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

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Swarbs said:
Weren't you one of the people condemning Bryan Robson when he stated "football is a business"? The key to keeping the PL competitive is to curb the ability of clubs to attract vast amounts of outside funding, not to skew the available funds even more.

Ultimately, professional football is there to entertain the fans. That's what all fans should want, barring the most plastic of gloryhunters. People can talk about the bottom 12 or 14 clubs in the PL not having "earned" the prestige of Utd or Liverpool, but does that mean we should effectively give Utd and Liverpool a monopoly on success just because of their previous achievements? What's next, telling the lower placed teams they haven't "earned the right" to have 11 players on the field?

And you forget that the main reason the PL is the biggest league in the world is precisely because it is so competitive. Hundreds of millions of people around the world tune in to see Utd and Liverpool struggle to get results in competitive games against teams like Norwich, Stoke and Sunderland. Would they really do the same just to see us pan Doncaster and Bristol City 6-0 week in week out, as happens in Spain? Would the clubs fill their stadiums for matches like that? Would they hell. Even Barca can't fill their stadium for 90% of the La Liga matches despite being the heart and soul of Catalonia.

I think the individual TV rights thing would be a false economy for the EPL. Yes in the short term the top clubs would gain some extra money, but in the long term the whole league would suffer. Ten years ago Valencia got to consecutive CL finals, last season they were dumped out by Schalke and Sevilla didn't even reach the group stage. And over the last ten years Real have hardly benefited from the extra money, all it has done is created instability as they have the money to change their team every season or two. Over the same period their attendance figures have fallen steadily from about 74,000 in 06/07 to around 63,000 so far this season. So do we think their fans are really happy with all the extra TV money the club has gotten over the same period?

Besides which, clubs already have the opportunity to benefit financially from their global market appeal through sponsorship and commercial deals, as Liverpool and Utd are already doing.
Click to expand...

I think your prity much spot on there.

What I dont understand with this type of deal is surely the team you play against are due money from showing it on TV, you couldn't possibly sell a package of TV rights for just your games and expect the opposition to be happy with that, or am I missing something? How does it work in Spain?
 
Swarbs said:
Weren't you one of the people condemning Bryan Robson when he stated "football is a business"? The key to keeping the PL competitive is to curb the ability of clubs to attract vast amounts of outside funding, not to skew the available funds even more.

Ultimately, professional football is there to entertain the fans. That's what all fans should want, barring the most plastic of gloryhunters. People can talk about the bottom 12 or 14 clubs in the PL not having "earned" the prestige of Utd or Liverpool, but does that mean we should effectively give Utd and Liverpool a monopoly on success just because of their previous achievements? What's next, telling the lower placed teams they haven't "earned the right" to have 11 players on the field?

And you forget that the main reason the PL is the biggest league in the world is precisely because it is so competitive. Hundreds of millions of people around the world tune in to see Utd and Liverpool struggle to get results in competitive games against teams like Norwich, Stoke and Sunderland. Would they really do the same just to see us pan Doncaster and Bristol City 6-0 week in week out, as happens in Spain? Would the clubs fill their stadiums for matches like that? Would they hell. Even Barca can't fill their stadium for 90% of the La Liga matches despite being the heart and soul of Catalonia.

I think the individual TV rights thing would be a false economy for the EPL. Yes in the short term the top clubs would gain some extra money, but in the long term the whole league would suffer. Ten years ago Valencia got to consecutive CL finals, last season they were dumped out by Schalke and Sevilla didn't even reach the group stage. And over the last ten years Real have hardly benefited from the extra money, all it has done is created instability as they have the money to change their team every season or two. Over the same period their attendance figures have fallen steadily from about 74,000 in 06/07 to around 63,000 so far this season. So do we think their fans are really happy with all the extra TV money the club has gotten over the same period?

Besides which, clubs already have the opportunity to benefit financially from their global market appeal through sponsorship and commercial deals, as Liverpool and Utd are already doing.
Click to expand...

I was condemning Robson for attempting to build a Man City out of a club like Sheffield Wednesday. They would get a dozen or so rich pricks to invest large sums of money into them ie Sugar Daddies.
When I said ''Football is a business'' I meant why shouldn't a club make itself more competitive when up against ''new money clubs'' like Manchester City andf Chelsea and use available avenues that are open to them. Avenues that they themselves earnt due to their European pedigree. Unless Liverpool and Man United do something about it, there will be a monopoly in the EPL, it will be the Manchester City Monopoly. I would applaud Manchester United if they negotiate their own deal, as they have earnt the right to as a world-wide brand, thats why I believe Liverpool should.
 
Chelsea got 50000 v malaysia all stars three years ago.

This season both Chelsea and Liverpool played Malaysia All Stars: Liverpool game nearly sold out: 80000. Chelsea sold out in advance; 85000 sell out.
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
I was condemning Robson for attempting to build a Man City out of a club like Sheffield Wednesday. They would get a dozen or so rich pricks to invest large sums of money into them ie Sugar Daddies.
When I said ''Football is a business'' I meant why shouldn't a club make itself more competitive when up against ''new money clubs'' like Manchester City andf Chelsea and use available avenues that are open to them. Avenues that they themselves earnt due to their European pedigree. Unless Liverpool and Man United do something about it, there will be a monopoly in the EPL, it will be the Manchester City Monopoly. I would applaud Manchester United if they negotiate their own deal, as they have earnt the right to as a world-wide brand, thats why I believe Liverpool should.
Click to expand...
Your reply seems very ambiguous
 
Spurf said:
Ha ha ha! <laugh> one of the funniest threads I have seen on here.

The beauty of arguments on the net is that your comments stand for all to read and refer back to. In a pub debate you can say something stupid and it is soon forgotten or glossed over but not on the net. Type without thinking at your peril. We all make mistakes but the trick is to own up right away when you have. Defend a mistake and it may never be forgotten. <laugh>
Click to expand...

The flip side to that is it's the internet so it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things...
 
"80,000 - is that all "

Well that's the stadium capacity. I presumed you knew what I was referring to, I presumed wrong I guess!!
 
'I would applaud Manchester United if they negotiate their own deal, as they have earnt the right to as a world-wide brand, thats why I believe Liverpool should. '

The thing about brands are that people's perception of them changes very quickly.

What do you think a Thai ten-year-old would think about Henderson Adam And Carroll?

And their lack of (current) European pedigree/participation?
 
The_King said:
I think your prity much spot on there.

What I dont understand with this type of deal is surely the team you play against are due money from showing it on TV, you couldn't possibly sell a package of TV rights for just your games and expect the opposition to be happy with that, or am I missing something? How does it work in Spain?
Click to expand...

I think in Spain the facility fees for home matches are dominant. So Barca and Real get so much cos each of their 19 home matches is worth about 9-10 million Euros apiece so they get around 160-180 million Euros per season. In contrast, clubs like Atletico get 10 million Euros a pop when Barca or Real come to visit, but their other matches are only worth about 2 million each, for a total of around 50 million euros.

Elpistoleros magic feet said:
I was condemning Robson for attempting to build a Man City out of a club like Sheffield Wednesday. They would get a dozen or so rich pricks to invest large sums of money into them ie Sugar Daddies.
When I said ''Football is a business'' I meant why shouldn't a club make itself more competitive when up against ''new money clubs'' like Manchester City andf Chelsea and use available avenues that are open to them. Avenues that they themselves earnt due to their European pedigree. Unless Liverpool and Man United do something about it, there will be a monopoly in the EPL, it will be the Manchester City Monopoly. I would applaud Manchester United if they negotiate their own deal, as they have earnt the right to as a world-wide brand, thats why I believe Liverpool should.
Click to expand...

But surely the great thing about Utd and Liverpool is that their success was built without any great financial advantage? Managers like Busby and Shankly built the clubs from the ground up, despite the setbacks and lack of outside investment. We didn't have any sugar daddies or government help or free bank loans. Even if City's money wins them the next 20 PL titles they will still never have the heritage or history we have. It is important to remain competitive, but having won the most competitive league in the world so many times, I don't think we should try to remain competitive at the expense of our history and the quality of the league, particularly when we are competing fine without compromising. We're Manchester United and Liverpool, we're not ****ing Tesco for Christ's sake!
 
HammersmithBlue said:
'I would applaud Manchester United if they negotiate their own deal, as they have earnt the right to as a world-wide brand, thats why I believe Liverpool should. '

The thing about brands are that people's perception of them changes very quickly.

What do you think a Thai ten-year-old would think about Henderson Adam And Carroll?

And their lack of (current) European pedigree/participation?
Click to expand...

That shouldn't worry you, Nobody in thailand knows who Chelsea are. Then again they shouldn't be expected to know who a no mark west london club are.
 
Swarbs said:
I think in Spain the facility fees for home matches are dominant. So Barca and Real get so much cos each of their 19 home matches is worth about 9-10 million Euros apiece so they get around 160-180 million Euros per season. In contrast, clubs like Atletico get 10 million Euros a pop when Barca or Real come to visit, but their other matches are only worth about 2 million each, for a total of around 50 million euros.



But surely the great thing about Utd and Liverpool is that their success was built without any great financial advantage? Managers like Busby and Shankly built the clubs from the ground up, despite the setbacks and lack of outside investment. We didn't have any sugar daddies or government help or free bank loans. Even if City's money wins them the next 20 PL titles they will still never have the heritage or history we have. It is important to remain competitive, but having won the most competitive league in the world so many times, I don't think we should try to remain competitive at the expense of our history and the quality of the league, particularly when we are competing fine without compromising. We're Manchester United and Liverpool, we're not ****ing Tesco for Christ's sake!
Click to expand...

Well said, that man
 
Ensiluokkainen said:
spe·cial&#8194; &#8194;[spesh-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. of a distinct or particular kind or character: a special kind of key.
2. being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain: You'd better call the special number.
3. pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique: the special features of a plan.
4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.: a special messenger.
5. distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual: a special occasion; to fix something special.

Guess that, like ambiguous, special doesn't apply to Liverpool either.
They're NOT of a distinct or particular kind (see a)
They're not individual
They're not unique (other than their name)
They have no special purpose of function (other than to be laughed at and ridiculed)
They are are not distinguished or different from the ordinary (see a above)
Click to expand...

Well Spurs definitely aren't.
They have a clueless manager, who calls all players he cannot afford to sign ''triffic'' and he knows how to put clubs into financial difficulty by cooking their accounts and not paying their tax bill ie Southampton and Portsmouth.
They haven't won the league since 1961.
They are the second biggest club in North London.
However they could be worse, they never had a known peadophile play for them, or is he on their coaching staff Arsenal, Chelsea Graham cough Rix. ''In my defence your honour, she told me she was 18, but when she looked for a child ticket in the cinema, I should have twigged she was only 12''
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whatever global marketabilty Liverpool have is fading fairly quickly although Andy Caroll looks destined to improve the global appeal, they have not exactly been setting the world alight in terms of winning EPL tropies or in terms of performances in Europe or in even qualifying for it. Liverpool need massive investment to improve their stadium to a reasonable standard so things are not as rosy as you like to wum. Winning the European cup does not give a divine right to this marketability you speak of, Forest and Villa will testify to that. Chelsea Arsenal and United have more appeal than Liverpool internationally with United being the standout name, you are still living in on your 80's sucess - before you were supporting probably, things have moved on and so have your biggest rivals United who are now head and shoulders above your club in every aspect.
 
Liverpool failed to sell out Tianhe Stadium this summer. United sold out all stadiums on their Chinese tour.

The arrogance of the dippers is astounding; they still see themselves on a par with United after 20 years of failure.
 
Liverpool already spend about twice as much as Spurs on wages so any more money would probably also be pissed up the wall on substandard players and their huge wages. In a way Liverpool having more money is just a form of wealth redistribution throughout the league anyway.

Hope that's not too ambigyouarse.

(Anyone who thinks this individual TV rights thing is a good idea has no understanding of sport or finance. They're basically desperate Liverpool fans trying to get the hundreds of millions of pounds that would be needed to make them a top team again, at the detriment to the rest of the league. And by the way - I would be amazed if kids in China give a crap about Lioverpool's amazing history - they'll be buying Man City games of course. If you don't see that you're deluded).
 
Swarbs said:
But surely the great thing about Utd ... is that their success was built without any great financial advantage?
Click to expand...

Um, during your recent successes you've broken the transfer record ten times. Please don't insult the rest of us by claiming Man Utd are poor.
 
Chelsea think they are a big club just because they are owned by a Russian crook thats well known to be involved with the Russian Mafia, and if he returns to Russia will be sent to a Siberian prison for tax evasion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back