Jump to content

Football Thread 2020/2021


Gotters
 Share

Recommended Posts

From a business perspective why should the tv money be evenly distributed? There are some clubs that people are just less interested in watching. I think most of the ppv games were considered flops and they were nearly all the lesser supported teams weren't they? (I might well be wrong) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

From a business perspective why should the tv money be evenly distributed? There are some clubs that people are just less interested in watching. I think most of the ppv games were considered flops and they were nearly all the lesser supported teams weren't they? (I might well be wrong) 

Well yeah, probably is resonable from a business perspective, but it's an odd way to look at football, unless you're a billionaire 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dr_manhattan^ said:

Well yeah, probably is resonable from a business perspective, but it's an odd way to look at football, unless you're a billionaire 

I think the main issue is that football is now a business more than anything. Can't see how that is ever going to change. How could it? Should it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stoppy2000 said:

I think the main issue is that football is now a business more than anything. Can't see how that is ever going to change. How could it? Should it? 

Well, that's the core of the outrage this week.

 

In my opinion we should absolutely strive to get as close to a fair sport as possible.  I don't see much point in anything else.

 

If we let go of that drive we're basically just cheering on a bunch of marketing companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quick return to an already busted status quo is the most disappointing thing about this.

 

There has to be punishment, accountability, to crush this ever happening again. A pat on the back and a return to the welcoming arms of the rest of the game isn't right. These clubs tried to stab the game in the chest. They have to pay for that, to ensure it isn't done again. And if that only serves to push them out the door, so be it. These clubs aren't the game.

 

If anything getting rid of them might improve things. Let them have their Super League, but make it clear that that is all they have and they no longer take part in anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dr_manhattan^ said:

Well, that's the core of the outrage this week.

 

In my opinion we should absolutely strive to get as close to a fair sport as possible.  I don't see much point in anything else.

 

If we let go of that drive we're basically just cheering on a bunch of marketing companies.

Maybe they could make more of the TV money linked to league table position? I don't know if that would make things better or worse. Presumably someone having a random good season - Sheffield United last season for example - would have made more money to push to sustain it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Maybe they could make more of the TV money linked to league table position? I don't know if that would make things better or worse.

 

It'd make things worse, because the teams at the top are there because they already have money.

 

A Sheffield United or Burnley would be better served by not having their financial security more closely tied to their ability to break into the top six.

 

The truth is, football is nothing without the teams to play it. Attempts to justify giving more money to the teams that draw in the punters often fail to account for the need for teams to make an interesting competition. Nobody wants to see the top six play each other to the exclusion of all others, so why should the others be denied an equal share of TV money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

From a business perspective why should the tv money be evenly distributed? There are some clubs that people are just less interested in watching. I think most of the ppv games were considered flops and they were nearly all the lesser supported teams weren't they? (I might well be wrong) 

The PPV games were competing with wall-to-wall subscription and free to air coverage; and the people most likely to pay were already paying through the nose for Sky and BT subs, perhaps Prime as well.
 

I don't see that PPV works if you've also got 150 games/season on subscription. I'm not sure it works anyway: the whole thing misses the point that the reason that people go to the football isn't *just* the football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think with a lot of people have just sort of revealed where their line of acceptable greed sits. This was too far, but the current level is fine for the most part. I think it's fine to carry on pointing that out as this isn't the big reset it's being trumpeted as. It's just an issue that's had a goal line clearance and somehow ended up into the long grass by the carpark for a couple of years at best. 

 

I think one thing that bothers me a bit is the idea that all these owners would have used the extra money to consolidate their sporting success. If you take Arsenal and Man Utd as examples, they've had owners who have either starved the team of investment or taken huge amounts of money out of the club. Their time in charge has seen them hold the actual football team back. To an extent now you don't even need a decent team, you can make do with a mediocre one and watch your investment grow. The Super League would have been that on steroids, but it's still the case now. At least CIty and Chelsea have a few pots to show for it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reports emerging about the finances of this, and the clubs may have bought into the super league taking an equity stake in the entity, they may also be liable for some penalties for pulling out early, as amazingly they signed 23y contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gotters said:

Some reports emerging about the finances of this, and the clubs may have bought into the super league taking an equity stake in the entity, they may also be liable for some penalties for pulling out early, as amazingly they signed 23y contracts.

 

:wacko: is there supposed to be 2 numbers there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gotters said:

Some reports emerging about the finances of this, and the clubs may have bought into the super league taking an equity stake in the entity, they may also be liable for some penalties for pulling out early, as amazingly they signed 23y contracts.

That's amazing.

 

It also goes to show that this was never about sabre-rattling/a power play against UEFA for better terms (which many have suggested), this was about doing it for real (which I always thought from the moment the news hit on Sunday). 

 

I do wonder if any of the owners (specifically thinking of Real and Juventus here, as they seem to be making the most noise about it) have deluded themselves into believing that this really would be 'for the benefit of the whole football pyramid'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the root of the problem is revealed in some of the statements from the "repentant" clubs:
 

"the decision to be part of the Super League was driven by our desire to protect Arsenal, the club you love, and to support the game you love through greater solidarity and financial stability" (Arsenal)

 

"We felt it was important that our club participated in the development of a possible new structure that sought to better ensure financial fair play and financial sustainability" (Spurs)

 

"We remain committed to working with others across the football community to come up with sustainable solutions to the long-term challenges facing the game" (Man U)

 

What the owners want is financial stability. That's what makes for a solid investment. Until the past few years, football - or at least the "founder member" clubs - might have offered an illusion of stability. Arsenal always finished in the top 4 (until they didn't). Manchester United were always in the top 2 (until they weren't). Barcelona were always brilliant, because they had Messi (until he started getting old, and fed up with how the club was run). Real were always brilliant, because they had Ronaldo (until they sold him, and didn't reinvest the money properly), etc. And, of course, the stadiums were always full of paying fans (until they weren't, because Covid).

 

Well, tough shit. Sport is an inherently unstable business. If you want stability, you're in the wrong place. Justifying these plans on the basis of football's financial instability is like a newspaper owner complaining that reporting the news on a 24-hour basis makes it too difficult to plan ahead, so instead they're just going to reprint the headlines from their best-selling edition every day forever more.

 

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the amount of money in football now, or with incredibly rich individuals owning football clubs, in theory. The problem is, in reality people only have that amount of money because they're absolute ruthless bastards who don't give a shit about anyone or anything. And they are also, it would seem, deeply stupid. The ESL plans are the most compelling evidence on that front. But the fact they ever expected football clubs to be a stable investment opportunity should have told us all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always under the impression that the people that owned football clubs were both very rich and kind of liked football.

 

Turns out only half of that statement is true. 

 

Not that I'd ever endorse going to actually watch a game of football, but wouldn't now be the time to go and support that local club that isn't owned by some penny pinching charlatan? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, marsh said:

I was always under the impression that the people that owned football clubs were both very rich and kind of liked football.

 

Turns out only half of that statement is true. 

 

Not that I'd ever endorse going to actually watch a game of football, but wouldn't now be the time to go and support that local club that isn't owned by some penny pinching charlatan? 

 

There are very few of them these days.  I think that Brighton are the only Premier League club fully owned by a "local" businessman and fan.  A quick guess at the Championship is maybe 9 out of 24?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked that one.  They have American owners.

 

Quote

On 18 December 2015, it was announced that a new deal had been signed with American investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer.[102] The club stated that Steve Parish would continue as chairman alongside Harris and Blitzer as general partners in a new structure, and that Browett, Long and Hosking would also retain a substantial investment.[103]

 

The company accounts later showed that the ownership figures were: Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%. Both Palace Holdco and Palace Parallel have 180 preference shares each. As the Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners, the exact ownership of the club is therefore unknown, but Steve Parish did confirm that each of Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share to match his own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing about this is that Perez came out saying this was to save football and get the younger audiences back into it. 

 

The younger audiences aren't as into football as they used to be because most of it is now locked behind a paywall. The only way they ESL was going to be a success (for the 12) was selling off the broadcasting rights to companies that would, again, lock it behind a paywall. Champion's League audiences are down in the UK because BT have the rights to all of it and ITV no longer show any of the games. It's the same with lots of other countries too. 

 

It's myopic and foolhardy to think that you can sustain and increase audiences, whilst at the same time decreasing the potential audience. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree that the clubs have to be seen to be punished, so as to dissuade them from even thinking about trying anything like it again.
 

 This can surely be done in ways that can avoid penalising the innocent players and fans though.  

 

One thing that instantly springs to mind is the 12 clubs all resigned from the ECA (European Clubs Association) with Agnelli even being the chairman.  So simply don’t let them back in, or admit them as basic members with no rights to hold positions of authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Times reporting that UEFA is now under pressure from the ECA (clubs association) which the Super 12 resigned from earlier in the week - the ECA now are not so keen on the wildcard places for fallen giants who aren't good enough to qualify for the new Swiss format CL (I believe its called this as is full of holes).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.