|
Well yeah but your club has more money than god so doesn't rely on huge tv earnings as much 
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Jose posted:Well yeah but your club has more money than god so doesn't rely on huge tv earnings as much It's bad news for City (and other clubs) because it cuts down income which factors in the financial fair play rules. It's good news for fans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:07
|
|
|
I wasn't being serious
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
Unfortunately the smaller clubs, especially those who may yet receive parachute payments in the Championship, will be the worst affected by any TV rights renegotiation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:It's bad news for City (and other clubs) because it cuts down income which factors in the financial fair play rules. It's good news for fans. No it isn't, because like we've mentioned, the TV rights at the moment have already been sold and so any change won't affect clubs, and by 2013 the rights packages will have been reworked to continue to maximise the amount of money coming in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:No it isn't, because like we've mentioned, the TV rights at the moment have already been sold and so any change won't affect clubs, and by 2013 the rights packages will have been reworked to continue to maximise the amount of money coming in. It just takes a block of broadcasters not to play ball to bring the model down. It isn't anywhere near certain that the clubs can hold broadcasters hostage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:It just takes a block of broadcasters not to play ball to bring the model down. It isn't anywhere near certain that the clubs can hold broadcasters hostage. And Sky will sabotage their incredibly profitable monopoly that has literally allowed not only for the continued existence of their brand but for the entirety of the satellite TV industry pre-digital for the following reason:
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:No it isn't, because like we've mentioned, the TV rights at the moment have already been sold and so any change won't affect clubs, and by 2013 the rights packages will have been reworked to continue to maximise the amount of money coming in. On the large assumption that somehow the opinion given became a ruling, considering this would have the instant effect of people dropping their Sky subscriptions to get Albanian coverage, how exactly do you envision they will maximise the amount of money back to a similar level it is now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:On the large assumption that somehow the opinion given became a ruling, considering this would have the instant effect of people dropping their Sky subscriptions to get Albanian coverage, how exactly do you envision they will maximise the amount of money back to a similar level it is now? It's not complex. You charge the Albanians the same price Sky pay. Or, more realistically, you sell to the EU as one single block, which, as mentioned, would basically guarantee Sky get the deal and don't allow anyone to show EPL football abroad if they're willing to sell systems to British homes or pubs for less than Sky are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 16:36
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:It's not complex. That's actually far more complex than your scribbling on the back of a fag packet has come up with. Quick question, which do you think is the bigger TV audience, the UK or every other EU country that receives these broadcasts? That's a very high risk increasing the prices to UK levels and I'm willing to bet money they won't do it. Raising the levels of the 'others' to UK prices is going to increase pirate transmissions from outside the EU in countries like Albania. And before someone else mentions it, I'll correct myself by saying, of course, Albania isn't in the EU. Let's stick with Greece. Since the EU broadcasters cannot police who the distributors sell their systems to, and since more than likely their systems will apply just as equally to freedom of services as the transmissions do, then they can't do your second proposal either. I pretty sure it goes directly against one of the fundamental freedoms of service. The point being there is nothing to prevent me buying something from the Greek market on the same basis as the UK market, no import tax, no restriction on goods etc. I'm tempted to say there might be competition issues with only one company getting rights for the whole of the EU to distribute as they choose, but that's more of a gut feeling. Fat Turkey fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Quick question, which do you think is the bigger TV audience, the UK or every other EU country that receives these broadcasts? Isn't the relevant question which is the bigger source of revenue? If the satellite providers can't engage in price discrimination anymore, they'll pick the revenue maximizing path, which may be to charge UK level prices all across the EU, and taking a giant dump on all the lower revenue countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 05:28
|
|
|
Booklegger posted:Isn't the relevant question which is the bigger source of revenue? If the satellite providers can't engage in price discrimination anymore, they'll pick the revenue maximizing path, which may be to charge UK level prices all across the EU, and taking a giant dump on all the lower revenue countries. That wouldn't work
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 09:23
|
|
|
The only thing left would be the lucrative mobile and streaming markets. We just have to hope those are done collectively too though. Ill be damned if I have to sign up for MUTV, ChelseaTV etc. Collective merchandising could do a trick too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 11:05
|
|
|
TomSellek posted:That wouldn't work Why not? Like I say, the more likely thing is for EU-wide rights, but remember that UK rights are still more profitable to the Premier League than the rest of the world combined. And of those, most of the major markets and expanding markets are outside the EU. The Sky deal is the goose that laid the golden egg. They simply won't kill it. If that ultimately means people from Norway have to actually watch their own godawful league, then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 12:53
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/bloc-party-new-russian-cash-creates-eastern-gold-rush-2204963.html Here's an interesting article on the the money fueling the growth of the Russian Premier League. It sounds like a less violent version of how drug money brought Colombian football to higher levels before it all crashed down again. quote:Despite all the increased money, the better players, and the higher exposure, ordinary Russians do not seem to be responding. During the last season, when Spartak Moscow played CSKA, the biggest derby of the season, the game was shown live on television, but received only a 4 per cent audience share. Attendances are also falling, rather than increasing, and satellite providers are unwilling to fork out large sums of money to win the rights to show games. Even Rubin, on the back of winning successive Russian league championships, last season attracted an average crowd of just 13,000 to their 30,000 capacity stadium. This has not, however, stopped plans going ahead for a new 45,000-capacity stadium, showing that the spending is not necessarily linked to demand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Why not? Do you have anything to back-up the UK Rights > Rest of the World Rights? Not calling you out, just find it a little surprising and wouldn't mind seeing it in a bit more detail. Bigger than EU, probably, but the whole world combined? Even if they went EU-wide deal (which seems likely although it depends on how good coverage Sky has over the rest of the EU), that doesn't get around the pricing issue. As long as one EU country offers the games at a lower price to the English games, I can (in economic theory), freely buy it from there and bypass the UK provider. I'm not seeing how an EU deal solves this in particular. The fixed price model seems to be the way, but it would kill off legitimate coverage in EU countries, and then there's the domino effect on how that affects other streams of revenue from EU people and how the game is perceived on the continent. They might just cut off the EU countries, but I imagine they'd find another way. You can't really handwave it all away by saying Sky is making a ton of money so they won't just kill it. It's not like there have never been successful companies who have had their revenues severely damaged by new ways of consuming media (in this case, receiving it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
I think we're gonna see the mechanism for the creation of Europe wide channels (with some silly red button sort of stuff so you can pick your language) soon enough, this decision is only going to hurry it up. Such a channel would allow them to set a single continent wide price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
Competition posted:I think we're gonna see the mechanism for the creation of Europe wide channels (with some silly red button sort of stuff so you can pick your language) soon enough, this decision is only going to hurry it up. Such a channel would allow them to set a single continent wide price. That doesn't help, you'd have to buy carrier rights in each country. This is basically what people like Eurosport do anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
The EU has regulated and brought into line countless things to create parity between the member-states, the mechanism for purchasing EU wide carrier rights will be with us in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
latest deloitte money league 1. Real Madrid: 438.6m euros 2. Barcelona: 398.1m euros 3. Man Utd: 349.8m euros 4. Bayern Munich: 323m euros 5. Arsenal: 274.1m euros 6. Chelsea: 255.9m euros 7. AC Milan: 235.8.m euros 8. Liverpool: 225.3m euros 9. Inter Milan 224.8m euros 10. Juventus: 205m euros 11. Man City: 152.8m euros 12. Tottenham: 146.3m euros
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
The Top 20 Deloitte Football Money League clubs: http://bit.ly/f3VAYg quote:All of this year’s top 20 clubs are from the ‘big five’ European leagues with England contributing seven, Germany and Italy four clubs each, Spain three clubs and France two. quote:Whilst Spanish clubs claim the top two positions in the Money League, England retains the largest representation from any single country, with seven clubs. Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea all retained their previous years’ positions of third, fifth and sixth, respectively. Liverpool slipped one place to eighth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
I'm surprised any spanish club other than the top 2 are in the top 20
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
50m increase in revenue for city in the last year, obviously they've spent a lot more than that but it must be an encouraging sign to be up 9 places (realpost)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Chuggo posted:50m increase in revenue for city in the last year, obviously they've spent a lot more than that but it must be an encouraging sign to be up 9 places (realpost) not entirely sure how they've managed that but yeah must be encouraging for them. Last wage bill i could find was just under €157 so they still have a long long way to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:09
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:not entirely sure how they've managed that but yeah must be encouraging for them. Last wage bill i could find was just under €157 so they still have a long long way to go There have been concessions in the financial fair play agreement, which mean that salaries from contracts started before the Summer 2010 don't count if that's the only thing preventing you from complying and allows us to inject 45m euros extra into the club in the first two years. I'm very confident now we will conform (which kind of proves that the whole thing is a bit of a joke).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'm surprised any spanish club other than the top 2 are in the top 20
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
I assume the 3rd Spanish club is Atletico?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
Sevilla have the 3rd best domestic tv deal so them probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
How are Juventus still up there? TV deals?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
MoPZiG posted:How are Juventus still up there? TV deals? Probably, they're also still immensely popular. The Agnelli family is also still filthy rich, I imagine that helps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
this is a fantastic insight into manchester citys finances http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-manchester-city-could-break-even.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
they're baaacckkkk.... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-09/former-liverpool-owners-seek-court-go-ahead-to-pursue-epic-swindle-claim.html quote:Former Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett want more than $1 billion in damages for the forced sale of the 18-time English soccer champion. They'll ask a judge in London this week whether they can pursue their case. Hicks is like the Texan billionaire version of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees - he. just. won't. die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Also portsmouth are likely to be bought out again 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Nikolai Fuckharin posted:Also portsmouth are likely to be bought out again Don't get your hopes up it's going to be Miami
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Swiss Rambler was on 'Beyond the Pitch' podcast discussing football financing. Interesting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
sticksy posted:they're baaacckkkk.... I think the swindling is being orchestrated by their legal advisers. "What's that? You were voted out unanimously by the board of directors whom you appointed that power to? And you say that the current owners reached an agreed upon price with this said body you had granted these judicial powers? Oh, and the Royal Bank of Scotland threatened to act on the absurd amount of debt you had let build with them and send your club into financial administration?.....Yeah, that sounds like a € 5,000,000 case. Check, sure we can take a check." They really are like the abusive crack mother who wants to reclaim their child after the state took it away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
I'm just looking forward to seeing the maths for Hicks' damages. "I personally am owed double the highest ever valuation of the club even though it was fully leveraged at the time of sale because..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
Well to be fair, the fact that it was leveraged doesn't strictly speak against him. The 591254 other points where he's being a retard do though. In bizarro world where he has an actual case, he'd be owed the difference between the market value of the club and whatever value it's sold for against his will. The debt on the club is a separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
The really funny sideeffect of the market value vs actual sale price dilemma happens when you're dealing with prices from both before and after the economic crisis hit. I was at a trial a couple months ago where an old lady was swindled into selling her house for £400k even though it was appraised at £520k. She backed out of the deal after signing a contract, at which point the buyer sued her. Originally he sued her for the rights to buy the house at £400k still, but the lawsuit went past the point of the crisis, at which point he changed her claim to the £120k in cash he claimed he could have made by flipping the house instantly. I don't really blame him, as the house had fallen to £330k in market value at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/17/tom-hicks-george-gillett-liverpool-court In case of a nuclear apocalypse, Tom Hicks will somehow find a way to survive and be a pest. quote:In his 17-page judgment, Mr Justice Floyd severely criticised Hicks and Gillett for taking their case to Dallas on the same day, 13 October, that they were prevented in the high court in London from blocking the sale. Describing that attempt as "vexatious" and "unconscionable", the judge said the pair had "misled" their own lawyer in Texas, who in turn misled the Dallas court, about the proceedings in London. I found the bolded part especially hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 22:05
|
|