Separate TV deals!?

Swarbs.
You're forgetting something, Liverpool who have just a big a fanbase as Man U would also be selling their rights, so Man United wouldn't have it all their own way.

 

Just keep telling yourself that. The professionals, of course, disagree:

http://www.interbrand.com/Libraries/Branding_Studies/Red_Devils-1.sflb.ashx
"190 million homes worldwide receive Manchester United's TV station MUTV. United's weekly global TV audience is equivalent to a Super Bowl's viewership"

So our own TV channel, which shows no live games at all, is already bigger than the largest sporting competition in the US. You've got some catching up to do there mate

 

100 million watch MUTV, they however aren't human. More people watch kids cartoons than watch MUTV. As if sane people want to watch repeats of Bobby Charlton reminiscing about 1957 and the Gary Neville documentary ''And Becks said to me and I said to Becks''
As if. I've watched the channel, its like Old Trafford...dull and boring.

 

Like you've been there.

 

Mmmm...good comeback. It doesn't matter than Utd have a much larger global brand and following that Liverpool cos you can make **** up

 

"100 million watch MUTV, they however aren't human. More people watch kids cartoons than watch MUTV. As if sane people want to watch repeats of Bobby Charlton reminiscing about 1957 and the Gary Neville documentary ''And Becks said to me and I said to Becks''
As if. I've watched the channel, its like Old Trafford...dull and boring."
Problem with me quoting at the moment but wanted to add this.

EMF the above quote is the kind that gets peoples backs up, this includes Liverpool fans as well as Man Utd fans.

Swarbs response to you was factual and you respond with a childish dig at Man Utd. Man Utd fans then get pissed off and the thread changes into cock measuring.

There is a banter thread if you want to wind the mancs up.

 

I was responding to Swarbs deluded ramblings that Man Who are the bestest club in the universe.

 

Liverpool are on Sky Sports/ESPN (premier league matches) more than Man Utd, I believe.

 

No his response was factual or at least based on some research yours was not. If you could have countered his information with some of your own then fine.

Not getting into it. Stay on topic or move to the banter thread.

 

This is a terrible idea and as a previous poster says goes against the "Liverpool way". I suggest that it will not go down well with the rest of the club in the Premier League. The PL is successful because there is a bit of competition albeit it usual is between the top four.

The Scottish and Spanish leagues are won on the head to head of the big teams, and Germany will soon go that way too

As Swarbs has mentioned it would probably benefit United more than us.

 

Not sure what that is supposed to prove?

 

It means Liverpoool get more TV coverage seeing they are English footballs most successful compared to the 2nd most succsessful.

 

For the SECOND time today. "Here we go AGAIN"

 

I find it hard to imagine what it would mean if this went ahead. Sky would still put a lot of money into the remaining EPL teams so would it then still be competative?

Also if we broke away I imagine others would so we may still have a top 4 or 5 teams. So would it make no difference? I suppose it would be all down to the package that Sky produced for the remaining teams.

 

Does it **** you div. How many people actually tuning in will prove popularity. Viewing figures worlwide, not that hard to figure out is it?

Then again, it is you.

 

Why would Sky be showing just as much Liverpool games, if not more, than Man Utd if Liverpool didn't have a fan base close to Man Utd?

 

I'm sure it is close. In fact, it is United and Liverpool who would clean up if this sort of thing happened.

I would suppose we've got the bigger global market but if truth be told I couldn't really care less, I'm not a supporter of this. I think the PL deal should be split amongst the PL and maybe european games exploited for some additional income.

 

Its to do with adverts, If more people want to see team x play, they will get more games, as Sky can make more money on the adverts.

 

Man Utd should get about 10 times as much from over sea than anyone else to be fair.

The PL deal is fine, allows other clubs to get decent revenues.

 

Last season Utd had 26 live games, Liverpool had 23, Chelsea and Arsenal 22, City had 19 and Spurs 17:

http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/fe/72/0,,12306~160510,00.pdf

For the first half of this season, both Utd and Liverpool feature in nine games:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/11/sky-espn-live-premier-league-fixtures

They're paying roughly the same money to all the clubs, so I assume they try to show the top clubs all the roughly the same amount. Over the same period, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea have eight games and City have seven so it seems roughly balanced despite the fact that Utd and Liverpool probably get many more live viewers than City and Spurs.

Based on La Liga, clubs like Everton, Spurs and Villa would be getting less than half the TV money of Utd and Liverpool, with Chelsea, Arsenal and City probably around the middle. Last season, out of around £1 billion, Utd got £60 million and Blackpool got around £40 million. If it was all sold individually like La Liga, I'd expect Utd to get around £150 million, Liverpool, £120 million, Chelsea and Arsenal maybe getting around £90 million, and Spurs and City around £70 million with the remaining £400 million split roughly equally with the bigger clubs like Everton and Villa getting about £35 million and the bottom clubs getting just £20 odd million.

So it'd go from the bottom club getting around 66% of the top club's revenue to getting around 15%, and everyone outside the top six suffering. And that's still assuming a fairer distribution than La Liga where Atletico Madrid, Europa League finalists, get only around £50 million a year. Not good for competitiveness at all.