The on topic thread

[SM]

No I don’t, but the bigger clubs also have to look after themselves. How does one keep up with the oil clubs spending? United for example should be able to utilise their strengths in order to keep up. Liverpool, arsenal and spurs also I’m sure would benefit from negotiating their own deal. FFP hasn’t reigned in City or PSG, so clubs are going to have to expediate their own finances otherwise they themselves won’t be able to compete

Right, so you criticize the oil clubs for immoral spending but are happy to shove proper clubs under the bus as a lazy way for spurs to close the gap (it wouldn't anyway).

 

[SM]

*assuming table accuracy

How many could get more on their own. I'd be surprised if it was over half. 100m+ is a lot to better for the likes of Palace, Swansea, Watford etc as well.

Bournemouth in 9th is crazy. You'd be ruining more than half the pl for a few extra bucks that won't even help the likes of spurs win a title.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Right, so you criticize the oil clubs for immoral spending but are happy to shove proper clubs under the bus as a lazy way for spurs to close the gap (it wouldn't anyway).

Utilising a clubs strengths (its fan base) is not a lazy way to close a gap. Completely different to having owners who hand out £100m cheques like confetti. Nothing immoral about it at all

 

[SM]

Utilising a clubs strengths (its fan base) is not a lazy way to close a gap. Completely different to having owners who hand out £100m cheques like confetti. Nothing immoral about it at all

It is when it's throwing more than half the league by the wayside for no benefit if other big clubs will also get the same if not a bigger leg up.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

It is when it's throwing more than half the league by the wayside for no benefit if other big clubs will also get the same if not a bigger leg up.

Well it’s not a fair league anyway unless you have proper FFP which we don’t. So it’s an unfortunate circumstance of the oil money I reckon if you want to look at it that way.

 

[SM]

Well it’s not a fair league anyway unless you have proper FFP which we don’t. So it’s an unfortunate circumstance of the oil money I reckon if you want to look at it that way.

Of course it isn't but again, it wouldn't advantage spurs, it'd just disadvantage the bottom 11.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Bournemouth in 9th is crazy. You'd be ruining more than half the pl for a few extra bucks that won't even help the likes of spurs win a title.

I don't want it and I think we could get more out of it than the current model. No use having 6-7 clubs that are super wealthy and widen the gap to those that can't.
The appeal of the PL is that it is super competitive. Let's call this for what it is, the mancs wanting to keep pace with the ever growing City at the expense of most of the league. Pass.

 

[typeclub]

But I thought the EPL had really strong depth so the shitty clubs should be able to attract heaps of interest on their own too. Is it all lies?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I don't want it and I think we could get more out of it than the current model. No use having 6-7 clubs that are super wealthy and widen the gap to those that can't.
The appeal of the PL is that it is super competitive. Let's call this for what it is, the mancs wanting to keep pace with the ever growing City at the expense of most of the league. Pass.

hey, this is solely about United. The other 19 clubs are more than welcome to enjoy around 100m in TV money per annum.

It really has nothing to do with any other club. We should be allowed to negotiate our own Media deals.

 

[SM]

But I thought the EPL had really strong depth so the shitty clubs should be able to attract heaps of interest on their own too. Is it all lies?

Who said depth = overseas fans?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

hey, this is solely about United. The other 19 clubs are more than welcome to enjoy around 100m in TV money per annum.

It really has nothing to do with any other club. We should be allowed to negotiate our own Media deals.

I don’t agree with the last part. It’s not good for the league as a whole and thus does have something to do with other clubs, it’s something Utd no doubt want as it’s an area of competitive advantage due to global brand size.

Singular broadcasting agreements benefit the larger clubs and hinder or severely impinge the smaller clubs. That’s not good for the league, a centralised broadcast structure maintains some semblance of parity amongst the 20 clubs, but still benefits those who perform best. Clearly we can’t have both so I dare say most clubs would vote in favour of retaining a fairer model.

 

[moomba]

Would be great for fans. Why pay sky a shit load of money for 4 channels if i could pay sfa and watch my team live wherever and on the go.

What if you wanted to watch a game as a neutral? Or a key game in a title race not involving your team.

Would be awful for fans imo.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

What if you wanted to watch a game as a neutral? Or a key game in a title race not involving your team.

Would be awful for fans imo.

then you'd pay for the privilege and probably a lot less than through sky

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I don’t agree with the last part. It’s not good for the league as a whole and thus does have something to do with other clubs, it’s something Utd no doubt want as it’s an area of competitive advantage due to global brand size.

Singular broadcasting agreements benefit the larger clubs and hinder or severely impinge the smaller clubs. That’s not good for the league, a centralised broadcast structure maintains some semblance of parity amongst the 20 clubs, but still benefits those who perform best. Clearly we can’t have both so I dare say most clubs would vote in favour of retaining a fairer model.

Yeah but why do i care about parity when my club can establish a competitive advantage? On the European stage our clubs compete against teams with massive domestic competitive advantages.

I don't see any reason why United need to involve themselves in collective bargaining arrangements regarding TV deals and doubt whether a vote is even required or lawful.

United could offer their opponents a cut of the media profits on our fixtures. If we make say £70m a game, facey take £25m, we take £35 and give £10m to Bournemouth, they are better off on a per game basis than under the current model.

Ideally, the other 19 clubs get our sky money split between them, we take £0 from Sky and we can offer a live streaming service to our supporters globally. Every club makes more money under this scenario.

 

[moomba]

Sky wouldnt pay for a product that only involves the less popular teams. If United went it alone so will Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, City, Arsenal.

The rest would get a pittance. Their commercial deals would drop as well.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Bad luck for them then.

 

[moomba]

Good thing you need a majority of clubs to agree to major changes in broadcasting deals.

The other clubs recently voted down attempts by Arsenal, United, City, Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea to give the better performed clubs a bigger cut of international tv revenue (35% performance based, 65% even split as opposed to the current 100% even split). I doubt they'd allow something like this.

 

[moomba]

then you'd pay for the privilege and probably a lot less than through sky

Not a hope in hell I'd pay a penny to any other clubs media channel. I'd watch on the sly or just not bother at all.

Football would suffer as people lose interest.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah but why do i care about parity when my club can establish a competitive advantage? On the European stage our clubs compete against teams with massive domestic competitive advantages.

I don't see any reason why United need to involve themselves in collective bargaining arrangements regarding TV deals and doubt whether a vote is even required or lawful.

United could offer their opponents a cut of the media profits on our fixtures. If we make say £70m a game, facey take £25m, we take £35 and give £10m to Bournemouth, they are better off on a per game basis than under the current model.

Ideally, the other 19 clubs get our sky money split between them, we take £0 from Sky and we can offer a live streaming service to our supporters globally. Every club makes more money under this scenario.

It’s a bad idea and sometimes you need to look at the greater good and not merely glory hunt.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

It’s a bad idea and sometimes you need to look at the greater good and not merely glory hunt.

You also need to look at who you are competing with.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Moomba makes some decent points to be fair. Probably born out of his desire to keep City the richest club in the league though

 

[SM]

Bad luck for them then.

Nice.

 

[SM]

Also have to consider that all the plastic supporters who tune in for United v Liverpool are generally not going to watch United v Stoke. They watch the big games. So the smaller clubs lose out significantly and overall interest decreases if it's on a pay per game basis. More people would tune in for games if they're already paying for the entire season.

Over time interest in the league outside of a handful of fixtures drops off significantly and the product is ruined. All for a few bucks rather than finding other ways to increase revenue.

United will already run RM and others close this season with a very good squad. Turning English football upside down because they haven't won the CL in ten years is just petulant.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You also need to look at who you are competing with.

Yeah nah. Find another way to get more money.
This is a shit idea that benefits a few at the detriment of most. Take if the Utd goggles and look at it objectively.

 

[typeclub]

The top clubs sell the best product and yet the garbage below them are being rewarded. They've obviously got access to figures which busts the myth of 'most even league' because they're pursuing several methods atm to get their fair share.