I think Ian Ayre has a valid point. I just don't think he said it in the right way.
If say Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea etc., have say 25 games a season moved to other kick off times (12.45/5.30)(not allowing for rearangements due to accomodate European participation) in order to suit overseas markets. Yet Bolton only have say 10 games a season moved for the same reasons.
In my eyes, why shouldn't those teams that are getting inconvenienced, not be the ones that get the larger rewards in compensation for that inconvenience.
Also bearing in mind that those teams are the bigger pull anyway for overseas viewers, ergo. making more of the money for the Premier League financial pot in the first place.
Failing that. Every Premier League team, regardless of who they are, should all have exactly the same number of games moved for live TV broadcast, therfore equal financial share, for equal inconvenience.
While Mr Whelans boys get extra time to recouperate, we get shifted all over the fucking place to accomodate overseas TV schedulers, yet he wants everyone to get an equal share, without the inconvenience.
But thats the way I see it.
P.S. That Swiss ramble's a good eye opener.
To put it another way.
If there were two men in a factory, and they had to shift 100 boxes between themselves, every day.
If one man is shifting 60 a day, to the other mans 40. How long is the man shifting the 60, just going to get on with it before he decides to say something like:
"I want more of the benefits, because I'm doing more of the work"......."failing that. Pull your fucking weight, and do an equal share".
(Wow. Did that take you back to school!)