Premier League Disgrace

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The Government / Ministers have powers based on the various legislation in force. Most of these powers relate to dealing with anti competitive markets but Sky has won its rights in compliance with EU single market rules.

 

The courts/OFT/competiton commission/OFGEM etc have the power and govt/ministers should have no such powers over football governance

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'm talking just about the PL. Undoubtedly Sky's football coverage is excellent though I don't watch it myself.

 

But the actual PL as a TV proposition is dreadful. I even struggle watching the highlights on MOTD sometimes because the games are that dull.

 

Ah but worldwide every PL game is available live somewhere so out there they are watching the very best games..not the dross

 

Sky has both made & ruined the PL. It's turned it into a product where every second person is an Arsenal or Liverpool fan but has never been within 10 miles of the ground.

 

Not an issue for me..re Arsenal/Liverpool

 

Every club in the PL gets a massive wedge from the TV money so IMO Sky is actually making it more competitive..wasn't it something like 96m for Man C and 62M for Cardiff for 2013-14..that will only help to keep the PL as a competitive league

[Woakesy]

Ah but worldwide every PL game is available live somewhere so out there they are watching the very best games..not the dross

 

 

 

Not an issue for me..re Arsenal/Liverpool

 

Every club in the PL gets a massive wedge from the TV money so IMO Sky is actually making it more competitive..wasn't it something like 96m for Man C and 62M for Cardiff for 2013-14..that will only help to keep the PL as a competitive league

 

I don't think it will make it more competitive. If anything it makes it less competitive.

 

For example, Cardiff if in the PL every year, will never compete with Man City. Only Chelsea can compete with City financially.

 

Then you have a second tier of teams headed by United incl Liverpool & Arsenal.

 

Financially speaking the next tier is clubs like Spurs &.Everton.

 

Then the fourth tier includes the rest.

 

You can see where I'm going with this. You can effectively do a PL table of financial clout & it'll look identical to the actual table.

 

Then you've got Cardiff relegated with 62m. How are Championship team's supposed to compete with that when they're scraping by on 1-2 million of TV money?

 

All the Sky money will do will inflate players wages. Can't see any way that it benefits football as a whole in this country.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I don't think it will make it more competitive. If anything it makes it less competitive.

 

For example, Cardiff if in the PL every year, will never compete with Man City. Only Chelsea can compete with City financially.

 

Then you have a second tier of teams headed by United incl Liverpool & Arsenal.

 

Financially speaking the next tier is clubs like Spurs &.Everton

 

Then the fourth tier includes the rest.

 

You can see where I'm going with this. You can effectively do a PL table of financial clout & it'll look identical to the actual table.

 

Then you've got Cardiff relegated with 62m.

 

How can giving Cardiff 62m a year make them less competitive? What chance would they have without that money?

 

 

How are Championship team's supposed to compete with that when they're scraping by on 1-2 million of TV money?

 

THey are not..I was on about keeping the PL competitive

 

All the Sky money will do will inflate players wages. Can't see any way that it benefits football as a whole in this country.

 

It doesn't

[Woakesy]

How can giving Cardiff 62m a year make them less competitive? What chance would they have without that money?

 

 

 

 

THey are not..I was on about keeping the PL competitive

 

 

 

It doesn't

 

Because you give Cardiff 62m a year where City have been fined 50m just for overspending in terms of FFP. 62m is nothing compared to Citys resources.

 

Cardiff won't be signing any better players than equivalent team's promoted to Division 1 did 30 years ago, they'll just be paying them more. The top players will be at the top clubs still no matter how much TV money the other PL team's are given.

 

Sky money would probably make the PL more competitive if you took away club owners who pump in billions but as it is it just makes the situation worse imo.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Because you give Cardiff 62m a year where City have been fined 50m just for overspending in terms of FFP. 62m is nothing compared to Citys resources.

 

I am aware of that but i still don't get how giving them 62M does not make them more competitive? Clearly they would be less competitive if they were for ecample only to get 1M.

[Woakesy]

I am aware of that but i still don't get how giving them 62M does not make them more competitive? Clearly they would be less competitive if they were for ecample only to get 1M.

 

Because everyone in the PL gets an inordinate amount of TV money therefore how can Cardiff be any more competitive?

 

Take away the majority of each PL team's TV money & the league will still be the same with Cardiff at the bottom & City at the top. Without the TV money Cardiff would only attract the same players they do now except they can pay them more. With or without TV money City would still attract better players.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Because everyone in the PL gets an inordinate amount of TV money therefore how can Cardiff be any more competitive?

 

Cos giving them 62M makes them a lot more competitive than giving them (say) only 1M. My point is that there is a huge amount of money available to all in the PL so that makes it more competitive than if it just went to the ones at the top..as happens in Spain for example where Barcelons and Real get the vast majority of the TV money..it doesn't fix the issue but it helps

 

Take away the majority of each PL team's TV money & the league will still be the same with Cardiff at the bottom & City at the top. Without the TV money Cardiff would only attract the same players they do now except they can pay them more. With or without TV money City would still attract better players.

 

I know City would but my point it that SKY's money is helping those with less cash from wealthy backers so it make the league more competitive. A smaller club like Southampton who finished above arguably bigger and wealthier clubs such as Newcastle, Aston Vila, Sunderland etc will be helped to be more competitive by the Sky money cos they get more of it..it can only help to make the league more competitive cos every club gets a large wedge rather than just a few.

[Woakesy]

Cos giving them 62M makes them a lot more competitive than giving them (say) only 1M. My point is that there is a huge amount of money available to all in the PL so that makes it more competitive than if it just went to the ones at the top..as happens in Spain for example where Barcelons and Real get the vast majority of the TV money..it doesn't fix the issue but it helps

 

 

 

I know City would but my point it that SKY's money is helping those with less cash from wealthy backers so it make the league more competitive. A smaller club like Southampton who finished above arguably bigger and wealthier clubs such as Newcastle, Aston Vila, Sunderland etc will be helped to be more competitive by the Sky money cos they get more of it..it can only help to make the league more competitive cos every club gets a large wedge rather than just a few.

 

It's not the amount of money that Cardiff get from TV which might make them more competitive, it's the spread of the money.

 

If Cardiff get 60m and for example, Aston Villa get 65m then it's competitive. If Sky ceased to exist & Cardiff got 1m & Villa got 1.2m then it'd be competitive.

 

If Cardiff get 100m & Villa get 110m then it doesn't make any difference. It just means that clubs spend more money, but because they're all spending more, it cancels it out. Eventually the only winners are the players. You've got very average footballers earning 40k+ a week. These players would still be playing for similar clubs without sky but earning a fraction of the money.

 

I know it's personal opinion but I preferred football in the pre sky, pre bosman era.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

It's not the amount of money that Cardiff get from TV which might make them more competitive, it's the spread of the money.[/quote

 

Exactly and in the PL the spread is much nmuch less than it is in other leagues and gives Cardiff a wedge that otherwise they could not raise..that was my point

 

If Cardiff get 60m and for example, Aston Villa get 65m then it's competitive. If Sky ceased to exist & Cardiff got 1m & Villa got 1.2m then it'd be competitive.

 

Exactly...Sky give everyrone a big wedge not just the few..that's my point

 

If Cardiff get 100m & Villa get 110m then it doesn't make any difference. It just means that clubs spend more money, but because they're all spending more, it cancels it out. Eventually the only winners are the players. You've got very average footballers earning 40k+ a week. These players would still be playing for similar clubs without sky but earning a fraction of the money.

 

I know

 

If Sky gave the top 4 100m and the bottom team 1m then the money to the bottom team would mean nothing but they don't they give them all a huge wedge. Remember they are also competing against other clubs in Europe for players and this means that ALL Pl clubs can compete for players not just the top few which makes it more competitive..if Cardiff were given a small suim then they'd not be able to compete with Pl teams nor others in Europe

 

Plus what the 62m gives them is a chance to pay a lot for a few real high quality so it does give them a chacne of beating the lieks of City to a signing cos City will be trying to sign more high quality..might not be able to pay 12 players 150K a week but can offer 3 players 200K and so may get those few very high quality players, enabling them to be competitive..they'll put most of thweir eggs in one basket so to speak and the Sky money allows that

 

I know it's personal opinion but I preferred football in the pre sky, pre bosman era.

 

Me too...I don't think the overall standard is that much better and the league was much more competitive before some clubs became super rich thru very wealthy benefactors

[For Us All]

PL revenues hit the £3billion mark for the first time.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27667472

[Tone]

PL revenues hit the £3billion mark for the first time.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27667472

 

Astonishing picture of a pack of cards about to fall.

 

"Each domestic live game on average generates broadcast revenue of £6.5m".

 

"Wage costs exceeded revenues in the Championship for the first time in 12 years, leading to a record wage-to-revenue ratio of 106% and record operating losses of £241m."

 

"during 2012-13 half of the [Premier League] clubs had foreign owners, compared with only one 10 years earlier."

[Birdy]

I haven't watched the PL for about ten years now, I find it insulting that the game born out of the working class omits so many. Unfortunately the PL replicates the broader global society with greed and the uneven distribution of wealth. The smaller and poorer clubs are getting poorer and the larger more affluent clubs are getting more season on season. The last year saw an increase of income of the top 5% by 15%. In society those at the top are not feeling any pinch (when it was they who caused the debt; politicians, bankers, corrupt business, tax avoiders) and are getting fatter and richer and cementing their status and positions whilst those at the bottom are struggling. Capitalism in all its forms has got way out of control and the lack of legislation gives those in power (economic and parliamentary) a free road to carry on bleeding us all dry.

 

I am not an anti capitalist by any stretch but we were all taught to share as children, at what point do we bin that theory?

 

Vale, non league and German football (at €10 a ticket) for me.

[Jacko51]

And if Vale made the Premier League, would you watch then?

 

It's so good to hear you voice the possibility, TP.

[For Us All]

Regarding wages,for season 2012/13 QPR were by far and away the biggest culprits in the PL with a deficit wage bill of £78m against a revenue of only £61m but Stoke came in 4th worst,spending 89% of their revenue on wages and were beaten only by Aston Villa and Fulham who both spent 90% of their overall revenue on wages.