Liverpool spend a few seasons out of the Champions League & are not likely to get back in for a while, hardly surprisingly they are looking at other avenues of generating more cash.
I don't understand how this will work. They use Bolton as an example of a team without an overseas demand to justify them looking into this but if Liverpool did negotiate a lucrative deal surely they'd have to also make sure whoever they are playing against (eg Bolton) gets a fair share of the TV revenue?
I think all TV money should be distributed equally. Even Champions League TV money should be shared around to all clubs who have the possibility to qualify for that competition.
The greed that the big clubs openly admit to when it comes to TV revenue goes against the grain of what a sport should be all about and creates a complete unbalanced playing field. However, I can't see 14 clubs in the Premier League agreeing to their proposal unless it is in their interests to do so.
I think it will happen eventually, the amount of money the top 5/6 generate is far too much and they'll get there own way eventually, then you'll see them pull even further away from the rest of the league like Madrid and Barca are.
How does a team like Bolton ever get to build overseas demand if they are denied the opportunity that Liverpool want to give themselves? I find this very distasteful and typical of the money-grabbing "big 4". Of course, it is not in their interests to have a competitive Premiership, as long as they're making obscene amounts of money. But don't they realise the danger of falling interest in a league that is so predictable?
I think they realise it, they just don't care. They'll be long gone by the time the gravy train eventually stops, and don't give a fig about the state they leave the game in after they have left.
They need 14 clubs to vote to change the rules. Somehow I can't see that happening as there should be at least 10 teams in the perm who know it won't be in their interests to change the current block negotiation.
Liverpool spend a few seasons out of the Champions League & are not likely to get back in for a while, hardly surprisingly they are looking at other avenues of generating more cash.
My instant thought when I heard it on radio this morning, absolute jokers esp the fact that fans were calling in and saying how much they agree, tell you what you want your own tv deals then sod off out of the league and set up on you own, wonder how much income you'll get then
I think it's ironic that, just like the class structure in this country, those below it slag it off while fighting to get in it.
The Champions League is unfair to the other Premier League sides. The Premier League is unfair to the Championship sides. The Championship is unfair to the League 1 sides, and League 1 is unfair to the League 2 sides.
The teams spend a lot of time complaining about those that take a bigger share than they do, but they never seem to be talking about giving any of their share to those below them.
Like ZB I don't really understand how this would work. Would it be overseas rights just for Liverpool's home games? Surely they'd have to pay the oppostion for their image rights anyway?
I'm worried we'll end up like the NFL (Is that just 32 franchises for such a vast country?) with our lower league teams merely acting as US Colleges do for the NFL.
Except US College Football is watched by more people. The combined attendances of the college football matches dwarfs those going to see NFL games.
Last year for instance, the 256 NFL games were seen by a total of 17million spectators, at an average gate of 66k. The 808 college games were seen by 49.7million spectators, more than double the NFL figure. Yes there were more games, producing a slightly lower average, but I would imagine if you took just the top 32 teams for each league then the averages and totals would be in favour of the college teams.
In fact the top 5 colleges all averaged over 100k per game last year!
They need 14 clubs to vote to change the rules. Somehow I can't see that happening as there should be at least 10 teams in the perm who know it won't be in their interests to change the current block negotiation.
What BDL said. It's a non story 'cos it ain't gonna happen, unless The Prem change their voting rules.
They need 14 clubs to vote to change the rules. Somehow I can't see that happening as there should be at least 10 teams in the perm who know it won't be in their interests to change the current block negotiation.
What BDL said. It's a non story 'cos it ain't gonna happen, unless The Prem change their voting rules.
I'm not so sure about that.
Very much a "pie in the sky" scenario but what if, lets say, the traditional Sky 4 and selected other PL clubs get invited to join a breakaway 2 division European Super League or something like that? What happens then? The PL and Champions League format can surely only have a limited lifespan. I hate to say it, I can see a breakaway happening in the future. Not immediately but in years to come I mean. If the top 6 lets say were threatening to defect then surely the other 14 would have to give it some serious consideration. Would the PL exist without the top 4? I'm not so sure. Who would pay Sky £40pm to watch a top of the table clash between Bolton and WBA for example? Probably Bolton & WBA fans but who else would bother? (TBH, I'm so disillusioned with football these days, I hardly watch it on TV now...I've even missed a couple of Spurs games on TV this season as couldnt be bothered to watch it!)
Going off on a tangent I know but IMHO, the CL has ruined football forever with the income it has generated for the traditional Sky 4 plus Spurs & Man City now. I find it perverse that a team like Spurs would play a weakened team in a Cup competition which is probably our best hope of any Silverware in order just to keep the players fresh for the PL games to attempt to get in the top 4 through a league position. Bloody riddiculous quite frankly.
Dont quote me on any of that, havent given the logistics much thought, just thinking out loud really? There's probably many holes in what I've said :-)
You're not going to see a top of the table class between WBA and Bolton, break away or not.
Any super league would have a maximum of 16 teams, so:
4 from EPL 3 or 4 from Spain 3 or 4 from Spain 1 each from France, Germany, Holland, 2 from Russia (this is all about money, and they have loads)
That's 15-17 teams, so it's already tight. However set-up this league would want maximum coverage, so wouldn't want more then 4 from a particular league unless there was a huge amount of money bid for that spot.
So assuming the 4 from EPL are Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, (Liverpool have a bigger brand, which would propel them above Arsenal and Totthenham, etc.).
That would mean the league title would most likely be contested by Arsenal and Tottenham, at least at first. I can see a lot of clubs actually benefiting long term from a break away, assuming they survive the initial implosion.
Except US College Football is watched by more people. The combined attendances of the college football matches dwarfs those going to see NFL games.
Last year for instance, the 256 NFL games were seen by a total of 17million spectators, at an average gate of 66k. The 808 college games were seen by 49.7million spectators, more than double the NFL figure. Yes there were more games, producing a slightly lower average, but I would imagine if you took just the top 32 teams for each league then the averages and totals would be in favour of the college teams.
In fact the top 5 colleges all averaged over 100k per game last year!
Interesting you bring up the NFL etc. Read on one of the Spurs boards tonight (who were discussing the same thing) that US TV Networks cant show a NFL game live within a 75 mile radius if the game isnt a sell out. Is that true?
Chelsea and United have come out against it so looks like the idea is dead.
I didnt know that. If thats true then thats a relief all round.
You're not going to see a top of the table class between WBA and Bolton, break away or not.
Any super league would have a maximum of 16 teams, so:
4 from EPL 3 or 4 from Spain 3 or 4 from Spain 1 each from France, Germany, Holland, 2 from Russia (this is all about money, and they have loads)
That's 15-17 teams, so it's already tight. However set-up this league would want maximum coverage, so wouldn't want more then 4 from a particular league unless there was a huge amount of money bid for that spot.
So assuming the 4 from EPL are Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, (Liverpool have a bigger brand, which would propel them above Arsenal and Totthenham, etc.).
That would mean the league title would most likely be contested by Arsenal and Tottenham, at least at first. I can see a lot of clubs actually benefiting long term from a break away, assuming they survive the initial implosion.
Agreed Tottenham wouldnt be in the top 4 but I'd dispute Man City being deemed a bigger draw than Ars*nal abroad. Ok, they've got a stunning squad to choose from but its Man City FFS lol.
I've not had time to read other people's thoughts and comments, but remember when the Premier League was set up it was because the top teams wanted to share more of the money amongst the top league where most of the wealth was generated. So the EPL was formed sharing TV revenues and not much later the Champion's League format was adopted so the best teams in Europe could play each other more frequently and generate more money that way. Now the elite want more of the money so they can keep spunking stupid amounts of money at second rate players. Even a cursory glance at Liverpool's squad shows that quite a few of their British players were developed by other clubs, where's the money going to come from to develop players if they deny other clubs access to it?
I say tell Liverpool and any team that wants the right to negotiate their own fees to off-sod. Asian betting syndicates are soon going to get fed up with showing Liverpool play Liverpool reserves every week.
You're not going to see a top of the table class between WBA and Bolton, break away or not.
Any super league would have a maximum of 16 teams, so:
4 from EPL 3 or 4 from Spain 3 or 4 from Spain 1 each from France, Germany, Holland, 2 from Russia (this is all about money, and they have loads)
That's 15-17 teams, so it's already tight. However set-up this league would want maximum coverage, so wouldn't want more then 4 from a particular league unless there was a huge amount of money bid for that spot.
So assuming the 4 from EPL are Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, (Liverpool have a bigger brand, which would propel them above Arsenal and Totthenham, etc.).
That would mean the league title would most likely be contested by Arsenal and Tottenham, at least at first. I can see a lot of clubs actually benefiting long term from a break away, assuming they survive the initial implosion.
I don't think a super league of the top 2-4 clubs from each league will ever get off the ground, for one reason. The new league will be made up of teams whose clubs and fans will be used to be 1st, 2nd or 3rd. In a league of 10 - 16 clubs only a few clubs will equate to their domestic league position, that won't be acceptable to club or fans, they won't take the risk.
It will be a disaster for football in terms of competiveness. However that doesnt worry the big clubs as has been the general trend. Money dictates titles with the only real threat to the money making machine of manure coming from 2 clubs who are bankrolled by ultra rich owners. Arsenal almost bucked the rule due to Wenger but that looks to have ended. This move by Liverpool to get more from overseas TV rights is a bit of a desperate attempt to be able to finance themselves to move back to the giants before it is too late for them. I'm no lawyer but it wouldnt surpise if they could force it legally if they were so minded.
Comments
I don't understand how this will work. They use Bolton as an example of a team without an overseas demand to justify them looking into this but if Liverpool did negotiate a lucrative deal surely they'd have to also make sure whoever they are playing against (eg Bolton) gets a fair share of the TV revenue?
I think all TV money should be distributed equally. Even Champions League TV money should be shared around to all clubs who have the possibility to qualify for that competition.
The greed that the big clubs openly admit to when it comes to TV revenue goes against the grain of what a sport should be all about and creates a complete unbalanced playing field. However, I can't see 14 clubs in the Premier League agreeing to their proposal unless it is in their interests to do so.
Like ZB I don't really understand how this would work. Would it be overseas rights just for Liverpool's home games? Surely they'd have to pay the oppostion for their image rights anyway?
I'm worried we'll end up like the NFL (Is that just 32 franchises for such a vast country?) with our lower league teams merely acting as US Colleges do for the NFL.
Last year for instance, the 256 NFL games were seen by a total of 17million spectators, at an average gate of 66k.
The 808 college games were seen by 49.7million spectators, more than double the NFL figure. Yes there were more games, producing a slightly lower average, but I would imagine if you took just the top 32 teams for each league then the averages and totals would be in favour of the college teams.
In fact the top 5 colleges all averaged over 100k per game last year!
http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-2010-college-football-attendance-rankings/
What BDL said. It's a non story 'cos it ain't gonna happen, unless The Prem change their voting rules.
Very much a "pie in the sky" scenario but what if, lets say, the traditional Sky 4 and selected other PL clubs get invited to join a breakaway 2 division European Super League or something like that? What happens then? The PL and Champions League format can surely only have a limited lifespan. I hate to say it, I can see a breakaway happening in the future. Not immediately but in years to come I mean. If the top 6 lets say were threatening to defect then surely the other 14 would have to give it some serious consideration. Would the PL exist without the top 4? I'm not so sure. Who would pay Sky £40pm to watch a top of the table clash between Bolton and WBA for example? Probably Bolton & WBA fans but who else would bother? (TBH, I'm so disillusioned with football these days, I hardly watch it on TV now...I've even missed a couple of Spurs games on TV this season as couldnt be bothered to watch it!)
Going off on a tangent I know but IMHO, the CL has ruined football forever with the income it has generated for the traditional Sky 4 plus Spurs & Man City now. I find it perverse that a team like Spurs would play a weakened team in a Cup competition which is probably our best hope of any Silverware in order just to keep the players fresh for the PL games to attempt to get in the top 4 through a league position. Bloody riddiculous quite frankly.
Dont quote me on any of that, havent given the logistics much thought, just thinking out loud really? There's probably many holes in what I've said :-)
I don't think it would happen, because the Big 4's fans wouldn't want it.
Away games at Barcelona, Munich, Milan every other week.
Liverpool never play Everton.
In the past Man U would never play Man C again etc .
Arsenal never play Spurs again (tee hee).
Any super league would have a maximum of 16 teams, so:
4 from EPL
3 or 4 from Spain
3 or 4 from Spain
1 each from France, Germany, Holland,
2 from Russia (this is all about money, and they have loads)
That's 15-17 teams, so it's already tight. However set-up this league would want maximum coverage, so wouldn't want more then 4 from a particular league unless there was a huge amount of money bid for that spot.
So assuming the 4 from EPL are Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, (Liverpool have a bigger brand, which would propel them above Arsenal and Totthenham, etc.).
That would mean the league title would most likely be contested by Arsenal and Tottenham, at least at first. I can see a lot of clubs actually benefiting long term from a break away, assuming they survive the initial implosion.
I've not had time to read other people's thoughts and comments, but remember when the Premier League was set up it was because the top teams wanted to share more of the money amongst the top league where most of the wealth was generated. So the EPL was formed sharing TV revenues and not much later the Champion's League format was adopted so the best teams in Europe could play each other more frequently and generate more money that way. Now the elite want more of the money so they can keep spunking stupid amounts of money at second rate players. Even a cursory glance at Liverpool's squad shows that quite a few of their British players were developed by other clubs, where's the money going to come from to develop players if they deny other clubs access to it?
I say tell Liverpool and any team that wants the right to negotiate their own fees to off-sod. Asian betting syndicates are soon going to get fed up with showing Liverpool play Liverpool reserves every week.
But Liverpool already have their own TV station.......
It's called The History Channel.