Television rights - individual overseas rights deals.

[PeterWithesShin]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Billy Walker]

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. 

[DrGonzo]

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'

[kippaxvilla2]

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.

[RunRickyRun]

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.

[itbrvilla]

Villa againt Liverpool TV plans. No Direct Quotes mind.

[Mister E]

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!

[UK Redsox]

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]

[Rigadon]

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. 

[Mister E]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[Mister E]

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!

[Mister E]

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.

[ktvillan]

Looks like Man U and Chelsea want no part of Liverpool's proposal: clicky.

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.