Interesting that Chelsea and Arsenal have overtaken Liverpool in every survey quoted on this thread
Foreign TV rights - should we be able to sell our own ??
- Thread starter theHotHead
- Start date
-
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
-
- Status
Sorry i think your talking bollocks as i never mentioned Manutd,i only used SAFs' name!
Pretty obvious really.
Both have overtaken Liverpool on every level - except history in Chelsea's case ;-)
Because whoever buys liverpool does so knowing theres going to be a 300million+ cost into building a new stadium. Hence why the value of the club drops as the new owner would have to factor the construction costs into any purchase price.
There isn't any competition in the Premier League - it's just a hyped-up SPL with a bigger bank balance.
Think about it, ever since the SPL was introduced the Champion's League places have gone to the Old Firm and no-one else, to the point that the last non-Glaswegian club to finish second was Motherwell in 1995. Now think about the English clubs to finish in those places since 1992: Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal, Newcastle, Liverpool, Chelsea, Leeds, Everton, Spurs and Man City.
Considering that two of those clubs got there spending money they didn't have (Leeds and Chelsea - if Abramovich didn't turn up, we'd just as likely talk about clubs "doing a Chelsea"), Blackburn, Newcastle and Leeds have crashed out of the Premiership since their campaigns and are highly unlikely to get back there, Everton are equally unlikely to finish Top 4 for some time (and failed to qualify for the Champion's league proper when they had the chance), whilst City required a massive injection of cash that they wouldn't have had available to them at any other time.
On top of that, there's so little competition that the best way for a non-member of the Big Four to qualify for the CL is because one of them slips up, usually Liverpool (which is how Leeds and Everton qualified) - something that is even less likely if they can negotiate themselves an even bigger slice of cash, which in no way is trying to circumnavigate UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in a manner not unlike the Etihad naming rights scam.
humanbeingincroydon:
Sure - the EPL is far from very competitive right now for many reasons. But why make it worse?
BTW - I've never been on the Arsenal board before and that picture of Robin van Persie is truly terrifying. Every time I reload this page he's there looking at me as if my "no" meant "maybe". Yikes.
Sure - the EPL is far from very competitive right now for many reasons. But why make it worse?
BTW - I've never been on the Arsenal board before and that picture of Robin van Persie is truly terrifying. Every time I reload this page he's there looking at me as if my "no" meant "maybe". Yikes.
Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's model of collecting television rights revenue.
It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 elite clubs.
A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell [TV rights] collectively."
United insiders pointed out that their chief executive, David Gill, had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said: "The collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive."
It is understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur will continue to back the existing arrangement that last season paid each club £17.9m.
The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would support them. Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, said that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, have a growing financial advantage over English clubs because they secure TV deals individually.
Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.
Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.
Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change since any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.
Ayre became the first representative of a leading Premier League club since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012-13.
Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.
"At some point we feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway
It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 elite clubs.
A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell [TV rights] collectively."
United insiders pointed out that their chief executive, David Gill, had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said: "The collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive."
It is understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur will continue to back the existing arrangement that last season paid each club £17.9m.
The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would support them. Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, said that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, have a growing financial advantage over English clubs because they secure TV deals individually.
Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.
Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.
Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change since any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.
Ayre became the first representative of a leading Premier League club since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012-13.
Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.
"At some point we feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway
That's my point entirely, by demanding their own TV rights looks more like a blatant attempt by Liverpool to circumnavigate the FFP rules, which is on the same level as the Etihad naming rights deal/scam - because Liverpool know they have a better stance when entering negotiations than a club like Fulham, Villa or Everton, so can name a higher price per season.
As I stated in another thread, what would happen if the FA said no? Who would Liverpool whinge to then? With Man utd and Chelsea not interested, their position is crumbling as fast as West Ham's ownership of the Olympic Stadium.
One might argue that if you have an attractive product that you might want more money for it. But to be honest Liverpool are boring to watch, where do they think they will attract more money if they negotiate a separate deal.
My views are that i am against a separate deal for any club. Just look what happened in Spain this season, bar the top two clubs all other's players went to strike for lack of money due to separate TV rights.
I say the hell with Asian market or Australian market. Look after your supporters that travel the country & abroad following their teams in all kind of weather & at greater expense.
Clubs seems to have forgotten the bread & butter.. the fan.
My views are that i am against a separate deal for any club. Just look what happened in Spain this season, bar the top two clubs all other's players went to strike for lack of money due to separate TV rights.
I say the hell with Asian market or Australian market. Look after your supporters that travel the country & abroad following their teams in all kind of weather & at greater expense.
Clubs seems to have forgotten the bread & butter.. the fan.
OK - my post about van Persie looking scary on the image on this board was removed almost immediately. Sorry if any offence was caused. I wasn't on the WUM, just thought that this thread was a bit more ribald than most and I could get away with being a bit more risque than usual. And would have hoped that Arsenal fans would have taken it in the right way.
I really don't go around being a WUM, honest!
But you've got to admit - he does look scary!
(I also wanted to say to humanbeingincroydon that just cos the league is uncompetitive now there's no need to make it worse).
I really don't go around being a WUM, honest!
But you've got to admit - he does look scary!
(I also wanted to say to humanbeingincroydon that just cos the league is uncompetitive now there's no need to make it worse).
A pub landlady took on the PL over her right to use a foreign decoder to show PL games, and won the case. Does this have any bearing on what Liverpool want in terms of making their own Tv deals, I don't know. I wouldn't want other clubs to be poorer in order for us to be richer but surely it's the bigger teams like Liverpool that have made English football of worldwide interest in the first place!
Surely if KK, Henderson, Suarez and Carroll are as good a long-term signings as LFC fans claim, they will not have to resort to financial doping to claim a place in the big 4.
If the messiah fails, we should just give LFC an automatic place in Champions League every season just because of their history like 2005
If the messiah fails, we should just give LFC an automatic place in Champions League every season just because of their history like 2005
Players are massively overpaid and over valued as it is, if anything there needs to be less money in football as it's become a total farce if you look at the way most of the clubs and what extremly average players are being paid up and down the premiership. The clubs and the players are losing touch with the ordinary fan and the product they are selling is not indispensable.
The FFP needs to be implemented rigorously but knowing how money allways finds a way around things I doubt it will.
The FFP needs to be implemented rigorously but knowing how money allways finds a way around things I doubt it will.
- Status