Redistribution of TV money

Premier League chiefs fail to reach agreement on redistribution of TV money as clubs agree to take more time to discuss Big Six's demands for bigger cut of foreign broadcast cash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eague-chiefs-descend-London-crunch-talks.html

Now Im not happy if that happens, it should stay as it is.

Whats the views on others?

 

I agree with you.
The top clubs get plenty of money already. Taking a larger cut just leads to an noncompetitive league and less money, eventually.
People still haven't learned the lessons that we've seen from other countries, clearly.

 

Same as yours, keep it as it is.

 

Three comments, all from supporters of the clubs that want to change things. None of them do. Says a lot.

 

Indeed. It shows they don't listen to the fans.

 

Thats why the PL is so good as its distributes TV money equally otherwise it will turn in La Liga

 

Greedy opportunists....the top 6 draw a lot of viewing, they know this.

Should be equal though.

 

Wouldn't make an awful lot of difference to my club, so I'd be against taking from the pockets of the smaller clubs.

But then I think about how much of a **** Katharina Liebherr is for asset stripping a club punching above its weight and how those two ****ers at West Ham got a free stadium and I start to lose interest.

So... don't really care.

 

Spurs fan. I'm against it. There's enough inequality in professional football already. Keeping the TV money the same across the board doesn't seem so awful given the difference in sponsorships, shirt deals, etc. Probably, the pendulum needs to swing more the other way by restricting some of the activities of the top clubs.

Maybe, increase the compensation payable when they nick other clubs' Academy players or restrict the number any one club can recruit and how many players a club can have out on loan? Citeh's owners having a club in every country in the world is also wrong in my view.

I would think that the more competitive each game is, the better for all concerned in the long run?

 

Maybe the extra money goes to the lower leagues

 

When I first heard this story on the radio earlier, I naively thought they were going to say that instead of an equal share, there would be an argument to give the smaller clubs more of the share in order to make the premier league more competitive.

Should have known better really.

 

The top clubs already get a bigger slice of the pie as they tend to finish in the top spots in the table. I can see no moral justification for them taking even more.

As TFTB says, it's unequal enough already.

 

Greedy opportunists. Not a chance it'll get through

 

Did you strip your inside out dog off its skin, and eat it at xmas, passing it off as turkey skin?

 

It's greed from the bigger clubs. Simple as that.

 

Typical blinkered Manc - you clearly know ****all about Kat Liebherr or Saints, so why bother commenting?

On the subject of PL TV money, more of it should be going to grass roots football - but it won't.

 

It should. But it won't.

 

There should be much more pressure from the bodies that govern football to ensure that there's a trickle down of the wealth in football to the smaller clubs and lower leagues. But much like the Tories view of trickle down economics, the wealth stays at the top because it's controlled by those at the top.

 

The greed is amazing isn't it.
If it does happen it'll be the point where I cancel my Sky and **** football off completely.

 

I don't subscribe to Sky as I don't want a single Penny going to the Murdoch family, but I'm also leaning this way with the money sloshing around in the game, which is ruining it in my opinion. I'd be just as happy going to watch my local team Truro City (who are doing really well) as I would going to a premier league game.