Foreign TV rights - should we be able to sell our own ??

[theHotHead]

I just read the article from Liverpool's Managing Director claiming they should be able to sell their own foreign TV rights, like the clubs do in Spain and that the top clubs deserve to receive an increased share.

Sir Alex Ferguson surprised me by saying we should be receiving more for our foreign TV rights but that the equal share amongst the 20 league teams should remain as it is, I would've thought he'd be a greedy bugger but he isn't.

I don't think it would be a good idea for the so-called top teams to receive an increased share, there is already massive gap between the "haves" and "have nots", I wouldn't want that gap increased, I like it that the Premier League is competitive, we should not do anything to ruin it.

I don't agree with the opinion that without the increased revenue English clubs will fall behind their Spanish rivals.

what do you think ?

 

[The Bonstar Wandit]

I think there's already a top-tier and lower-tier in the Premiership based on ground capacity, and marketability. breaking into the top part is nigh on impossible already without a Sugar Daddy.

The ability to sell your own TV rights would benefit the few (the already top teams) to the severe detriment of the teams below, putting yet another obstacle in their way.

 

[Elpistoleros magic feet]

If its a way to increase revenue and this in turn is within the FFP because its ''making your own money'', then so be it. The PL is a competition, and anything that you have to use against your competitor especially as you've created it yourself you should use. Liverpool and Man United are the only clubs in the PL that have global marketability, they should use it to gain an upper-hand on the ''new money clubs''.
In marketing terms its a ''niche''. Its using what you have that is different to the opposition. If the ''New money clubs'' don't like it, then boo hoo. They should be let get one over the said clubs.

 

[PINKIE]

I think it will create another tier in the premier league.
The divide between rich and poor is already stark and this would only serve to increase it.

That said, the big four in the global market - Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea should be able to exploit the markets available to them.
It's what Barca and Madrid do already, if the others don't they will just get left behind.

As far as FPP rules are concerned, I would see this as being legitimate in as much as it's generating income within the market

 

[Best Fans]

It would make the Premier League even less competitive than it already is. Realistically, this season, only 2 maybe 3 if you count Chelsea actually have a chance of winning the league. What sort of competition is that? If the 'big clubs' got more money, it would be stupid. The fact is, you don't have a league without Bolton, Blackburn, West Brom or Wolves. Everyone should get equal share. Yeah more people in foreign countries are Liverpool or Man Utd 'fans' but there wouldn't be games to watch if the so called lesser clubs weren't there.

If anything the Prem League should be doing more to make the league equal, not increase the gap.

 

[The Bonstar Wandit]

If anything the Prem League should be doing more to make the league equal, not increase the gap.

totally agree with this. in America, the bottom team in the League gets first pick in the draft. i wouldn't be averse to the prize money being reversed - so you get more if you finish lower to help you compete.

this is an obviously flawed plan however, as it means teams would all want to lose places in the league as soon as it was obvious they weren't going to make it into Europe.

it would also create a Premiership "bubble" that the teams from the Championship massively struggled to break into.

Football finance is a difficult matter.

 

[Elpistoleros magic feet]

Arsenal and Chelsea are not in the global market. They have to earn the right to be in the global market. They aren't because they haven't. Liverpool and Man United are because they have been Europes best on more than one occasion. Chelsea and Arsenal haven't even been once. Arsenal are a nothing club in North London on a global scale, Chelsea are a small club in Fulham.
There are two clubs with global marketability and they aren't from London. Its just the way it is.

 

[PINKIE]

It would make the Premier League even less competitive than it already is. Realistically, this season, only 2 maybe 3 if you count Chelsea actually have a chance of winning the league. What sort of competition is that? If the 'big clubs' got more money, it would be stupid. The fact is, you don't have a league without Bolton, Blackburn, West Brom or Wolves. Everyone should get equal share. Yeah more people in foreign countries are Liverpool or Man Utd 'fans' but there wouldn't be games to watch if the so called lesser clubs weren't there.

If anything the Prem League should be doing more to make the league equal, not increase the gap.

I agree for the sake on the premier league, but I think the big four would see also themselves as European competitors in competition with the likes of Barca, Madrid and now the mega rich clubs like PSG and Anzhi Makhachkala.

I'm not sure how you could persuade these clubs not to increase their revenue for the sake's of the Bolton's and Blackburn's.
Altruistic it may be, but they will be led by the market.

That's Capitalism for you. Money first, sentiment somewhere near the bottom.

 

[Best Fans]

Arsenal and Chelsea are not in the global market. They have to earn the right to be in the global market. They aren't because they haven't. Liverpool and Man United are because they have been Europes best on more than one occasion.

Yeah but at the moment Chelsea are a better team than Liverpool. So it's in the same sense that Liverpool have to earn the right to be in the top 4. They've dropped and now they have to show they deserve the place, not just get more money from TV because they used to be better than other clubs.

 

[Elpistoleros magic feet]

I agree for the sake on the premier league, but I think the big four would see also themselves as European competitors in competition with the likes of Barca, Madrid and now the mega rich clubs like PSG and Anzhi Makhachkala.

I'm not sure how you could persuade these clubs not to increase their revenue for the sake's of the Bolton's and Blackburn's.
Altruistic it may be, but they will be led by the market.

That's Capitalism for you. Money first, sentiment somewhere near the bottom.

Good point.
If sentiment came first we would be left behind watching the ''Man City Monopoly''. Clubs should be allowed to use all resources available to them, so if Liverpool want to market their world-wide fanbase to increase revenue, then so be it. They've earned it. If other clubs want to do likewise, they must earn it first.

 

[totsfan]

it should go into one big pot,and eveyone should have a share of the same amount at the end of the season

 

[Elpistoleros magic feet]

it should go into one big pot,and eveyone should have a share of the same amount at the end of the season

It doesn't work like that, only in fantasy. Football is a business, and clubs will use their available assets to succeed. Nobody wants to see a ''Manchester City Monopoly''.

 

[totsfan]

that's how it should work,the ffs they are bringing in will make sure there is'nt a monopoly

 

[PINKIE]

Arsenal and Chelsea are not in the global market. They have to earn the right to be in the global market. They aren't because they haven't. Liverpool and Man United are because they have been Europes best on more than one occasion. Chelsea and Arsenal haven't even been once. Arsenal are a nothing club in North London on a global scale, Chelsea are a small club in Fulham.
There are two clubs with global marketability and they aren't from London. Its just the way it is.

Except that it's clearly not the way it is.

A 2005 report by Granada Ventures, which at the time owned a 9.9% stake in the club, estimated Arsenal's global fanbase at 27 million. Six years later and with Arsenal developing their brand in places like Thailand, China and touring Asia, you can bet that figure is a lot higher.

Go to nearly any country in the world and you'll see people wearing Arsenal shirts, even in what are considered third world countries like Liberia and Angola, there is a strong following. These types of countries might not be high on the list for marketing development as far as the money men are concerned, but it shows that Arsenal's appeal is worldwide.

In fact, a good current snapshot of the global appeal of football clubs comes from internet traffic to their club sites.
In which Arsenal are more popular than Barcelona and Real Madrid.

This list for the top 6 is as follows:
(1) Man Utd
(2) Liverpool
(3) Arsenal
(4) Real Madrid
(5) Barcelona
(6) Chelsea

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/05/European_Football_Clubs

 

[fevriul]

It would make the Premier League even less competitive than it already is. Realistically, this season, only 2 maybe 3 if you count Chelsea actually have a chance of winning the league. What sort of competition is that? If the 'big clubs' got more money, it would be stupid. The fact is, you don't have a league without Bolton, Blackburn, West Brom or Wolves. Everyone should get equal share. Yeah more people in foreign countries are Liverpool or Man Utd 'fans' but there wouldn't be games to watch if the so called lesser clubs weren't there.

If anything the Prem League should be doing more to make the league equal, not increase the gap.

Class , superb post! Unlike the theiving bin dippers, even old red nose, does not want the prem to turn into a scottish premiwer league! And the other spanish clubs have told the big two, either it gets devided up equally , or they can go get stuffed and play each other , and see how fun that becomes.

Liverpool need to be told to go do one! as for the new money bollocks, Liverpool only got where they did becuase of the money given to them by the moores family!

 

[PINKIE]

The end of domestic league football as we know it is getting closer and closer. I believe that there will be a group of clubs that leave their domestic leagues and form a European league, entry to the league will have nothing to do with how good you are but how rich you are.

Unfortunately, I think you might be right

 

[Elpistoleros magic feet]

Granada Ventures owned a 9.9% stake in a few clubs. They held a 9.9% stake in Liverpool until 2007, that was when they sold it to Hicks and Gilett, this was following David Moores selling his majority shareholding.

 

[Welshred]

Bit undecided how I feel about this one, I do think it would benefit Liverpool massively because as far as I understand Man utd and Liverpool are the only 2 with a massive wordwide following. Arsenal and Chelsea maybe to a lesser extent. As such it would give us a huge boost financially and bring us closer to being able to compete with Man City and Chelsea for players. So from a selfish point of view as a Liverpool fan I should support it.

I do think it would leave Utd, Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea pretty much untouchable for the rest of the league and make it very predictable and alot less quality in the lower teams. Then again, perhaps it would force them to bring through their own players more.

 

[Robby202]

**** knows why a pokey two bob outfit like Liverpool are getting involved? Their European days are well over.

 

[robin_van_ fiberglass]

This is just greed by liverpool, what Ayre is suggesting will destroy competition and we will end up having a two team league like in Spain. How many people will honestly want to watch something like that?