Topic: New Kop

[CraigDS]

It's the cycle of TV deals.

It's not mentioned in public. Ayre referenced it when speaking to SOS, and FSF referenced it this month.

Regardless - this is unbudgeted money and I think it would do a lot for goodwill if it was invested accordingly for supporter projects. You disagree I assume.

I know it's the cycles of TV deals, just not sure how clubs can budget in 3 year cycles given so much changes on a yearly basis for clubs. I mean the prices for next season's tickets were only set a little earlier this year after consultation with various groups.

It's not that I disagree, I think all clubs should do more for supporters to some degree. I'm just not overly keen on the thinking that 'budgeted' money should go towards it. I mean the Sterling money was 'budgeted' money so should that go on it too?

For me this really needs to be a league wide thing, and really should of been something which was set with the increased TV deal imo.

[Alan_X]

All clubs should be using it to help lift the financial stress supporters are under.

I'd like to see LFC take a stand against this kind of stuff - like they should have with the living wage instead of it taking a PL meeting to resolve.

Absolutely agree.

This is unbudgeted money. LFC and other clubs routinely hide behind the fact they budget in '3 year cycles' when refusing to entertain price reductions.

But using this as your argument is pointless because the club can simply point at the deal by deal increase in the TV money and say that they had budgeted for an expected increase. An increase in income that will be soaked up by the year on year increase in transfers, wages and agent's fees.

You say it's unbudgeted money, they say it's budgeted and it's a matter of opinion - or rather a matter of fact - which they win. This is from Swiss Ramble:



If you were running a football club, what would you have budgeted for in terms of TV income? A massive reduction in TV money? No change? The new deal is more money, loads more money, and without doubt they should be putting some of that towards ticket prices to encourage young and the less well off supporters to get tickets. But it's not unbudgeted.

[Giovanni]

I'm not talking about the new TV deal.

I'm talking about the £1m each club will receive in additional TV revenue as parachute payments which would have been due to norwich are now void.

[Giovanni]

I know it's the cycles of TV deals, just not sure how clubs can budget in 3 year cycles given so much changes on a yearly basis for clubs. I mean the prices for next season's tickets were only set a little earlier this year after consultation with various groups.

It's not that I disagree, I think all clubs should do more for supporters to some degree. I'm just not overly keen on the thinking that 'budgeted' money should go towards it. I mean the Sterling money was 'budgeted' money so should that go on it too?

For me this really needs to be a league wide thing, and really should of been something which was set with the increased TV deal imo.

I'd rather liverpool led the charge instead of waiting to be told what to do, like they did on the living wage. Chelsea did it in Dec 2014 - Liverpool did nothing until it was voted on at a premier league clubs meeting 4 months later.

[CraigDS]

I'd rather liverpool led the charge instead of waiting to be told what to do

That's all well and good, but then we're also expecting to compete on the field too by spending a lot off it.

[Giovanni]

a lot? we obviously have different interpretations of a lot.

So the charge for glory comes at all costs, even if that's the supporters?

[CraigDS]

a lot? we obviously have different interpretations of a lot.

You've just proven my point though. You're not happy with the level of spending, yet also expect the club to take more from that (given nothing is taken out of the club so all is spent on fees/wages) at the same time.

So the charge for glory comes at all costs, even if that's the supporters?

Nope, not at all costs, but then that isn't what is being debated here.

[rob1966]

If the money for reducing the cost to supporters should come from anywhere, its should come from the players/agents. The players are on obscene amounts of money, its disgusting what they get paid and the agents take far too much out of the game.

[Peter McGurk]

...You say it's unbudgeted money, they say it's budgeted and it's a matter of opinion - or rather a matter of fact - which they win. This is from Swiss Ramble:

If you were running a football club, what would you have budgeted for in terms of TV income? A massive reduction in TV money? No change? The new deal is more money, loads more money, and without doubt they should be putting some of that towards ticket prices to encourage young and the less well off supporters to get tickets. But it's not unbudgeted.

Budgeted or not, player costs, players (and agents) just gobble it up. Yum, Yum.

If the money for reducing the cost to supporters should come from anywhere, its should come from the players/agents. The players are on obscene amounts of money, its disgusting what they get paid and the agents take far too much out of the game.

Yes but I suppose the question has always been how to achieve that. I imagine you also have to bear in mind that most of the transfer fee for example is received by the club and thus stays in the game.

[CraigDS]

Yes but I suppose the question has always been how to achieve that.

For me it's simple, all revenue increases inevitably end up getting spent (mostly) on fees and wages. So any revenue increases the FA/PL have a hand in (I.e. TV deals) they should put stipulations down as to what some of that increase can go on.

The new TV deal is increasing by what, £30m a year? £60m over the last 2 deals? Even if they said 5-10% of that had to go on supporters in some way it's a massive amount.

Anyway, this thread has got wayyyy off topic!

[Peter McGurk]

For me it's simple, all revenue increases inevitably end up getting spent (mostly) on fees and wages. So any revenue increases the FA/PL have a hand in (I.e. TV deals) they should put stipulations down as to what some of that increase can go on.

The new TV deal is increasing by what, £30m a year? £60m over the last 2 deals? Even if they said 5-10% of that had to go on supporters in some way it's a massive amount.

Anyway, this thread has got wayyyy off topic!

But an off-the-top levy on TV revenue of £5.1bn over 3 years (??) could go along way to assuage the (roughly) £7.5bn that PL supporters pay in to clubs for the same period?

It might have some legs at a national level but campaigns against individual owners or individual clubs 'taking the lead' is just so much pie in the sky.

Then again, how would it work? On a per capita basis? Tickets sold? Actual attendance? There seems to be one or two clubs around whose attendances are 'overstated' to say the least.

In Germany, it seems to be a cultural issue. Low prices are charged because ALL of the clubs want low prices. Unless someone can put me straight, I see no legislation or national deal for it. If we had a law for it in the UK, I'm sure some smart alec would find a way around it.

So, if New Kops are to be like the old Kops, a national consensus is where it has to come from?

[Alan_X]

Locked for a bit.   Will split out the ticket price issue.