Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: warleyboy on August 28, 2015, 02:04:29 AM
-
Since the o'neil era, we have not come close to breaking into the top four.
Is there any chance over the coming seasons we could do it.
Could Tim be the man to bring constant trophies and top four finishes or is it just a land of make believe.
Do we need a sugar daddy who can just plough money into the club, for the hell of it, or can it be done, through clever buys, bringing players on through good coaching etc.
I know o'neil caused a hell of a mess, and why it has been a miserable few years, but we were so close to breaking into the elite four.
Everybody started to believe in our great team.
And then suddenly, thump, straight down to earth.
I cannot see any hope over the horizon as of yet or in the not to distant future.
-
No chance unless we become some kind of play thing for one of the mega rich. Theres no reason why we can't compete for a Europa League place but without continued high level investment season after season our potential success is very much limited.
You only have to look at Liverpool as an example of a team that has spent ridiculous amounts but still fails to buy success or Champions League qualification...no doubt they have quality players in their squad but they lack the strength in depth and consistency of the current top 4.
Its nice to dream that we could develop a squad full of talented young players and hope that one or more of the big spenders have a poor season, but the reality is that the best of the bunch would be snapped up by the money giants and the process starts over again.
Lets also not forget that Europa League qualification in its current format is actually a drain on resources and league performances suffer as a direct consequence...its almost as if its been intentionally designed to prevent teams from taking the next step to progress particularly for PL teams where the difference between success and failure is marginal for those teams competing for the same places (but that would be just cynical!).
-
Will we ever make the big four ?
Nope. Next....
-
no because as soon as we have players any where near capable of playing at that level they will be taken off our hands.
-
This is a depressing thread.
-
Will we ever make 5th - 7th
-
It is doable but you need serious investment like Man City plus brilliant manager and excellent youth production line and 25,000 extra stadium capacity.
-
Maybe we could fluke it for a season but its very unlikely long term. Its all about money and the rich getting richer. Unless we get a stupidly wealthy owner then our ambitions need to be lower. Sadly.
-
If this European Super League ever happens then the Prem would lose Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man C and more than likely Liverpool.
Yes, the Premier League would be diluted but at the same time would become more competitive.
-
Mid table and a Cup win would do me. 'Ever' is a long time so I'd presume we will one day but not sure I'll be alive to see it or all the reasons above.
Modern football is very shit.
-
The league is ossifying; until there is some sort of black swan event that shakes the whole league up we will not be finishing in the top four. The money in the league also means that there will be no European Super League either. The Premiership is more popular than Champions League.
-
If this European Super League ever happens then the Prem would lose Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man C and more than likely Liverpool.
I'd love to see this happen but the way it's all set up with Premier League and Champions League these clubs can have their cake and eat it financially.
-
The truth of the matter is none of us know what the league will look in 10-20 years so maybe some big change will have happened to the league or us to make us compete. Short to medium term there is zero prospect of it happening. That's why the cup final was so important. That was it. That was our chance to reach the pinnacle of what we're currently capable of. And we were shit. (Sorry for bringing it up again)
-
No. financial fair play is the wolf in sheeps clothing. Rather than working to protect the future of football, those clubs who had a mega rich owner and spent well beyond their means for years e.g. Chelsea and Man City are now established clubs with huge incomes. The drawbridge has been pulled up now, the cozy club members are safe. The rules now prevent the front loaded spending that would be needed to gate crash the top 4 and means our role is to be cannon fodder for them as well as to provide the odd star player to sit on their bench.
Maybe pessimistic but I fear true.
-
There is a saying in Buddhism that "this to will change" so never say never but under the currrent situation of 4 very powerful clubs and the rest feeding on scraps then no - we won't.
Should we see a collapse in revenue for the League then maybe with a level playing field relatively well supported and financially sound clubs like us stand a chance
-
I think it's highly unlikely, because the way we'd have to do it would be gradual development and it's virtually impossible to get to that level in that way nowadays. Even if we had one brilliant season where we made the top 4 it's hard to see how it would be sustained. It would be like when Liverpool got back in the top 4, then Man Utd spent an absolute fortune to jump ahead of them in the queue again. In Liverpool's case as well, they had recently been regular top 4 finishers.
-
It's not impossible. You could have asked the same question of ManU, Chelsea,Arsenal and ManCity a hundred years ago and it would have seemed a very fanciful suggestion.
How long it takes and what needs to change is another matter, The current pecking order, which probably has as much to do with TV rights as anything, is geared towards the status quo being preserved. It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them.
-
I fucking hate modern football.
-
The question is can anyone other than the current cabal make the top 4 again without the intervention of mega rich owner. I'd argue not because of the way he economics are rigged these days.
-
No
-
It's not impossible. You could have asked the same question of ManU, Chelsea,Arsenal and ManCity a hundred years ago and it would have seemed a very fanciful suggestion.
How long it takes and what needs to change is another matter, The current pecking order, which probably has as much to do with TV rights as anything, is geared towards the status quo being preserved. It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them.
What difference would BT make? Their current megabucks deal for the Champions League is perpetuating the status quo.
-
Swansea are a real test case this season, I think they play as good a football as the top 4 without the cavernous bottomless bank vaults and favouritism of referees and PL officials . If they cant brake the top 4 this year then nobody will .
-
It's not that long ago that people asked if anyone other than Liverpool would win, then it was ManU, then Chelsea joined the club, now it's ManC, Arse have been there or thereabouts for ages.
Anything is possible, over the last 40 years, ten different clubs have won the league. Villa, Forest, Everton, Liverpool, Blackburn, Leeds, Arsenal, Man U, Man C, and Chelsea.
It feels like nobody will win it other than last year's top 4 but anything could happen.
-
Without financial doping, it'd have to be a perfect storm of good fortune (in-game and health-wise), a top-quality manager with both tactical flexibility and man management, and a bunch of previously-unheralded players (academy players, previously average players, and new signings) coming into their own or having career seasons all at the same time. The team would get picked apart very quickly afterwards of course but I think it's theoretically possible for a team to make that jump from 10th to 4th...albeit highly, highly unlikely
-
The number of different teams winning the league has certainly reduced over the decades, plus there haven't been any new/unexpected winners since Blackburn and Leeds in the early 90s.
2011+: 3
2000s: 3
1990s: 4
1980s: 4
1970s: 5
1960s : 7
1950s: 6
I also wonder if getting into the top 4 is actually harder than moving from a regular top (sky) 4 position to winning the league.
-
nope. Football is broken.
-
Not without someone's wealth to the tune of about half a billion plus.
-
Yes. If we get relegated I have every confidence we will be in the top four in the following season!
-
Yes.
In the near future the twenty PL clubs will be the twenty richest clubs in the world, giving them the ability to buy virtually any player in the world, the best coaches, administrators, facilities - everything. The domestic TV rights are split more fairly than most leagues, the overseas rights are split equally between all twenty clubs. The price the U.S. pays has just doubled, China gets it for free - for now.
If PL TV income continues on its current trajectory it will make all other income streams irrelevant. Then it will be all about management, scouting, coaching etc.
-
It's not that long ago that people asked if anyone other than Liverpool would win, then it was ManU, then Chelsea joined the club, now it's ManC, Arse have been there or thereabouts for ages.
Anything is possible, over the last 40 years, ten different clubs have won the league. Villa, Forest, Everton, Liverpool, Blackburn, Leeds, Arsenal, Man U, Man C, and Chelsea.
It feels like nobody will win it other than last year's top 4 but anything could happen.
Yes but over the last 40 years the economics of the game has changed massively. A combination of the Prem boom and whoring the brand out worldwide plus the way the CL has been structured means you've got millions and millions of people supporting the same few clubs and these clubs have been able to get bigger and bigger without actually winning anything (Arsenal).
I really wanted Southampton to make the top four to show it could be done without spending ridiculous amounts of money. It can't be done though, and all that happened is their best players got picked off by richer, more powerful clubs. I remember someone on here said everyone from 7th down just exists as a feeder club to the Sky 6 and it's bang on.
It is next to impossible to break into this cartel of superclubs unless you have a spare billion quid in your back pocket. It's a closed shop.
-
No, as the amount of money being pumped in by bored billionaires is ruining the game. I had a row yesterday with a Chelsea fan who says that the money that $KY Chavski and Citeh pump into the clubs is good for the game. He could not see how it makes the national teams and the game in general poorer for anyone outside the top four.
His argument was ask any of the top clubs - yes he has a very short memory, it started in 2003 - and they will agree that it has improved the game. What about the other 88? to which he had no response other than I knew nothing about football.
Until idiots like this become bored or the billionaires find another plaything, we have no hope of competing on a sustainable level.
Or
UEFA/FIFA put a wage cap/squad value cap on players, but we can but dream.
-
It depends what you mean by "make the top four".
I think the best we can hope for is a Tottenham style top four thing, ie get there one year, but not with any consistency. Not unless we get taken over by someone with huge amounts of money and the brains to get around the FFP rules.
I honestly think that you can split the Premier League up into five groups of clubs. There are the "genuine title contenders", the "CL most year" clubs, the "don't get relegated" ones and the "fuck me, we're in the top flight!" recently promoted ones.
The fifth group is made up of clubs who, historically, have challenged for things, have won stuff in living memory, but now have absolutely zero chance. The two best examples of this type of club are us and Everton. Add in maybe Newcastle.
I honestly Villa and Everton are the two clubs which have suffered most from the recent (10-20 years) reshaping of football. Both clubs which won the domestic title in relatively recent memory (and European trophies too), but now have zero chance, absolutely zero of winning the league.
-
Yes.
The game and hierarchy has changed before. It will change again. Our time will come......again.
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
-
If this European Super League ever happens then the Prem would lose Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Man C and more than likely Liverpool.
Yes, the Premier League would be diluted but at the same time would become more competitive.
This - Ive been saying this for some time.
I detest the current PL setup. I care more about the competitveness than the quality of the football
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
I'd like us to lose at least 2 - but it will never happen - UEFA will fix it
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
We would finish 4th the year after. Or I would laugh at the team who has recently spent over £100m+ to finish 4th.
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
I'd like us to lose at least 2 - but it will never happen - UEFA will fix it
I think UEFA's fixing operations will be aimed at helping European clubs compete with their much richer English rivals. Finishing bottom of the PL rakes in more TV income than winning the German league.
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
I'd like us to lose at least 2 - but it will never happen - UEFA will fix it
I think UEFA's fixing operations will be aimed at helping European clubs compete with their much richer English rivals. Finishing bottom of the PL rakes in more TV income than winning the German league.
Quite. Although to be completely accurate (and to make it even more eye-opening) it rakes in higher prize money - most of which is made up of TV income.
So Cardiff picked up £62m for finishing bottom of the Premier League a couple of years ago, whereas Bayern Munich picked up £30m for winning the Bundesliga.
After last season, Burnley are now a bigger club financially speaking than Ajax.
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if England lost the 4th Champions League place.
The Champions League makes the situation worse.It gives a huge financial boost to the clubs who are already the richest and most successful.
Change is needed for other clubs to have a realistic chance of breaking the boring monopoly.
A European Super League ?
Amalgamate the Europa League and Champions League and make it a Cup knock out competition .
The FA cup winners or finalists get the last spot or just the winners and then they are not allowed to enter for 4 or 5 years.
The Champions League is also becoming predictable .What chance now have previous winners from Holland,Scotland,Portugal and Rumania ?
-
I gotta have hope, and although I feel it requires some rich Arab prince to spend his pocket money on us, the likes of Swansea, Southampton have to give us hope.
The big teams do not tend to roll clubs over anymore, only Man city seem to be on another level at this moment in time.
Look at the recent tesco stripes vs Chelski game, very fortunate to win that, but the baggies deserved something out of it and they didn't look out of sorts.
I didn't feel we deserved to lose to yanited, it was close, even with our new team.
So is the money from telly rights levelling out the playing field a little.
-
It depends what you mean by "make the top four".
I think the best we can hope for is a Tottenham style top four thing, ie get there one year, but not with any consistency. Not unless we get taken over by someone with huge amounts of money and the brains to get around the FFP rules.
I honestly think that you can split the Premier League up into five groups of clubs. There are the "genuine title contenders", the "CL most year" clubs, the "don't get relegated" ones and the "fuck me, we're in the top flight!" recently promoted ones.
The fifth group is made up of clubs who, historically, have challenged for things, have won stuff in living memory, but now have absolutely zero chance. The two best examples of this type of club are us and Everton. Add in maybe Newcastle.
I honestly Villa and Everton are the two clubs which have suffered most from the recent (10-20 years) reshaping of football. Both clubs which won the domestic title in relatively recent memory (and European trophies too), but now have zero chance, absolutely zero of winning the league.
Yes possibly the greatest indication of what's gone wrong in football is that Aston Villa and Everton, who have been in the top division all of the last couple of decades, have as much chance of winning the Premier League title as Kidderminster, Wrexham, Grimbsy etc.
-
I gotta have hope, and although I feel it requires some rich Arab prince to spend his pocket money on us, the likes of Swansea, Southampton have to give us hope.
The big teams do not tend to roll clubs over anymore, only Man city seem to be on another level at this moment in time.
Look at the recent tesco stripes vs Chelski game, very fortunate to win that, but the baggies deserved something out of it and they didn't look out of sorts.
I didn't feel we deserved to lose to yanited, it was close, even with our new team.
So is the money from telly rights levelling out the playing field a little.
I think it is. I think the main reason our clubs are crap in the Champions League is because they can't rest players in the league these days.
Other evidence is that PL clubs are very reluctant to sell their best players now because they don't need the money. Players have to agitate for moves now or rely on the manipulation of contracts/release clauses.
-
I gotta have hope, and although I feel it requires some rich Arab prince to spend his pocket money on us, the likes of Swansea, Southampton have to give us hope.
The big teams do not tend to roll clubs over anymore, only Man city seem to be on another level at this moment in time.
Look at the recent tesco stripes vs Chelski game, very fortunate to win that, but the baggies deserved something out of it and they didn't look out of sorts.
I didn't feel we deserved to lose to yanited, it was close, even with our new team.
So is the money from telly rights levelling out the playing field a little.
How many years have we been saying that we should have gotten something out of the Yanited game.
The stripey filth couldn't press the advantage when Terry got sent off.
Southampton and Swansea, yes give us hope but have no way of breaking the top 4 for a sustainable amount of time.
The gulf between 6th and 4th is enormous and the void will only get bigger so long as $KY have a wankfest every time one of them play.
-
Yes possibly the greatest indication of what's gone wrong in football is that Aston Villa and Everton, who have been in the top division all of the last couple of decades, have as much chance of winning the Premier League title as Kidderminster, Wrexham, Grimbsy etc.
Loyal to the old ways and punished by the Premier League for not buying-in to the company line soon enough. I dare say that Lerner's acquisition of the club probably didn't fit the league's plan either.
-
It's not impossible. You could have asked the same question of ManU, Chelsea,Arsenal and ManCity a hundred years ago and it would have seemed a very fanciful suggestion.
How long it takes and what needs to change is another matter, The current pecking order, which probably has as much to do with TV rights as anything, is geared towards the status quo being preserved. It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them.
How exactly is this "one of them"
a) No one tv broadcaster can have all of the rights now so Sky, provided they bid, will always have some TV
b) If BT were to outbid Sky and become the dominant force then they would have had to have paid even more than the recent TV deal - i.e. it would solidify further the current pecking order, rather than anything else.
To blame the shortcomings of football on Sky is short-sighted, IMO. The real culprits are Uefa/Fifa and the Premier League.
The governing bodies - for establishing a "members club" in the Champions League which (given the group stage nature and resulting multiple entrants from each of the major leagues) virtually ensures the same clubs are in it each year, whilst developing a second tier European League that is not financially rewarding enough for teams to take it seriously and actually hinders those who enter it given the rigours of Thursday football and early season starts. The FFP rules brought in that have locked teams into the status quo, rather than generate an even playing field.
The Premier League - for developing (and all credit to them) such a marketable product with such wide appeal and then being allowed carte blanche on developing a bidding process that only benefits themselves.
-
The most hopeful thing I can come up with is to remind everyone that "football is a funny old game".
-
I dare say that Lerner's acquisition of the club probably didn't fit the league's plan either.
I dare say that they probably weren't bothered too much either way.
-
It's not impossible. You could have asked the same question of ManU, Chelsea,Arsenal and ManCity a hundred years ago and it would have seemed a very fanciful suggestion.
How long it takes and what needs to change is another matter, The current pecking order, which probably has as much to do with TV rights as anything, is geared towards the status quo being preserved. It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them.
How exactly is this "one of them"
a) No one tv broadcaster can have all of the rights now so Sky, provided they bid, will always have some TV
b) If BT were to outbid Sky and become the dominant force then they would have had to have paid even more than the recent TV deal - i.e. it would solidify further the current pecking order, rather than anything else.
To blame the shortcomings of football on Sky is short-sighted, IMO. The real culprits are Uefa/Fifa and the Premier League.
The governing bodies - for establishing a "members club" in the Champions League which (given the group stage nature and resulting multiple entrants from each of the major leagues) virtually ensures the same clubs are in it each year, whilst developing a second tier European League that is not financially rewarding enough for teams to take it seriously and actually hinders those who enter it given the rigours of Thursday football and early season starts. The FFP rules brought in that have locked teams into the status quo, rather than generate an even playing field.
The Premier League - for developing (and all credit to them) such a marketable product with such wide appeal and then being allowed carte blanche on developing a bidding process that only benefits themselves.
There is a posssibility/probability that Sky/BT will be 'kicked aside' by much bigger companies in future. And the bigger the broadcast income, the better it will be for competition. For illustration purposes: if each club gets a billion a year from PL broadcasters, then stadium size, CL income, sponsorship and rich owners become less and less relevant. PL clubs will have the world as their oyster for recruiting players and coaches who will be easier to retain, and all clubs will have equal training facilities and sports science staff.
-
It's not impossible. You could have asked the same question of ManU, Chelsea,Arsenal and ManCity a hundred years ago and it would have seemed a very fanciful suggestion.
How long it takes and what needs to change is another matter, The current pecking order, which probably has as much to do with TV rights as anything, is geared towards the status quo being preserved. It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them.
How exactly is this "one of them"
a) No one tv broadcaster can have all of the rights now so Sky, provided they bid, will always have some TV
b) If BT were to outbid Sky and become the dominant force then they would have had to have paid even more than the recent TV deal - i.e. it would solidify further the current pecking order, rather than anything else.
To blame the shortcomings of football on Sky is short-sighted, IMO. The real culprits are Uefa/Fifa and the Premier League.
The governing bodies - for establishing a "members club" in the Champions League which (given the group stage nature and resulting multiple entrants from each of the major leagues) virtually ensures the same clubs are in it each year, whilst developing a second tier European League that is not financially rewarding enough for teams to take it seriously and actually hinders those who enter it given the rigours of Thursday football and early season starts. The FFP rules brought in that have locked teams into the status quo, rather than generate an even playing field.
The Premier League - for developing (and all credit to them) such a marketable product with such wide appeal and then being allowed carte blanche on developing a bidding process that only benefits themselves.
There is a posssibility/probability that Sky/BT will be 'kicked aside' by much bigger companies in future. And the bigger the broadcast income, the better it will be for competition. For illustration purposes: if each club gets a billion a year from PL broadcasters, then stadium size, CL income, sponsorship and rich owners become less and less relevant. PL clubs will have the world as their oyster for recruiting players and coaches who will be easier to retain, and all clubs will have equal training facilities ans sports science staff.
And maybe they'll even cut ticket prices.
Sorry, I'm just getting silly now.
-
I'd like to think we could do what Arsenal have done wherein they established themselves without recourse to a sugar daddy or being a glory hunter driven marketing empire. However they were able to establish themselves firmly in the big 4 largely on the back of being consistently very good at the right time, when the CL first expanded, and thus having the advantage of several years of CL income when it made a massive difference. Those conditions will not be repeated. And isn't FFP an attempt to rule out even the Sugar Daddy option? Because of the global marketing focusing on the big 4 plus Liverpool, and to a lesser extent maybe Spurs, their income will always remain a cut above the rest. The best players will always gravitate towards the big names even if wages become more or less equal. I think the elite are firmly entrenched, are becoming stronger by the year, and are likely to remain so. Same goes for the pan-European picture. This was always the intention of the group of large and already wealthy clubs that started agitating for a larger slice of the TV pie back in the late 80s and early 90s. They've got what they wanted, but as someone said above, they've broken football in the process.
-
I don't think the intention of the Milan clubs, Juventus and Bayern Munich was ever to generate less TV income than Bournemouth.
Who would have predicted that a few years ago?*
*Me excluded.
-
There is a posssibility/probability that Sky/BT will be 'kicked aside' by much bigger companies in future. And the bigger the broadcast income, the better it will be for competition. For illustration purposes: if each club gets a billion a year from PL broadcasters, then stadium size, CL income, sponsorship and rich owners become less and less relevant. PL clubs will have the world as their oyster for recruiting players and coaches who will be easier to retain, and all clubs will have equal training facilities and sports science staff.
I can't see it Percy. Prize and TV money will still be skewed towards those finishing higher and on TV more often - most likely to be the already established 4-6 clubs. The best players will still want to play for those clubs that are winning things/most popular/most renowned. The bulk of marketing income will still go to the established clubs. The authorities will continue to support whatever suits the marketing needs - promotion of the big clubs. I don't think there will ever be anything like a reasonably level playing field again unless there is a paradigm shift of the focus of the game back to sporting values and away from business values. And that's about as likely as us winning the PL this year.
-
Not as things currently are.
-
Sorry but in my world we have always been the Big One.
-
I don't think the intention of the Milan clubs, Juventus and Bayern Munich was ever to generate less TV income than Bournemouth.
Who would have predicted that a few years ago?*
*Me excluded.
They have the bulk of the TV rights money in their own countries and almost unbroken membership of the CL club, plus massive marketing pull, which I'd guess puts them a fair way ahead of Bournemouth in the financial clout league. Those clubs did want this situation to point, but the next step should have been a full on European elite super league. I guess they are now somewhat taken aback to see quite how big a marketing and money behemoth the PL has become, and it seems it will put the mockers on that final stage. Serves them right.
-
There is a posssibility/probability that Sky/BT will be 'kicked aside' by much bigger companies in future. And the bigger the broadcast income, the better it will be for competition. For illustration purposes: if each club gets a billion a year from PL broadcasters, then stadium size, CL income, sponsorship and rich owners become less and less relevant. PL clubs will have the world as their oyster for recruiting players and coaches who will be easier to retain, and all clubs will have equal training facilities and sports science staff.
I can't see it Percy. Prize and TV money will still be skewed towards those finishing higher and on TV more often - most likely to be the already established 4-6 clubs. The best players will still want to play for those clubs that are winning things/most popular/most renowned. The bulk of marketing income will still go to the established clubs. The authorities will continue to support whatever suits the marketing needs - promotion of the big clubs. I don't think there will ever be anything like a reasonably level playing field again unless there is a paradigm shift of the focus of the game back to sporting values and away from business values. And that's about as likely as us winning the PL this year.
Only time will tell of course. The most important factor is that the majority of PL clubs are clever enough to enforce the continuation of collective bargaining, and maybe even use their numerical advantage to create fairer distribution of broadcast income. That the overseas rights continue to be distributed equally between all twenty clubs is vital. That will ensure that lots of the established or 'big club' advantages can be removed.
-
Agree on the collective sale of tv rights abroad. If that ever stopped, it'd be the end of football for me.
Not sure that the television money is going to take away the advantages that really count. Man City, for example, seem to be immune to any form of economic limitations.
-
Will we one of the very best sides in the country again any time soon?
Barring a change to the ownership situation, it would be impossible.
However, 15 + years ago, being 4th or even 3rd best didn't mean a whole pile.
There was talk of the CL being rejigged to include the top 8 sides in England a few years back, and that is something that may be revisited. If that were to occur, we might have some outside change of restoring a bit of prestige.
It's shite, on one level. The European Cup should be about the champions of their respective countries. But that ship sailed in 1993. Revenue is what it is ultimately all about, and Hamburg versus Aston Villa in a rejigged CL would hold more appeal than MK Zillina against Bate Borisov to the powers that be.
-
NO.
-
We can't compete money-wise, so the only chance is to build, develop and KEEP a squad over time. That's what we're trying to do, however we have to start again every summer because rich clubs like to take players as a way of hamstringing poorer clubs, and modern footballers and their horrible agents are as thick and greedy as Donald Trump.
Ridiculous contracts skewed towards the club (as much as they're skewed towards the players now), a general wage-cap or some sort of draft-system are the only ways I can think of which would enable us (or any of a dozen other teams) to compete. The Premiere League is an astonishingly successful disgrace to sport!
-
I don't think the intention of the Milan clubs, Juventus and Bayern Munich was ever to generate less TV income than Bournemouth.
Who would have predicted that a few years ago?*
*Me excluded.
They have the bulk of the TV rights money in their own countries and almost unbroken membership of the CL club, plus massive marketing pull, which I'd guess puts them a fair way ahead of Bournemouth in the financial clout league. Those clubs did want this situation to point, but the next step should have been a full on European elite super league. I guess they are now somewhat taken aback to see quite how big a marketing and money behemoth the PL has become, and it seems it will put the mockers on that final stage. Serves them right.
Indeed. Like a lot of people on here, they never dreamed that the PL would become far more lucrative than their stitched-up Champions League snooze fest. I'd wager that even the plastic cartel of English clubs never saw that coming.
This could yet turn UEFA into an ally in the cause of limiting the power of the richest English clubs. FFP was an attempt at this, expect them to come up with something else when it doesn't work.
-
They should impose a flat redistributive tax on income and spending, with massive marginal hikes, so the likes of Chelsea and Man City end up having to pay hundreds of millions to the lesser clubs every year.
Make it about winning trophies for the glory, not the money.
-
One day one of these so called big clubs will do a Rangers.
-
One day one of these so called big clubs will do a Rangers.
Ah! Yes, I missed that one out... If that happens, there may be a little more thirst for change.
-
Will we one of the very best sides in the country again any time soon?
Barring a change to the ownership situation, it would be impossible.
However, 15 + years ago, being 4th or even 3rd best didn't mean a whole pile.
There was talk of the CL being rejigged to include the top 8 sides in England a few years back, and that is something that may be revisited. If that were to occur, we might have some outside change of restoring a bit of prestige.
It's shite, on one level. The European Cup should be about the champions of their respective countries. But that ship sailed in 1993. Revenue is what it is ultimately all about, and Hamburg versus Aston Villa in a rejigged CL would hold more appeal than MK Zillina against Bate Borisov to the powers that be.
Excellent point.
-
Agree on the collective sale of tv rights abroad. If that ever stopped, it'd be the end of football for me.
Not sure that the television money is going to take away the advantages that really count. Man City, for example, seem to be immune to any form of economic limitations.
Man City are a pretty unique example though with their owners. Even Abramovich doesn't get it all his own way now - even perennially skint Everton don't need his blood-money as much as they need a promising centre-half. Twenty years ago it was commonly thought that Blackburn would dominate for years because of a relative pauper like Jack Walker.
-
As an aside the European Cup/Champions League used to be interesting, because you could see different clubs competing and big teams from England would struggle against the varying styles across Europe. However now it's incredibly dull with basically the same teams winning all the time. The group stages are the most boring money making exercise ever. The money isn't going to go away, so at least if they made the group draw unseeded that could be a bit more interesting.
Football is going to die at some point, because they're very naive. I'd argue the majority of fans are probably in it now for loyalty and historical love, I can't imagine many come to love the game now, or if they do they'll support it in the long term.
-
Without another club getting serious financial backing, or the league going into complete and utter financial meltdown, no club other than the current top four and perhaps Liverpool will win the league for the next 30 years.
Boring shite. Can't wait for Rome to burn.
-
I posted this before about the top 4, shows how it has changed recently thank to the CL.
Number of different clubs that finished in the top 4 in these decades.
1970/71-1979/80: 15
1980/81-1989/90: 13
1990/91-1999/2000: 12
2000/01-2090/10: 8 (3 clubs managed it once, otherwise every year it was the same 5 fighting it out)
So far this decade it is 6. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is the number at the end of it. Most of the top flight are just there to make up the numbers now. Ain't mod£rn football grand.
-
Ever's a long time. It could happen with the right investment, right manager, a long term vision and a bit of luck. But it looks a million years away right now. The better question would be with Football being even more of a dirty, evil business at the top end of the game. Do we even want to be part of it? ;)
-
With the new TV deal the actual money available in the CL isnt the be all and end all anymore. Its sponsorship that the these clubs get that makes all the difference. Man Utd sign bigger sponsorship deals for being able to put your brand on the arse of their shorts than we do for a 5 year shirt deal.
I am ultimately bored of it all and quite like the fact that one of the sky 4 as it was miss out each season now that Man City are a permanent fixture. Quite easy to see one of them going into real financial meltdown if they went 3-4 years missing out. That would be great to see
-
Without another club getting serious financial backing, or the league going into complete and utter financial meltdown, no club other than the current top four and perhaps Liverpool will win the league for the next 30 years.
Boring shite. Can't wait for Rome to burn.
Only 30 years ??
-
Unlikely.
-
In the last:-
10 years there have been 3 winners
20 years there have been 4 winners
23 years there have been 5 winners - formation of PL
30 years there have been 8 winners
40 years there have been 10 winners
50 years there have been 11 winners
The formation of the Premier League virtually closed the door on anybody outside Man Utd and Arsenal winning until the money bought it for Chelsea 11 years ago and then Man City 4 years ago.
One thing I hadn't thought much of is that Liverpool have never won the PL and their last title win is 26 years ago and, until the PL, Man Utd hadn't won the title for 26 years.
Unless a new owner comes in with around £500m as somebody else mentioned, the PL winners will only come from Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea or Arsenal unless the owners of Chelsea or Man City walk away from the game and they don't get an equally rich buyer.
Even breaking the monopoly of last seasons top four is looking more and more remote. With the arrival of Man City, it looks as though Liverpool will struggle to make top four again unless they do it this year. Their squad looks to be getting weaker as the years go on, even though they are pumping in a lot of money. Arsenal look to be getting over their financial commitment of their move from Highbury and starting to buy players at the top end of the market.
A stepped change will be required to break the current monopoly. The only possibilities are (i) new wealthy owner (ii) break up of PL (iii) amalgamation of clubs in different countries or (iv) corruption due to the vast amount of money coming into the game.
Will we ever make top four again? Not unless there is somebody out there with £500m to burn. Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
-
Rage against the dying of the light...
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant.your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant. your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.
I don't think it's in any way likely to happen to us, but Kroenke owns 66% of Arsenal and Usmanov and Moshiri own most of the rest. Five different people/groups hold more than a 10% shareholding in Swansea.
It's got nothing to do with the affordability being beyond one person, but there's no reason why more than one person couldn't hold a large number of shares in the club.
-
"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."
It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.
If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.
-
Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.
To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.
-
We got Grealish, Traore, Amavi, they are probably going to be world class players. We have to stop being a selling club, that's our only chance for a top4 finish. The only other way is a wealthy owner that spends huge every year
-
We are already in the big four. We're just not in the top 4. Chelsea and Man City are not big clubs, they've just been massively financially doped the last few years. Let's not forget clowns like John Bumstead and a crowd of 8,000 not too long ago for a league game.
-
"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."
It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.
If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.
Sky will not give up premier league football at any cost, if they lose it they lose most of their subscribers overnight and they'd probably collapse rather than any clubs. You see it in them cutting back on other sports like the Ashes how much they need the premier league.
Also worth noting even if the domestic rights slow down what the PL accumulate from foreign channels showing the games is extraordinary and will keep ticking it along nicely.
I wonder what will run out first, The Sun or money for the premier league? I'd be tempted to go for the Universe!
As regards us, well certainly nothing under this ownership. We saw in the MON days 60 + points was never enough for top 4, you need around 70 and we barely even get 40 points in seasons nowadays so we're miles short of quality to get an extra 30 points in seasons.
I think under new sensible ownership we could start finishing 6-8th again and maybe again start building something although it's getting worse now for top clubs cherrypicking players.
We had our go under MON and failed so I'm not too fussed, just rather we stopped nearly getting relegated. I'd much rather win one of the cups and have a steady mid table season, that would do me.
-
"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."
It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.
If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.
Sky will not give up premier league football at any cost, if they lose it they lose most of their subscribers overnight and they'd probably collapse rather than any clubs. You see it in them cutting back on other sports like the Ashes how much they need the premier league.
Also worth noting even if the domestic rights slow down what the PL accumulate from foreign channels showing the games is extraordinary and will keep ticking it along nicely.
I wonder what will run out first, The Sun or money for the premier league? I'd be tempted to go for the Universe!
As regards us, well certainly nothing under this ownership. We saw in the MON days 60 + points was never enough for top 4, you need around 70 and we barely even get 40 points in seasons nowadays so we're miles short of quality to get an extra 30 points in seasons.
I think under new sensible ownership we could start finishing 6-8th again and maybe again start building something although it's getting worse now for top clubs cherrypicking players.
We had our go under MON and failed so I'm not too fussed, just rather we stopped nearly getting relegated. I'd much rather win one of the cups and have a steady mid table season, that would do me.
They had a channel solely for the ashes which makes that comment a little odd. Apart from that though I agree.
-
Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.
To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.
It's no evil dark plot, just the way Sky run their business. You are the one being naive.
If you don't think that is the agenda Sky have been following take a look at Sky Sports news any day of the week - where an obvious penalty not being given only gets airtime if the decision went against a 'newsworthy' team - or Kamara's football show or the Sunday supplement or indeed the actual football coverage where a once popular font team of Villa/Everton and Coventry men has been opportunistically supplanted by ....
If you think that all makes no difference, it is a struggle for Villa to get a main short sponsor that pays £5 mill a year, yet ManU have an official Pharmaceutical Partber for Thailand and Vietnam. I doubt they have even been to Vietnam just as much as I doubt too many Vietnamese could name a single Villa player.
If Sky wanted a twenty team equal opportunity collective then that would be one hell of a catalyst for getting there. They dont.
-
They've shown all England away matches in the Ashes since the early 90s, they're not showing the next one, BT are.
They're also cutting down on some of their other sports shows, read they've stopping screening a Rugby review show so these are little things that make sure they can continue to afford premier league aswell as upping the subscription.
-
They've shown all England away matches in the Ashes since the early 90s, they're not showing the next one, BT are.
They're also cutting down on some of their other sports shows, read they've stopping screening a Rugby review show so these are little things that make sure they can continue to afford premier league aswell as upping the subscription.
I didn't know the ashes will be on BT. Interesting.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3208147/BT-Sport-grab-2017-18-Ashes-TV-rights-rivals-Sky-Sports-80m-coup.html
-
Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.
To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.
The exact opposite is true. They don't want competition, because supporters of the Big 4/5/6 don't want to see a great game. They want to see their team win. If Sky did want a more level playing field they would tell the Premier League to restructure itself.
-
Yeah it's sort of a bit like when they say they want to see away fans packing in as it creates a better atmosphere for TV. Well tell clubs to knock a fiver off away tickets as condition of TV deal then.
Sky wouldn't have an issue showing games in empty stadiums or empty away ends imo.
-
There's also the fact no one gives a shit about 80% of the premier league clubs abroad, they whole thing is marketed towards your Chinese/Australian/American glory hunter who has picked his winning team and is willing to pay to watch them. If those teams start failing, what kind of loyalty do you think Beijing Red is going to show towards his team 6,000 miles away that he's supported a couple of years? None. Subscriptions get cancelled, companies lose money.
The last thing Sky and indeed the Premier league want is a true competitive division or they wouldn't have cobbled together the pathetically manipulated FFP rules or homegrown player policy.
-
Yeah it's sort of a bit like when they say they want to see away fans packing in as it creates a better atmosphere for TV. Well tell clubs to knock a fiver off away tickets as condition of TV deal then.
Sky wouldn't have an issue showing games in empty stadiums or empty away ends imo.
Again, that's not strictly true. I met Vic Wakeling when he was head of Sky Sports and he talked about their Black Mondays, when to give the smaller clubs their quota of TV games they would have to put on something like Wigan v Fulham, in a half-empty ground with approx. 47 away fans.
-
Yeah it's sort of a bit like when they say they want to see away fans packing in as it creates a better atmosphere for TV. Well tell clubs to knock a fiver off away tickets as condition of TV deal then.
Sky wouldn't have an issue showing games in empty stadiums or empty away ends imo.
Again, that's not strictly true. I met Vic Wakeling when he was head of Sky Sports and he talked about their Black Mondays, when to give the smaller clubs their quota of TV games they would have to put on something like Wigan v Fulham, in a half-empty ground with approx. 47 away fans.
Depends really where they're seated really. Yes empty away ends will get attention but more and more are being put out of camera range like at VP, Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge, you don't see them that much at Anfield either so I doubt Sky would care too much about that.
-
That's probably the only think that would change Sky's approach. But at present ManU can go 20 years unbeaten in the league at VP, often winning in the most annoying fashion, yet for this year's Friday night fixture the ground still sold out.
-
Yeah it's sort of a bit like when they say they want to see away fans packing in as it creates a better atmosphere for TV. Well tell clubs to knock a fiver off away tickets as condition of TV deal then.
Sky wouldn't have an issue showing games in empty stadiums or empty away ends imo.
Again, that's not strictly true. I met Vic Wakeling when he was head of Sky Sports and he talked about their Black Mondays, when to give the smaller clubs their quota of TV games they would have to put on something like Wigan v Fulham, in a half-empty ground with approx. 47 away fans.
Depends really where they're seated really. Yes empty away ends will get attention but more and more are being put out of camera range like at VP, Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge, you don't see them that much at Anfield either so I doubt Sky would care too much about that.
It's not so much at the big grounds, where they can be shoehorned into a small area, but the places that will be half-full anyway. It's hard to sell the best league in the world to a backdrop of blocks of empty seats.
-
Do Sky pay or get paid for the overseas rights? I think they get paid a bit to provide coverage but the big money is paid to the Premier League clubs for the rights.
-
Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.
To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.
It's no evil dark plot, just the way Sky run their business. You are the one being naive.
If you don't think that is the agenda Sky have been following take a look at Sky Sports news any day of the week - where an obvious penalty not being given only gets airtime if the decision went against a 'newsworthy' team - or Kamara's football show or the Sunday supplement or indeed the actual football coverage where a once popular font team of Villa/Everton and Coventry men has been opportunistically supplanted by ....
If you think that all makes no difference, it is a struggle for Villa to get a main short sponsor that pays £5 mill a year, yet ManU have an official Pharmaceutical Partber for Thailand and Vietnam. I doubt they have even been to Vietnam just as much as I doubt too many Vietnamese could name a single Villa player.
If Sky wanted a twenty team equal opportunity collective then that would be one hell of a catalyst for getting there. They dont.
I think Steve is spot on. Glory hunters in the far east, Eastern Europe, the US, wherever, are not the slightest bit interested in a genuinely competitive league, they're only interested in seeing their chosen team win consistently. When Sky/PL is marketing to these audiences they are going to give them what they want, and obviously going to focus on the clubs that are popular with those audiences. This will then be reflected in share of TV time (and therefore share of TV money) , emphasis of analysis etc. which serves to enrich and popularise these teams even further. The wider ramifications are that this also does a fantastic marketing job for the clubs themselves and thus they are able to generate massively more marketing income from shirt sponsorship, image rights, perimeter advertising, pre-season tours etc. The TV money may eventually even out to an extent, but are the likes of Villa or Everton ever going to be able to compete in marketing income terms with deeply entrenched favourites like United or Chelsea? It's not likely. The whole thing is geared up to keeping the rich/popular/successful clubs exactly where they are. There is far too much at stake for that to change any time soon. The only hope would be a mega rich sugar daddy but even that is no longer a guarantee of breaking into the cartel.
-
Do Sky pay or get paid for the overseas rights? I think they get paid a bit to provide coverage but the big money is paid to the Premier League clubs for the rights.
I thought Sky paid the Premier League for the right to sell on overseas broadcasts, then got whatever they can from whomever they can.
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant.your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.
Buyers are not exactly falling over themselves to buy Villa or Everton, two big clubs that with the right backing could stand alongside the current top four or five. Why aren't there buyers in this real world of yours?
Twenty five years ago, would people have thought football would get to the position it is today. Stepped changes over the last 25 years broke the traditional football mould. Who is to say other stepped changes do not change the 'ownership mould'. Certainly not you, you arrogant t***
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant.your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.
Buyers are not exactly falling over themselves to buy Villa or Everton, two big clubs that with the right backing could stand alongside the current top four or five. Why aren't there buyers in this real world of yours?
Twenty five years ago, would people have thought football would get to the position it is today. Stepped changes over the last 25 years broke the traditional football mould. Who is to say other stepped changes do not change the 'ownership mould'. Certainly not you, you arrogant t***
lose arguement, throw insults, nice. I will leave it here.
-
Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.
Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell? :-[
Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point. The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner. As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.
it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant.your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.
Buyers are not exactly falling over themselves to buy Villa or Everton, two big clubs that with the right backing could stand alongside the current top four or five. Why aren't there buyers in this real world of yours?
Twenty five years ago, would people have thought football would get to the position it is today. Stepped changes over the last 25 years broke the traditional football mould. Who is to say other stepped changes do not change the 'ownership mould'. Certainly not you, you arrogant t***
lose arguement, throw insults, nice. I will leave it here.
Ok, you win if you say so.
-
Please be civil.
-
Be civil or be banned. Choice is yours.
-
Do Sky pay or get paid for the overseas rights? I think they get paid a bit to provide coverage but the big money is paid to the Premier League clubs for the rights.
I thought Sky paid the Premier League for the right to sell on overseas broadcasts, then got whatever they can from whomever they can.
No, they only buy the UK rights. All other rights are auctioned by the Premier League, so the influence of Sky on foreign markets doesn't exist.
As for competition, I *know* Sky would like more teams competing, it makes better TV, this better Advrtising and subscription revenue.
-
We are already in the big four. We're just not in the top 4. Chelsea and Man City are not big clubs, they've just been massively financially doped the last few years. Let's not forget clowns like John Bumstead and a crowd of 8,000 not too long ago for a league game.
I love the Villa but could not claim we are today in the big four.
-
Do Sky pay or get paid for the overseas rights? I think they get paid a bit to provide coverage but the big money is paid to the Premier League clubs for the rights.
I thought Sky paid the Premier League for the right to sell on overseas broadcasts, then got whatever they can from whomever they can.
No, they only buy the UK rights. All other rights are auctioned by the Premier League, so the influence of Sky on foreign markets doesn't exist.
As for competition, I *know* Sky would like more teams competing, it makes better TV, this better Advrtising and subscription revenue.
Whichever way the deals are framed, it is Sky creating and distributing the content. Whatever Murdoch is, he isn't a philanthropist. Sky will get a cut somewhere along the line (in addition to markets where they are also the customer) and it will not be peanuts. They will have an interest in successful sales.
You can't beat a bit of IT*K*. If they really are in favour of a truly competitive PL the their broadcasting is totally at odds with their business objectives. Not a chance.
-
Not in our lifetimes, unless something radically changes. Such as a salary cap. I was reflecting on it earlier with a friend, and it really is just a massive stitch up. Spend big, buy the best players and pay top wages and you're a chance. Villa's ship sailed probably early - mid 90's. We got reasonably close when randy took over and brought oneill in, but not that close and it will not happen for us without some drastic correction happening in the league. Ffp is not going to help us get there. Needs to be a salary cap for things to change
-
Do Sky pay or get paid for the overseas rights? I think they get paid a bit to provide coverage but the big money is paid to the Premier League clubs for the rights.
I thought Sky paid the Premier League for the right to sell on overseas broadcasts, then got whatever they can from whomever they can.
No, they only buy the UK rights. All other rights are auctioned by the Premier League, so the influence of Sky on foreign markets doesn't exist.
As for competition, I *know* Sky would like more teams competing, it makes better TV, this better Advrtising and subscription revenue.
Whichever way the deals are framed, it is Sky creating and distributing the content. Whatever Murdoch is, he isn't a philanthropist. Sky will get a cut somewhere along the line (in addition to markets where they are also the customer) and it will not be peanuts. They will have an interest in successful sales.
You can't beat a bit of IT*K*. If they really are in favour of a truly competitive PL the their broadcasting is totally at odds with their business objectives. Not a chance.
there is co-operation between NBC and Sky over here.