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.
Everyone else has pretty much summed it up. It's a very bad idea.

However, as 14 of the PL clubs would need to vote in Liverpool's favour then it won't happen. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
 
The Guardian says: '
"Liverpool's motive is greed, pure and simple, and removing collective bargaining would have a damaging impact on the national game as we know it. Indeed, if it reduces the competitiveness of the league even further - and we are already in a situation where only a few clubs can win the thing - then long-term it may render the Premier League unattractive as a product."
 
Liverpool are nowhere near as big as Arsenal.
<laugh>
The delusion never ceases to amaze me.
Liverpool, Europes best five times are smaller than a no mark North London Club that have no European pedigree whatsoever? I suppose this idiot thinks that Theo Waloctt is as good as Messi.
There is no club in England bigger than Liverpool.
 
theHotHead said:
Football will always be a sport to me so the idea of fairness will always be overwhelming. I don't want to win because we had the greatest spending power or some other unfair advantage.

I want Arsenal to win the Arsenal way, fair enough, the Arsenal way of late has been utter pants, but I like many Gooners believe in the ideals Wenger believes in, I just think he needs to spend some sodding money to fix our problems, but the overall idea of spending what you earn and developing players is noble and something all clubs should strive towards.

One thing is certain, Sky ruined football.
Click to expand...

I agree with the general sentiment but it has always been true that some clubs have had financial advantages. However, fifty years ago, these were not big enough to be either self-sustaining or to prevent poorer (less money) clubs winning the league. To me the thing that has made the biggest difference is not Sky but the Champions League. Basically if you happened to be in a place that qualified for it near the beginning then this gave both extra money and attracted the best players which means that the same clubs have tended to stay in it and become richer and richer. There is a similar effect with relegation and promotion from the premiership but it is not so pronounced.

I'm not sure what the solution is though.
 
What Ian Ayre has said to a large extent is right. In the overseas market, the customers do not want to watch Bolton vs Fulham, well very few do. They want to watch Liverpool and Man Uniteds fixtures week in, week out. Its what draws audiences.

Lets look at it another way. If you go into a pub and Fulham and West Brom are playing in general and there is a choice between that and the racing, who will get their way? I'll tell you who, the customers who want to watch the racing.

If its say Liverpool vs someone, and the racing, who gets their way? The customers that want to watch Liverpool. Thats the overall difference. The bigger the audience should dictate the percentage of the cut. Even Man United fans will sit in front of a Liverpool game, they say they won't, but thats lies, its physcology, they want to see Liverpool lose. But they are part of the audience.

So in my opinion, having it shared equally on the overseas deal, not the domestic deal is not right. Its Liverpool and Man United that draw audiences and not Fulham, Bolton and West Brom...unless they are playing Liverpool and Man United.
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
What Ian Ayre has said to a large extent is right. In the overseas market, the customers do not want to watch Bolton vs Fulham, well very few do. They want to watch Liverpool and Man Uniteds fixtures week in, week out. Its what draws audiences.

Lets look at it another way. If you go into a pub and Fulham and West Brom are playing in general and there is a choice between that and the racing, who will get their way? I'll tell you who, the customers who want to watch the racing.

If its say Liverpool vs someone, and the racing, who gets their way? The customers that want to watch Liverpool. Thats the overall difference. The bigger the audience should dictate the percentage of the cut. Even Man United fans will sit in front of a Liverpool game, they say they won't, but thats lies, its physcology, they want to see Liverpool lose. But they are part of the audience.

So in my opinion, having it shared equally on the overseas deal, not the domestic deal is not right. Its Liverpool and Man United that draw audiences and not Fulham, Bolton and West Brom...unless they are playing Liverpool and Man United.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to remember when Liverpool were relevant. Stop trying to side up to United. You are nowhere near on their level anymore.
 
Unless the pub is an area with a high density of Fulham or West Brom fans.

That would happen in just two places and both are districts and not countries so therefore irrelevant. They are West London (the non Chelsea support) and the other side of Perry Bar/Handsworth, the non Aston Villa support.
 
Ensiluokkainen said:
Who can anyone be so ****ing arrogant <doh>



Unless the pub is an area with a density of Fulham or West Brom fans.

Again totally arrogant
In the real world not everyone wants to watch Liverpool, so don't flatter yourself that they do. <doh>

Arrogant and patronising. The way that this has been written implies that there are only 5 teams in the PL <doh>



I repeat - can we not withdraw this idiot's facility to post his deluded drivel on this thread?
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty amazing too. I won't deny Liverpool are a big team because they are, I often wonder what would happen to the fanbase of a club like liverpool or Manchester United if the same fate that happened to Norwich happened to them. Relegated to league one, beaten 7-1 at home to colchester. Watching yeovil and carlisle every week.

I can tell you, it was a humbling experience and I can tell you I have nothing but respect for the swindon towns and huddersfields of this world. Bigger clubs would do better to remember this rather than treating them as an irrelevance.
 
I stand by my point, the clubs that create the largest audiences should recieve the most money. These are Liverpool and Manchester United. Liverpool vs Manchester United over any game in the PL enjoys the largest audience figures.
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
I stand by my point, the clubs that create the largest audiences should recieve the most money. These are Liverpool and Manchester United. Liverpool vs Manchester United over any game in the PL enjoys the largest audience figures.
Click to expand...

It's a wonder you can stand at all, magic feet or not. <laugh>
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
What Ian Ayre has said to a large extent is right. In the overseas market, the customers do not want to watch Bolton vs Fulham, well very few do. They want to watch Liverpool and Man Uniteds fixtures week in, week out. Its what draws audiences.

Lets look at it another way. If you go into a pub and Fulham and West Brom are playing in general and there is a choice between that and the racing, who will get their way? I'll tell you who, the customers who want to watch the racing.

If its say Liverpool vs someone, and the racing, who gets their way? The customers that want to watch Liverpool. Thats the overall difference. The bigger the audience should dictate the percentage of the cut. Even Man United fans will sit in front of a Liverpool game, they say they won't, but thats lies, its physcology, they want to see Liverpool lose. But they are part of the audience.

So in my opinion, having it shared equally on the overseas deal, not the domestic deal is not right. Its Liverpool and Man United that draw audiences and not Fulham, Bolton and West Brom...unless they are playing Liverpool and Man United.
Click to expand...

I still can't believe that this clown was a mod under his alter ego KPR
 
Elpistoleros magic feet said:
What Ian Ayre has said to a large extent is right. In the overseas market, the customers do not want to watch Bolton vs Fulham, well very few do. They want to watch Liverpool and Man Uniteds fixtures week in, week out. Its what draws audiences.

Lets look at it another way. If you go into a pub and Fulham and West Brom are playing in general and there is a choice between that and the racing, who will get their way? I'll tell you who, the customers who want to watch the racing.

If its say Liverpool vs someone, and the racing, who gets their way? The customers that want to watch Liverpool. Thats the overall difference. The bigger the audience should dictate the percentage of the cut. Even Man United fans will sit in front of a Liverpool game, they say they won't, but thats lies, its physcology, they want to see Liverpool lose. But they are part of the audience.

So in my opinion, having it shared equally on the overseas deal, not the domestic deal is not right. Its Liverpool and Man United that draw audiences and not Fulham, Bolton and West Brom...unless they are playing Liverpool and Man United.
Click to expand...

I think you are overestimating how much people want to watch liverpool. You are not a particularly strong team and you do not play particularly good football. I for one would prefer to see man utd, chelsea, man city, tottenham and sunderland (because of Bendtner) play instead of watching you.
 
I would rather watch them than the 15th placed team in the premier league...who is that again?...oh yeah...Arsenal. Enjoy your season in the CL...it will be your last for the forseeable future. You were 3 players short of being champions, you are now 5 short of a top four side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back