Will we ever make the big four

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[SoccerHQ]

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.

[aj2k77]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[SoccerHQ]

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.

[Steve R]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

[ktvillan]

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.

[Steve R]

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.

[old man villa fan]

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***

[ChicagoLion]

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.

[old man villa fan]

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.

[Legion]

Please be civil.

[PeterWithesShin]

Be civil or be banned. Choice is yours.