Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Meanwood Villa on May 19, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
-
When seeing the horrific sight of Man Utd celebrating yet another title it got me musing on the complete and utter mundane predictably of "the greatest league in the world" (c Sky).
Since 1995 3 different teams have won the league. This compares unfavourably with the leagues in Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria. Basically every major league in Western Europe. Except Scotland.
We are constantly told that it is the most exciting title race in years but really, is it? When only 2 teams can win it? We're supposed to be excited that perhaps Man City can make a go of it next season but what their's and Chelsea's emergence has shown is that you need to be unfathomably rich to even compete with the spawn of Satan (well they are called the Red Devils!)
So, another modern football is rubbish rant perhaps but do people think this matters? Any suggestions on how to change it? And, given that those suggestions won't happen, how long can it go on? Perhaps Rangers and Celtic's financial woes might serve as a lesson to the current duopoly that they can't steamroller the local opposition without it eventually biting them on the arse.
-
Rangers and Celtic's financial woes are mainly down to the lack of TV revenue. Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.
-
its the single biggest fault in football,
money doesnt gurantee succes, but without it you can guarantee you wont compete for the top 4 places
when Man Utd, Chelsea win against most other teams in the league, its the equivalent of a grown man beating shit out of a 10 year old, then bragging about how hard he is, pathetic
-
It's not worse than Portugal though, these are the winners since the league started -
Benfica - 32 times
Porto - 25 times
Sporting - 18 times
Beleneses - 1 time (1946)
Boavista 1 time (2001)
-
Rangers and Celtic's financial woes are mainly down to the lack of TV revenue. Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.
The Sky money isn't really a problem in terms of competition, although their choice to mainly broadcast games of certain clubs doesn't help. In reality it's the money and profile of the CL clubs that makes the difference. That vastly increases turnover and allows you to attract the better players, to the point that anyone outside of that elite has no chance of winning the league.
Which I'm sure comes as no great surprise to anyone.
Maybe the question is what are the likes of Italy and Spain doing differently that prevents this happening in their leagues and spreads the trophies around more evenly?
-
Rangers and Celtic's financial woes are mainly down to the lack of TV revenue. Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.
But will there become a point where the "making up the numbers" lot become so far behind and the league becomes so skewed that the TV money dries up? I would say we're close to it, in terms of genuine competition for the title we are there but stadiums still sell out and sky subscriptions still get sold so I suppose we're nowhere near. Personally I'd love to kick Man U out of the league for any reason going but someone would only take their place. That's capitalism I guess
-
It's not worse than Portugal though, these are the winners since the league started -
Benfica - 32 times
Porto - 25 times
Sporting - 18 times
Beleneses - 1 time (1946)
Boavista 1 time (2001)
The way we're going the English roll of honour of the next 77 years will be similar
-
Having watched the Villa quite a bit over the past 2 seasons after a 5 year sabbatical what has struck me more than anything is apart from probably 3 teams how rubbish the quality of football is.
I think this season has been exciting due to the amount of equally matched shit teams.
As far as changing it goes, it will only need a hint of a salary cap, or suchlike and the clubs will be in the high court crying about restrictions of trade, bullying etc.
-
Rangers and Celtic's financial woes are mainly down to the lack of TV revenue. Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.
The Sky money isn't really a problem in terms of competition, although their choice to mainly broadcast games of certain clubs doesn't help. In reality it's the money and profile of the CL clubs that makes the difference. That vastly increases turnover and allows you to attract the better players, to the point that anyone outside of that elite has no chance of winning the league.
Which I'm sure comes as no great surprise to anyone.
Maybe the question is what are the likes of Italy and Spain doing differently that prevents this happening in their leagues and spreads the trophies around more evenly?
In truth Spain is going the same way, Barca and Real have been absolutely miles ahead this year. But the lack of depth at the top of our league has been going on longer.
-
It's not worse than Portugal though, these are the winners since the league started -
Benfica - 32 times
Porto - 25 times
Sporting - 18 times
Beleneses - 1 time (1946)
Boavista 1 time (2001)
Portugal is a classic example of how Sky would like it to go. 66% of the football supporting population are Benficistas. They have over 200,000 paying members, club houses all over the world, they sell more in merchandising than our total revenue. They're an advertisers dream. Thankfully they've had crap/dodgy presidents since the 70's.
Porto have a president who's been in control for 30 years. He runs the place like a mafia boss, some would say he also runs the league. There's nobody in Portugal powerful enough to stand up to him, not that a few haven't tried. Even when it was proved he was paying for certain referee's holidays, arranging them prostitutes, nothing was ever done. Credit should be given though for their buying and selling policy. I doubt there any many clubs in the world that buy and sell better than Porto.
-
In truth Spain is going the same way, Barca and Real have been absolutely miles ahead this year. But the lack of depth at the top of our league has been going on longer.
Barca and Real have negotiated their own TV deals for some time now.
-
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.
A couple of years ago Arsenal vs Man City wasn't a top level event but now, thanks to the oil money it is and there's an extra two ganes a season to hype up. Sky would love nothing more than there to be many more "events" to sell. It's simply not in their interests to have four or five teams fixtures to hype up.
Admittedly, Wigan vs Stoke is never going to be a great advertising event, but if Spurs, Everton and ourselves were to join the top lot as genuine contenders Sky (and their marketing people) would be besides themselves with joy.
-
Rangers and Celtic's financial woes are mainly down to the lack of TV revenue. Here, the rich just get richer and the rest just make up the numbers. It's what Sky want.
The Sky money isn't really a problem in terms of competition, although their choice to mainly broadcast games of certain clubs doesn't help. In reality it's the money and profile of the CL clubs that makes the difference. That vastly increases turnover and allows you to attract the better players, to the point that anyone outside of that elite has no chance of winning the league.
It all starts with Sky. It would be interesting to know how many Man Utd games weren't broadcast live this season. In addition, you now have the overseas TV money where I can almost guarantee you every game they play is sold live.
Next throw in the shirt sponsorship money. How much did AIG agree to pay them? How much are they getting now?
Then you have your Champions League money. Add all these up together plus the global merchanding, match day revenue and you can see why the Glaziers decided to buy them without investing a penny. Once that debt is paid off, they'll be able to buy any single player in the world. They really will become the richest club in the world but the frightening thing is, they'll be so far ahead of everybody else, even the Real Madrids and Barcas of this world.
The TV money will never dry up until non-Man United fans stop subscribing to Sky and the like.
-
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.
-
If Platini really wants economic fair play he'd lobby to reduce the significance of the CL. But that horse bolted out of the barn ages ago. In England, unless something quite remarkable happens, and unless another Man City come along, or the odd blip caused by Spurs/Everton we all may as well get used to the same teams competing for the CL from the major football nations to the end of time. The CL revenues have created such a divide that even in what has been a down year in terms of quality, the same teams command the top 3 spots. That shows that even at a lower ebb, they are still far too powerful for most teams to compete against on a regular basis.
Very depressing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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'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.
-
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
-
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 ?
I agree to an extent, but that example is mental. No player can ever be considered 'worth' £80 million.
-
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.
Whenenever Bayern get their act together they win the league - they don't even usually have to be at their best to do so. I think they've won something like 23 out of the last 45. Their spending power is also far beyond all the other clubs.
Generally though I agree with you point about how the game's run.
-
Didn't Dortmund absolutely stroll it this year though?
-
I nineteen seasons of the Premier League there have been four winners. In the previous nineteen years of the old Division One there were seven different winners. I also think in the Premier league years there have been seven different runners up who include the four winners. In the last nineteen years of Division One there were ten runners up including teams like QPR, Ipswich, Watford and Southampton. God knows how many different teams achieved a top four finish between 1974 and 1992 but obviously a hell of a lot more than in the Premier League. I think the domination of the league title by two or three clubs is as bad in Spain and Italy, but the battle for the top four places is far more open.
-
Bayern have had a couple of shocking seasons recently.
-
Agree with the above sentiments, especially those re the number of league winners since 1995.
Probably the most telling stat for me is that the double was achieved by 5 clubs in the first 100 years of the League, and was a rare and tremendous achievement. From 1994 - 99 it was achieved 4 times and Chelsea won it last season. The big boys are winning the league and are so far ahead of the rest that it is no longer a s much of a haul to reach the latter stages of the cup too.
It is all so drearily predictable.....
-
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.
Why would Sky want to lose advertising revenue showing teams that won't have the same level of audiences and viewers that live in less aflfuent areas of the country? To their credit, Sky took a massive risk in investing in the Premier League but now are milking it for all they can. Don't they also 'sell on' or at least get paid a percentage from international distribution?
Their argument would be that audiences demand to see the top teams, who also happen to have the best players and these teams still manage to fill their stadiums, so no harm done. It was never designed to be fair.
-
Don't they also 'sell on' or at least get paid a percentage from international distribution?
Their argument would be that audiences demand to see the top teams, who also happen to have the best players and these teams still manage to fill their stadiums, so no harm done. It was never designed to be fair.
The international rights deal is entirely independent of Sky. Unless Sky have an interest in the production company that provides the pictures they won't get a bean.
It's not "fair" in the sense that the teams that are involved in events are screened more than those that aren't, and that's perfectly understandable that they'd want to maximise their advertising revenue. However, Sky voluntarily undertake to show the less interesting (to them) teams a minimum number of times throughout the season. This doesn't make them Mother Theresa, but it's a huge improvement on the Spanish and Italian modles where Real and Barca get vast amounts from their exclusive deals and the likes of Getafe etc. get the short end of bugger all.
The money and marketing effect of Champions League football on a regular basis, and the insane gulf between the Premier League and the lower divisions is far more divisive than the current Sky arrangements.
-
This season they bought the rights to show 115 live PL games meant they would have to show 'other teams' outside the Top 4, though how many of those games were against the Top 4, I have no idea. I'd love to see the complete list.
You're right about Spain. It makes you wonder why the other teams bother but that's what happens we clubs become too powerful.
As for the lower leagues in England, I'm surprised so many are still in business. Hopefully fans will continue to support their local teams but from just reading on here, the number of Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool shirts seen around the country doesn't leave me with much faith they will. Their only hope is finding a good, young talent and selling him on. In effect, we're all just feeder clubs for the rich, elite clubs.
EDIT: Just remembered that Sky (BSkyB) also own 33.3% of MUTV. Make of that what you will.
-
I think German match tickets are pretty cheap too..
-
I agree to an extent, but that example is mental. No player can ever be considered 'worth' £80 million.
They can be considered 'worth' £80m because they have been.
-
Despite how dead the competition is in our country, it's a lot worse in Italy, Spain, and Scotland in particular.
-
The Premier League distributes TV rights money based partly on performance, partly via equal shares of TV income, and partly on the number of times a club's matches are screened live on domestic television.
This season, each club will receive £13.8million as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.7million as the equal share of overseas TV rights.
On top of that, every place in the Premier League table is worth £752,000 - the bottom club will get that amount and the top club £15.04million.
Facility fees of £485,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match - with a minimum income of £4.85million even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games.
The top four clubs usually play in at least 20 live TV games a season, meaning they will earn around £10million in facility fees.
Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/premier-league-teams-to-receive-record-tv-pay-out-2281482.html)
This shows the direct financial impact of TV on club's finances (note not just Sky, but admittedly the lion's share). See that the clubs shown the least will only get around £5m per annum less that the top clubs from being shown on TV. The biggest difference by far is the finishing position - an amount not affected by Sky but by the Premier League.
Indirect revenues from additional TV exposure would clearly inflate this effect.
Sky also have first choice on matches and in theory they could show Man Utd every game if they felt like it. Clearly they don't, they try and go for the more competitive big club games, whereas ESPN pick up the dregs and will show a big club whatever the mis-match if they can.
-
One thing that they have in germany is compulsory fan ownership of clubs. I recall that all clubs must be 51% owned by the fans. This ensures cheap tickets and a high degree of fan representation on the boards and therefore in the club's decision making.
This is great but would do nothing to even the playing field other than deterring Abramoviches getting involved as they would always have to answer to their fans.
-
This is why I don't understand fans of clubs like ours being agains Platini, because 'he hates England'.
He doesn't - he hates the way that big finance has skewered the game in Europe and wants to attempt to redress the balance away from the sugar-daddy approach that's so powerful and seemingly desirable in this country.
And, yes, I know that we have a sugar-daddy, but we're in a position to comply - as I'm sure RL wants to - far more so than Man City or Chelsea.
Having said that, I'd still support the Wenger/Platini position even if we were in breach in the short-term.
-
I agree, I do not get this anti Platini thing. As far as can see he is trying to stop clubs bankrupting themselves.
-
I've been saying for years that between them Sky, UEFA and the PL (mainly that c**t Scudamore) are slowly killing the goose that lays the golden eggs - competition - in the lust for cash. The game has been stolen from the fans and only a few big clubs can genuinely compete. Chelsea have had a shit season by their recent standards yet have somehow comfortably cruised in to second place. I can't abide American sports but at least the Americans realise the importance of keeping genuine competition alive with their draft systems. The top 3 have been pretty much set in stone for a few seasons now, and it used to be top 4 when Liverpool had their act together. The only real competitionin the PL now is who will get 4th and 5th, and who will be relegated. With the emergence of City, you can see 4th place being stitched up again for a while now.
-
Obviously a few differing opinions about who may or may not be responsible for it, and also whether other countries are worse or better than England but I seem to detect a broad consensus that there is a disticnt lack of competition in terms of winning the title. The other thing I was wondering is do people think this matters?
While I accept we don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning the league I still retain an unhealthy obsession (as my girlfriend would probably call it) with the Villa and I've been on cloud 9 since Sunday. This is the kind of blind faith I'm sure Sky and the league etc know they can count on and it's the kind of interest and dedication that I'm sure many on here share.
Given this continuing level of commitment by us and thousands of other fans and the simple joy we gain from our team winning on a weekend does it really matter that 2 or 3 behemoths at the top of the league take home all the honours (other than when they inflict the twice annual defeats on our teams of course)?
Of course success and failure in football is all relative. Rochdale fans will have an immense glow of satisfaction from finishing 9th in div 3, which would be a complete and utter disaster for us. Their joy is no different from the Man U fan singing that "champione" bollocks or us toasting another win at the Emirates so maybe we should just accept things and take enjoyment from the game where we can. Something like "how I learned to stop worrying and love the Premier League". What do people think? Is this giving up?
-
I much prefer to keep writing about why modern football is wank.
-
There are cases going through the courts at the moment that, if they go the right way, could really bugger up the Premier and Champions League TV deals. EU courts would, I assume, have no say over the world-wide rights, which are distributed equally between the 20 clubs. Could be a really good thing for competition.
In the meantime, I have made good money by betting a couple of idiots at work that Liverpool would not finish in the top four the last two seasons.
-
There are cases going through the courts at the moment that, if they go the right way, could really bugger up the Premier and Champions League TV deals. EU courts would, I assume, have no say over the world-wide rights, which are distributed equally between the 20 clubs. Could be a really good thing for competition.
What cases are these Percy? How would they be good for competition?
-
I much prefer to keep writing about why modern football is wank.
Birmingham City winning a Coca Cola Cup is modern football, so yes i agree.
-
I much prefer to keep writing about why modern football is wank.
Birmingham City winning a Coca Cola Cup is modern football, so yes i agree.
So if Arsenal or Man United had won it you'd disagree?
-
Obviously a few differing opinions about who may or may not be responsible for it, and also whether other countries are worse or better than England but I seem to detect a broad consensus that there is a disticnt lack of competition in terms of winning the title. The other thing I was wondering is do people think this matters?
While I accept we don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning the league I still retain an unhealthy obsession (as my girlfriend would probably call it) with the Villa and I've been on cloud 9 since Sunday. This is the kind of blind faith I'm sure Sky and the league etc know they can count on and it's the kind of interest and dedication that I'm sure many on here share.
Given this continuing level of commitment by us and thousands of other fans and the simple joy we gain from our team winning on a weekend does it really matter that 2 or 3 behemoths at the top of the league take home all the honours (other than when they inflict the twice annual defeats on our teams of course)?
Of course success and failure in football is all relative. Rochdale fans will have an immense glow of satisfaction from finishing 9th in div 3, which would be a complete and utter disaster for us. Their joy is no different from the Man U fan singing that "champione" bollocks or us toasting another win at the Emirates so maybe we should just accept things and take enjoyment from the game where we can. Something like "how I learned to stop worrying and love the Premier League". What do people think? Is this giving up?
It is giving up, you are happy to accept a few crumbs of comfort,while the wealthy gorge themselves on a bonanza from Sky, The Champions League, and corporate sponsorship.
Every change in our game has been driven by a desire to accede to the demands of the wealthiest clubs who as a consequence have achieved the omnipotence that they always desired. This is so far removed from the game of my childhood that in this case the past truly is a foreign country.
There needs to be a revolution basically, but I don't think there is sufficient anger out there, although I'm bloody furious!
-
There are cases going through the courts at the moment that, if they go the right way, could really bugger up the Premier and Champions League TV deals. EU courts would, I assume, have no say over the world-wide rights, which are distributed equally between the 20 clubs. Could be a really good thing for competition.
What cases are these Percy? How would they be good for competition?
According to an article I read a few months ago, and already hazy in my memory, a pub landlady down south somewhere is trying to win the right to show games that she sources from a Greek channel via her satellite. If she wins it is thought that each individual country's TV deal will only be worth the price of the cheapest one in Europe, including Champions League. This would only apply to the EU, so the world-wide rights would be unaffected. The hope is that the equally distributed world rights would make the CL and domestic rights less significant, creating more of a level playing field. A long way to go yet, but progress.
Incidentally, Italy is going back to a collectively negotiated TV deal, as the individual club rights system was a disaster, and Spain are seriously considering it too.
Found this, only refers to the Premier League, but something else I read mentioned that Champions League revenues were under more immediate threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/03/ec-tv-rights-premier-league
-
Interesting. I remember this now. Of course, all this would mean is that the income from EU TV sales would be reduced, and as that income is distributed evenly throughout the PL it would probably hurt the less well off more than those that get more income from other sources.
The other issue in that article is the one about 3:00 kick-offs being (legally) shown live. Good for fans of PL clubs not having their fixtures sodded around quite as much (though Sky and ESPN will still want to move fixtures about), but possibly a bit dodgy for lower league clubs whose crowds might stay and watch Man Utd or whoever on TV rather than wander down the road.
-
Interesting. I remember this now. Of course, all this would mean is that the income from EU TV sales would be reduced, and as that income is distributed evenly throughout the PL it would probably hurt the less well off more than those that get more income from other sources.
You're probably right that it would affect the EU-based part of the world-wide rights, but the biggest growth areas for those rights are the far-east and America. If the ruling fucks up the CL TV revenues that can only be a good thing IMO.
-
Obviously a few differing opinions about who may or may not be responsible for it, and also whether other countries are worse or better than England but I seem to detect a broad consensus that there is a disticnt lack of competition in terms of winning the title. The other thing I was wondering is do people think this matters?
While I accept we don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning the league I still retain an unhealthy obsession (as my girlfriend would probably call it) with the Villa and I've been on cloud 9 since Sunday. This is the kind of blind faith I'm sure Sky and the league etc know they can count on and it's the kind of interest and dedication that I'm sure many on here share.
Given this continuing level of commitment by us and thousands of other fans and the simple joy we gain from our team winning on a weekend does it really matter that 2 or 3 behemoths at the top of the league take home all the honours (other than when they inflict the twice annual defeats on our teams of course)?
Of course success and failure in football is all relative. Rochdale fans will have an immense glow of satisfaction from finishing 9th in div 3, which would be a complete and utter disaster for us. Their joy is no different from the Man U fan singing that "champione" bollocks or us toasting another win at the Emirates so maybe we should just accept things and take enjoyment from the game where we can. Something like "how I learned to stop worrying and love the Premier League". What do people think? Is this giving up?
It is giving up, you are happy to accept a few crumbs of comfort,while the wealthy gorge themselves on a bonanza from Sky, The Champions League, and corporate sponsorship.
Every change in our game has been driven by a desire to accede to the demands of the wealthiest clubs who as a consequence have achieved the omnipotence that they always desired. This is so far removed from the game of my childhood that in this case the past truly is a foreign country.
There needs to be a revolution basically, but I don't think there is sufficient anger out there, although I'm bloody furious!
I'm not saying the accepting of odd crumbs of comfort is a concious decision I have made but observing that despite my distaste for the oligarchy at the top of the game I still get an immense amount of enjoyment out of it, even in a truly crap season like this. If I didn't I wouldn't have the level of interest that I have. The sight of Man U parading the championship trophy, and god forbid the European Cup again, really makes me sick but I'm still willing to go through it all again next season knowing the same will probably happen. I'm sure many people are similar which is probably why, as you say, the revolution won't happen. Which is a shame.
Incidentally, when you talk about revolution what do you have in mind? This isn't a criticism but a genuine interest in what you think might make things better. Personally I think we've gone too far down this particular road for a change to a more American, collectivist (there's 2 words you don't often see together) style of league. The game of football has been rampantly capitalist for over a century and I don't see how it can be changed now. Which is also a shame.
-
I tend to agree with Meanwood, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of the Villa and although I accept that there is a lot wrong with the game essentially for me it hasn't changed that much - a few pre match pints, take my place on the Holte, shout and swear through the game and back to the pub, happy if we've won and pissed off if we've lost. If we don't look like winning the league well then that's been true for almost every season I've been supporting them.
Football is escapism and while I won't knock those that do want to try to change things i'd rather just have some fun.
-
The things I really enjoy doing, if I'm honest, I'm not very good at. So I don't ask very much of the Villa - so long as they are there, and will be there after I am dead and gone, that will be enough.
-
My concern is about the integrity of the sport, at the highest level it is getting closer to WWF, everybody knows it is fixed but people are happy to go along with it.
-
I'm not saying the accepting of odd crumbs of comfort is a concious decision I have made but observing that despite my distaste for the oligarchy at the top of the game I still get an immense amount of enjoyment out of it, even in a truly crap season like this. If I didn't I wouldn't have the level of interest that I have. The sight of Man U parading the championship trophy, and god forbid the European Cup again, really makes me sick but I'm still willing to go through it all again next season knowing the same will probably happen. I'm sure many people are similar which is probably why, as you say, the revolution won't happen. Which is a shame.
Incidentally, when you talk about revolution what do you have in mind? This isn't a criticism but a genuine interest in what you think might make things better. Personally I think we've gone too far down this particular road for a change to a more American, collectivist (there's 2 words you don't often see together) style of league. The game of football has been rampantly capitalist for over a century and I don't see how it can be changed now. Which is also a shame.
What I mean is that there needs to be a consensus as to the insidious developments over the last 20 years or so that has resulted in the death of competition that we are talking about and then a desire to take on those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
I would like to see an end to prize money based on league position, fair distribution of TV money throughout the leagues, capping the amount of money that clubs can be given by so called sponsors, subs bench reduced from 7 to 3 in the league , and 2 for domestic cup matches, and Champions League representation reduced to a maximum of 2 clubs per country per season.
-
I'd like to see the top Division reduced to 18 teams and the remaining divisions reduced to 20 each.
With apologies to Romantics, but the Top Division also does not need small clubs or small grounds - so introduce a minimum capacity of 25K as well.
Get rid of the League Cup as well.
-
I'd like to see the top Division reduced to 18 teams and the remaining divisions reduced to 20 each.
With apologies to Romantics, but the Top Division also does not need small clubs or small grounds - so introduce a minimum capacity of 25K as well.
Get rid of the League Cup as well.
I was under the impression that football was a meritocracy, if you start excluding clubs on grounds other than their ability to win games you may as well fix the whole shebang to favour the most popular clubs.
-
The Man City factor can't be ignored.
Seemingly the only way to break the Man Ure / Chelseaopoly is to buy your way in - thus not relying on Sky at all.
Hope the English game doesn't get too soul-less.
Hope the wages / turnover rule works.
-
If we don't look like winning the league well then that's been true for almost every season I've been supporting them.
In the past though, no matter how crap you were, there was always the possibility that almost any club could win the league if they got their act together and/or found the next Shankly or Clough. Even in our third division days, winning the league never seemed an impossible dream, just fairly remote. It seemed much further away, even unreachable, after three consecutive 6th places.
-
Manchester Utd break £60m mark in Premier League TV and prize money• Manchester United earn new record of £60.4m from TV rights• Earnings gap between top and bottom clubs lowest in Europe
Manchester United have become the first club to top the £60m mark in earnings from Premier League prize money and TV cash.
United earned £60.4m as the new record overseas TV deals saw top-flight clubs bring in up to £7m more than last season.
Blackpool were the lowest earners of the Premier League but still made £39.1m, while Chelsea earned £57.7m, Manchester City £55.5m and Arsenal £56.2m.
The figures released by the Premier League also show that it has the smallest difference in earnings between the champions and the bottom club in terms of ratio of any major league in Europe.
England's top club earned 1.54 times as much as the bottom in TV money – down from 1.66 last season. In Spain, where TV rights are negotiated on a club-by-club basis, Real Madrid and Barcelona earn 12.5 times more than the smallest clubs in La Liga.
The Premier League chief executive, Richard Scudamore, said: "We believe that our income distribution mechanism, the most equitable of Europe's major football leagues, rewards sporting success while also guaranteeing a significant amount to each club in order that they can plan from one season to the next.
"Many have commented on the competitive nature of this season's Barclays Premier League. The clubs deserve huge credit for putting on a fantastic competition. We believe the way we distribute broadcast income plays a part in allowing each club to compete at the highest level."
The Premier League distributes TV rights money based partly on performance, partly via equal shares of TV income, and partly on the number of times a club's matches are screened live on domestic television.
This season, each club received £13.8m as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.9m as the equal share of overseas TV rights.
On top of that, every place in the Premier League table is worth £756,000 – West Ham received that amount and Manchester United £15.1m.
Facility fees of £582,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match – with a minimum income of £5.82m even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games.
The Premier League also pay out £15m each in parachute payments to previously relegated clubs Hull City, Burnley, Portsmouth and Middlesbrough. The three relegated clubs this season will receive the same amount.
Scudamore is just spinning the numbers by comparing to other European leagues. Just because ours isn't as bad, it doesn't make it right. I'd love to see a detailed breakdown of how the money was distributed by club.
-
Ten different clubs have won the French Championship since 1992-3. Ten different clubs have also won the "Coupe de France" (and teams such as Sedan, Calais and Amiens have been in the final).
There is something of a perceived"quality" issue when it comes to the French Ligue 1, but at least people have a chance of seeing their team win something.
-
I can't see a good future for the game as it is too competitive at the top and no chance for team below top 5. Could there be a new Nottingham Forest under new Brian Clough win the league like they did in 1980. I don't think it is possible.
I do think the game quality is not good enough these days. I think Money make it harder for lower team to compete as the big clubs squad will be lot stronger than it was 20 years ago.
-
The American (and Aussie Rules) systems only work because they are effectly closed shops with franchising, no promotion/relegation and geographically limited leagues. I can't see how they could be applied to English football without introducing franchises, no promotion/relegation and isolating the English leagues.