members do not see advertisements
members do not see advertisements

New Sky deal

By thetruth1953 in

General Football


8 months ago
RE: New Sky deal
By thetruth1953 8 months ago
Sky and Bt sport gave agreed a deal worth 4-4 billion to screen live football after 2019.

And we wonder why it has got like this. Football players on £500,000 a week Chelsea with 36/38 players out on loan etc etc
RE: New Sky deal
By seasider 8 months ago
Football continues to drift away from the regular working class man.
RE: New Sky deal
By Windridge 8 months ago
Not surprised.



The 'gentrification' of football goes back to 1992:



'Let us erase the working class from the game by making their sport a business, price them out of the market and make it profitable for the elites only.'



Financial ethnic cleansing.



Even in Non League, this is starting to happen.
RE: New Sky deal
By Hero-of-the-night 8 months ago
There will be no need to attend games soon. I watched Barca v Real in 4K Ultra HD and I would say it was miles better than actually being at the game.



I could count the streaks in Naymars highlights.

Also it won’t be long until Live VR is available to all.
RE: New Sky deal
By TheSteed 8 months ago
seasider wrote:

Football continues to drift away from the regular working class man.





You don't have to pay the £4 billion.
RE: New Sky deal
By seasider 8 months ago
TheSteed wrote:



You don't have to pay the £4 billion.





No but the bigger clubs get more TV coverage and consequently the gap between the Premier League and the others will continue to grow. Parachute payments were brought in to bridge the gap so where does it stop? Football is getting more and more uncompetitive as we speak and that's when people start to lose interest.



Maybe it's just me getting old and grumpy but players on 500k a week? It's all money money money. I just can't help sense that football is losing the appeal to not only the working class but more importantly the next generation of fans. I read somewhere the other week that there is less youngsters attending football than there has ever been.
RE: New Sky deal
By TheSteed 8 months ago
Equal shares in TV money is what's needed.
RE: New Sky deal
By foggy 8 months ago
I don't know what the alternative is.



Football is a a huge commodity world wide. It has a market share going into the hundreds of millions, if not billions. When you have demand that huge, there's going to be money to be made. Say what you want about the Premier League, but that has only added more fans, as now you have kids in places like Korea and China who are United and City fans.



When you have a market that big, it's only natural that there will be a bidding war between the broadcasting giants to show it. That can't be stopped. If Sky said 'you know what, there's too much money in football' and decided they weren't going to pump any more in, BT would just buy the rights instead and Sky would lose business. So whatever happens, there's big money. Now, why shouldn't players get a proportionate slice of that? They are the talent, they are the ones attracting the audience and the money. If the TV deal is worth 5 billion, why aren't the likes of Sergio Aguero, Sanchez and Hazard worth the millions of pounds they earn over a year? What's the alternative? If the money doesn't go to them, it just goes to clubs, to owners, to TV executives. I would rather the players on the pitch earn the money than a Chief Executive in a suit.



You might say, well let's give more money to a League 2 team. But to me there is barely any correlation between a team like Manchester United and Oxford Town, they might as well be playing two different sports. It's cruel, but the fact is nobody gives a shit about a team like Oxford. Someone like De Bruyne earns his money and the money for the team because people around the world want to watch him play, nobody wants to watch a load of jobbers lumping the ball up the pitch in League 2. That's just the way it is.



I believe some money should be redistributed anyway, but I don't see how the players can be blamed. And you can't stand in the way of a popular commodity growing. I'm pretty sure no business has ever decided to put self-imposed limits on how big or profitable it can get.
RE: New Sky deal
By Bally 8 months ago
Great post foggy. If anyone is to earn millions, it should be the players.

My biggest gripe is with the Agents, some of who will fuck a club and a player given the chance. Those bastards are just parasites and I do begrudge them earning and taking massive amounts of money out of the game.
RE: New Sky deal
By Magic147 8 months ago
foggy wrote:

I'm pretty sure no business has ever decided to put self-imposed limits on how big or profitable it can get.





Other than OFC, you mean?
RE: New Sky deal
By TheSteed 8 months ago
foggy wrote:

I don't know what the alternative is.



Football is a a huge commodity world wide. It has a market share going into the hundreds of millions, if not billions. When you have demand that huge, there's going to be money to be made. Say what you want about the Premier League, but that has only added more fans, as now you have kids in places like Korea and China who are United and City fans.



When you have a market that big, it's only natural that there will be a bidding war between the broadcasting giants to show it. That can't be stopped. If Sky said 'you know what, there's too much money in football' and decided they weren't going to pump any more in, BT would just buy the rights instead and Sky would lose business. So whatever happens, there's big money. Now, why shouldn't players get a proportionate slice of that? They are the talent, they are the ones attracting the audience and the money. If the TV deal is worth 5 billion, why aren't the likes of Sergio Aguero, Sanchez and Hazard worth the millions of pounds they earn over a year? What's the alternative? If the money doesn't go to them, it just goes to clubs, to owners, to TV executives. I would rather the players on the pitch earn the money than a Chief Executive in a suit.



You might say, well let's give more money to a League 2 team. But to me there is barely any correlation between a team like Manchester United and Oxford Town, they might as well be playing two different sports. It's cruel, but the fact is nobody gives a shit about a team like Oxford. Someone like De Bruyne earns his money and the money for the team because people around the world want to watch him play, nobody wants to watch a load of jobbers lumping the ball up the pitch in League 2. That's just the way it is.



I believe some money should be redistributed anyway, but I don't see how the players can be blamed. And you can't stand in the way of a popular commodity growing. I'm pretty sure no business has ever decided to put self-imposed limits on how big or profitable it can get.





Equal distribution of TV money will allow the smaller teams to buy and pay better players and in turn, increase the attractiveness of their brand. Also to improve their infrastructure and grassroots skills development that would lead to a larger pool of talented players in the long run.



I don't think anyone has suggested the redistribution of ALL profits, so there is nothing to stop Man City, Man Utd etc continuing to reap the rewards of their international recognition and continue to pay six-figure a week salaries.



Such a set up wouldn't mean the likes of Oxford competing with Barcelona for Messi, but it would lead to a lot more competition throughout the leagues and especially in the cups.
RE: New Sky deal
By foggy 8 months ago
Equal distribution? So League 2 teams get a split of 1 billion quid?
RE: New Sky deal
By TheSteed 8 months ago
For example, yeah.
RE: New Sky deal
By seasider 8 months ago
I'd rather see the likes of Hartlepool and Chester survive than De Bruyne strutting his stuff in a non-competitive 5-0 victory over Watford.



The Premier League is over hyped in terms of entertainment. The gap between the 6 teams and the rest leaves half the Premier League Fixtures an absolute borefest. I don't watch half the amount of the football I used to.



I know this is just a purist view and holds no weight when it comes to the Global demands of PL football.
RE: New Sky deal
By foggy 8 months ago
The current average revenue of a League 2 team is just under £4m. Your system would suddenly give them 10x that amount. It would welcome new owners who want an easy pay day, with no incentive to get better. If there's no revenue difference between a Championship team and League 2 team, all that League 2 team has to do is not get relegated by being better than 3 teams a year. That's about the safest bet a rich guy can take to make more money.



And if we're talking about overpaid players out of touch with the people in the crowds, how about a journeyman who has never played above League 2 suddenly earning millions of pounds for playing in front of a couple of thousand locals. Meanwhile, all the best players in the world are now deserting the Premier League for more money in Spain, Germany and France instead. Now the next TV deal isn't worth as much because the Premier League has dropped several spots in the prestige rankings. Now you have clubs who have players tied up on contracts they can't afford because the revenue dropped instead of doing what it should do - rise. That's how the bubble bursts and clubs go bankrupt.
RE: New Sky deal
By whitstabletangerine 8 months ago
Instead of all these players getting huge weekly pay cheques, how about the clubs who are able to pay such huge salaries reduce the price of admission, years ago before the premier league windfall the price for watching a top division match was equal to 1/160th of an average weekly wage, what is it now, 1/10th.

Foggy is right, the players are the stars of the show but the fans deserve a better deal with all this dosh flying around.
RE: New Sky deal
By TheSteed 8 months ago
foggy wrote:

The current average revenue of a League 2 team is just under £4m. Your system would suddenly give them 10x that amount. It would welcome new owners who want an easy pay day, with no incentive to get better. If there's no revenue difference between a Championship team and League 2 team, all that League 2 team has to do is not get relegated by being better than 3 teams a year. That's about the safest bet a rich guy can take to make more money.



And if we're talking about overpaid players out of touch with the people in the crowds, how about a journeyman who has never played above League 2 suddenly earning millions of pounds for playing in front of a couple of thousand locals. Meanwhile, all the best players in the world are now deserting the Premier League for more money in Spain, Germany and France instead. Now the next TV deal isn't worth as much because the Premier League has dropped several spots in the prestige rankings. Now you have clubs who have players tied up on contracts they can't afford because the revenue dropped instead of doing what it should do - rise. That's how the bubble bursts and clubs go bankrupt.



£1 billion split between all the clubs in the football league is just under £11m, so it's not a massive jump. Even if it's £2 billion you're only increasing their revenue 4 or five times.



There would have to be wholesale regulation change in the way clubs use revenues, for sure. I never said it would be easy :)



Also, why would a journeyman suddenly get paid more? The clubs still dictate what they pay a player. just because they suddenly have a few million in the bank doesn't mean it all gets used for wages and in the long run I would see less journeymen type players and instead see a shift back to the one club players of old.
RE: New Sky deal
By thetruth1953 8 months ago
whitstabletangerine wrote:

Instead of all these players getting huge weekly pay cheques, how about the clubs who are able to pay such huge salaries reduce the price of admission, years ago before the premier league windfall the price for watching a top division match was equal to 1/160th of an average weekly wage, what is it now, 1/10th.

Foggy is right, the players are the stars of the show but the fans deserve a better deal with all this dosh flying around.





Whits the top clubs could "afford" a free admission system with all the T.V and associated moneys.
RE: New Sky deal
By Bally 8 months ago
TheSteed wrote:

£1 billion split between all the clubs in the football league is just under £11m, so it's not a massive jump. Even if it's £2 billion you're only increasing their revenue 4 or five times.



There would have to be wholesale regulation change in the way clubs use revenues, for sure. I never said it would be easy :)



Also, why would a journeyman suddenly get paid more? The clubs still dictate what they pay a player. just because they suddenly have a few million in the bank doesn't mean it all gets used for wages and in the long run I would see less journeymen type players and instead see a shift back to the one club players of old.





I think we would just see more owners like the Oystons. At the moment a lot of the owners in the PL use their own money to get there and attempt to stay there.
RE: New Sky deal
By foggy 8 months ago
I thought you mean equal revenue between every league, so 1 billion plus change each.



Journeymen players will get more money because they will still be the only players down in L2, the talent pool wont change much. Even if you suddenly inject a load of money that doesn't mean better players magically appear. You'd probably get a few more foreign players come over, but any good ones will still get signed up by Championship teams, and what good does that do for young English players trying to make it? The players currently knocking around the lower divisions will get more money, because any time any league in any sport ever has gotten more money, the players demand more. If one club wants to use their money for other things, agents and players will move elsewhere. It's a market economy. And if you're a club in League 2 you are more desperate than ever to avoid relegation so you have to pay at least going rate right? Dropping out of the football league is disastrous - unless you are also giving semi-professional and amateur teams in the non-league a billion or two to spend also.



But let's say clubs dont give money to the players. Is that good? I guess my stance earlier was that players earn the money, well I guess in this case the players haven't really earned it, it's just been redistributed. But where does the money go?
members do not see advertisements