New Stadium money vs tv money

[mudshark]

The broadcasters are paying large amounts to ensure that they get the coverage. Their only concern is to pay just enough to ensure they win the contracts.

I'm not sure that bald statement holds water, if the numbers I remember reading were correct. Sky virtually doubled the amount they are paying per game to £11m, whereas BT only increased their spend per game by about £1m to £7m. Sky have something like three times as many games as BT, but the latter are only paying about a fifth of the total for their coverage. I think Sky are trying to do more than you suggest.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I'm not sure that bald statement holds water, if the numbers I remember reading were correct. Sky virtually doubled the amount they are paying per game to £11m, whereas BT only increased their spend per game by about £1m to £7m. Sky have something like three times as many games as BT, but the latter are only paying about a fifth of the total for their coverage. I think Sky are trying to do more than you suggest.

I disagree.... All Sky want to do is ensure that they can bring in more subscriptions and make money. Their premier product in doing this is PL football. They therefore make sure they get the lions share of the coverage and the prime time games.

 

[Jordinho]

Thanks ModricTHFC. So the new TV Deal is worth something in the region of £50m.

And the new ground might bring in an extra £50m per season in tickets, corporate and sponsorship.
Could be considerably more or less, but those sorts of ballparks rather than £10m or £100m per year.

So getting the ground sorted is just as important as the new TV Deal in terms of direct money, although since almost everyone in the Prem will get around £50m ish from the TV Deal, the new ground will help us to pull away from Soton, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Everton but will not bridge the gap to the top 4 who will just pull further away.

So if we spend £400m on a new stadium it could repay itself in 8 years itself or in 4 years if we include the TV Deal too, which they may or may not.

The sad thing is that it will all go on player wages.

 

[mudshark]

I disagree.... All Sky want to do is ensure that they can bring in more subscriptions and make money. Their premier product in doing this is PL football. They therefore make sure they get the lions share of the coverage and the prime time games.

Well, we'll see. As I say, I'll find it interesting to see what happens to the appetite to keep the spending up, if the big names stay away and all that comes of it is inflated wages and clubs asking £30m for mediocrity.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Well, we'll see. As I say, I'll find it interesting to see what happens to the appetite to keep the spending up, if the big names stay away and all that comes of it is clubs asking £30m for mediocrity.

All Sky care about is subscriptions and advertising revenue. They will pay what it takes to keep both going up. If there are no challengers for the rights then the amount they pay will decrease. TV rights packages have gone up due to increased competition in the market place, that's all.

 

[mudshark]

All Sky care about is subscriptions and advertising revenue. They will pay what it takes to keep both going up. If there are no challengers for the rights then the amount they pay will decrease. TV rights packages have gone up due to increased competition in the market place, that's all.

It's not genuine competition, though. It would be if there was a choice of subscription for the same games. Whatever, I'll just be interested to keep my eye on it.

 

[Finney Is Back]

It's not genuine competition, though. It would be if there was a choice of subscription for the same games. Whatever, I'll just be interested to keep my eye on it.

The competition is for the various packages. It seems to me that Sky were prepared to let the Champions League games go in order to ensure they got the lions share of the PL games. I would imagine their analytics have shown them that the viewing numbers back up this approach.

 

[mudshark]

The competition is for the various packages. It seems to me that Sky were prepared to let the Champions League games go in order to ensure they got the lions share of the PL games. I would imagine their analytics have shown them that the viewing numbers back up this approach.

If there was genuine competition, the pressure oughtn't to be for prices to increase. It's like train operators talking about offering choice. Yes, you've got a choice, you can decide to go to a different destination.

 

[Finney Is Back]

If there was genuine competition, the pressure oughtn't to be for prices to increase. It's like train operators talking about offering choice. Yes, you've got a choice, you can decide to go to a different destination.

The competition is for the packages of PL games. If there is more than one buyer for a product then the price goes up.... If there is 1 (or less) buyers for a product then the price goes down.

To take it back to the train operator example - imagine you are selling off the London to Edinburgh line and Virgin, Aviva and Scot Rail all throw their hats into the ring. You are likely to get a much better price than if just one of those express an interest. If BT, etc dropped out of the bidding for Premier League games you can absolutely guarantee that the bids from Sky would be lower.

 

[Papercut]

How much was the NFL deal worth again? Imagine the corporate interest in these games too.

 

[Finney Is Back]

How much was the NFL deal worth again? Imagine the corporate interest in these games too.

I don't think any figures have been released for the NFL deal. I think I remember reading somewhere that Wembley makes around £3 million for each NFL game - although both their overall capacity and corporate numbers are bigger than ours will be. It is probably sensible to assume that we'll make around £2 million per NFL game but, as you say, having NFL at the stadium is likely to increase the demand for our corporate boxes - I can see the big US Banks being interested for example.

 

[jabbathehut]

I don't think any figures have been released for the NFL deal. I think I remember reading somewhere that Wembley makes around £3 million for each NFL game - although both their overall capacity and corporate numbers are bigger than ours will be. It is probably sensible to assume that we'll make around £2 million per NFL game but, as you say, having NFL at the stadium is likely to increase the demand for our corporate boxes - I can see the big US Banks being interested for example.

Part of that 3 million is renting of the stadium.
We will sell more food and drink at an nfl game than a spurs game but I would think ticket sales would be on a par with a cat a game or slightly better.We don't know what the NFL deal is and therefore why Levy went down that route and what the NFL will take from each game.

 

[mudshark]

The competition is for the packages of PL games. If there is more than one buyer for a product then the price goes up.... If there is 1 (or less) buyers for a product then the price goes down.

To take it back to the train operator example - imagine you are selling off the London to Edinburgh line and Virgin, Aviva and Scot Rail all throw their hats into the ring. You are likely to get a much better price than if just one of those express an interest. If BT, etc dropped out of the bidding for Premier League games you can absolutely guarantee that the bids from Sky would be lower.

I’m familiar with supply and demand, I was lamenting the lack of genuine competition benefitting the consumer in terms of choice, not competition for exclusive rights packages that does the exact opposite. We’ll see where it goes from here, as I said, and how long the “market” will continue to fall for the “best league in the world” con trick and allow itself to be fleeced. If all it leads to is inflated wages and transfer fees for middle-of-the-road players, I suspect the hype may become more challenging to maintain. Personally, I’ll never pay a penny in subscription fees, least of all to Sky, and the only reason I care about how much they overpay is because, as far as I’m concerned, it only increases the likelihood that Spurs will become less relevant in the real competition (ie for trophies).

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

I’m familiar with supply and demand, I was lamenting the lack of genuine competition benefitting the consumer in terms of choice, not competition for exclusive rights packages that does the exact opposite. We’ll see where it goes from here, as I said, and how long the “market” will continue to fall for the “best league in the world” con trick and allow itself to be fleeced. If all it leads to is inflated wages and transfer fees for middle-of-the-road players, I suspect the hype may become more challenging to maintain. Personally, I’ll never pay a penny in subscription fees, least of all to Sky, and the only reason I care about how much they overpay is because, as far as I’m concerned, it only increases the likelihood that Spurs will become less relevant in the real competition (ie for trophies).

Very interesting viewpoint. The "best league in the world" con trick is working very well for them and I fall for it in that I do have a Sky subscription. This is mainly for the football, but also the cricket, rugby and Sky Atlantic. Whereas I don't believe the EPL is the best league in the world, it is the one where my team plays and I find it more exciting than any of the other leagues. I think this is purely down to the fact I have more interest in our league as I can relate to the teams more than the Spanish, Italian or German ones. However, I have lost a lot of the enjoyment that I had for the game as money has ruined it. Quite a conundrum.

It was interesting what Bayern were saying earlier in the week in that they need to get more TV money from their league in order to stop their talent moving abroad. I'm sure other leagues are thinking the same.

As for the last sentence, in a lot of ways I agree with you.

 

[inkpenspur]

At £47 a month, Sky is increasingly hard to justify when BT have about a third of the football now for £5 a month. With BT getting the Ashes too I suspect (much to the kids annoyance) we will become a Skyless household before the end of the season. The disparity in pricing is just too great to justify now.

 

[Jordinho]

At £47 a month, Sky is increasingly hard to justify when BT have about a third of the football now for £5 a month. With BT getting the Ashes too I suspect (much to the kids annoyance) we will become a Skyless household before the end of the season. The disparity in pricing is just too great to justify now.

Think of the pundits. How can Thierry Henry not be worth £4 million a year to spout cliches? Even Gary Neville works for a paltry 100K a month.

 

[parklane1]

I’m familiar with supply and demand, I was lamenting the lack of genuine competition benefitting the consumer in terms of choice, not competition for exclusive rights packages that does the exact opposite. We’ll see where it goes from here, as I said, and how long the “market” will continue to fall for the “best league in the world” con trick and allow itself to be fleeced. If all it leads to is inflated wages and transfer fees for middle-of-the-road players, I suspect the hype may become more challenging to maintain. Personally, I’ll never pay a penny in subscription fees, least of all to Sky, and the only reason I care about how much they overpay is because, as far as I’m concerned, it only increases the likelihood that Spurs will become less relevant in the real competition (ie for trophies).

Would agree with all of that, the Prem is not the best Lge in the game and no amount of conning fans that Sky do will change that ( imo). However they are many who believe Sky and not see that they are one of the main reasons that football is no longer the great game it was ( imo).