Topic: LFC argue for fairer distribution of overseas media rights.

[kopitecrash]

Maybe get your numbers right. Every clubs gets £17.9m a season.

And stop being a fucking drama queen, no one has once said they want to take this all at them, they just want the ability to sell our own rights so we can earn more than this £17.9m.

This doesnt mean Wigan can't make more than that amount themselves.

'In one season, the difference between Madrid, Barcelona and the rest may not be felt. The gap may not matter. Over two or three or four, it is huge. Do the maths: over five years Valencia, third last season, make €415 million less than Barcelona or Madrid. A team like Racing de Santander will be closer to €525 million less. How can they compete?
The answer of course is that they can't.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sid_lowe/01/08/laliga.duopoly/index.html#ixzz1ag4hYKos'

Yes, Wigan will definately be the ones winning if La Liga's way of doing things came here.

[CraigDS]

But saying 'oh yeah its happening, so lets just make it worse is just pure laziness.'

The problem is, this needed saying back in the last 80's, early 90's. Now the game has gone down the road far to far and it wont change now.

The best bet is the hope a rival league starts up with similar principles to the american sports where everything is divided equally, clubs arent run for profits, etc. etc.

[TheTeflonJohn]

You have no idea how I and others who disagree with this, how we live our lives, you know nothing about me and you have no idea how much money i give to the game - and the answer is sweet fuck all because the only thing that gets my money is illegal websites streaming matches, and whether that's good or not, is another matter. But saying 'oh yeah its happening, so lets just make it worse is just pure laziness.' I am clued up, you are a patronising human being if you think that just because people disagree with this idea, that they are deluded and not clued up. It's not making the situation worse.

So your "stealing" football games at a cheap rate and therefore denying NUFC their rightful money and then complaining that we should not think about ourselves? 

[CraigDS]

'In one season, the difference between Madrid, Barcelona and the rest may not be felt. The gap may not matter. Over two or three or four, it is huge. Do the maths: over five years Valencia, third last season, make €415 million less than Barcelona or Madrid. A team like Racing de Santander will be closer to €525 million less. How can they compete?
The answer of course is that they can't.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sid_lowe/01/08/laliga.duopoly/index.html#ixzz1ag4hYKos'

Yes, Wigan will definately be the ones winning if La Liga's way of doing things came here.

But that is La Liga, an apparently uncompetitive league that has no interest outside of the top two.

According to many on here, the PL is popular around the world simply because its so competitive from top to bottom, so for that reason surely Wigan can make more than those lower in La Liga.

[graffspider]

Why wouldn't it be right? You know that even the likes of Newcastle or Everton, who are well supported clubs, would never, in a million years be able to get as much money than you would, even more so now. So yes, go to your own league, PLEASE!

Can I have some of what you've been smoking, please?

If you become Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, LFC etc, then Doncaster become the new Newcastle and you have to listen to them whining on about how it's unfair you have such a massive ground and some national rather than purely regional support. It's not fair I tells ya! 

[Five Times]

Not a successful one unfortunately.

This is really the nub of the argument - what you consider success, and how far you're prepared to go to achieve it.

Real life analogy which you can shoot down all you will. A man works hard, progresses through the ranks and earns a decent salary. Buys himself a massive house and massive garden, all the mod cons you could want, and retires at 50. Success, right? In isolation, yes. But if down the road there's a family living in one room with a leaking roof who don't have enough to eat, is the notion of the retired bloke with his massive house still a success? Not in my book. Success for me is defined through collective achievement, not individual. If I was the retired bloke I couldn't live with myself.

I can understand that everyone wants Liverpool to have a trophy cabinet full of shiny, pretty, gleaming things. I want that too. But I don't want it at any cost. Given the choice between a healthy, competitive domestic league where we don't win everything in sight, and the ruination of competitive domestic football where we win everything, I'm taking the former every time. And I think the point at which the big clubs grab the totality of the resources which they feel they generate, rather than sharing them out, then there's a serious chance of domestic football being fucked.

There are other things I'd sacrifice for success, too. This will be controversial too, but if we were at OT in the last minute of the last match of the season and needed one goal to win the league, and Gerrard had a chance to dive and win us a penalty, I'd prefer it if he didn't. I'd rather not win anything by cheating; I'd rather come second with integrity intact. I can't consider winning through cheating to be worth a bean.

This is really a political argument, and I'm a bit surprised that so few supporters of a club in Liverpool are against this move. I suppose that for those of you who define success purely in terms of trophies, then of course it makes sense to grab as much revenue as you can, regardless of its effect on other clubs. We just have a different set of priorities. And you're right, that doesn't necessarily make you a bastard. But if you've been offended by me calling you a bastard, then you're definitely a soft twat 

[Anywhichwayucan]

This collective bargaining, can only work as long as these teams with bottomless pockets are reigned in and are made to comply with the rules in place. That way each club has to market itself to it's maximum potential in order to compete. You have to earn your money.

That is the only way we will have a fair system.

[gritsvanilla]

You have no idea how I and others who disagree with this, how we live our lives, you know nothing about me and you have no idea how much money i give to the game - and the answer is sweet fuck all because the only thing that gets my money is illegal websites streaming matches, and whether that's good or not, is another matter. But saying 'oh yeah its happening, so lets just make it worse is just pure laziness.' I am clued up, you are a patronising human being if you think that just because people disagree with this idea, that they are deluded and not clued up. It's not making the situation worse.

Then tell me how all these other clubs and the Premier League is going to suffer because of this because i'd genuinely like to know?

You're right i don't know anything about you and you know nothing about any of the posters on here so to call some of us right wing because we happen to believe that what Ayre's is doing is right for the club at this moment in time is a tad disingenuous. It's fine for you to throw insults about but god forbid anyone question your logic.

[kopitecrash]

But that is La Liga, an apparently uncompetitive league that has no interest outside of the top two.

According to many on here, the PL is popular around the world simply because its so competitive from top to bottom, so for that reason surely Wigan can make more than those lower in La Liga.

La Liga became like that, just like it will here, because clubs are bigger then others. But being a big club shouldn't entitle us to success - In La Liga it basically does. What sane minded person would want that here?

[Five Times]

And that's very good and noble of you but to suggest you're the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi or Karl Marx is stretching things a little, if you're as left wing as you suggested earlier why not redistribute all your wealth equally, no more football, no more wide screen tv's, no more blowing £80 on a night out, not while poverty is still an issue.

At the crux of your last post you've actually hit the nail on the head, it's not international tv rights that are the issue here it is the general capitalistic, money driven beast that is modern football, it stinks from top to bottom, the whole system is essentially unfair (welcome to the 21st century) and quite probably deeply corrupt too, if it goes against every principle you hold dear then do the right thing and walk away from it, stop giving money to it because all you are doing is propping up the beast, if however you continue to give money to it whilst moaning about the lack of morality/fair play then quite frankly you're nothing but a hypocrite.

Cracking post. Makes me a hypocrite, but I can't disagree with a word you say.

[kopitecrash]

Recently, a collective deal was presented by 18 of the 20 clubs in the Spanish First Division. The deal resolved one really important issue. For the first time, the Spanish league will offer a "parachute payment" to protect teams that are relegated: the sudden drop into the second division -- and the TV drop that goes with it, from at least €12 million ($16 million) to at most €2 million ($2.6 million) a year in income -- has seen all too many clubs, still obliged to pay First Division wages, plunged into administration and financial crisis. Money will now be set aside to protect those who are relegated and prevent financial crisis.

But if it resolved one issue, it did not break up the duopoly. It could not. A collective deal might be more manageable, it might make the overall income higher (and that is one of the ways that Madrid and Barcelona were persuaded to lend their support), but it does not make all teams equal. Collective bargaining does not mean collective earning. As part of the proposed deal, 45 percent of the money will be shared among 16 clubs, with the final amount depending on number of Pay Per View hits, league position and a series of other variables. That left four clubs. Valencia and Atlético Madrid, the country's third and fourth most popular clubs, would receive 11 percent of the total, while Madrid and Barcelona would take 35 percent of the total between them.

In other words, the inequality would be enshrined. The turkeys had voted for Christmas. Only they hadn't, not really: the bulk of Spain's teams had signed their own death warrant -- but they had done it to ensure their survival. They had signed away their chances of success but prevented their destruction. They no longer aspired to be the best; but they did aspire to stay in business. They had agreed, if a little reluctantly, to the status quo. They had laid bare their aspirations: to play in the league, but not to play for the league. Ever again.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sid_lowe/01/14/laliga.competitiveness/index.html#ixzz1ag5mdTYp

Can anyone honestly say they would want to be in the position of one of those clubs? Barca and Madrid are in such a position of total invincibility because in the first place, they got sickeningly good tv deals.

[TheTeflonJohn]

Cracking post. Makes me a hypocrite, but I can't disagree with a word you say.

So will you walk away from football?

[Hazell]

Good post.

[gritsvanilla]

This is really the nub of the argument - what you consider success, and how far you're prepared to go to achieve it.

Real life analogy which you can shoot down all you will. A man works hard, progresses through the ranks and earns a decent salary. Buys himself a massive house and massive garden, all the mod cons you could want, and retires at 50. Success, right? In isolation, yes. But if down the road there's a family living in one room with a leaking roof who don't have enough to eat, is the notion of the retired bloke with his massive house still a success? Not in my book. Success for me is defined through collective achievement, not individual. If I was the retired bloke I couldn't live with myself.

I can understand that everyone wants Liverpool to have a trophy cabinet full of shiny, pretty, gleaming things. I want that too. But I don't want it at any cost. Given the choice between a healthy, competitive domestic league where we don't win everything in sight, and the ruination of competitive domestic football where we win everything, I'm taking the former every time. And I think the point at which the big clubs grab the totality of the resources which they feel they generate, rather than sharing them out, then there's a serious chance of domestic football being fucked.

There are other things I'd sacrifice for success, too. This will be controversial too, but if we were at OT in the last minute of the last match of the season and needed one goal to win the league, and Gerrard had a chance to dive and win us a penalty, I'd prefer it if he didn't. I'd rather not win anything by cheating; I'd rather come second with integrity intact. I can't consider winning through cheating to be worth a bean.

This is really a political argument, and I'm a bit surprised that so few supporters of a club in Liverpool are against this move. I suppose that for those of you who define success purely in terms of trophies, then of course it makes sense to grab as much revenue as you can, regardless of its effect on other clubs. We just have a different set of priorities. And you're right, that doesn't necessarily make you a bastard. But if you've been offended by me calling you a bastard, then you're definitely a soft twat 

Can't really argue with any of that. In defence of posters who are backing Ayre on this i'd say that we've had enough of having the piss taken out of us, we've taken the leftist, morally correct stance and look where it's got us. Actually i partially agree with you if it meant not winning another trophy and maintaining our values then i'd be more than happy, i don't think business men like John Henry/Ayre's etc would be and it's likely they wouldn't be here. Would fans still be happy watching a Liverpool in the championship? I would but i can't lie and say part of what made the club special wouldn't have died.

[Five Times]

So will you walk away from football?

Nope. I'll choose to spend a portion of my income on watching the game, despite recognising that it's institutionally corrupt and has lost its soul, and despite knowing that I could spend that income for greater benefit, because I still love watching 11 overpaid men in Liverpool red running around. And I'll accept the hypocrisy of not living to an extreme ideal.

[jillc]

Believe it or not we have much in common, ain't been the match since '94. Can't really stand what the game has become but i love this club and i'll support it till the day i die. Football as it is though won't get another penny of my money.

What strikes me is that some people seem to be missing the point that football is now nothing more than a business, spouting on about socialism and values of decency seems strange when talking about a multi million pound industry.

Maybe we have. The reason why I rail against all this is people just seem to accept it nowadays. People on here can accuse me of being "romantic" and not in the present century where football today is concerned. But you know every now and then something happens in football that reminds you there is more to this "multi million pound industry then just money. Who would of thought Blackpool the other year would of come up and gone to big clubs and played them off the park. Should we remind ourselves of what happened to Liverpool in 2005. Where you expecting to be European champions that year. So you see ideals and dreams are still alive in this industry called football, and maybe sometimes people need to be reminded of it, instead of only thinking of the financial side. Anyway I have said my bit.

[gritsvanilla]

Nope. I'll choose to spend a portion of my income on watching the game, despite recognising that it's institutionally corrupt and has lost its soul, and despite knowing that I could spend that income for greater benefit, because I still love watching 11 overpaid men in Liverpool red running around. And I'll accept the hypocrisy of not living to an extreme ideal.

You're a proper fucking red mate, don't care if you're a hypocrite.

[Dick Emery]

It wasn't that long ago that people were wailing that we were run by Parry and his commercially-inept cronies and that were weren't maximising our true commercial value. Now people are moaning that we are attempting to. Make your minds up. Can't have it both ways.

[gritsvanilla]

Maybe we have. The reason why I rail against all this is people just seem to accept it nowadays. People on here can accuse me of being "romantic" and not in the present century where football today is concerned. But you know every now and then something happens in football that reminds you there is more to this "multi million pound industry then just money. Who would of thought Blackpool the other year would of come up and gone to big clubs and played them off the park. Should we remind ourselves of what happened to Liverpool in 2005. Where you expecting to be European champions that year. So you see ideals and dreams are still alive in this industry called football, and maybe sometimes people need to be reminded of it, instead of only thinking of the financial side. Anyway I have said my bit.

Nowt wrong with that, we all need dreams and ideals and i get where you're coming from completely. One question though why would this move by the club result in an end to nights like Istanbul or what happened with Blackpool, i'm not 100% convinced it will. Even though it's a multi million pound industry it's still ultimately 11 men vs 11 men and freak results and upsets will still happen.

[ryatnalkar]

can there not be a sensible middle in all this?

For example? Liverpool generate their own TV contracts and give 40% of cash for each game to the side they play in that game?

So if LFC play wigan and we get (say) 5M $ for that game, we should pay 2M $ to Wigan and at the same time, if Wigan's TV contract pays them 1M$ we should get 400k out of it. So in the end, LFC earn more than Wigan, 3.4M but less than what they would have if they kept all the money from their contract (5M). At the same time, its better than equal revenue sharing. (3.5M each)

Obviously I made up these numbers but if you think the TV revenue of LFC : Wigan is 10:1, both sides still end up winning in this.

[beardsley4ever]

can there not be a sensible middle in all this?

For example? Liverpool generate their own TV contracts and give 40% of cash for each game to the side they play in that game?

So if LFC play wigan and we get (say) 5M $ for that game, we should pay 2M $ to Wigan and at the same time, if Wigan's TV contract pays them 1M$ we should get 400k out of it. So in the end, LFC earn more than Wigan, 3.4M but less than what they would have if they kept all the money from their contract (5M). At the same time, its better than equal revenue sharing. (3.5M each)

Obviously I made up these numbers but if you think the TV revenue of LFC : Wigan is 10:1, both sides still end up winning in this.

I think the missing piece though is that Wigan will probably be televised 6 times a year, whereas we would be televised 38 times.  So take the numbers above and multiply them by those two factors and you get a pretty wide gap.

I still think we should do it (I'm supportive of Ian Ayre's comments), but thought I'd point that out.

[Stateside Red]

The thing that annoys me about this whole conversation is the condescending attitude a lot of our fans seem to have towards the smaller clubs (as they stand currently), as if they wouldn't be able to survive without this collective agreement on their own. How pathetic is that? Not to mention now we have other club's fans coming on here now with basically the same lack of faith in their own club. Pretty depressing that.

What's to say if this didn't go through a few (or more) of those clubs didn't build up their fanbase until they were as big or bigger than us in years to come? We didn't become the club we were overnight ... it took time, a lot of hard work by a lot of people, and the vision of one of the most ruthless capitalists the sport has ever known ... Bill Shankly. Quote aside, and whatever he may have thought he was politically, his actions belied a capitalist along the likes of Bill Gates. And thank god for that.

I like being in control of my own destiny, and I have supreme faith in the ability of other people and clubs to be successful on their own. In fact I count on it. If we want the PL to be competitive it's up to every club individually (including ours) to see that they are competitive. I count on our club to work hard to put out a competitive team, and I do my part financially and otherwise to support them. And I wish nothing but the best for other clubs (except, well, maybe one other club).

Seems to me a lot of people have a very negative and unwarranted view about the possibilities and capabilities of other people and clubs.

Rant over.

[Five Times]

I don't think it's condescension, I think it's grounded in reality. Look at Everton, they're in dodgy waters financially, and they really haven't done much that is outlandish in terms of fees or wages, and they've been relatively successful on the pitch. Save Fellaini, maybe. If you withdraw revenue from smaller clubs like them (), then any club without a sugar daddy is bound to be compromised. Surely you can't believe that lowering revenue for the smaller clubs can result in anything other than less competition?

[Red Genius]

I don't think it's condescension, I think it's grounded in reality. Look at Everton, they're in dodgy waters financially, and they really haven't done much that is outlandish in terms of fees or wages, and they've been relatively successful on the pitch. Save Fellaini, maybe. If you withdraw revenue from smaller clubs like them (), then any club without a sugar daddy is bound to be compromised. Surely you can't believe that lowering revenue for the smaller clubs can result in anything other than less competition?

You do understand that Everton will have the same rights as anybody else, they can sell their rights abroad too. All they have to do is accumulate around £17m from their TV rights. Thats less around £1m per game.

The only reason they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the same opportunity is because they can't be bothered. Any club can PR itself abroad and sell their rights, there is already a huge demand to watch any team play, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham for example... they could quite easily sell those games at a premium certainly for more than £1m per game. They have to generate the demand for other games, which at the end of the day are still Premier League matches, the best England has to offer. Its not a tall ask really... but they'd have to work for it, and why not? everybody else will have to also.

The opportunity is that if they do well they can make significantly more than they currently do, its all in their own hands.

[CraigDS]

I don't think it's condescension, I think it's grounded in reality. Look at Everton, they're in dodgy waters financially, and they really haven't done much that is outlandish in terms of fees or wages, and they've been relatively successful on the pitch. Save Fellaini, maybe. If you withdraw revenue from smaller clubs like them (), then any club without a sugar daddy is bound to be compromised. Surely you can't believe that lowering revenue for the smaller clubs can result in anything other than less competition?

See I don't think this is true at all. I think ALL clubs have the ability to raise more funds on their own than they currently get - £17.9m. It just means it would be a. something different to them and b. more work.

At the moment, Wigan are happy sitting back where they are, not pushing on to get new fans, not investing abroad to increase revenues, etc. and for doing that they get a nice cheque for £18m each year. If they had to negotiate their own deals then would mean a new way of working, the club would have to evolve and push on.

As said numerous times, if the 10 bottom clubs joined together they'd have 60 games vs the top 6 to sell - that would be worth a big amount on its own before taking into account the rest of their games for highlights packages, etc.

[getsonmywick]

So will you walk away from football?

Don't be soft.  If he does that he'll have to go shopping with the Mrs every weekend instead.

[Stateside Red]

I don't think it's condescension, I think it's grounded in reality. Look at Everton, they're in dodgy waters financially, and they really haven't done much that is outlandish in terms of fees or wages, and they've been relatively successful on the pitch. Save Fellaini, maybe. If you withdraw revenue from smaller clubs like them (), then any club without a sugar daddy is bound to be compromised. Surely you can't believe that lowering revenue for the smaller clubs can result in anything other than less competition?

I think Everton is a good example of what can be done with a very limited budget ... say what you will about Moyes but he's done a fantastic job with the talent and money he's had. But is it our fault they're in the state they're in? Why aren't they selling more merchandise? If they got their own TV deal what's to say they wouldn't be able to exploit that? And that's what I mean about not giving Everton (and other clubs) their due. I hope they succeed, I really do, but it's up to them. I would argue the clubs that are able to find ways to succeed on their own will be the more competitive clubs, and then everyone wins.

On the flip side it's very possible that at this point and time Liverpool the city can only support 1 football team in the PL. Who knows? Why should we subsidize them at the expense of other clubs (say Leeds for example) that could compete better? If we're going to subsidize clubs, which I'm obviously not in favor of, shouldn't we look beyond the PL for better financial 'bets' so to speak?

Finally, if out of the goodness of our hearts we as a club want to throw Everton (or other clubs) some money nothing prevents us from doing so. To be forced to do so actually weakens the league imo.

[-Q-]

'In one season, the difference between Madrid, Barcelona and the rest may not be felt. The gap may not matter. Over two or three or four, it is huge. Do the maths: over five years Valencia, third last season, make €415 million less than Barcelona or Madrid. A team like Racing de Santander will be closer to €525 million less. How can they compete?
The answer of course is that they can't.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sid_lowe/01/08/laliga.duopoly/index.html#ixzz1ag4hYKos'

Yes, Wigan will definately be the ones winning if La Liga's way of doing things came here.

This is the badge on the shirts of the men I support.
This is the  only team I am concerned about.  The only team I want to be successful.
This team has a global following of millions.



This is the badge of a team that can't fill their small ground for the visit of the champions
This is a team I couldn't care less about, whether they go down or not is no concern of mine.
In fact I'm happy if they go down to be replaced by a big team like Leeds (I do like Martinez though  ).

[Fordy]

This is really the nub of the argument - what you consider success, and how far you're prepared to go to achieve it.

Real life analogy which you can shoot down all you will. A man works hard, progresses through the ranks and earns a decent salary. Buys himself a massive house and massive garden, all the mod cons you could want, and retires at 50. Success, right? In isolation, yes. But if down the road there's a family living in one room with a leaking roof who don't have enough to eat, is the notion of the retired bloke with his massive house still a success? Not in my book. Success for me is defined through collective achievement, not individual. If I was the retired bloke I couldn't live with myself.

I can understand that everyone wants Liverpool to have a trophy cabinet full of shiny, pretty, gleaming things. I want that too. But I don't want it at any cost. Given the choice between a healthy, competitive domestic league where we don't win everything in sight, and the ruination of competitive domestic football where we win everything, I'm taking the former every time. And I think the point at which the big clubs grab the totality of the resources which they feel they generate, rather than sharing them out, then there's a serious chance of domestic football being fucked.

There are other things I'd sacrifice for success, too. This will be controversial too, but if we were at OT in the last minute of the last match of the season and needed one goal to win the league, and Gerrard had a chance to dive and win us a penalty, I'd prefer it if he didn't. I'd rather not win anything by cheating; I'd rather come second with integrity intact. I can't consider winning through cheating to be worth a bean.

This is really a political argument, and I'm a bit surprised that so few supporters of a club in Liverpool are against this move. I suppose that for those of you who define success purely in terms of trophies, then of course it makes sense to grab as much revenue as you can, regardless of its effect on other clubs. We just have a different set of priorities. And you're right, that doesn't necessarily make you a bastard. But if you've been offended by me calling you a bastard, then you're definitely a soft twat 

What happens though if the family living in the 1 room with the leaking roof is collecting all the Government benefits and benefiting from the rich man up the road?

However due to them benefiting they don't want to earn their money themselves.

Bottom line mate is that Wigan for example want the easy money - want to play the hard up club noise but don't want to generate their own cash.

For me the level playing field in football had gone in 1992/93 when the PL started.

[the_red_pill]

I'll add one more thing to the discussion, I pay about 500.00 bucks(South African Rand)- that's 5% of my salary for digital television just to be able to watch Liverpool's games at my leisure and in the comfort of my own home. I am working class- not well-off, but I get a decent salary to support my family and myself with the necessities of life- and where I can, I spend something on myself and being able to watch LFC on TV is one of them. That money that is supposed to go towards the Premier League for that, is ALL LIVERPOOL'S. Not Villa's, Not ManU's, not Rangers'.

I absolutely hate owing anyone something and it's a mission to get me to watch the game at someone else's. I do this because I love watching us. I may not support us directly- by being at the match, but I support us financially.

I want to see us succeed and I spend my money on shirts and official merchandise(a shirt costs the same or a bit more than a monthly subscription) when I can afford to. I didn't know this before Ayre brought it up, but I'm getting increasingly pissed about it now.

Why should I and other fans around the world who want to watch LFC and their respective clubs, share our money with Whelan and his crew, who prefer to sit on their backsides and wait for OUR money- LIVERPOOL'S MONEY- to roll into their doors, up their fat arses and into their pockets? They then have the gall to turn around and pour scorn on my club for having the balls to - just mention- that its not fair.

Why should I have to pay part of Neil bloody Warnock's salary when all that slobbering idiot has for my club is hatred?
So this means, my support is not helping LFC then?(other than a bit of merchandise).
My support in truth is not helping LFC really- it's helping Whelan and co. to get the jump on us- UNFAIRLY.

What,is more,UNFAIR,than that? The pro-active, innovative and hard-working are punished because of the non-ambitious and lazy. What then is the point of "competing" in the first place? The more you improve and work hard to improve and rise, the more the rest is rewarded. Ayre is right to point this out. It might not be workable, but it will get the heads talking.

[RedJam70]

The Pl has the rights over the pl matches, yes? So in this capitalist football world why should they give up those rights and let clubs make their own deals. It's in their best interests or so they believe not to do so. It's their league and their profits to divvy up. Why should they let us use their league to make money for ourselves and not them? Dog eat dog world guys.

We can threaten to leave the PL but who do we then play? We'd have to convince other top clubs to leave with us, not sure there's that much support for that yet? Would Barca and Real leave La Liga? Inter, Milan? Personally I don't like the idea of a euro super league, but that's just me.

And even if they do let us make our own deals, why does that automatically mean we'll be able to close the gap on Man utd, Chelsea and Man City like so many think. Man Utd are huge right now, this could benefit them more than us and Chelsea and Man City have rich owners, if FFP isn't going to stop them then what's to say they won't be able to use their contacts and wealth to organise massive deals for themselves anyway.

Personally I don't know what to think about this, I know the above makes it seem like I'm  against it but I can also see the other side of the coin in that it's us that a lot people tune in to see and we should be able to reap the rewards of that, whether or not that's to the detriment of other clubs. It just sticks in the craw a bit. However I really don't see this going through and I don't think the owners and Ayre expect it to either so I think their end game is different, what exacltly I don't know but I guess we'll find out in time.

[Five Times]

What happens though if the family living in the 1 room with the leaking roof is collecting all the Government benefits and benefiting from the rich man up the road?

However due to them benefiting they don't want to earn their money themselves.

Bottom line mate is that Wigan for example want the easy money - want to play the hard up club noise but don't want to generate their own cash.

For me the level playing field in football had gone in 1992/93 when the PL started.

Classic argument against the welfare state. There may be a minority of scroungers, but there are far fewer jobs available than there are unemployed, and you shouldn't let the scroungers stop you from helping the many more who need it. It really does all come down to politics. The arguments here mirror political and economic arguments I hear every day.

The fact that the playing field isn't level isn't a justification for making it less level, and that's what we're trying to do. A big club trying to get richer at small clubs' expense. I understand the rationale, I understand the argument as to why it's a fair thing to do, I just don't agree with it.

[CraigDS]

The Pl has the rights over the pl matches, yes? So in this capitalist football world why should they give up those rights and let clubs make their own deals. It's in their best interests or so they believe not to do so. It's their league and their profits to divvy up. Why should they let us use their league to make money for ourselves and not them? Dog eat dog world guys.

Agreed, they won't want to give it up but at the end of the day if 1/3rds of the clubs vote for it then they have no choice.

We can threaten to leave the PL but who do we then play? We'd have to convince other top clubs to leave with us, not sure there's that much support for that yet? Would Barca and Real leave La Liga? Inter, Milan? Personally I don't like the idea of a euro super league, but that's just me.

I really don't get why people talk about leaving for a single European league.

We currently have the equivalent of that with the CL, AS WELL as the very profitable domestic league. Leaving both (which would have to be the case) to join just one would be lunacy.

And even if they do let us make our own deals, why does that automatically mean we'll be able to close the gap on Man utd, Chelsea and Man City like so many think. Man Utd are huge right now, this could benefit them more than us and Chelsea and Man City have rich owners, if FFP isn't going to stop them then what's to say they won't be able to use their contacts and wealth to organise massive deals for themselves anyway.

We have currently made a deal with Standard Chartered that is higher (poss equal) than Uniteds, and our new manufacturing deal is apparently going to be higher than theirs. No reason we cannot beat them or at least do something similar with TV rights deals.

As to be honest I don't think its fully to do with catching JUST United. We need to take aim at those lower first, namely City and Chelsea. We would be able to get better deals than them. Now of course like you said they could make massive deals through dodgy sources but again these would be subject to the FFP rules.

Personally I don't know what to think about this, I know the above makes it seem like I'm  against it but I can also see the other side of the coin in that it's us that a lot people tune in to see and we should be able to reap the rewards of that, whether or not that's to the detriment of other clubs. It just sticks in the craw a bit. However I really don't see this going through and I don't think the owners and Ayre expect it to either so I think their end game is different, what exacltly I don't know but I guess we'll find out in time.

Agreed I don't think they want full control, however I do think they want more of a share, or ability to control parts of it abroad (maybe online content, etc.)

[Stateside Red]

The Pl has the rights over the pl matches, yes? So in this capitalist football world why should they give up those rights and let clubs make their own deals. It's in their best interests or so they believe not to do so. It's their league and their profits to divvy up. Why should they let us use their league to make money for ourselves and not them? Dog eat dog world guys.

I don't know the details of the agreement between the clubs and the PL but it seems to be a very loose one based on club votes. Not very capitalistic though in that sense ... for it to be the PL would have to have much more control of the clubs and see them as business units so to speak. I could easily see huge structural changes to the game if the PL was a stronger entity ... control over club transfers, huge changes to promotion/relegation (e.g. perhaps clubs with huge worldwide fan bases like ours would escape relegation by default), etc. I for one don't want them to be that powerful.

[Fordy]

Classic argument against the welfare state. There may be a minority of scroungers, but there are far fewer jobs available than there are unemployed, and you shouldn't let the scroungers stop you from helping the many more who need it. It really does all come down to politics. The arguments here mirror political and economic arguments I hear every day.

The fact that the playing field isn't level isn't a justification for making it less level, and that's what we're trying to do. A big club trying to get richer at small clubs' expense. I understand the rationale, I understand the argument as to why it's a fair thing to do, I just don't agree with it.

I don't think it would be less level now though.

It's TV rights we're talking about  - so they would be nothing stopping Blackburn getting a deal with an Indian TV company and with the Indian contacts the club has then they might be able to get a better deal than us or UTD.

[scatman]

what i dont get are the comments about how every premier league match is awesome....is it fuck, there are an unbelievable number of turgid games shown on TV every fucking season.

[Rohit]

what i dont get are the comments about how every premier league match is awesome....is it fuck, there are an unbelievable number of turgid games shown on TV every fucking season.

Exactly, the quality of la liga even outside the big two pisses all over the premier league.

[MassDriver]

Exactly, the quality of la liga even outside the big two pisses all over the premier league.

Yeah.

The argument that the La Liga is somehow much less competitive than the PL is a fallacy propagated by people who don't watch it much. Granted there is a huge financial schism between RM/Barca and the rest of the league but that doesn't imply that the quality lower down the league is not up to scratch. There is the small matter of 'small' clubs being able to bring through and nurture academy talent , which gives them the requisite quality to complete without necessarily having to spend millions in every transfer window.

[the_red_pill]

Exactly, the quality of la liga even outside the big two pisses all over the premier league.

La Liga is available- almost in its entirety, throughout Africa- just ask all the African reds on here. It's just not attractive- as a broadcaster- to advertise 15 La Liga matches instead of at least 50%-100% of all matches.

It'll be the same with the clubs in the Premier League. Hell, it may even be more lucrative than the 1.5b that is currently rushing into English football and even though the Premier League will not be controlling the damn thing, they can conjure up some other way to get back the money that they lost, but some people don't want to think- they want to stand still.

This proposal doesn't seem realiostic at the moment, but sooner or later things are going to change. The top tier will becoome more and more saturated and increasingly pull away from the rest of the pack. When that happens in 10 years, we'd better be part of those and not part of the rest that will stay in the "Premier League", which will become the Championship.

[Stateside Red]

Classic argument against the welfare state. There may be a minority of scroungers, but there are far fewer jobs available than there are unemployed, and you shouldn't let the scroungers stop you from helping the many more who need it. It really does all come down to politics. The arguments here mirror political and economic arguments I hear every day.

The fact that the playing field isn't level isn't a justification for making it less level, and that's what we're trying to do. A big club trying to get richer at small clubs' expense. I understand the rationale, I understand the argument as to why it's a fair thing to do, I just don't agree with it.

I don't think it's about the playing field being level or unlevel, or maybe we disagree on what that means. If we have rules/regulations that all clubs understand and play by (e.g. selling their international TV rights) then that is a level field imo.

I think you want less of a disparity between large and small clubs financially. That's not a level field though ... that's level outcomes. To put it more in the context of a match, all clubs play on a level field, but not all have as many world-class players that we do. Does that bother you?