• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Project Big Picture

Raziel said:
Of course it is a power grab, at the cost of 25% of ~2.5B/yr (2018 numbers)

So lets say -> 625M/yr for 5 years, so 3.1B investment into lower leagues, even if they cut that back to 8% (current value) in 5 years, do you see another alternative that will give the football ladder three billion dollars in next 5 years?

The league already has rules around ownership btw (qualified owner), it's not just another billionaire but other "pretenders" who may put a club a risk of administration ..
Click to expand...

I don't see any other alternative than a bailout or fan takeover type arrangment which realistically isn't going to happen, if the clubs are so intent on helping out the league club then why not offer the same proposition without taking all the voting rights for themselves - afterall all the premiership clubs will have lower revenues than forecast with this yet really only 6 of them get any say in it.

Again if there's already rules on ownership then why do 6 clubs need a veto over who owns them, what business is it of theirs if the owner meets the fit and proper test then that should be enough? Smacks of old boys club membership style approach.

Luckily all the fan groups for the top 6 are also against it.

I'm not against helping other league clubs out, just don't think this is the best way to go about it.
 
P.D. said:
I don't see any other alternative than a bailout or fan takeover type arrangment which realistically isn't going to happen, if the clubs are so intent on helping out the league club then why not offer the same proposition without taking all the voting rights for themselves - afterall all the premiership clubs will have lower revenues than forecast with this yet really only 6 of them get any say in it.

Again if there's already rules on ownership then why do 6 clubs need a veto over who owns them, what business is it of theirs if the owner meets the fit and proper test then that should be enough? Smacks of old boys club membership style approach.

Luckily all the fan groups for the top 6 are also against it.

I'm not against helping other league clubs out, just don't think this is the best way to go about it.
Click to expand...


This.
 
P.D. said:
I don't see any other alternative than a bailout or fan takeover type arrangment which realistically isn't going to happen, if the clubs are so intent on helping out the league club then why not offer the same proposition without taking all the voting rights for themselves - afterall all the premiership clubs will have lower revenues than forecast with this yet really only 6 of them get any say in it.

Again if there's already rules on ownership then why do 6 clubs need a veto over who owns them, what business is it of theirs if the owner meets the fit and proper test then that should be enough? Smacks of old boys club membership style approach.

Luckily all the fan groups for the top 6 are also against it.

I'm not against helping other league clubs out, just don't think this is the best way to go about it.
Click to expand...

honest answer = they have no obligation to do so, if they could do so while gaining some advantage, then ok .. if not .. let the system sort itself out

When a dozen clubs disappear from existence in next few clubs, wonder how many will still be cheering?
 
Raziel said:
honest answer = they have no obligation to do so, if they could do so while gaining some advantage, then ok .. if not .. let the system sort itself out

When a dozen clubs disappear from existence in next few clubs, wonder how many will still be cheering?
Click to expand...

It's not about cheering, it's about being fair. They could propose that 25% of revenue is given to league clubs for next 2 years (until current TV contract ends) with a promise to review it after that when the next TV deal is agreed and include some stipulations about it not being splurged on transfers etc and it would likely be unamimously approved but instead they've gone on a charade about vetoes, likely selling TV rights individually, money spinning pre season friendlies etc.
 
P.D. said:
It's not about cheering, it's about being fair. They could propose that 25% of revenue is given to league clubs for next 2 years (until current TV contract ends) with a promise to review it after that when the next TV deal is agreed and include some stipulations about it not being splurged on transfers etc and it would likely be unamimously approved but instead they've gone on a charade about vetoes, likely selling TV rights individually, money spinning pre season friendlies etc.
Click to expand...

I would only give league clubs more money on the promise they run at reduced cost aka reduce wages to players or shifting those they cant afford.

Frankly they don't deserve, the TV money prem clubs receive is for that product and giving money to clubs to continue to over stretch isn't an answer
 
The biggest problem for clubs in league one and two is they pay their players far too much. In a recent survey the average pay in league one was just under £5k a week with a top earner getting £15k a week. The average earnings for actors is about £20k a year. I know their overheads are high with the upkeep of grounds but too much of their incoming is wasted by over paying very ordinary players. I knew blokes who could have turned pro but earned more having a proper job and playing "amatuer" football. Being semi pro would be a lot better for many of them.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
The biggest problem for clubs in league one and two is they pay their players far too much. In a recent survey the average pay in league one was just under £5k a week with a top earner getting £15k a week. The average earnings for actors is about £20k a year. I know their overheads are high with the upkeep of grounds but too much of their incoming is wasted by over paying very ordinary players. I knew blokes who could have turned pro but earned more having a proper job and playing "amatuer" football. Being semi pro would be a lot better for many of them.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I know alot about non league budgets as I have mates who run clubs and they constantly over stretch. The money in non league has been insane in recent years mainly because clubs are used to launder money too, Billericay recently a great example.

But in the league it happens too. If a clubs having to put in a million a month of the chairmans money to run then you are paying too much out on wage, its as simple as that.

There is romantic notions about football and as fans I understand that but lets be honest, football clubs are companies and if they are run badly should they be given numerous chances to survive whilst not changing to survive on their own two feet? If you back given clubs more money just to chuck into black holes then you are complicit to the problem and as fans who put pressure on boards to sign above their means for short term success.
 
P.D. said:
It's not about cheering, it's about being fair. They could propose that 25% of revenue is given to league clubs for next 2 years (until current TV contract ends) with a promise to review it after that when the next TV deal is agreed and include some stipulations about it not being splurged on transfers etc and it would likely be unamimously approved but instead they've gone on a charade about vetoes, likely selling TV rights individually, money spinning pre season friendlies etc.
Click to expand...

Why? what obligation does a private business have to help out lower league clubs? honestly the 8% is already way beyond generous.

What percentage of your salary are you willing to give (above and beyond the taxes you already pay) to subsidize something that has nothing to do with you? (for no additional benefit to you) why is there this expectation from PL clubs? So after Spurs has to pay for our 1B stadium with zero fudging help, we are expected to give up 25% of our revenue to "be fair"

I think people are way fudging confused here, if I was giving up 25% of my fudging money, I'd expect an awful lot in return ..

And again, what's the alternative?
 
Regardless of whether the Big Six have any obligation to the lower leagues, would it not still be in their own interests to help ensure that there is a healthy football pyramid in this country?

If the lower tiers were to decline, over time that could have a knock-on effect in the quality of teams gaining promotion to the PL, which in turn would make it less competitive and therefore less appealing to the rest of the world.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Regardless of whether the Big Six have any obligation to the lower leagues, would it not still be in their own interests to help ensure that there is a healthy football pyramid in this country?

If the lower tiers were to decline, over time that could have a knock-on effect in the quality of teams gaining promotion to the PL, which in turn would make it less competitive and therefore less appealing to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a benefit, but is it a 625M/yr benefit?

If the PL becomes less appealing, then the big clubs always have the option of some kind of super league

This to me is such a weird conversation, the top clubs have the cards .. the league/FA have very little leverage other than good faith

Instead of saying, hey "we appreciate your efforts to support the game and lower league, and think there are lots of items of merit in your proposal (e.g. 20 quid away tickets), we would like to address some areas of concern" (that is how you negotiate), everybody ran to the media, brick all over the proposal and made it out to be brick offer (it wasn't).

Honestly if I was the top clubs, I'd just wait 6 more months, see how many clubs go into administration and offer half of what they did the first time around ...
 
P.D. said:
It's not about cheering, it's about being fair. They could propose that 25% of revenue is given to league clubs for next 2 years (until current TV contract ends) with a promise to review it after that when the next TV deal is agreed and include some stipulations about it not being splurged on transfers etc and it would likely be unamimously approved but instead they've gone on a charade about vetoes, likely selling TV rights individually, money spinning pre season friendlies etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 25% now sounds good, but the question to ask is 25% of what. If the self-selected elite decide to sell a fraction of their PL games directly and if they get to choose which games, then the value of the PL TV deal will be reduced. Man Utd and Liverpool will want to market their games against each other, not the games against Brighton or Norwich. I can't see them happy to take the games after the broadcasters have taken their pick. With the proposed voting rights change they will be able to make such changes.
 
jts1882 said:
Agreed. 25% now sounds good, but the question to ask is 25% of what. If the self-selected elite decide to sell a fraction of their PL games directly and if they get to choose which games, then the value of the PL TV deal will be reduced. Man Utd and Liverpool will want to market their games against each other, not the games against Brighton or Norwich. I can't see them happy to take the games after the broadcasters have taken their pick. With the proposed voting rights change they will be able to make such changes.
Click to expand...
Then the broadcasters wouldn’t be interested IMO
The issue with the direct marketing approach is the actual value of it
On talksport Simon Jordan compared it to Netflix... and that’s a company that is £15b in debt
If clubs think they can actually control a global market when they can’t even control piracy in the UK then their being very brave if stupid IMO
Right now they get a guaranteed income
Selling direct the games that aren’t on UK channels is additional income
 
Raziel said:
Why? what obligation does a private business have to help out lower league clubs? honestly the 8% is already way beyond generous.

What percentage of your salary are you willing to give (above and beyond the taxes you already pay) to subsidize something that has nothing to do with you? (for no additional benefit to you) why is there this expectation from PL clubs? So after Spurs has to pay for our 1B stadium with zero fudging help, we are expected to give up 25% of our revenue to "be fair"

I think people are way fudging confused here, if I was giving up 25% of my fudging money, I'd expect an awful lot in return ..

And again, what's the alternative?
Click to expand...

They don't have an obligation but I think it's sensible to give up some revenue, with no money they don't have academies which develop players, they provide games for developing players on loan, participate in competitions than fans want to watch like fa cup and league cup, keep people interested by having teams located all across the country. Face it if we just had 20 premiership teams and 10 in the championship it would be very dull and unhealthy for the game in general in the long run.

But you also miss the point that all teams would be giving up 25% of TV revenue, sure if you finish 15th rather than 1st you're giving up less but those clubs tend to have fewer income streams elsewhere so why should the team who comes 15th give up the same revenue without having the same rights as the top 6 in voting terms.

The only logical reason they want control of voting rights is so they can make decisions that solely benefit them.
 
Well, took all of a couple of weeks to go back to

- Well, if you won't negotiate, I'll fudge off to a super league
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back