£10,000,000 per game !

[mrsblue]

10 million per game is the amount SKY and BT have paid for the prem.

Now will we see ticket prices reduce ? I doubt it.

The Premiership is eating itself !

 

[londonblue]

Read this:

BBC

 

[Beefy]

I make Sugar right about the England team and that was one of the first things that I thought of. It is a difficult situation though and whilst I don't have much tolerance for the hyperbolic nonsense spouted by most armchair pundits you do get the feeling that with such a large amount of money coming into the game it'll be a tragedy if some of it isn't used for things beyond making footballers more rich.

Considering that football's one 'attempt' at putting in some financial controls (FPP) was actually just a way of enforcing the status quo and destroying competition there's little chance of any meaningful restraint being applied on clubs and they'll be free to spend this cash as they see fit, which means short term thinking and lots of rich agents.

I don't think there's a financial bubble which is about to explode although suspect that due to different developing ways of distributing content online the days of the expesnive sports subscription is almost over and this deal will likely be the peak, and it is was clear that Sky had no choice but to throw a stupid amount of cash at this as they'd be dead had they lost the rights.

 

[londonblue]

I make Sugar right about the England team and that was one of the first things that I thought of. It is a difficult situation though and whilst I don't have much tolerance for the hyperbolic nonsence spouted by most armchair pundits you do get the feeling that with such a large amount of money coming into the game it'll be a tragedy if some of it isn't used for things beyond making footballers more rich.

Considering that football's one 'attempt' at putting in some financial controls (FPP) was actually just a way of enforcing the status quo and destroying competition there's little chance of any meaningful restraint being applied on clubs and they'll be free to spend this cash as they see fit, which means short term thinking and lots of rich agents.

I don't think there's a financial bubble which is about to explode although suspect that due to different developing ways of distributing content online the days of the expesnive sports subscription is almost over and this deal will likely be the peak, and it is was clear that Sky had no choice but to throw a stupid amount of cash at this as they'd be dead had they lost the rights.

Completely agree.

It's annoying because one of the things the Premier League said when it was originally set up was that it would help the England team. Anyone with any sense knew that wasn't the case.

I remember in 1991/2 someone suggested that the Football League should have been more militant in their dealings with the Premier League. Who ever it was suggested that the Football League should boycott the FA Cup. That would have been interesting: non league and Premier League, but no Football League may well have forced the FA to do something to stop the breakaway in the first place. Who knows.

 

[Beefy]

I do think Sky and the Premier League have been positive influences on the game in this country. Quality-wise the football this season has been disappointing but the drama has still been there and last year's Premier League was probably the most enjoyable from start to finish that I can remember, in my opinion.

I think most clubs at that level would recognise that they'd benefit from a successful England team and you only have to look at the positivity that the likes of Harry Kane have brought to Spurs to see that bringing through young, exciting English talent is a real bonus for them. Yorkshire Blue made the point the other day that Mickey Bodley and Roger Willis would never have been second tier players today and that is because the quality across the board is higher because of the influx of top foreign players at the top.

 

[Jam_Man]

10 million per game is the amount SKY and BT have paid for the prem.

Now will we see ticket prices reduce ? I doubt it.

The Premiership is eating itself !

It certainly puts even more of a spotlight on those premiership clubs to reduce prices. Hard to justify charging the prices the likes of Arsenal do when they get so much TV money.

However, and heres the big kick in the gonads, do you really want Arsenal/Spurs/West Ham charging a tenner a ticket whilst we are unable to do so?

The premiership clubs charging more to get in is a boost for our attendances.

Before anywone says we should get some of the 5 billion remember no one wants to watch us on TV, Sky cant sell our games to the far east...

 

[Ricky Otto]

It certainly puts even more of a spotlight on those premiership clubs to reduce prices. Hard to justify charging the prices the likes of Arsenal do when they get so much TV money.

However, and heres the big kick in the gonads, do you really want Arsenal/Spurs/West Ham charging a tenner a ticket whilst we are unable to do so?

The premiership clubs charging more to get in is a boost for our attendances.

Before anywone says we should get some of the 5 billion remember no one wants to watch us on TV, Sky cant sell our games to the far east...

They charge what they can get away with, if they didn't have long waiting lists for season tickets and weren't filling the stadium then they would drop the price. Dropping the price makes no business sense when people are paying it.

 

[chapperzUK]

It certainly puts even more of a spotlight on those premiership clubs to reduce prices. Hard to justify charging the prices the likes of Arsenal do when they get so much TV money.

The thing is that they can charge what they like. If Arsenal can charge £50 a ticket and still sell out nearly every game, why reduce them?

Before anywone says we should get some of the 5 billion remember no one wants to watch us on TV, Sky cant sell our games to the far east...

If you do it based on the demand, then you'll create what has happened in Spain. Real Madrid and Barcelona take a huge share of the TV rights meaning the ratio from the top to the bottom was 11:1, so they take 11 times more than the bottom club take. This has now changed to 4:1 after the top clubs agreed to share, that's nice isn't it?

This is probably going to this "football manifest" thread but I'd like to see these new rules:

• Clubs to spend on wages a percentage of turnover - for example 60%.
• Encourage more home-grown players, put out a rule saying at least 5 home-grown (i.e. can play for England) must be in the match-day squad and then increase this slowly every season.
• If a player comes through your academy and represents England, the club gets a financial reward.
• If a club loans out a player, the club getting the player has a "first-option" clause for purchase as well as a small sell-on percentage (10-20%) which lasts for 2-3 years.
• Maximum of 6 loanees per season, of which a maximum of 4 at a time.
• All important one, the Premier League will hold 10% of revenue and distribute it to the lower leagues and into grassroots football. This money will be made available to lower league clubs to help subsidise ticket prices and will only be released if clubs do so. For example, if a club charges £20 per ticket and makes £1m per season in ticket sales, they will get £500,000 if they reduce ticket prices to £10.

 

[Beefy]

The trouble with capping wages to turnover is that you're saying that Manchester United should win the league every season. If people want to come in and bankroll Chelsea or Manchester City then they should be able to do so because finances dictate that there's no other way to win the league.

 

[chapperzUK]

The trouble with capping wages to turnover is that you're saying that Manchester United should win the league every season. If people want to come in and bankroll Chelsea or Manchester City then they should be able to do so because finances dictate that there's no other way to win the league.

That is true, although with the new FFP rules it isn't possible to bankroll a club anymore and, like you said above, is pretty much ensuring that the big clubs stay the big clubs. Although all it takes is a bit of long-term planning and a good season and that can be stopped. Look at Southampton, I doubt their wage bill is close to Manchester United's yet they are above them in the league and I really do hope they can grab a top 4 spot!

I have no problem with the top players earning the big money, players like Ronaldo and Messi have consistently pushed themselves to improve and become the best, but my gripe is average/poor players earning money they shouldn't. How on earth are players like Glen Johnson and Tom Cleverly earning close to and more than £100,000 per week?

 

[Jam_Man]

The NFL model is interesting, player caps and revenue sharing to level the playing field.

 

[londonblue]

The NFL model is interesting, player caps and revenue sharing to level the playing field.

American sport is very interesting. They are a very capitalist society, but their sporting set ups tend to be very egalitarian. The NFL model is also used in the NBA, and various other sports.

It also used to be the case that all Indy Car teams were supplied with the same car, made in the UK by Lola. The racing was therefore more of a test of driver. (I'm not sure that is still the case though.)

 

[FarmdogSUFC]

Stoke seem to be a model club to follow in terms of how it treats its supporters. Free away travel and haven't upped their pricing since being promoted to the Prem. I don't know the ins and outs but fairplay to the people behind that. Good to see that some clubs do still care for its supporters.

 

[EastStandBlue]

It's an interesting situation and an interesting debate. No matter the size and scale of the deal the Premier League shouldn't be seen as a charity set-up to bank roll clubs further down the hierarchy. All that's doing is increasing the financial reliance on the Premier League so that when the bubble does burst - and it will - we're left with another ITV Sport situation on our hands.

What absolutely should be happening is a vastly increased investment in grassroots football, funding the FA's initiatives and reaching out to each and every County FA to sponsor facility development and professionalising coaches to work in the community. A total of £168m from the Premier League's last deal went towards grass roots football, that's a frankly appalling 5% and there's been no word whether this will increase in kind under the new deal.

Scudamore needs to put up or shut up. If the Premier League really is in the best interests of the English game as he says it is, then it's time to share the wealth with people that really need it.

 

[RobM]

Ironically, Stoke's team last week didn't contain a single player eligible to play for England.

Here's the thing though - the Premiership is all buddy-buddy. Finish last and get relegated to the Championship, collect £99 million. Get promoted TO the Championship - get relatively peanuts. How is a club like Bristol City (if the go up) expected to compete against (say) QPR with an extra £99 million?

 

[rigsby]

The football league have TV rights to our games. So the miniscule 1minute of highlights on the club web site is all they let us see. If these were longer the clubs could earn from adverts or better still show say a full away match in mid week at the social club etc. would certainly help clubs like ours.

 

[Pubey]

The competition between BT and Sky for a fixed quantity of 'product' sees the inevitable conclusion = crazy money being spent.

The sums are eye-watering, and paying fans who go to games are the ones to suffer.

There are teams who hardly ever play at 3pm on a Saturday, and fans who can't get to games via train on Sunday. Throw in more evening matches (including Fridays) and rumours about games being played abroad and you end up with an NBA style situation where games are played on any random day, including Christmas day, and a largely tourist-based support because away travel becomes really hard.

 

[mrsblue]

Would love to see some of this money paying for 3G pitches around the country,I understand the cost is around 300k per pitch so in reality 300 million would pay for 1000 pitches which still leaves around 95% for the prem.

 

[Pubey]

Would love to see some of this money paying for 3G pitches around the country,I understand the cost is around 300k per pitch so in reality 300 million would pay for 1000 pitches which still leaves around 95% for the prem.

Completely agree. It's no wonder we can't develop young players who are confident at passing:

 

[mrsblue]

Agree Pubey.

In addition to terrible pitches covered in dogs mess or vandalised,junior games in the winter are often postponed for in many cases week after week after week it's ridiculous.

My team have only played one game in the last 7 weeks due to postponements,training has become a joke as clubs understandably do not want their training pitches cut to ribbons.

When I coach the under 11s,the gaffer and myself have to be there early to pick up idiotic dog owners mess...Its horrendous .