat,

they put on a product that people want to see, i dont like talking about football as a product, but thats the way it is nowadays.

the only way forward to a more competitive league, is the formation of a European super league for all the big club and big money franchises,
 and let the rest of us get on with it without all the razamataz and OTT bollox that we have now

So as fans we bang on about the monotony of the league, yet the only way of challenging is to invest in the team.  Now your saying that it's the owners fault for spending to try and improve the team?  Make your mind up.

[darren woolley]

The German league seem to share their top four a bit more. Off the top of my head they don't seem to have a team who dominates for years on end.

But they run their game far better and fairer than most league,i'm sure thats no coincedence.

I would have to agree with you Gary I like the way German football is run plus they get good crowds to watch there football.

[john e]

so we have a league that is a wash with money, yet most clubs are in massive debt, thats not SKY's fault, thats the chairman and administraters of the clubs.

a lot of the money has come from SKY but the  its spent by the respective clubs, its just to easy to put the whole blame onto SKY tv, and make them the scapegoat,

they put on a product that people want to see, i dont like talking about football as a product, but thats the way it is nowadays.

the only way forward to a more competitive league, is the formation of a European super league for all the big club and big money franchises,
 and let the rest of us get on with it without all the razamataz and OTT bollox that we have now

So as fans we bang on about the monotony of the league, yet the only way of challenging is to invest in the team.  Now your saying that it's the owners fault for spending to try and improve the team?  Make your mind up.

but your never going to challenge Man Utd are you,
 you might give them a bloody nose every now and then, but they sold a player last year for more than Randy bought the whole of villa for, what chance we got ?

[cdward]

In Man united's case, it would also be a huge dis-service to not mention the SAF factor.
He has made that club a dominant force in england and europe. Admittedly Manu have always had more money to spend on players, due to their higher attendances, but his success as manager shouldn't be misinterpreted as only happening because of Sky giving them more money. It is purely coincidental that the first league title that Manu won under SAF was the first PL title. This and the subsequesnt success that Manu have had is down to Fergie being a great manager, and then having more money than anyone else to build upon this success,due to the Sky money being paid incrementally to the highest placed teams and the biggest attendances in British football.
In my opinion Fergie would have made Manu successful, and won many league titles, if he had been managing 20 years before the creation of the PL, or 20 years after. He has not only built one good team, he has arguably built 3 or 4, so credit where it's due.
I think it is too easy to say that Manu are only successful because of the money, that is definitely the case for Citeh/Chelsea now, but it wasn't when Fergie took over.

I think Sky wouldn't really care who was top of the league, as long as there are Chelseas and Citehs splashing the cash on marquee players along with the traditional big clubs Manu, Arsenal and Liverpool battling it out, it will make for exciting games watched by full stadiums.

My real concern would be the creation of a European Super League,  would we be left with the Wigans and Blackburns?

[UsualSuspect]

I've been listening to Keys and Gray on Talksport this week, mainly because I can now 'like' other footy now we're safe. Anyway apart from the shock of the station changing from 'Talkspurs' to 'Talkhammers' since I last heard it (the week before we lost to Newcastle away !) I was even more shocked at the former faces of Sky tutting about players wages being so high.

Does anyone else remember when Sky first came on the scene and the first deals were struck ? The talk was all about subsidised away travel and low ticket prices, no mention of obscene player salaries. I suppose the Jack Walker money started the salary race at Blackburn.Man City and Chelsea are just an extension of that and the rest of the clubs are just trying to stay competitive.

A bit rich coming from them when Sky were paying Gray £1.75 million a year or 33k a week for his expert analysis.

[Tony Boucher]

In Man united's case, it would also be a huge dis-service to not mention the SAF factor.
He has made that club a dominant force in england and europe. Admittedly Manu have always had more money to spend on players, due to their higher attendances, but his success as manager shouldn't be misinterpreted as only happening because of Sky giving them more money. It is purely coincidental that the first league title that Manu won under SAF was the first PL title. This and the subsequesnt success that Manu have had is down to Fergie being a great manager, and then having more money than anyone else to build upon this success,due to the Sky money being paid incrementally to the highest placed teams and the biggest attendances in British football.
In my opinion Fergie would have made Manu successful, and won many league titles, if he had been managing 20 years before the creation of the PL, or 20 years after. He has not only built one good team, he has arguably built 3 or 4, so credit where it's due.
I think it is too easy to say that Manu are only successful because of the money, that is definitely the case for Citeh/Chelsea now, but it wasn't when Fergie took over.

I think Sky wouldn't really care who was top of the league, as long as there are Chelseas and Citehs splashing the cash on marquee players along with the traditional big clubs Manu, Arsenal and Liverpool battling it out, it will make for exciting games watched by full stadiums.

My real concern would be the creation of a European Super League,  would we be left with the Wigans and Blackburns?

I don't believe for one second we'll get a European Super League - if you listened to most experts 6/7 years ago, it should have been created by now.  We don't seem to be any nearer to it now & I just can't see it happening.  Just another scare story, like the 39th game