Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: pauliewalnuts on October 11, 2011, 10:56:52 PM
-
This is the beginning of the end, I reckon.
I found myself wanted to put my fist through the laptop screen about 10 times whilst reading this.
Clearly they're scared shitless about Man City usurping them from the top four.
Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal
The deal that shares television's billions equally between Premier League clubs is facing its biggest threat to date after Liverpool announced they would lead a challenge for overseas TV rights to be sold on a club-by-club basis.
Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals.
Since the Premier League's foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with "merit" awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league's very structure.
At present, the Premier League sells domestic and overseas broadcasting rights collectively and more than doubled international revenue in its last negotiations, from £625m for 2007‑10 to £1.4bn for 2010‑13. With the Premier League shown in 212 countries and having 98 broadcast partners around the world, it is expected the next deal will show a similar increase, with overseas rights potentially worth more than domestic for the first time.
Ayre believes the Premier League's four biggest global draws – Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal – deserve an increased share from 2013, with overseas broadcasting having a greater influence on the Anfield club's financial future than a new stadium. "Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally," said the Liverpool managing director. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area.
"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.
"So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."
It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement. Though Sir Alex Ferguson recently described the collective deal as "fair", albeit while insisting clubs deserved more from overseas rights, and La Liga's system has attracted widespread criticism, Ayre believes the status quo jeopardises the financial might of the Premier League.
"If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen."
Liverpool insist their radical proposals are limited to overseas broadcasting, although success on that front could set a precedent domestically in the long term, and the club plans to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. Ayre's frank admission comes almost one year on from Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in the high court and, along with broadcasting revenue, another major financial decision to be resolved by the American owners remains whether to construct a new stadium or redevelop their current home, Anfield.
Liverpool's managing director insists the club are pursuing "a parallel course" on both options, with planning regulations complicating the redevelopment of Anfield and the financial benefits of a new-build uncertain, although Ayre admits the latter option is only viable with a naming rights deal. "We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down that we are targeting for naming rights. That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don't stack up without it.
"When will the decision be made? It'll only be when we reach an answer with both. It's hard to put a time on it. If you put a deadline on the naming rights, then you start to marginalise the deal. We aren't desperate. We think we have an amazing proposition as one of the biggest clubs in the world. I don't recall any football club of this size with this international reach that's ever done a naming rights deal. It is quite unique in that sense. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United haven't. Nobody in football has done this at this level. It's new ground and it will take what it takes."
Ayre, along with the former Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, ex-chief executive Christian Purslow and Fenway Sports Group, remains the subject of a £1bn lawsuit filed by Hicks and Gillett over the events surrounding their departure last October. "It's an unwanted and unwelcome distraction. That's their prerogative but we remain extremely confident that we did the right thing," he said. The Liverpool MD offered his resignation to John W Henry following FSG's victory in the high court, and admits the five-times European champions could have entered administration had Hicks and Gillett retained control.
"Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn't anyone ready to take on that debt. So I guess the answer to that [would Liverpool have gone into administration] is yes. It's hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time that was a very real threat. That was the case in the final hours. That was one of the other routes we could have gone down."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/11/liverpool-breakaway-tv-deal
-
Yes, thin end of a very nasty wedge. Good old Liverpool, everyone's interest at heart really.
"A debate that has to happen". Yes, it starts with "Fuck" and ends in "off".
-
I hate those scouse pricks.
-
Who are the other 10 that they hope will vote for it?
-
Arrogant prick. Why don't they just go the whole hog and whore their sorry arses around the backstreets of Bangkok, Beijing and all the other markets they're so keen to exploit?
-
Who are the other 10 that they hope will vote for it?
They're Liverpool remember, they probably think they deserve 10 votes because they were good at doing backpasses in the 70s and 80s.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
-
Why is he going on about Real Madrid and Barcelona? Those days have gone mate, better concentrate on Spurs and Arsenal.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
Exactly. 22 clubs pissed over the other 70 odd to form the Prem in the first case, including our own. Now 5 or 6 want to piss over the others.
The only question is which clubs would get more then they do now and which won't. Liverpool, Manure and as shown in Hong Kong, Chelsea have large over seas followings. (whether the countries TV companies will pay big bucks is another matter) and Spurs always seem to have a large following as well. Would Villa be a big draw, I doubt it so we will probably lose out going to individual deals rather then the current setup.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
Good point, but there weren't many of us who objected.
-
I thing the begining of the end was the PL and the CL.. That is when they described it as a product. Now the producers of thier particular product want to maximise the revenue from the Product. It all makes perfect sense, unless of course you think the game is more important.
So you now have a situation where at best 3 or 4 clubs could actually win the Title the FA Cup has been relegated to a side show. The over bloated Champions Laeague is the Holy Grail.Those of us that were lucky enough to see football as a sport and see us rise from the 3rd division to Champions of England and then Europe have those memorys that no one can take away. It will not ever be like that again.
-
This has been on the cards for a while. Indeed I remember someone on here mentioning it in regards to it being one of the key reasons the Fenway Sports Group were so interested in buying Liverpool. It's not as bad as some are making it out but only because the English game is fucked up beyond repair already. It's only one more nail in the coffin that has already been hammered by the EPL, Sky, the CL, Abrahmovic, Man City... Too many things to mention succinctly.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
Good point, but there weren't many of us who objected.
No, but then we didn't really know how it would develop.
Sorry, I didn't know how it would develop. But now that I do, I think it's ok to be against it without any residual guilt.
-
Who are the other 10 that they hope will vote for it?
They're Liverpool remember, they probably think they deserve 10 votes because they were good at doing backpasses in the 70s and 80s.
If ManU have been upholding the PL deal for this long then it suits them. Perhaps what has changed is the number of clubs apart from them who could afford to do this.
Maybe this is how a euro Superleague gets started. If everybody who thinks they have a global following gets individual TV deals then they will have cut themselves off from the rest, effectively because they can.
Might be a bit soon for ManCity but they would have enough money to promote themselves until their audiences pick up.
it would follow that they all play each other to make the most of it.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
Good point, but there weren't many of us who objected.
No, but then we didn't really know how it would develop.
Sorry, I didn't know how it would develop. But now that I do, I think it's ok to be against it without any residual guilt.
I think the fact that Alan Sugar, Doug and Martin Edwards were in favour was enough to make anyone's mind up.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
Good point, but there weren't many of us who objected.
No, but then we didn't really know how it would develop.
Sorry, I didn't know how it would develop. But now that I do, I think it's ok to be against it without any residual guilt.
I think the fact that Alan Sugar, Doug and Martin Edwards were in favour was enough to make anyone's mind up.
Yep, fair enough.
I was 14, I did a lot of wanking. It blinded me to many of the evils of the corporate world. And, y'know, the actual world.
-
It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement
Good news surely?
Also, if it did happen, where do you think we would come in terms of money received for our overseas TV rights?
7th?
-
I can't see this getting past the voting stage with the other Prem clubs - unless there is some kind of sweetner for the rest of us.
Personally, I'm hoping they'll all piss off into a Euro super league.
-
I was 10 when the premier league started, and did not have sky till 98 and all I knew was I missed it on normal tv on crap pitches in the winter.
Truth is Liverpool would not have a product to sell to the mass foriegn market without the likes of Bolton agreeing to it, so essentially they are saying they want to just watch us and whoever we play does not matter. In which case feck off, along with City, United, Chelsea and whoever and play in some European league which will fall flat in 5 seasons and then when you beg to come back you can bugger off. Lower prices for the rest, have lower wages at specified amounts, make it sensible and much more appealing than it is now. Football has become an ordeal to me, and things like this, Man City etc are the reason why. Even Rooney, 200k a week, multi, multi millionaire being dumba nd unproffessional enough to kick some serbian annoyed me the other night. Mad world. Bring back muddy pitches, grass stained shirts, long hair and big beards.
-
I wonder if it would only take 14 votes to kick Liverpool out altogether?
-
I wonder if it would only take 14 votes to kick Liverpool out altogether?
That gets my vote.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
This isn't much of an argument is it? "Something bad happened 20 years ago, so we can't complain when something bad could happen again". If this forum had been around then I'm pretty sure there would have been few who'd have been happy to stick it to the clubs excluded from the Premier League.
-
This just absolutely boils my pi** and speaks volumes about the slow death of football created when the top 22 clubs decided to thumb their noses at the other 70 and create the Premier League. To hear Liverpool decry the inequity of the TV handouts based on the premise that they have more fans than anyone else just speaks volumes for where the priorities lie for the modern football club. One thing is for sure, the priorities for LFC certainly don’t lie in the working class suburbs surrounding Anfield, so perhaps once they’ve negotiated their new TV deal to maximise their revenue from Far East fans, they can then prostitute themselves around the cities of Thailand, Taiwan et al , as opposed to having to play at the inadequate Anfield to fans who won’t appreciate the ‘product’ as much.... Talking of product, since when did we start talking about football as a product and going to a match as an ‘experience.’ Its these very words, shady owners, spivvy agents, talentless millionaires and the relentless short termism from the new breed of fan that is turning many of us off football.
-
So if this takes 3 or 4 years to get off the ground, and Man City over take them in the pecking order, Lets say they only make the Europa League. Does that equate to more MANC shirts being sold than liverpool ones. If they fall down the pecking order, will they still be so keen?
-
I can't see this getting past the voting stage with the other Prem clubs - unless there is some kind of sweetner for the rest of us.
Personally, I'm hoping they'll all piss off into a Euro super league.
I'm with you brother.
UTV
The Doc
-
It's the first step towards a European League, no question. All these foreign owners, including Lerner I guess, have invested in this, in the hope of getting on the gravy train. It's not about the fans, the clubs, the history of the game in this country - it's about making money.
Let them go and watch the fall out from Liverpool, ManU fans when they're not playing agains teams in this country.
-
It's the first step towards a European League, no question. All these foreign owners, including Lerner I guess, have invested in this, in the hope of getting on the gravy train. It's not about the fans, the clubs, the history of the game in this country - it's about making money.
Let them go and watch the fall out from Liverpool, ManU fans when they're not playing agains teams in this country.
I don't think that its about making money, I think that its about owners looking for ways to stop losing so much money.
Are there any owners who are actually making enough of a profit to make owning a football team worth all the time and effort.
I don't believe that there are many owners, regardless of their nationality, who are only in this for the money. Ego and prestige definitely, but not money.
-
One thing is for sure, the priorities for LFC certainly don’t lie in the working class suburbs surrounding Anfield
This is absolutely what jumped out at me too (along with the echo of the initial breakaway from the League in '92 and some element of guilt that Villa were a part of that). When theior priorities are in competing in Europe, and satisfying the desire of their fans in the Far East (ie fleecing them dry too), where do the real Liverpool fans, the guys who pay an extortionate amount of money when not earning very much fit into the owner's ideals. It comes down to bare-faced, rank greed.
I hope they do force the debate and they do get their wish. It will only end in disaster, and a less competitive league than the SPL and La Liga. The implosion of modern football is the only way the real fans might get their game back. Although I suspect the sport is already completely lost now.
-
It's the first step towards a European League, no question. All these foreign owners, including Lerner I guess, have invested in this, in the hope of getting on the gravy train. It's not about the fans, the clubs, the history of the game in this country - it's about making money.
Let them go and watch the fall out from Liverpool, ManU fans when they're not playing agains teams in this country.
I don't think that its about making money, I think that its about owners looking for ways to stop losing so much money.
Are there any owners who are actually making enough of a profit to make owning a football team worth all the time and effort.
I don't believe that there are many owners, regardless of their nationality, who are only in this for the money. Ego and prestige definitely, but not money.
These owners are not in this for philanthropic reasons or to re-create the glory days for fans although that may be a by product. They invested because of the cash cow that is the Premier League and the worldwide thirst for seeing live football (for the big clubs), and the potential revenue that is out there.
-
Where's that Liverpool fan that used to post on here when you need an alternative view?
It's ironic that Liverpool bring this up now, just after the players in Spain have been on strike. In less earth shattering events I recall that people of this parish were discussing how the spanish tv deal was essentially wrong and had destroyed their league (I think it was when talking about the German league). It's fair to say we're a pretty unbiased audience there so the idea must be massively flawed.
-
As a slightly worrying aside, do you think Randy would vote in favour of such a move?
If he is looking to better his investment then this could be a good way of doing it....
Although thinking of the numbers I'd guess that we would receive less than we do now, so possibly not.
-
Funny how this comes out the week the commons are talking about 96 Liverpool fans losing their life's.
That club has turned into the worst in Britain.
I hate them more than Chelsea.
If I was a Liverpool fan I would letting the board know how I feel.Disgusting.
-
Maybe this is how a euro Superleague gets started. If everybody who thinks they have a global following gets individual TV deals then they will have cut themselves off from the rest, effectively because they can.
I agree.
Just for perspective, ManUre earned £42-ish mill from Premiership / FAC TV rights in the 2009-10 season and were able to top that up with £60-ish mill from Chumps Lge TV rights. So, they already earn more from TV £££ than we do from our three main income streams.
The question in my mind is: "is this Liverpool stirring things up aherad of the next TV deal negotiations or are they serious about breaking away?" Either way, teams like us lose out, 'cos those clubs with the biggest interest from Asia have the whip hand.
This outcomes - breakaway TV deals and Euro-Chumps schisms - are pretty inevitable and the roots for their emergence come from the merchandising strategies of the 1990's / 2000's as much as from on-field successes. Our venerable Ol' President Emeritus missed the trends way back in the day ... it was pointed out by some people at the time that the volume and £££ was eastwards-focussed.
We - not being in the top six (both footballing and fan-wise) - will have to await the collapse / maturity / implosion of the TV-£££ driven global growth of the Pree-e-e-e-emiership; if we can survive that long.
Happy days!
-
and it came to pass that there were only 4 clubs in the Super premier league playing each other over and over and over again.............
not interesting to me so I wouldn't pay for that........bring it on
-
As a slightly worrying aside, do you think Randy would vote in favour of such a move?
If he is looking to better his investment then this could be a good way of doing it....
That depends entirely on whether he thinks he could get more for Villa's rights than he does under the present deal. I can't see that we'd be that big a draw, so I suspect our deal wouldn't be as good.
-
actually I think this is just an early negotiating ploy so that Lplop can claim their 'rightful' unequal share of the filthy lucre that is destroying the game.
Should we expect anything less from them?
-
It's not even the thin end of the wedge. The thin end was about twenty years ago and the wedge is apparently stilling widening healthily.
It's all about the rich getting richer.
-
Just say the top 4/5 teams managed to secure the overseas rights. How much do you think the Red Scouse v Red Manc game on Saturday would nett, bearing in mind it's prime time in the far east?
This one game will bring in a lot more than the current agreement. I see their point, even though i don't agree with it.
-
I can't see them getting fourteen votes for something which suits five clubs and shafts fifteen. How nice of Mr Ayre to concede they need the likes of Bolton in one respect because they need opposition to play to make the money. I reckon they really need the likes of Bolton because I've checked the fixture list and I couldn't see any dates when they are due to play Barcelona or Real Madrid.
-
Good. Let them all. Which no doubt Spuds will join in and consist of the 5 other clubs.
Then we and the rest can organise a break away league, a true top tier, part of the actual football league based on a more equal model. Their crappy 6 club league would stand alone and will be pretty boring without relegations thus reducing the overall appeal. A 6 club competition, wow how exciting(!). We can even let them have the shitty name 'premiership' just for Sky's good measure.
Eventually they'll start playing more games abroad and forget their true identity loosing their core fan base whilst we, Everton and other clubs who stayed true to what football is grow in strength nationally and profit from their decline for being corporate whores.
-
I wouldn't be too upset if the likes of United and Chelsea pissed off to a European league and left a decent, competitive league in its place. There needs to be a seismic change in English football, because it's crap at the top.
-
I wouldn't be too upset if the likes of United and Chelsea pissed off to a European league and left a decent, competitive league in its place. There needs to be a seismic change in English football, because it's crap at the top.
I dare say it feels pretty crap further down the league too when the (limited) money starts running out and you can't compete, like Plymouth Argyle for example.
-
I wouldn't be too upset if the likes of United and Chelsea pissed off to a European league and left a decent, competitive league in its place. There needs to be a seismic change in English football, because it's crap at the top.
I’ve been saying for years that I’d shed absolutely no tears if these clubs buggered off to the Euro Super League that they so clearly crave. I’ve heard all the arguments about it killing the English game, but as it currently stands the game is being killed in any case, because the playing field is so utterly unequal before a ball has even been kicked.
-
So if this takes 3 or 4 years to get off the ground, and Man City over take them in the pecking order, Lets say they only make the Europa League. Does that equate to more MANC shirts being sold than liverpool ones. If they fall down the pecking order, will they still be so keen?
Of course not. They can see it coming, that's why they're shitting it.
-
Let them go and watch the fall out from Liverpool, ManU fans when they're not playing agains teams in this country.
This is where the rest of the clubs need to be strong. 'Go away and play in your own league, but you're not playing in ours'.
If they want to play in our league they must accept the collective, equally distributed overseas TV deal. What worries me is that the other clubs bow and scrape and give in to certain demands of the Sky 4/5 so we retain the 'pleasure' of playing them.
-
Good. Let them all. Which no doubt Spuds will join in and consist of the 5 other clubs.
Then we and the rest can organise a break away league, a true top tier, part of the actual football league based on a more equal model. Their crappy 6 club league would stand alone and will be pretty boring without relegations thus reducing the overall appeal. A 6 club competition, wow how exciting(!). We can even let them have the shitty name 'premiership' just for Sky's good measure.
Eventually they'll start playing more games abroad and forget their true identity loosing their core fan base whilst we, Everton and other clubs who stayed true to what football is grow in strength nationally and profit from their decline for being corporate whores.
Just how I see it. What we must pray for is that club owners see the big picture and the long-term panning out this way, rather than being seduced by some short-term crumbs or other that the top few offer in exchange for compliance. The top four owners are money-obsessed, but the rest of the owners hardly fill me with confidence either.
-
If they want to play in our league they must accept the collective, equally distributed overseas TV deal. What worries me is that the other clubs bow and scrape and give in to certain demands of the Sky 4/5 so we retain the 'pleasure' of playing them.
I don't think there's much chance of that to be honest, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The top four owners are money-obsessed, but the rest of the owners hardly fill me with confidence either.
The rest of them are fairly money obsessed, too, which I suspect will be the thing that stops this happening.
-
It'll be funny when all the unheard of teams owned by oil oligarchs in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the like come in and ruin football for the likes of Barcelona and Man U. That'll larn 'em.
-
Those at the top wanting a bigger slice of the pie is what lead to the formation of the PL as the other clubs said 'no'. I can see no other answer from the other 14/15 clubs in the PL this time around, so they either lump it or fuck off. Thing is though, I think they'll lump it as the way a Euro league with no promotion/relegation or a 6 team league would stagnate will not be lost on them. One of the reasons the PL is so popular is that it's very competitive, as the likes of Bolton refuse to accept their place in the pecking order that Liverpool have chosen for them. Lose that and the attraction of the PL goes down quite a few notches.
All this will end up with is a bit more money going to the league placings side of things to keep them happy.
-
It's all about money the root of all evil.
-
If they want to play in our league they must accept the collective, equally distributed overseas TV deal. What worries me is that the other clubs bow and scrape and give in to certain demands of the Sky 4/5 so we retain the 'pleasure' of playing them.
I don't think there's much chance of that to be honest, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The top four owners are money-obsessed, but the rest of the owners hardly fill me with confidence either.
The rest of them are fairly money obsessed, too, which I suspect will be the thing that stops this happening.
Yes, hopefully they will see this as an opportunity. Domestic and European TV rights devalued by the recent pub landlord ruling, Champions League TV revenue under threat as well from the same ruling. The really valuable TV rights, and the one with real potential for growth, now more than ever, is the world-wide Premiership deal - the only one that is evenly distributed. If this is handled properly by the fifteen other clubs, we could have the dream scenario of a competitive league on our hands. Bear in mind that if all the clubs become more equal, there could be a snowball effect that might impact on the sponsorship deals and match-day income of the Sky 4/5/6 as well.
If they do breakaway, we'd need UEFA to be strong, protecting it's national associations by leaving us with the European competetions. Wouldn't it be great if it all went back to the previous formats? I'm getting ahead of myself here, just dreaming aloud.
-
I was 10 when the premier league started, and did not have sky till 98 and all I knew was I missed it on normal tv on crap pitches in the winter.
Truth is Liverpool would not have a product to sell to the mass foriegn market without the likes of Bolton agreeing to it, so essentially they are saying they want to just watch us and whoever we play does not matter. In which case feck off, along with City, United, Chelsea and whoever and play in some European league which will fall flat in 5 seasons and then when you beg to come back you can bugger off. Lower prices for the rest, have lower wages at specified amounts, make it sensible and much more appealing than it is now. Football has become an ordeal to me, and things like this, Man City etc are the reason why. Even Rooney, 200k a week, multi, multi millionaire being dumba nd unproffessional enough to kick some serbian annoyed me the other night. Mad world. Bring back muddy pitches, grass stained shirts, long hair and big beards.
And jumpers for goalposts....Go have your Supa league and leave footie to those not overtaken by corporate greed. And also a European Cup for those winners of the league not for the all powerful cartel. Football is imploding and I for one can't wait
-
If they want to play in our league they must accept the collective, equally distributed overseas TV deal. What worries me is that the other clubs bow and scrape and give in to certain demands of the Sky 4/5 so we retain the 'pleasure' of playing them.
I don't think there's much chance of that to be honest, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The top four owners are money-obsessed, but the rest of the owners hardly fill me with confidence either.
The rest of them are fairly money obsessed, too, which I suspect will be the thing that stops this happening.
Yes, hopefully they will see this as an opportunity. Domestic and European TV rights devalued by the recent pub landlord ruling, Champions League TV revenue under threat as well from the same ruling. The really valuable TV rights, and the one with real potential for growth, now more than ever, is the world-wide Premiership deal - the only one that is evenly distributed. If this is handled properly by the fifteen other clubs, we could have the dream scenario of a competitive league on our hands. Bear in mind that if all the clubs become more equal, there could be a snowball effect that might impact on the sponsorship deals and match-day income of the Sky 4/5/6 as well.
If they do breakaway, we'd need UEFA to be strong, protecting it's national associations by leaving us with the European competetions. Wouldn't it be great if it all went back to the previous formats? I'm getting ahead of myself here, just dreaming aloud.
Nope that’s just crazy talk and the kind of thing that would get you kicked out of the UEFA’s plush HQ. Why on earth would we want to do away with utterly tedious group games played out between two teams with sweet FA chance of being anything but whipping fodder for the Mega teams and replace with a knockout games that could create upsets. Imagine the upset (financial loss) if Real were to be turned over by let’s say Wisla Krakow and knocked out.
-
It'll be funny when all the unheard of teams owned by oil oligarchs in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the like come in and ruin football for the likes of Barcelona and Man U. That'll larn 'em.
This I would love. I'd even buy a Kazakh shirt if it happened.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
What if you were against then, and you're against it now?
Indeed. While I've got sympathy for DW's argument, it wasn't 'us', was it, it was Ellis, Sugar et al. We didn't really have a say.
Good point, but there weren't many of us who objected.
But than it didn't affect us now it will...hmmm I see where this is going!
-
Surely the masterplan Scudmissile and all PL club owners should be thinking about is how to make the League more competitive not less. If PL does end up like La Liga or SPL than it's good night from us.
-
If PL does end up like La Liga or SPL
It isn't yet then?
-
I understand this argument from Ian Ayre:
"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal"
But what he fails to recognize is that he needs a Bolton in order to play a match in the first place. If there were no Boltons then there would be no games for his team to play (apart from the other three he mentions). It's time for the Boltons to call his bluff and threaten Liverpool with a breakaway.
-
If they do breakaway, we'd need UEFA to be strong, protecting it's national associations by leaving us with the European competetions.
Problem is, Perc, I can't see UEFA letting the 'star attractions' walk away. There will be some deal where the likes of ManUre, Citeh et al will still have access to the big competitions.
More likely that UEFA would see the opportunity for another Euro vase for the new Premier-Championship Division.
-
Looks like Man U and Chelsea want no part of Liverpool's proposal: clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway).
Can the Prem have a vote to boot Liverpool out?
Ah, I can dream.
-
Looks like Man U and Chelsea want no part of Liverpool's proposal: clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway).
Can the Prem have a vote to boot Liverpool out?
Ah, I can dream.
Anyone else almost disappointed by this? I'd love to see them fuck off and wait for the inevitable crawling back!
-
I understand this argument from Ian Ayre:
"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal"
But what he fails to recognize is that he needs a Bolton in order to play a match in the first place. If there were no Boltons then there would be no games for his team to play (apart from the other three he mentions). It's time for the Boltons to call his bluff and threaten Liverpool with a breakaway.
They want to have their cake and eat it.
They want to play the Boltons and other clubs they usually expect to take three points off, so they can cash in on the glamour of the Premier League.
They just don't want Bolton to get their fair share of the moolah. And, have no doubt about it, you can bet your bottom dollar that if this happened for overseas rights, it would be no time at all until they started wanting the same for domestic rights as well.
I think what we're seeing here is the ill considered spoutings of a club who have realised they're slipping away from the top group at a rate of knots, and can't afford to do anything about it.
-
I think what we're seeing here is the ill considered spoutings of a club who have realised they're slipping away from the top group at a rate of knots, and can't afford to do anything about it.
I do think it's showing that it's Liverpool worrying about competing with Barca/Real and not those who actually NEED to worry about it.
-
I was against the PL back then as I had visions of it becoming a money machine. The scary thing is, for me at least, is that my worst visions of the PL future didn't come close to the current reality.
The sooner Man U, Chelsea, Dippers, Arse and Man C all fuck off to their European Super Wetdream Wankathon League, the sooner we may have a chance of getting our game back.
-
The Fiver amusing on the subject today
BITING THE HAND THAT GREEDS YOU
The Fiver's always prided itself on displaying knowledge of its subject deeper than a philosophy lecture at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, so it's with some distress that it learns Liverpool's Hungarian chairman John B Henry knows almost nothing about the Goodison Park club he bought three years ago from a dragon round the back of Sainsbury's.
In an interview with Big Paper's David Conn, Henry admits he knew "virtually nothing about Liverpool Football Club nor EPL" when he invested in the club, while chairman Tom Werner said at the time he "certainly knew about Manchester United", something which will endear him to Liverpool fans around the world. So, if Henry's Fenway Sports Group didn't know that much about Liverpool, what was the impetus behind the purchase of the club?
Well it turns out it was that most American of things: the dreaded spectre of socialism. In the US, where Fenway own the Boston Red Sox, profits are shared more equally among sports teams, something that Werner isn't too keen on. "We realise [the Red Sox] are part of a league, but we feel the burden on the top is higher than appropriate," said Werner, checking for communists under the bed. "We feel we deserve the fruits of our labour," he added, checking for trade unionists and anarchists while he was at it.
So where better to head to than the Premier League, a place where a money-grabbing, eff-you mentality may as well be part of the fit and proper persons test. In fact, Liverpool are getting into the Premier League way of doing things to such an extent that they now want to sell their foreign TV rights on a club-by-club basis rather than share them with - shudder - poorer clubs. "What we are actually doing [at the moment with TV rights] is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs," said Liverpool MD Ian Ayre, failing to mention that Liverpool have actually been disadvantaging themselves against other big European clubs by not being very good at football.
Ayre's charge for TV rights was undermined this afternoon when Manchester United and Chelsea distanced themselves from his ideas. Well done, Ian, you just made Chelsea look like a model of charity and love.
-
Interesting reading the Guardian article earlier, the way that TV money is divided up is surprisingly fair with the top side only getting 1.5 the amount of the bottom. I can't see that they'll get the two thirds needed to change that arrangement so, for now at least, I think they've got little chance of changing the arrangements.
-
It would be mint if 4-6 of them sodded off and played in a european super league. Would allow the rest of us for a few seasons to have a chance at winning stuff (it would only be even stevens until another club begins to dominate, and we are back in the same old situation.
It would be quite a good league to watch, would definitely get Sky again:
Barcelona
Real Madrid
Valencia
Sevilla
Bayern Munich
Schalke
Borrusia Dortmund
Hamburg
Ajax
PSV
PSG
Lyon
Milan
Inter
Juventus
Roma
Manchester Utd
Manchester City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Liverpool
Tottenham
Porto
Sporting Lisbon
I'm sure you could chuck a couple more in, have a super league of 30 clubs.
-
This is the beginning of the end, I reckon.
Nailed it first line
-
Looks like Man U and Chelsea want no part of Liverpool's proposal: clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway).
Predictable, but rent-a-quote Dave Whelan is actually pretty spot on with his rant in that article.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
It's different. 20 clubs can make a league worth watching, 4 can't. I'm all for it if it means they bugger off and play amongst themselves. The Asian masses would get bored with that pretty quickly and realize actually, it's not as much fun without the Boltons and all the rest.
-
It would be a disaster.
-
For all the righteous anger, this is no more than we did when the Premier League started. We've no right to be planting our flagpole on Mt Moral.
It's different. 20 clubs can make a league worth watching, 4 can't. I'm all for it if it means they bugger off and play amongst themselves. The Asian masses would get bored with that pretty quickly and realize actually, it's not as much fun without the Boltons and all the rest.
But when you've got 20 clubs in Europe who can make a league worth watching, I'd actually say its closer to 40, you're not really threatening them with much really are you?
And if they did bugger off to a Euro Super league what do people think would happen to the domestic TV deal it would be worth peanuts. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing but it would affect us due to the reduced revenue, sponsorship etc meaning less money to invest on the football side of the club? Catch 22.....
I think the other thing to note here is that if there was a Euro Super league probably two divisions of 18 - 20 clubs we're a more than big enough club to be involved in it. No more waiting 3 seasons for a trip to hamburg or Prague you'd be doing it every fortnight!!!
I must admit I hate the idea of it as it goes so against everything that I believe our national game should be about and the special nature of those European nights but the thought of a trip like Prague we had a couple of years ago every month or so, can appear attractive at first glance.
-
It would be a disaster financially for us, Everton, Spurs (why so many people assume they would be involved is a mystery to me), Sunderland, Newcastle and the other slightly smaller club sides in and around 6th - 17th. However, seeing as there is currently nowhere for us to go or to win aside from a cup the wining teams can't be arsed fielding a 1st team for the temptation is to say carry on with a Euro Super League. Not sure any of it is sustainable though so I think a prolonged non-competiton will prevail for a good many years.
-
Mind you, if I'd recently spunked £75,000,000 on Carroll, Henderson and Downing I'd probably be panicking about getting a few extra quid in as well.
-
Fairly good summing up of the situation from F365:
So why did twitter nearly fall over on Tuesday night?
Because Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, has announced the club would prefer to sell overseas television rights individually.
Anything you should clarify at this stage?
Yes, we're not talking about domestic television rights, but overseas television rights - the last remaining 'equally shared' deal in the Premier League.
And that's different to all the other deals?
Commercially, each club goes its own way with gate receipts, shirt sales and so on. The domestic television deal is reasonably well proportioned across the league, with 50% being passed around as an equal share, the next 25% being divvied up based on final league position, and the last quarter handed out according to how many times the club concerned has been televised live.
To stress the point with a repeat, what makes the overseas deal unique is that it is shared out equally to each member of the league.
What's the current deal worth?
Deep breath. £1.4billion over three years. Give or take a few pounds, that worked out at £18m each for last season.
And Ayre wants to re-negotiate now?
Not quite. What he is advocating is that clubs should be allowed to arrange their own individual deals when the current deal for overseas television rights expires in 2013.
What's to stop any club that wants to do that from doing it then?
For the principle of collectivism to be broken, the Premier League's own rules declare that the approval of 14 of the 20 top-flight clubs would first be required.
And the phrase 'turkeys voting for Christmas' springs out here?
Well, yes. It's very difficult to believe that a majority of clubs will vote for individualism when the inevitable repercussion for most of them would be a large fall in revenue. Essentially, individualism would see the rich majority getting richer at the expensive of the pauper minority.
Furthermore, if they retain collectivism, those 'paupers' can expect to receive far more than £18m per season from 2013 onwards. Stick with it, and they'll be getting richer too.
How so?
Because overseas television rights are the league's fastest-growing business: the 2001-04 deal was worth just 0.2bn whereas domestic rights have 'only' grown 0.6bn from £1.4bn to £2bn in the last ten years. Based on that comparative rate of progress, there's every expectation that overseas rights will be the league's biggest business from 2013 onwards.
If, that is, collectivism isn't disbanded.
So surely it wont be then?
Well, it's unlikely, but the big clubs do possess the leverage of threatening a breakaway and the argument Ayre has made this midweek is that that individualism will, in the long term, benefit all Premier League clubs.
How so?
In a nutshell, collectivism is supported because it's in every club's interest for the Premier League to be strong and competitive. In that form, the league is an attractive brand and able to attract vast global audiences. What Ayre is warning, however, is that the Premier League will lose a substantial chunk of its attraction - including its star players - if the leading clubs are unable to keep up with the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid - who take something in the region of 80% of La Liga's television money - in the Champions League. The brand will diminish in appeal and value.
His argument, in very short form, is that it's in the interests of all clubs, including the smaller outfits, for the likes of United and Liverpool to be even richer.
Hmm. Except, of course that Liverpool aren't in the Champions League at present...
Indeed. Which is why so many people will view Ayre's argument cynically and consider his call not so much a warning about the health of the Premiership but a very quick means for Liverpool making a very big buck.
To state the obvious, Liverpool have a massive global following and would earn a big fortune if individualism was adopted.
And they've got to pay for that new stadium somehow, haven't they?
You said that, not me.
So why haven't Manchester United campaigned for individualism instead?
They have. Only last month, in his 'sold to the devil' tirade, Sir Alex Ferguson complained: "We are being shown in 212 countries at the moment so whatever we are being paid, it is not enough." However, Ferguson pulled back from calling for individualism, saying: "We'd love to have our own but I don't think it should happen that way. It's quite fair to have all equal shares."
Would United have more to gain from individualism than Liverpool?
Very probably. If you're growing up in Beijing, why would you support anyone in England other than Manchester United? They are, after all, the dominant force in English football and glory-hunting is a global phenomenon.
It's a strange thought, and one which suggests that Ayre may have made a fatal miscalculation in his argument, but if Liverpool did succeed in introducing individualism then they would probably make United an untouchable force in the Premier League just so they can do better in the Champions League for the supposed benefit of all.
So what will happen in 2013?
Hard to tell. Much might well depend on how the English clubs fare in the Champions League for the next two years. If they are unable to compete against the revenue-rich Madrid and Barcelona - who, as noted before, take home the vast bulk of Spain's television revenue - then the issue will no doubt come to the fore again. The crux, though, will be persuading the rest of the league that their self-interest is a shared interest.
What could the other clubs do if individualism was adopted?
Start signing players from countries such as China, Thailand and India etc etc in order to rev up their own appeal to a global audience.
So F365 would argue against individualism?
Until global audiences start falling - and the reverse is still occurring - and English clubs stop competing in Europe - and let's not forget that United have reached three of the last four Champions League finals - then it's very difficult to see how Liverpool can expect to get their own way. And 'own' is the salient word in that summary.
-
If Facebook "likes" are any gauge of global popularity, Liverpool are currently the fourth most popular team in the Premier League. It doesn't make sense for them to campaign for a means that allows the clubs above them to get even richer.
-
What he seems to have forgotten is that without the "other 16" who aren't in "the big four" there wouldn't be a league, and thusly no tv rights for the league. Why can't Liverpool be in what they so dream of a, league of their own. Go on lads fuck off and play 5-a-side and see how many people want to pay to watch that you money grabbing, pig fuckers.
Or as the Great Man once put it:
“Autumn is always a time of Fear and Greed and Hoarding for the winter coming on. Debt collectors are active on old people and fleece the weak and helpless. They want to lay in enough cash to weather the known horrors of January and February. There is always a rash of kidnapping and abductions of schoolchildren in the football months. Preteens of both sexes are traditionally seized and grabbed off the streets by gangs of organized perverts who traditionally give them as Christmas gifts to each other to be personal sex slaves and playthings. "
HST: 'Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century'
-
Personally I would be happy for an old style Division 1 to return if these 4 ingrates fecked off in the process. Maybe get Celtic and Rangers involved in our league and you might still have a very marketable product whilst we all have a bit more chance of success in the domestic scene.
-
The thing is that if 5 or 6 of the 'big' clubs decided to make a break, there would be plenty of 'smaller' clubs willing to take our place in the new league if we decided not to follow them
I'm sure the likes of Coventry, Leicester, Southampton (etc) would all jump at the chance of joining this new league and would willingly agree to a much reduced share of the pie knowing it would be far more money than they would earn in the Championship. Throw in a no relegation clause and I doubt anyone would turn down such a cash cow.
It's a long way off but that is how I see it happening.
-
Villa againt Liverpool TV plans. (http://www.teamtalk.com/aston-villa/7238988/Villa-against-Liverpool-TV-plans) No Direct Quotes mind.
-
And if they did bugger off to a Euro Super league what do people think would happen to the domestic TV deal it would be worth peanuts. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing but it would affect us due to the reduced revenue, sponsorship etc meaning less money to invest on the football side of the club? Catch 22.....
I think the other thing to note here is that if there was a Euro Super league probably two divisions of 18 - 20 clubs we're a more than big enough club to be involved in it. No more waiting 3 seasons for a trip to hamburg or Prague you'd be doing it every fortnight!!!
I must admit I hate the idea of it as it goes so against everything that I believe our national game should be about and the special nature of those European nights but the thought of a trip like Prague we had a couple of years ago every month or so, can appear attractive at first glance.
The idea of a reconstituted English top-flight division without the top 4 might actually have some attraction to the terrestrial TV companies. Imagine a league in which the Big Fish include Villa, where games are televised on terrestrial every week and in which the outright winners could come from any one of 10-12 teams? Indeed, a league in which the players are mostly home-grown, are not paid absolutely stupid money (say, £10-15k per week rather than £45k pw) and are desperate to show themselves in the best light each week.
The league may not have the best players in the world; may not show the absolutely top-level football standards; may not provide the controversy for the back pages that the P'ship currently does. But it may be more accessible, more engaging and more interesting. And you may even have full grounds again, since the results are more unpredictable ...
... so, back to the future, my friends!
-
The press in Boston are beginning to think that owning Liverpool is distracting John Henry et all from (the vastly more important matter of) running the Red Sox
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/10/13/theo_epsteins_departure_latest_sign_on_chaos_with_red_sox/
Now we’ve all had enough with Roush Racing and Liverpool soccer. Yankee fans never had to worry about George Steinbrenner taking his eyes off the prize in the interest of building ships.
Try this on with your pink hat: On the final night of the regular season, while the Sox were playing in Baltimore, fighting for their playoff lives, virtual ads during the baseball broadcast reminded you to watch Liverpool-Wolverhampton the next day at 4 p.m. That’s the same time that the Sox would have been playing their one-game playoff against Tampa Bay on TBS.
Got that? On Thursday, Sept. 29, at 4 p.m., the geniuses at NESN wanted you to watch soccer - instead of a one-game playoff involving the Red Sox.
Consistent with this insult, NESN the next day cut away from analysis of a postmortem press conference featuring Terry Francona and Theo Epstein (remember them?) at Fenway. While NESN rival Comcast went knee-deep into analysis, the Sox flagship TV station went to soccer.
Wow.
[/quote]
-
And if they did bugger off to a Euro Super league what do people think would happen to the domestic TV deal it would be worth peanuts. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing but it would affect us due to the reduced revenue, sponsorship etc meaning less money to invest on the football side of the club? Catch 22.....
I think the other thing to note here is that if there was a Euro Super league probably two divisions of 18 - 20 clubs we're a more than big enough club to be involved in it. No more waiting 3 seasons for a trip to hamburg or Prague you'd be doing it every fortnight!!!
I must admit I hate the idea of it as it goes so against everything that I believe our national game should be about and the special nature of those European nights but the thought of a trip like Prague we had a couple of years ago every month or so, can appear attractive at first glance.
The idea of a reconstituted English top-flight division without the top 4 might actually have some attraction to the terrestrial TV companies. Imagine a league in which the Big Fish include Villa, where games are televised on terrestrial every week and in which the outright winners could come from any one of 10-12 teams? Indeed, a league in which the players are mostly home-grown, are not paid absolutely stupid money (say, £10-15k per week rather than £45k pw) and are desperate to show themselves in the best light each week.
The league may not have the best players in the world; may not show the absolutely top-level football standards; may not provide the controversy for the back pages that the P'ship currently does. But it may be more accessible, more engaging and more interesting. And you may even have full grounds again, since the results are more unpredictable ...
... so, back to the future, my friends!
It's a nice idea EffDee. Can't imagine the current owner of the also rans would accept their product being devalued though. Imagine a club like Villa, millions in debt to Randy so to speak, suddenly becoming less valuable as an asset? Suddenly our manageable debt becomes very troublesome. Same with most other clubs in the premier league. And I wouldn't assume it will mean a reduction in ticket prices (see the Championship). If anything fans will be ripped off even more.
Ultimately what fucks me off the most about the whole thing is that we're all so accepting of our current standing in the game. Me included. It's now accepted that there are 'super clubs' and if you're not one of them you aren't worthy of competing with big clubs across Europe anymore because you didn't happen to be uber-wealthy at this very moment in time. What gives Liverpool (FC of course) the right to start talking about breaking away (the tacit threat behind the current story)? They aren't in the champions league anymore. Are they just better because they have more temporary fans in Asia, or do they qualify? If the latter, they're screwed aren't they?
It's all so rotten that it makes it very difficult to give a toss over, which is why it'll probably go ahead eventually. We'll all just accept it because we've stop caring. Far too difficult to actually make it an even playing field again, easier (than expected for most going by the what-would-you-do-if-villa-wasn't-there-thread) to just zone out and retreat into something less stressful.
-
And if they did bugger off to a Euro Super league what do people think would happen to the domestic TV deal it would be worth peanuts. I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing but it would affect us due to the reduced revenue, sponsorship etc meaning less money to invest on the football side of the club? Catch 22.....
I think the other thing to note here is that if there was a Euro Super league probably two divisions of 18 - 20 clubs we're a more than big enough club to be involved in it. No more waiting 3 seasons for a trip to hamburg or Prague you'd be doing it every fortnight!!!
I must admit I hate the idea of it as it goes so against everything that I believe our national game should be about and the special nature of those European nights but the thought of a trip like Prague we had a couple of years ago every month or so, can appear attractive at first glance.
The idea of a reconstituted English top-flight division without the top 4 might actually have some attraction to the terrestrial TV companies. Imagine a league in which the Big Fish include Villa, where games are televised on terrestrial every week and in which the outright winners could come from any one of 10-12 teams? Indeed, a league in which the players are mostly home-grown, are not paid absolutely stupid money (say, £10-15k per week rather than £45k pw) and are desperate to show themselves in the best light each week.
The league may not have the best players in the world; may not show the absolutely top-level football standards; may not provide the controversy for the back pages that the P'ship currently does. But it may be more accessible, more engaging and more interesting. And you may even have full grounds again, since the results are more unpredictable ...
... so, back to the future, my friends!
It's a nice idea EffDee. Can't imagine the current owner of the also rans would accept their product being devalued though. Imagine a club like Villa, millions in debt to Randy so to speak, suddenly becoming less valuable as an asset? Suddenly our manageable debt becomes very troublesome. Same with most other clubs in the premier league. And I wouldn't assume it will mean a reduction in ticket prices (see the Championship). If anything fans will be ripped off even more.
Ultimately what fucks me off the most about the whole thing is that we're all so accepting of our current standing in the game. Me included. It's now accepted that there are 'super clubs' and if you're not one of them you aren't worthy of competing with big clubs across Europe anymore because you didn't happen to be uber-wealthy at this very moment in time. What gives Liverpool (FC of course) the right to start talking about breaking away (the tacit threat behind the current story)? They aren't in the champions league anymore. Are they just better because they have more temporary fans in Asia, or do they qualify? If the latter, they're screwed aren't they?
It's all so rotten that it makes it very difficult to give a toss over, which is why it'll probably go ahead eventually. We'll all just accept it because we've stop caring. Far too difficult to actually make it an even playing field again, easier (than expected for most going by the what-would-you-do-if-villa-wasn't-there-thread) to just zone out and retreat into something less stressful.
Know what you mean, Rig, but actually the product might be reasonably saleable internationally and - with the grounds being fuller - the owners may just find the finances working to their advantage. Why? - 'cos the big numbers, purchases and wages, have dropped substantially.
-
David Conn's interview in the Guardian with Henry this week (over two or three days) was a very good read. He didn't come out of it too shiningly.
Oh. I 've just realised I've probably already posted this in this very thread before. Soz.
-
David Conn's interview in the Guardian with Henry this week (over two or three days) was a very good read. He didn't come out of it too shiningly.
Oh. I 've just realised I've probably already posted this in this very thread before. Soz.
You're right Paulie: and note the quote - "In baseball, the teams are franchises, their income is taxed by MLB and shared, to maintain reasonable competition between big city teams such as the Red Sox, and smaller teams. Thus the underdog Rays were well-equipped enough this season to dramatically deny the Red Sox a place in the play-offs. Werner told the Guardian he resents the amount of money the Red Sox have to share with smaller teams."
Spot where the Ayres comments have come from!
-
David Conn's interview in the Guardian with Henry this week (over two or three days) was a very good read. He didn't come out of it too shiningly.
Oh. I 've just realised I've probably already posted this in this very thread before. Soz.
And it pretty frustrating to hear the focussed / visionary approach that Fenway is taking with Liverpool compared with the vague generalisations that emanated from RL / CK when they came in; and still.
We do have the basis on which to present an attractive international positioning to the burgeoning Asian markets - but we don't seem to have the appetite to go and do it.
-
Looks like Man U and Chelsea want no part of Liverpool's proposal: clicky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway).
Can the Prem have a vote to boot Liverpool out?
Ah, I can dream.
Anyone else almost disappointed by this? I'd love to see them fuck off and wait for the inevitable crawling back!
I am slightly disappointed, but not surprised. Didn't take Fenway long to show their hand did it, but it's hardly in Chelsea''s and Man Yoo's interests to let Liverpool earn more, and as said elsewhere the "turkeys" are unlikely to vote for Christmas either. So it won't happen. And it needs to because football needs to implode and get back to being a sport first and a business second.
If they fecked off an got their euro super league, what chance would Liverpool have of winning it? They'd be about 10th every season behind the big Spanish 2, Man Yoo, Chelsea, Citeh, a couple of trillionaire backed super clubs from the former Soviet Union, probably Bayern and one or two of the Italian giants. They could change their name to "EuroBolton". And I can't see the likes of Sporting and Porto swapping domestic dominance to become a "EuroMaritimo" either.
EffDee I find your posts a bit strange as you seem to be against the greed, yet you talk about still having an attractive product to sell, and seem disappointed RL isn't exploiting asian markets ruthlessly. Fuck the Asian and international markets, bollocks to having a product, I want my sport back.
-
EffDee I find your posts a bit strange as you seem to be against the greed, yet you talk about still having an attractive product to sell, and seem disappointed RL isn't exploiting asian markets ruthlessly. Fuck the Asian and international markets, bollocks to having a product, I want my sport back.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent (and I don't think I used the word "ruthlessly"): I find the greed stomach-churning but that does not obviate my desire for AVFC to present itself to football-watchers in the strongest possible light. We have a heritage and a "story" that Asian fans could find interesting and attractive so why not going and tell people about it.
So, I think I'm trying to be realistic.
I would certainly not recommend doing nothing: we need to keep leveraging what assets we have otherwise we'll get overtaken and drop down the league.
At the moment we seem to be surrendering to the £££ onslaught without a fight ... the worst of all worlds.
-
I see that Effdee, and the rich get richer.
It happens, we just have to deal with it.
-
EffDee I find your posts a bit strange as you seem to be against the greed, yet you talk about still having an attractive product to sell, and seem disappointed RL isn't exploiting asian markets ruthlessly. Fuck the Asian and international markets, bollocks to having a product, I want my sport back.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent (and I don't think I used the word "ruthlessly"): I find the greed stomach-churning but that does not obviate my desire for AVFC to present itself to football-watchers in the strongest possible light. We have a heritage and a "story" that Asian fans could find interesting and attractive so why not going and tell people about it.
So, I think I'm trying to be realistic.
I would certainly not recommend doing nothing: we need to keep leveraging what assets we have otherwise we'll get overtaken and drop down the league.
At the moment we seem to be surrendering to the £££ onslaught without a fight ... the worst of all worlds.
But if we could get back to treating it as a sport first. or at least share out any TV money across all 92 league clubs fairly, so that everyone has a chance of competing, there should be no need to talk about products and brands, or to give a toss about who asians are interested in watching. Frankly I doubt the average proper English football fan gives a rat's arse about who some dickheads in Kuala Lumpar or Bangkok want to watch, they just want a competitive league where they have at least an outside chance of bothering the trophy cabinet. Maybe you are being realistic, and I'm overly idealistic, but we had it once before the money men got involved. I just think there is a possibility for the also ran clubs to get together and grab the game back from the money men and tell the greedier clubs to do one. Let them pander to Sky and the Asian market and let us have a proper league for English fans. There won't be as much money swilling around but it shouldn't make much difference except to players and agents whose pockets it mostly ends up in anyway.
-
EffDee I find your posts a bit strange as you seem to be against the greed, yet you talk about still having an attractive product to sell, and seem disappointed RL isn't exploiting asian markets ruthlessly. Fuck the Asian and international markets, bollocks to having a product, I want my sport back.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent (and I don't think I used the word "ruthlessly"): I find the greed stomach-churning but that does not obviate my desire for AVFC to present itself to football-watchers in the strongest possible light. We have a heritage and a "story" that Asian fans could find interesting and attractive so why not going and tell people about it.
So, I think I'm trying to be realistic.
I would certainly not recommend doing nothing: we need to keep leveraging what assets we have otherwise we'll get overtaken and drop down the league.
At the moment we seem to be surrendering to the £££ onslaught without a fight ... the worst of all worlds.
But if we could get back to treating it as a sport first. or at least share out any TV money across all 92 league clubs fairly, so that everyone has a chance of competing, there should be no need to talk about products and brands, or to give a toss about who asians are interested in watching. Frankly I doubt the average proper English football fan gives a rat's arse about who some dickheads in Kuala Lumpar or Bangkok want to watch, they just want a competitive league where they have at least an outside chance of bothering the trophy cabinet. Maybe you are being realistic, and I'm overly idealistic, but we had it once before the money men got involved. I just think there is a possibility for the also ran clubs to get together and grab the game back from the money men and tell the greedier clubs to do one. Let them pander to Sky and the Asian market and let us have a proper league for English fans. There won't be as much money swilling around but it shouldn't make much difference except to players and agents whose pockets it mostly ends up in anyway.
What he said - It takes balls to take on the money men and the powers that be - but I would love to see a breakaway League spurning the likes of Citeh, Manure, Chelski, et al
-
We have a heritage and a "story" that Asian fans could find interesting and attractive so why not going and tell people about it.
They're not interested in football heritage and stories in Asia, all they care about is who wins the most.
-
EffDee I find your posts a bit strange as you seem to be against the greed, yet you talk about still having an attractive product to sell, and seem disappointed RL isn't exploiting asian markets ruthlessly. Fuck the Asian and international markets, bollocks to having a product, I want my sport back.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent (and I don't think I used the word "ruthlessly"): I find the greed stomach-churning but that does not obviate my desire for AVFC to present itself to football-watchers in the strongest possible light. We have a heritage and a "story" that Asian fans could find interesting and attractive so why not going and tell people about it.
So, I think I'm trying to be realistic.
I would certainly not recommend doing nothing: we need to keep leveraging what assets we have otherwise we'll get overtaken and drop down the league.
At the moment we seem to be surrendering to the £££ onslaught without a fight ... the worst of all worlds.
But if we could get back to treating it as a sport first. or at least share out any TV money across all 92 league clubs fairly, so that everyone has a chance of competing, there should be no need to talk about products and brands, or to give a toss about who asians are interested in watching. Frankly I doubt the average proper English football fan gives a rat's arse about who some dickheads in Kuala Lumpar or Bangkok want to watch, they just want a competitive league where they have at least an outside chance of bothering the trophy cabinet. Maybe you are being realistic, and I'm overly idealistic, but we had it once before the money men got involved. I just think there is a possibility for the also ran clubs to get together and grab the game back from the money men and tell the greedier clubs to do one. Let them pander to Sky and the Asian market and let us have a proper league for English fans. There won't be as much money swilling around but it shouldn't make much difference except to players and agents whose pockets it mostly ends up in anyway.
What he said - It takes balls to take on the money men and the powers that be - but I would love to see a breakaway League spurning the likes of Citeh, Manure, Chelski, et al
I don't disagree but isn't the genie out of the bottle now? - are you not hankering after an unfulfillable dream born from the experience of yesteryear?
And what about all those people here and in the larger Villa family that 'lose it' every time we drop points (I refer you to one or two unrealistic posters on yesterday's match thread as an a example).
-
I have no problem with them negotiating their own overseas rights but what i don't understand is how exactly they get away with them having all the money themselves. Surely if they show Liverpool vs Villa then the fact two teams have turned up means we get some money for providing the opposition? I'm pretty sure if any club took it to the European courts they'd see it the same way. Now if they want to show games of them playing their reserves or the Mumbia XI then fair enough. Failing that maybe they could digitally erase our players so you can only see the team with the rights - a bit like yesterday's game but more high-tech
-
I have no problem with them negotiating their own overseas rights but what i don't understand is how exactly they get away with them having all the money themselves. Surely if they show Liverpool vs Villa then the fact two teams have turned up means we get some money for providing the opposition? I'm pretty sure if any club took it to the European courts they'd see it the same way. Now if they want to show games of them playing their reserves or the Mumbia XI then fair enough. Failing that maybe they could digitally erase our players so you can only see the team with the rights - a bit like yesterday's game but more high-tech
Interesting comment. If, say, Liverpool were to sell the rights to screen Liverpool matches, the opposition team could say we do not give you permission to show us unless you pay us £xxxxxxx, or more interestingly, we will not allow you to televise the game at all as we are part of the PL brokered deal to sell the rights of PL matches. If enough teams stood together, the top teams would have limited games to sell.
-
As in the early 1990's the 'top five' will breakaway and as a start negotiate a overseas television deal. As these games are the 'cherry in the pie' they will be paid a fortune....
-
As in the early 1990's the 'top five' will breakaway and as a start negotiate a overseas television deal. As these games are the 'cherry in the pie' they will be paid a fortune....
The only way it is going to happen is if the PL allow it to happen. The PL still hold all the cards if they want to forcefully play them. Collectively, the remainder of the clubs are a strong unit.
5 clubs screening only games between themselves is only 5% of all matches in a season. If the PL were to schedule their matches so that 4 of the teams were playing each other at the same time, the interest from TV companies would be reduced as it is live games that draw the audience. Also, if they were to say, sorry your matches are at 3pm on a Saturday, this could throw a further spanner in the works.
People say that they would pull out of the league and form a European league. For a European league to work it would probably only consist of 16 teams and there would be a lot of competition for places from all over Europe. This would possibly mean only 2 or 3 at most would be involved. For the teams involved it would be great for the supporters as a novelty but who is going to be able to afford to follow their team away from home on a regular basis. It will end up with matches played infront of home supporters only with the away team's supporters watching it on TV. Can you see, say, Man Utd supporters putting up with this for long.
-
As in the early 1990's the 'top five' will breakaway and as a start negotiate a overseas television deal. As these games are the 'cherry in the pie' they will be paid a fortune....
The only way it is going to happen is if the PL allow it to happen. The PL still hold all the cards if they want to forcefully play them. Collectively, the remainder of the clubs are a strong unit.
5 clubs screening only games between themselves is only 5% of all matches in a season. If the PL were to schedule their matches so that 4 of the teams were playing each other at the same time, the interest from TV companies would be reduced as it is live games that draw the audience. Also, if they were to say, sorry your matches are at 3pm on a Saturday, this could throw a further spanner in the works.
People say that they would pull out of the league and form a European league. For a European league to work it would probably only consist of 16 teams and there would be a lot of competition for places from all over Europe. This would possibly mean only 2 or 3 at most would be involved. For the teams involved it would be great for the supporters as a novelty but who is going to be able to afford to follow their team away from home on a regular basis. It will end up with matches played infront of home supporters only with the away team's supporters watching it on TV. Can you see, say, Man Utd supporters putting up with this for long.
What, Man United supporters watching on TV? I think they'll cope.
-
I have no problem with them negotiating their own overseas rights but what i don't understand is how exactly they get away with them having all the money themselves. Surely if they show Liverpool vs Villa then the fact two teams have turned up means we get some money for providing the opposition? I'm pretty sure if any club took it to the European courts they'd see it the same way. Now if they want to show games of them playing their reserves or the Mumbia XI then fair enough. Failing that maybe they could digitally erase our players so you can only see the team with the rights - a bit like yesterday's game but more high-tech
Interesting comment. If, say, Liverpool were to sell the rights to screen Liverpool matches, the opposition team could say we do not give you permission to show us unless you pay us £xxxxxxx, or more interestingly, we will not allow you to televise the game at all as we are part of the PL brokered deal to sell the rights of PL matches. If enough teams stood together, the top teams would have limited games to sell.
Presumably, everyone would have the broadcast rights to their 19 home matches.
-
Having had time to think about this since the news broke that Liverpool were dribbling at the thought of their own deal, its quite obvious that the Liverpool's of this world need the Bolton's more than the Bolton's need the Liverpool's.
All twenty clubs are a part of this league, and so if the "English Premier League" is being sold abroad then all twenty members deserve an equal share of the spoils.
That said, I wouldn't be upset if Liverpool and the other four or five teams they still somehow think they are equal to decided to go off and make their own league. People would soon become bored with playing each other six times a season, meanwhile the Bolton's of this world (including our own club) would at least have a more competitive league to play in. Take out Manchester's United and City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and I wouldn't be able to say who the next best team is. Tottenham, perhaps, but not a racing certainty like at the moment.
-
As in the early 1990's the 'top five' will breakaway and as a start negotiate a overseas television deal. As these games are the 'cherry in the pie' they will be paid a fortune....
The only way it is going to happen is if the PL allow it to happen. The PL still hold all the cards if they want to forcefully play them. Collectively, the remainder of the clubs are a strong unit.
5 clubs screening only games between themselves is only 5% of all matches in a season. If the PL were to schedule their matches so that 4 of the teams were playing each other at the same time, the interest from TV companies would be reduced as it is live games that draw the audience. Also, if they were to say, sorry your matches are at 3pm on a Saturday, this could throw a further spanner in the works.
People say that they would pull out of the league and form a European league. For a European league to work it would probably only consist of 16 teams and there would be a lot of competition for places from all over Europe. This would possibly mean only 2 or 3 at most would be involved. For the teams involved it would be great for the supporters as a novelty but who is going to be able to afford to follow their team away from home on a regular basis. It will end up with matches played infront of home supporters only with the away team's supporters watching it on TV. Can you see, say, Man Utd supporters putting up with this for long.
What, Man United supporters watching on TV? I think they'll cope.
We talk about the heart being ripped out of the game now. When it starts to affect the hardcore Man Utd fans that actually go to away games, they will react to it like we are now. It is one thing to do it by choice but another if something is taken away from you.
-
Frankly, whilst this proposal may be emanating from Anfield, you can bet that it's been discussed in the boardrooms of Old Trafford, The Emirates and Stamford Bridge. Probably at Spurs and in Abu Dhabi, too. (They'll have no doubt also discussed at Upton Park, but that lot are forever delusional).
When - not if - it happens, it'll be the logical conclusion of the avarice of the top clubs, that started the day when they decided not to share home gate receipts with the visiting team.
Frankly, I'd love all the aforementioned to f*ck off and form some pan-European Super League with added 39th game. It would be great to watch Villa in a league competition when we'd be one of a dozen clubs in with a shout of winning it, even if we'd still probably come seventh. And when, in the fullness of time, the population of Malaysia are fed up with it and the whole sorry experiment fails, of course Liverpool etc can come back. I'm sure that the NW Counties would welcome them with open arms.
-
As in the early 1990's the 'top five' will breakaway and as a start negotiate a overseas television deal. As these games are the 'cherry in the pie' they will be paid a fortune....
The only way it is going to happen is if the PL allow it to happen. The PL still hold all the cards if they want to forcefully play them. Collectively, the remainder of the clubs are a strong unit.
5 clubs screening only games between themselves is only 5% of all matches in a season. If the PL were to schedule their matches so that 4 of the teams were playing each other at the same time, the interest from TV companies would be reduced as it is live games that draw the audience. Also, if they were to say, sorry your matches are at 3pm on a Saturday, this could throw a further spanner in the works.
People say that they would pull out of the league and form a European league. For a European league to work it would probably only consist of 16 teams and there would be a lot of competition for places from all over Europe. This would possibly mean only 2 or 3 at most would be involved. For the teams involved it would be great for the supporters as a novelty but who is going to be able to afford to follow their team away from home on a regular basis. It will end up with matches played infront of home supporters only with the away team's supporters watching it on TV. Can you see, say, Man Utd supporters putting up with this for long.
What, Man United supporters watching on TV? I think they'll cope.
We talk about the heart being ripped out of the game now. When it starts to affect the hardcore Man Utd fans that actually go to away games, they will react to it like we are now. It is one thing to do it by choice but another if something is taken away from you.
The hardcore United supporters are vastly outnumbered by the Bangkok et al Reds, who aren't interested in fairness or competition; they just want to watch United win every game on TV. Matchgoing supporters are the least important part of the marketing strategy.
-
The hardcore United supporters are vastly outnumbered by the Bangkok et al Reds, who aren't interested in fairness or competition; they just want to watch United win every game on TV. Matchgoing supporters are the least important part of the marketing strategy.
Matchday revenue accounts for 35% of Man U's income, only slightly behind their TV income, and more than their commercial income. One of the reason's they're so successful is that they've increased ALL of their revenue streams hugely. In fact, they are less less reliant on TV money than most other teams in the Premier League.
-
The hardcore United supporters are vastly outnumbered by the Bangkok et al Reds, who aren't interested in fairness or competition; they just want to watch United win every game on TV. Matchgoing supporters are the least important part of the marketing strategy.
Matchday revenue accounts for 35% of Man U's income, only slightly behind their TV income, and more than their commercial income. One of the reason's they're so successful is that they've increased ALL of their revenue streams hugely. In fact, they are less less reliant on TV money than most other teams in the Premier League.
Plenty of room for improvement then.
-
Where's that Liverpool fan that used to post on here when you need an alternative view?
Could be me?
Ayre's comments were calculated. There was a reason why he stuck his head above the parapit. In my opinion, it's about FFP.
Liverpool have lost their champions league place to clubs with anti-competitive business models that would now be deemed in breach of UEFA's FFP regulations. Unless FFP is enforced, the only way Liverpool can compete is to be anti-competitive themselves.
One way of doing that might be through an independent TV deal. I don't believe Ian Ayre or anybody else at Liverpool wants that but it's a timely reminder to the Premier League and to UEFA that if it was an issue they chose to force, they would have a case.
Another way might be to announce a benchmark-setting stadium naming-rights deal that would effectively allow Liverpool to circumvent FFP just as Manchester City have. If UEFA need an incentive to ratify such a deal and the Premier League need an incentive to support it, Ayre might have just given them one.
-
In fairness redman I can see people at Liverpool really wanting their own TV deal. Aren't they on record saying how they resent sharing the money red sox make with smaller teams in baseball?
-
In fairness redman I can see people at Liverpool really wanting their own TV deal. Aren't they on record saying how they resent sharing the money red sox make with smaller teams in baseball?
I haven't heard anything about that.
All things being equal, I believe FSG would want to go it alone but not at the expense of the competition. They don't seem to be cold-blooded capitalists like the last lot. I'm not saying they don't want a return on their investment because they do. But they want to earn that return by competing fairly and succeeding.
-
Redman,
From a personal perspective, as a liverpool fan, are you for or against the idea?
I suppose I should also say as a seemingly fair minded football fan too.
What is the general consensus amongst the other Liverpool fans? Do their views mirror what we are saying, or are we just bitter?
-
There was a reason why he stuck his head above the parapit. In my opinion, it's about FFP.
I disagree. Ayres, in my view, was articulating the misguided hopes of a Liverpool Board with no knowledge of Europe, England or football and only one UK domicile Director, over promoted as a placeman, and I wonder who that is?
Liverpool are deluded. Individual rights are profitable to the very elite- those winning things, and competing at the highest level. Liverpool have not won the title for two decades, and nothing for five years. That is not what your fan in a hut in Sierra Leone or a bar in Kuala Lumpar wants to be part of. Exactly how many subscriptions are there to LFC TV (loss making) from the Far East?
FFP does not help Liverpool. Man U/City, Arsenal and Chelsea will do at least as well (Mansour will get the chance to pay $1bn for Abu Dhabi’s TV rights). Proportionate to their peers it gives them no competitive advantage. It may generate extra revenue giving FSG a bigger profit on sale – but that’s about it.
In time, the top clubs will squeeze more money out of their global appeal. Whether Liverpool will be one of those clubs is seriously open to doubt. Short term the other won’t vote for it, longer term we will probably see the very best European Clubs playing more games against a developing South American game (Just watch Brazil go in the next ten years) and probably franchised teams in the likes of New York, Sydney, Cairo, Bejing etc.
The chances of Villa being part of this road show are negligible, the chances of a sub-strata competition taking in the likes of Celtic/Rangers, Ajax/Feyenoord, Porto etc including the bunch under the the PL Top Four are quite high.