Topic: Project Big Picture

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Do you think either Fulham or QPR thought they got fair value for the player at the time?  Ideally we would have never sold Raheem so just because there was a sell-on clause (which I'm pretty sure isn't even required now due to the FA rule changes) doesn't negate the fact we got a generational player for $500k.  Why bother running an Academy if the best players can walk for nothing?

QPR got a decent fee,a big sell on percentage and the fee was the going rate as no other Club offered more & again,his mother wanted him out of London.

As for Fulham or QPR thinking they got fair value,I'm honestly not arsed but the quickest way for any Club to ruin their academy is to ask for silly money as youngsters parents would choose another academy,one that acts fair when the kids get a chance to more onto bigger and better things.

[Dave McCoy]

QPR got a decent fee,a big sell on percentage and the fee was the going rate as no other Club offered more & again,his mother wanted him out of London.

As for Fulham or QPR thinking they got fair value,I'm honestly not arsed but the quickest way for any Club to ruin their academy is to ask for silly money as youngsters parents would choose another academy,one that acts fair when the kids get a chance to more onto bigger and better things.

That's really all you had to say.

[Romford_Red]

This is like watching people arguing about if they should consider putting more lifeboats on the Titanic. Never mind that it sank yonks ago.

[Eeyore]

Do you think either Fulham or QPR thought they got fair value for the player at the time?  Ideally we would have never sold Raheem so just because there was a sell-on clause (which I'm pretty sure isn't even required now due to the FA rule changes) doesn't negate the fact we got a generational player for $500k.  Why bother running an Academy if the best players can walk for nothing?

QPR negotiated the deal for Sterling it didn't go to compensation.

We didn't sign a generational talent for £500k. The fee would only have been 500k if Sterling was a dud. QPR ended up getting around £11m for a 15 year old.

Personally the bigger issue for me is whether Clubs should be profiting from the sale of children.

[Dave McCoy]

Guess the bubble isn't bursting this time.....

https://www.ft.com/content/21317445-0535-4f4a-a56e-b7ea470a2d08

[mobydick]

Guess the bubble isn't bursting this time.....

https://www.ft.com/content/21317445-0535-4f4a-a56e-b7ea470a2d08

Subscription needed.

[Dave McCoy]

Subscription needed.

For me in the US it opened just fine, weird.  If it shows as a subscription there I won't copy/paste.

Basically the Premier League is asking the government to scrap the next TV auction as they'll just continue with BT, Sky and Amazon at the previous terms.  Not the consistent growth but also no drop in income either.

[redmark]

For me in the US it opened just fine, weird.  If it shows as a subscription there I won't copy/paste.

Basically the Premier League is asking the government to scrap the next TV auction as they'll just continue with BT, Sky and Amazon at the previous terms.  Not the consistent growth but also no drop in income either.

It doesn't seem quite that straightforward - essentially the PL was discussing this months ago, the Big Six stalled (I wonder why), and now it's being resurrected. But - quite a big one - there's no indication that broadcasters are in agreement on the idea.

Instead of the planned auction, the Premier League hopes to conduct a private sale to its existing partners Sky, BT and Amazon, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions. It would then be able to offer deals for the three seasons between 2022 and 2025 on terms broadly similar to those signed in 2018.
___

English football’s top division still needs approval to scrap the rights auction from ministers, who have the power to block the move on competition grounds. But the government is considering the proposal due to exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic, according to people close to the talks. Premier League executives have wanted to move ahead with the plan for several months, but some of its biggest clubs sought additional time to review the proposals, according to other executives familiar with recent talks across the division.
___

That decision to stall the media rights sale caused further anger last week when England’s so-called “Big Six” clubs; Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, announced they would join a European Super League. Rival club chiefs were furious with the Super League concept, which was quickly scrapped in the face of mass protests from fans and politicians, believing it would damage the value of Premier League TV rights contracts. A key part of the Premier League’s appeal to broadcasters is the intense battle between teams to qualify for European competition — a race that would be made redundant by a Super League in which clubs would be guaranteed their places each season.
___

Acoss Europe, a combination of advertising losses during the pandemic and the “cord-cutting” of younger viewers switching to digital services is leading traditional broadcasters to rein in spending on sports rights. Simon Green, head of BT Sport, told the Financial Times Business of Football Summit in February that “there’s certainly going to be a rights correction and it may be seen and interpreted by many as rights deflation”. Italy’s Serie A last month approved a domestic media rights sale, led by sports streaming service DAZN, worth about €810m a season between 2021-2024, a roughly 20 per cent drop on its existing deal.

[Dave McCoy]

It doesn't seem quite that straightforward - essentially the PL was discussing this months ago, the Big Six stalled (I wonder why), and now it's being resurrected. But - quite a big one - there's no indication that broadcasters are in agreement on the idea.

Instead of the planned auction, the Premier League hopes to conduct a private sale to its existing partners Sky, BT and Amazon, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions. It would then be able to offer deals for the three seasons between 2022 and 2025 on terms broadly similar to those signed in 2018.
___

English football’s top division still needs approval to scrap the rights auction from ministers, who have the power to block the move on competition grounds. But the government is considering the proposal due to exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic, according to people close to the talks. Premier League executives have wanted to move ahead with the plan for several months, but some of its biggest clubs sought additional time to review the proposals, according to other executives familiar with recent talks across the division.
___

That decision to stall the media rights sale caused further anger last week when England’s so-called “Big Six” clubs; Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, announced they would join a European Super League. Rival club chiefs were furious with the Super League concept, which was quickly scrapped in the face of mass protests from fans and politicians, believing it would damage the value of Premier League TV rights contracts. A key part of the Premier League’s appeal to broadcasters is the intense battle between teams to qualify for European competition — a race that would be made redundant by a Super League in which clubs would be guaranteed their places each season.
___

Acoss Europe, a combination of advertising losses during the pandemic and the “cord-cutting” of younger viewers switching to digital services is leading traditional broadcasters to rein in spending on sports rights. Simon Green, head of BT Sport, told the Financial Times Business of Football Summit in February that “there’s certainly going to be a rights correction and it may be seen and interpreted by many as rights deflation”. Italy’s Serie A last month approved a domestic media rights sale, led by sports streaming service DAZN, worth about €810m a season between 2021-2024, a roughly 20 per cent drop on its existing deal.

They wouldn't scrap the sale if they didn't know the broadcasters would go along with it and a quote from 2 months ago doesn't indicate otherwise.  Same thing happened here for the World Cup rights between FIFA and Fox.

[redmark]

They wouldn't scrap the sale if they didn't know the broadcasters would go along with it and a quote from 2 months ago doesn't indicate otherwise.  Same thing happened here for the World Cup rights between FIFA and Fox.

Anything along the lines of 'they wouldn't do X if they didn't know Y' should be viewed in the context of the ESL last week. That thread was full of such bold assertions. Until it fell apart. These are not infallible business geniuses. A two month old quote doesn't prove anything, but it's a little more relevant than mere assumption and assertion.

[Dave McCoy]

Anything along the lines of 'they wouldn't do X if they didn't know Y' should be viewed in the context of the ESL last week. That thread was full of such bold assertions. Until it fell apart. These are not infallible business geniuses. A two month old quote doesn't prove anything, but it's a little more relevant than mere assumption and assertion.

You were just stating how PBP was fools gold as they would sabotage the TV money.  We'll see once it's all announced but it's one thing to think Hank Scorpio is always around the corner and another to think these teams will just cut off their nose to spite their face.

[redmark]

You were just stating how PBP was fools gold as they would sabotage the TV money.  We'll see once it's all announced but it's one thing to think Hank Scorpio is always around the corner and another to think these teams will just cut off their nose to spite their face.

Thinking PBP would sabotage the PL-wide TV deal revenue isn't assertion - it's maths. Take a package, find its value. Then take all the best bits out of that package - now what's its value? Less than before.

But this isn't PBP - it's the PL trying to renegotiate its deals in private at the same level they are now, out of fear that in an open auction they'd get less money. We will see, indeed.

[Dave McCoy]

Thinking PBP would sabotage the PL-wide TV deal revenue isn't assertion - it's maths. Take a package, find its value. Then take all the best bits out of that package - now what's its value? Less than before.

But this isn't PBP - it's the PL trying to renegotiate its deals in private at the same level they are now, out of fear that in an open auction they'd get less money. We will see, indeed.

Your assertation would involve them making less money as well unless you think their 8 games would completely make up for the reduced TV package.  So no it's not maths.

You also don't cancel a sale unless you know what you have.  I get you want to assume the worst but I'd bet they'll be announcing terms exactly as they were or you'd already hear about how everybody has to tighten their belts from Leicester on down.

Edit: And also for the millionth time I've been advocating for it to be a framework to negotiate, not accept blindly.  That doesn't seem to matter for you but  I would gladly let ManU, Chelsea, us and the like take games to tender if it grew the whole pie bigger for more to share equally. 

[redmark]

Your assertation would involve them making less money as well unless you think their 8 games would completely make up for the reduced TV package.  So no it's not maths.

You also don't cancel a sale unless you know what you have.  I get you want to assume the worst but I'd bet they'll be announcing terms exactly as they were or you'd already hear about how everybody has to tighten their belts from Leicester on down.

Edit: And also for the millionth time I've been advocating for it to be a framework to negotiate, not accept blindly.  That doesn't seem to matter for you but  I would gladly let ManU, Chelsea, us and the like take games to tender if it grew the whole pie bigger for more to share equally. 

The point isn't whether *I* think the 8 games (which they would retain *all* revenue from) would make up any reduction in the general deal - it's that *they* do, hence it being one of the points at the centre of both PBP and ESL proposals.

Until last Sunday afternoon, I was quite supportive of FSG. I think furlough was a mistake and got annoyed by it, but didn't hold it against them once they'd backed down. I haven't called for FSG to go. Why do I 'want to assume the worst'?

I think you're being naive if you believe certain parts of either PBP or ESL were 'up for negotiation'. The direct broadcast rights games would *not* add to the whole pie, because the rights would be exclusive to the club. That is the whole point of them.

[Dave McCoy]

The point isn't whether *I* think the 8 games (which they would retain *all* revenue from) would make up any reduction in the general deal - it's that *they* do, hence it being one of the points at the centre of both PBP and ESL proposals.

Until last Sunday afternoon, I was quite supportive of FSG. I think furlough was a mistake and got annoyed by it, but didn't hold it against them once they'd backed down. I haven't called for FSG to go. Why do I 'want to assume the worst'?

I think you're being naive if you believe certain parts of either PBP or ESL were 'up for negotiation'. The direct broadcast rights games would *not* add to the whole pie, because the rights would be exclusive to the club. That is the whole point of them.

The ESL money was for signing over their TV rights to someone else as has been discussed ad naseum.  Do you have anything in writing that it actually excluded a set amount of games for each club to then tender on their own?  I can't find anything that supports what you're saying.

As far as naive, you think the clubs wouldn't have negotiated if they thought they would get something out of it?  Do you believe in compromise?  These clubs have come to the same conclusions with different owners in different eras.  I get that 50+1 is your panacea but unless and until that happens this is just going to keep happening again and again.  You either get ahead of it and come to an agreement sooner than later or you let events outside your control eventually determine it for you.

For the PBP rights, again if you think it's non-negotiable then sure so no way but if you can make it so the clubs have to make up any shortfall on their own and then share in a certain percentage then why not?  Unless you believe that the rule of law doesn't matter in the UK or just like giving Sky £29.99 a month what's the difference?

[Dave McCoy]

Another £100m in solidarity to keep their TV money the same.  I don't know.  Seems they'd be willing to negotiate.....