Separate TV deals!?

This would be complete bollocks. Just means that all teams that have ambition would never be able to EVER achieve that ambition, and clubs like mine would just fall and fall.

 

I made this point on the other article.
This is unless you live in Bolton.
Supposing you're in the pub and Bolton and Fulham were playing each other and there was a choice between that and the racing? Majority will rule that that game will not remain on the tv screen.

If it were Liverpool or Man United that were on the tv screen and it was a choice between that and the racing, the racing would not be on the tv screen. Even Man United fans will sit through a Liverpool game. They may not admit it, but its the truth, its physcology. They will sit through it hoping Liverpool will lose.

Its like people going to a night-club week-in, week out, they will not want to miss a week in case they miss something. Its all about human nature. The ones that draw the biggest overall audience share should recieve the most revenue.

In that case in places like Ian Ayre said ie Kuala Lumpur, Delhi, Hong Kong, Malaysia who want to watch Liverpool and Man United, week in, week out and not West Brom, Stoke and Everton should be allowed to.

The clubs should benefit from that.

 

You mean more that you're already falling?

 

Very poor idea liverpool.

 

The only times I've watched Liverpool in the last two seasons were when they were playing Arsenal and Chelsea and I was hoping Liverpool would win!

United winning trophies > Liverpool losing every day of the week

 

Swarbs.
Have a read over my overall post and you will see that I am in fact right. In countries where Liverpool and Man United have the lion-share of the fanbase, they do not want to watch Fulham vs West Brom.

 

I'm sure you are. But then I reckon the majority of UK based Utd fans would like every single United game to be at 3pm on Saturday and televised live and free to air. You can't always get what you want...

Btw, I'm sure there's a whole load of countries that also would much rather watch Barca, Real, Milan, Bayern or any number of other clubs ahead of Utd or Liverpool.

 

It is pretty obvious most iof not all are against it. Thng is football clubs are a business and a franchise. Making money is the bottom line, not fk trophies, cash. There should be no shock at this.

FIFA are attempting to circumvent national laws to make more cash UEFA are no better.

News Flash: Qatar have just bought... ahem.. been successful in their bid to land the winter olympics and will hold them in june..

 

Let me guess, they promised to hold them in a giant air conditioned dome filled with real snow imported from the Alps, but now they've won it'll actually be in a tent with a group of illegal immigrants lobbing ice cubs at the competitors.

Should make the curling more interesting at least...

 

Sad thing is Swarbs, if it happened, it would raise an eyebrow, but raise only one.

I think the downhill skiing and skijumping would also be interesting


And a dome yes, cubes thrown no, it will be like the raves in the late 80s with skinny crack whores trying to rub coolpops on you

 

Marketers also wanted to have Christmas 2 in June. However parents were against it, as kids already saw a fat bloke with a beard dressed in red and white once a week, they call him Wayne Rooney.

 

please log in to view this image

 

If you look at Ayre's proposal purely in the light of broadcast technology as it stands today then the arguments regarding ethicacy (in terms of the rest of the Premiership/ lower leagues) and corporate profit is lost in favour of ethicacy. As has been said above, the only clubs who would certainly benefit from the freedom to sell their overseas rights would be Liverpool and United. Such a move may be interesting to Arsenal, Chelsea and City but that interest would be tempered by the difficulty they would face in maximising revenues in direct competition with United and Liverpool. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the required 12 clubs would be forthcoming to support a change.

However, a number of factors are also in play that may influence both United and Liverpool to at least consider unilatteral action:

Even though the vast majority of broadcasting is now digital, the structure of the tv markets internationally is still very reminiscent of the old terrestial market. The question really is: is this model sustainable? In it's present form it is a rigged market anyway. Sky have a package agreement with the Premier League for domestic and international transmittion. Ostensibly Sky then sells those rights around the world. However, Sky is owned by News International, as is Fox Soccer in the USA, Fox Sports in Australia and New Zealand and a host of other distributors in Asia (either outright ownership or major holdings). Hence true competition for international distribution is limited in the extreeme.

However, the very technology that delivers the broadcasts is changing rapidly. TVs themselves are becoming 'smart' and the gap between a tv and a computer is becoming more and more blurred. Whilst it may not be legal we already know that should our team not be shown live by Sky on tv we can still pick up a lead for it on the net. Already download formats like Sopcast and Veetle can deliver HD quality with little or no buffering and are far more stable than they used to be. Therefore clubs will need to question if they actually need mega broadcasters like Sky to deliver their matches.

As importantly, the clubs have to consider their commercial existance. Now, I am totally aware then when it comes to the global financial/economic situation I tend to be very pesimistic. However, I agree with Eric that there is something very big and very nasty out there waiting to hit us that will make the last 4 years 'austerity' look like a picnic. If that is so then neither of our clubs can survive on the few pence per head that it took to fill our grounds in the 1930s. Of necessity they would have to maximise whatever potential revenue streams existed - even at the expense of the other clubs in the league.

As has been said above, United floated the idea initially, Ayre has refined it a little. I doubt that either club truly believed that they would win the argument today. However they are both signaling that the matter is open for consideration and that their interests will not be sacrificed continually.

 

Dave.
Can I ask you a question. How is this going to affect most of the clubs in the PL? The domestic TV deal will remain untouched so that doesn't affect the majority of clubs as most don't have a global following, only a small number do.
Secondly, If Liverpool are unsuccessful, could they sell their rights to NESN whom Fenway Sports Group have a majority share-holding in (80%) who then could sell those rights to countries where Liverpool have support in? However it would be NESN that would be transmitting the games.

 

That issue itself is likely to be influenced a lot by the recent EU ruling. Either Sky will need to buy up the PL rights for the whole of Europe, and probably face an antitrust case and fine, or more European broadcasters will start offering their channels in the UK.

Not sure of the relevance there - the clubs may question the need for mega broadcasters, but as long as the mega broadcasters are providing more money than most of the clubs could achieve by selling the games themselves the status quo will stay in place. After all, it's as easy to pirate MUTV as it is to pirate Sky Sports.

If anything a further global collapse would only harm any move towards individual rights selling. If the economy gets worse and grounds start to empty, the smaller clubs will be even more militantly opposed to anything that might threaten their TV revenues. And with the PL charter saying agreement by 14 out of 20 clubs is needed to make the change, just seven clubs could block any move Liverpool or Utd tried to make.

Actually Utd have rubbished the idea every time another party has raised it. Liverpool are well and truly alone in considering it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/4634179.stm
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...s/235662_reds_committed_to_collective_tv_deal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/12/manchester-united-chelsea-liverpool-breakaway

The domestic rights are worth around £600 million a year, and the international rights are worth around £400 million at the moment. So if it was just the international rights to be split the impact wouldn't be huge. However, Ayre is talking about the next round of negotiations for the three seasons from 2013-16. That amount hasn't been negotiated yet, but if the past trend of doubling each time continues then it could rise to £800 million a year.

Under the current revenue split, Utd would get around £48 million of that, with the lowest amount being around £32 million. But if it went to individual rights, based on the La Liga model Utd would probably get around £120 million with the bottom ten clubs only getting around £10 million and clubs like Everton and Villa would get around £20 million as opposed to £40+ million under the current system. So I reckon it would cost all clubs outside the top six at least £20 million each. Spurs and City would probably benefit a bit, Arsenal and Chelsea would get around £20-30 million more each and Liverpool and Utd would clean up.

Under the current model, Liverpool can't sell their rights to anyone. The rights are sold by the Premier League, who divide the revenue up between the clubs. If Liverpool were successful in changing the model to an individual model then they could sell their rights to anyone they want.

 

The domestic rights are worth around £600 million a year, and the international rights are worth around £400 million at the moment. So if it was just the international rights to be split the impact wouldn't be huge. However, Ayre is talking about the next round of negotiations for the three seasons from 2013-16. That amount hasn't been negotiated yet, but if the past trend of doubling each time continues then it could rise to £800 million a year.

Under the current revenue split, Utd would get around £48 million of that, with the lowest amount being around £32 million. But if it went to individual rights, based on the La Liga model Utd would probably get around £120 million with the bottom ten clubs only getting around £10 million and clubs like Everton and Villa would get around £20 million as opposed to £40+ million under the current system. So I reckon it would cost all clubs outside the top six at least £20 million each. Spurs and City would probably benefit a bit, Arsenal and Chelsea would get around £20-30 million more each and Liverpool and Utd would clean up.

Under the current model, Liverpool can't sell their rights to anyone. The rights are sold by the Premier League, who divide the revenue up between the clubs. If Liverpool were successful in changing the model to an individual model then they could sell their rights to anyone they want.

Swarbs.
In my opinion Liverpool and Man United should organise their own individual overseas deals and leave the domestic one intact. They've earnt the right to. If the other clubs want to have the same global appeal, then they must earn it, and that has been my point all along. I don't think they as of yet have earnt it.

 

Honestly mate I disagree. I think the fair revenue split is best for the PL and for football - I prefer having a competitive domestic league where the lower clubs can regularly take points of the top one.

Also, I don't think the "we've earned the right" argument is really in tune with the heritage of Utd or Liverpool. None of our great four managers ever said our clubs had earned the right to anything that we haven't worked for here and now. Ultimately all our success is in the past and every season should begin again from square one with the situation as fair as possible. Besides which, we have our commercial revenue that already puts us quite a way ahead of most other clubs, and once Liverpool have their new stadium we will both have huge matchday revenues.

Utd and Liverpool are all about never taking anything for granted and always fighting to succeed. Sharing the TV revenue out fairly is in line with that philosophy and will help keep our clubs from going off the rails like Real Madrid did when flush with TV cash over the last seven or eight years.

 

Swarbs.
If things go on as they are, there could be one team contesting the league in a few years time due to the amount of money they have and sadly its not Manchester United, its City.
Since the premiership began, there has been a maximum of 6 clubs that could contest the title. If Liverpool and Man United organised their own deals and if Spurs and Arsenal organised theirs albeit with not as much revenue of course, then we would have a relatively competitive league, as we would have 4 generated their own income clubs those I mentioned plus two ''new money'' clubs..Chelsea and City. That would leave us with 6 clubs contesting the title, and what would have changed....nothing

 

Swarbs, City have splashed out between 300-400 million pounds in the last 3 years. They have now conducted a 400 million Ethiad deal which is against fairplay because a) it's grossly above market value especially for a club of their size (ie no foreign viewership whatsoever) and b) against fairplay since Ethiad's owner is Sheik's cousin. No action will be taken against them. My point? There is no "philisophy" so to speak when the FA and UEFA couldn't give a flying **** if it works out to be in their favour. The league is badly run and is becoming dog eat dog. If we can get a cut of what we've earnt, then why not ask the question? It's not a fluke that we have such a big following abroad, it's come from years of marketing and commercial tactics such as our new deal with Standard Chartered. Why don't other smaller clubs cotton on and buy asian players or get asian sponsorship deals - rather than moan about how life's unfair...