Separate TV deals!?

I definitely don't want to go down the Barca-Real route - I like going into every game with some reasonable doubt about the outcome, it makes winning that much more enjoyable.
Watching the top two Spanish teams is like porn - ultimately unsatisfying.

The appeal of English football is its competitiveness, Utd and Liverpool may well be the most popular and successful teams, but they'd be nothing without a structure to compete in.

 

They'll never reach the levels of Liverpool or Man Utd really. Liverpool and Man Utd's identities took well over 60 years to create. Liverpool with Shankly, Paisley etc and Man Utd with the Busby Babes and now Ferguson. Its why so many people from Asia are still buying into the Liverpool brand, even when we aren't very succesful on the pitch. Things like the Owen FA cup final, Istanbul and Gerrard FA cup final have cemented that belief with those people that Liverpool is special. There's a sense of mystique behind Old Trafford and Anfield (Theatre of Dreams, Kopites etc).

No matter what these small clubs do, no one will ever talk about their past players, managers, stadium or fans in such glowing terms.

 

Lucaaas, I didn't say it would be a quick fix. I meant more long-term. Ie very long-term, 10-20 years of a team like Bolton starting projects in Asia and India. To be fair, in honesty I don't think seperate TV deals would be good for the league but at the same time I fail to see how we can be slated for asking the question. So many comments today about how we are trying to relive the glory days or we're bitter or some ****. No one can face the fact that we are head and shoulders above the rest in the Asian market. I also wanted to draw attention to the likes of City who buy success, I fail to see how this could not be worse for the league's competitiveness - FairPlay is full of loop-holes and city have already proved that it's a worthless policy with their Ethiad deal.

 

The potential income stream for both United and Liverpool would be greater if they managed their own advertising sales (more likely through an international agency). As for piracy, don't you think that this is already estimated in Sky's prices? They euphamistically call it a secondary audience. That's not a silly statement the matter has been discussed many many times at trade conferences so I'm not divulging any secrets.

The maximisation on subscriptions would be designed purely to meet the production costs. It's not a true income stream in itself.

As for United's statements, I can say with some confidence that they may not truly reflect the full story or have prevented them from researching other options.

 

I suppose it is about greed and Money rather than having a competitive league.

Tongue firmly in cheek

So maybe Liverpool and Manchester United could leave the Premier since they obviously don't need the rest of us.
Maybe they could play each other 8 times a season
Fixtures like

Liverpool v Manchester United Reserves
Manchester United v Liverpool Reserves
etc etc

They could play games in China, America, Asia, and Australia
Then Liverpool wouldn't have to build a new stadium
Think of the money that would generate worldwide for the two clubs
wouldn't it be great to see who would win that 4 team League.

 

Exactly.
Real Madrid the most marketable club in the world, the club that invented the term ''galactico'' and still markets their ''galacticos'' cannot get a deal that size. Manchester United who market themselves as being the most famous could never get such a deal. Arsenal who spent 10 consecutive years in the CL could only get £150 million over 10 years. Then suddenly a in global terms ''Manchesters 2nd club'' gets a £400 million deal. Sorry it doesn't wash for me.

There is no doubt about it that, that deal is underhand and is far from right as it is way unrealistic. UEFA need to either investigate it and dismiss it or drop the FFP. They cannot have both.

 

Exactly.
Real Madrid the most marketable club in the world, the club that invented the term ''galactico'' and still markets their ''galacticos'' cannot get a deal that size. Manchester United who market themselves as being the most famous could never get such a deal. Arsenal who spent 10 consecutive years in the CL could only get £150 million over 10 years. Then suddenly a in global terms ''Manchesters 2nd club'' gets a £400 million deal. Sorry it doesn't wash for me.

There is no doubt about it that, that deal is underhand and is far from right as it is way unrealistic. UEFA need to either investigate it and dismiss it or drop the FFP. They cannot have both.

 

Not sure why you're including United in that, it's been mooted so far by Liverpool alone and no United fans on this forum have supported the idea.

 

There could be. But then again people said that about Chelsea in 2006, since which they have only won one Premier League title. Money doesn't equal success - Barring Hart and Ferdinand City's team is man for man more expensive than Utd's in every single position. That didn't stop us beating and largely outplaying them in the CS.

I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it. The fact that the league is run badly and some clubs are benefiting from outside money doesn't mean our clubs should abandon all our principles and shamelessly chase the money. As for City's £400 million deal, I am still reserving judgement on this, as I have yet to see an authoritative assessment of what it actually covers, or whether the total amount is actually £400 million over ten years.

You're obviously not watching good enough porn

I honestly don't think it would be a fix at all. Any business trying to break into a new market is going to incur huge costs and if the rewards don't match up then all that is for nothing. Utd and Liverpool invest millions in their overseas projects cos they know they will get seven figure sponsorship deals from local companies. Bolton can't justify doing the same if all they are likely to get is £100k a year or something if they are lucky.

I think the £400 million deal covers shirt sponsorship for ten years as well. So given that Utd make £35 million a year from their first team and training kit sponsorship, the City deal doesn't seem quite so huge. I think a lot depends on how well City do this year. If they win the PL or reach the last four of the CL then they can claim that they get their sponsors as much exposure as any other club.

 

Swarbs
I thought it was just on Stadium naming rights. If it is, its unrealistic. Secondly, How can they look for naming rights on a stadium, they rent...and do not own? I thought the rules were that you could only make money on a ''fixed asset'' Well their stadium isn't a fixed asset as they don't own it.

 

From Quotes I have read it was Sir Alex who bought the subject up in the first place.

 

Saying he didn't agree with it!!

 

The interview I saw was on TV in general conversation. (this was before the Liverpool statement this week).
Sir Alex was saying that the sale of United games abroad should bring more money into the club than it does at present.

 

Your right mate he said the amount paid at present was'nt enough,but he also said he believes the way the money is shared between the clubs is fair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15269831.stm

 

Nope, it's not just naming rights. From what I've seen, the split is roughly £20 million for the kit sponsorship, £10 million for the naming rights, and £10 million for naming, hospitality etc in the new campus thing they're going to build. On that basis it doesn't seem to far out of whack - Utd, Liverpool, Bayern and Barca all make more from kit sponsorship, and Bayern make around £30 million a year from naming rights, hospitality etc at their stadium. But like I said, the key is for them to be successful this year. If they are more successful than Utd, Barca or Bayern then they can say that their deal reflects their exposure and level of success.

Re: renting the stadium, they have paid £2 million a year to Manchester City Council for the naming rights. Which seems fair enough to me, after all loads of shops just rent their premises and put their own branding on them.

Do you mean the NWT interview with Gordon Burns? He was talking about the deal as a whole, saying the PL didn't get enough money given the number of countries the games are broadcast to and the size of the audience. Which is fair enough given that they reckon the new overseas deal could be at least twice as large as the current one. I think around 1.4 billion people watch the PL around the world, so the current deal of £400 million a year represents only around 30 pence per viewer. He wasn't saying Utd should get a larger share.

 

Whilst interesting to read the majority of the above comments, why are we treating this issues on an either/or basis. All of the comments, both pro and con made by the clubs, the Premier League, News International and other interested aprties have to be put into context.

We are in the build up to a new round of negotiating regarding the tv rights and there are plenty of positioning statements being made by all parties. Ayre has made one on behlaf of Liverpool. Ferguson made one on behalf of United with his "sleeping with the devil" statement. If you can gain access to the News International Investors Forums you will see both corporate and individual statements declaring that Sky is paying too much for the tv rights and that the offer should be reduced - as some claim in line with the economic situation.

I strongly doubt that any Premiership club will take any unilateral acrion. However, by making their interest in 'other options' public they will hope to influence the new 'deal' in their own favour.

 

I agree with that final asessment. It should be judged per country and per continent. If Bolton and Everton and Fulham are only getting viewership in the UK they should get none of the international money except when they are playing against clubs that do have large viewerships overseas.

 

Who the f..k is he anyway?

 

This "separate tv deal" is never going to be allowed to happen because 14 teams have to agree on the proposal and i can only see 7 teams at the most voting for it.

 

I just don't see how any teams other than the usual suspects will vote for something which gives them less money. It doesn't make sense. But Ayre has at least started a debate which may have a ripple effect and could possibly lead to the foreign tv companies wanting to deal directly with the clubs they see as the ones their viewers want most to watch.