Renegotiate the Sky FL Contract

Cellino was right argue about the exploitation of certain clubs regarding lost match day revenues when their matches are broadcast by Sky.

However I feel his complaint is not far reaching enough.

Leeds United are a massive world wide brand with millions of supporters. Due to the current Football League television deal we unable to earn extra revenue from live games to enable us to compete with clubs who receive parachute payments from the Premier League. The source of the parachute payments is broadcasting rights sold both in the UK and overseas.

Being able to sell or broadcast on your own TV station (LUTV) is a complex and for reaching debate. Especially with regards to the other clubs in The Football League.

Let's take tonights game Luton v Leeds as an example. The match is sold out. Leeds' allocation of 1500 inadequate for the number of fans wishing to see the game. The match is not broadcast live on any television station and is unlikely to be on any stream due to Premier League teams being in cup action tonight also.

In this instance both Luton and Leeds are losing much needed revenue. If LUTV were permitted to broadcast the match at a charge of £10 and 10,000 subscribed this would equal the match day revenue generated from ticket sales. The profit generated could then be split equally between the 2 clubs. Another option could be profits split between the whole of the Football League on a pro rata divisional basis inline with the current distribution of television monies.

This and other broadcast possibilities need seriously looking at before another television contract is agreed by The Football League. The League has been undervalued and is unable to maximize it's appeal both domestically and internationally within the current agreement.

If the top teams in The Premier League were not receiving the massive amounts they do then something would have happened years ago. It's time for The Football League to realize the opportunity in front them and act boldly in the interests of their members.

 

Remember beam backs have already been allowed.

My personal preference would be to renew with Sky or BT for an increased sum. Within that contract Clubs playing away from home in matches not clashing with other live on TV matches being broadcast by the television rights winner should be able to be broadcast on in house TV stations, LUTV etc charging viewers a match fee. This would not make games free to air as subscribers would also have to subscribe to their Clubs TV station as well as to the individual matches. All matches broadcast on in house TV stations to be available worldwide.

Clubs to retain their in house TV station subscriptions as now and match subscriptions to be divided proportionally throughout the Football League.

 

Sky money is only part of the problem, as the FL need to rethink cash distribution full stop. The FL are trying to be ethical and force clubs to operate as normal businesses, to ensure they dont overspend and go into administration. Great fully agree with that, yet they come out with parachute payments system and increase said parachute payments and extend them for 4 years. All this does is tempt clubs to overspend and gamble on £120m payday for promotion, then not bothered about season in the prem as they can get relegated and get 4 years of £16m per year in bunce for failure. Unfair, stupid way to run any business and penalises everyone who doesnt play the spend game. We are a massive club with worldwide support yet cannot compete with a pub team like WBA, Stoke, Bournmouth, QPR, HUll ....

 

They need to cap how many squad players and youth team players the top clubs have forcing some of the youngsters to drop down a division or two on contracts.

The top teams snap everyone up, they loan them out and keep the ones who turn out okay releasing the lesser ones.

If they were restricted a few would slip through and the lesser teams could then gain more in the way of transfer fee's

 

Massive clubs don't go bust !!

 

I always thought that parachute payments were introduced as a short term measure, to allow clubs to introduce new player contracts that specified the impact of relegation on them - i.e. crap wages, no bonus, etc.

The idea was that after 5 years or so, every running contract would have the appropriate clauses in them, so that relegation would not endanger the club's existence. Has that happened? I don't think so. Clubs are scared to put in these clauses as it shows defeatism that may prevent a player signing (as if he's turn down those wages!), so many relegated clubs continue to suffer, hence the ongoing parachute payments.

Bottom line? Relegated clubs bring these crises on themselves. Bugger them - there should be no parachute payments at all. All it does is bugger up competition in the Championship. And support clubs that should know better. Not one other benefit, so they should be scrapped.

 

West Brom have used the 'bounce' method for a number of years and openly admit doing so. Their business plan was to invest in promotion to the prem and then be relegated and receive parachute payments. They did it brilliantly and it took them 3 attempts to get established in the prem and are now almost a fixture. Hull, Norwich & Burnley are also doing it. All contracts have a break-clause stating that relegation brings a 60% reduction in wages, sometimes more. Also can have a clause stating that promotion will see wages rise double etc. So quality of players increases.

Those seasons when we were first in the Championship saw Southampton, Swansea and Norwich invest and gamble. Indeed we saw back to back promotions for a couple who were with is in L1. We didnt and why we're still here. Remember Grayson wanted new blood at Xmas in our first season in the champs and because we were top at Xmas and been in top 6 all season Bates said no and we finished 7th and gone backwards since.
Parachute payments are unfair because we cannot make enough money to compete against a little club who get the payments, the differential in earnings is huge

 

All good points from everyone so far.

Other than promotion to the Premier League and selling our talent does anyone have any ideas about how we can increase our revenues. Ultimately it would have to come from the fans but we do have a massive worldwide support most of whom watch on from afar. Any increased exposure would result in further sponsorship and advertising income you would have thought.

Virtually all the Premier League clubs have tried to tap into the US, Asia, Chinese markets whilst we just fall further and further behind.

 

Easiest way to increase revenue is to buy the place where Shaks goes to buy his beer!

 

Another couple of wins along with some decent football, challenge for top 6 or better and gates of 30k or above would be the easiest route.

Extra gate receipts, extra merchandise being sold, all helps.

Years ago I wondered if we tried to ensure a Scandinavian player was present because it helped with overseas interest and revenue

 

The reason every club gets a large sum from Sky is so that they are on stand by for any of their games to be chosen for a game on TV, some clubs only get 2 or 3 games on Sky while Leeds always have over ten at least.
It is well documented that some Leeds gates are down by around 5,000 or more when on TV but if you could log into Leeds TV pay a tenner and watch a home game indoors many families wouldn't bother paying upwards of a hundred quid to go and neither would many of the long distance fans.
What would be fairer would be to have a limit of no more than 5 home games chosen for TV and no less than 3 for championship teams.

 

Whilst we frigged around in L1 and Championship under Bates, we lost a whole generation of kids through overpricing. Those kids are running around in scum and citeh shirts, Chelsea, spuds anyone but Leeds. All because of peer pressure and Premier league exposure. bates's mismanagement is almost impossible to retrieve as its been too long. Our only hope is a new generation seeing their club back in the prem.

Scandinavia has always been a great place for the club and so too is the USA and Asia but we need marketing, exposure and investment. Maybe a new owner can bring that, because we have untapped potential

 

brilliant WJ.........

 

Only away games. It's around £50 p.a to subscribe to LUTV so taking last night's game away at Luton as an example a home fan would have to pay £10 + £50 = £60 to watch one game involving his/her club.

 

On that basis Leeds would have to agree a fee with Luton in order to show it on LUTV, with every team negotitating for themselves some clubs might(would) up their prices when playing one of the bigger supported sides, which in time would result in loads of toys being thrown from prams as spates between teams becomes a regular occurance.
This is why as a league they have negotiators representing ALL clubs to try and give all clubs a fair slice of the pie.

 

So speaks a voice from a titchy team with no fanbase.

 

We do ok Glory, there is always a high demand for tickets when we appear at Wembley

 

woman beating is still popular in Bermondsey.

 

In fairness if the Wallies were to negotiate their own TV contract, it wouldnt amount to much more than a few bags of crisps a year so naturally they want a slice of what big clubs like ourselves, Newcastle and Villa can earn for them. In fact, theyre happy enough with what Luton can earn for them