|
The Croc posted:And lord help the English game if Sky decide to scale back the amount they're willing to invest in tv rights. Not really. With ESPN now in the Premier League, Sky can't afford to cut down on their spending because they'll just be outbid by a company with Disney's backing. So much of Sky's business is built around football that they couldn't afford to lose the amount of customers they would if they didn't have the football or had to cut prices because they had less.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Waaaaah waaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah You and your facts  Don't let a silly thing like the truth get in the way of "lol Platini"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Yeah they would because at the moment qualification is judged over a full season and not a cup setting where you can have a bad day, part of the reason i was so annoyed everton didn't get CL football. The £2 million is prize money though, the total for prize money from each stage plus TV money would make it several times higher. It's not like Everton weren't allowed into the tournament as they wouldn't be now, they hosed up the qualification.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Adnar posted:Apparently the TV is so skewed that the big clubs clean up regardless of how far they go, For example when Porto won it, United got more TV money than Porto even though they were knocked out in the round of 16. Isn't that because the money for the country is split between the clubs? So that season, you would have had United getting to the round of 16, Arsenal to the quarters, Chelsea to the semis with Newcastle going out in the qualifying round. I could have this wrong, so please correct me if I do. MrL_JaKiri posted:I wouldn't say they hosed it up exactly, they got probably the hardest possible draw and then only went out due to an absolutely abysmal refereeing display Fair point. Though I was replying to someone saying they were annoyed that Everton didn't "get to play in the CL". They got a chance to qualify and failed. I don't think they'd even get that chance now, would they?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been posted already. If it has I've missed it. If not, it belongs here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:They've come out with a statement, it's true Where is it, Southampton's website? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
I didn't realise the pot in Spain was so much smaller than in the Premier League. Isn't the Premier League abour £30m per club though? That's not €2bn, in fact it's less than €1bn. Unless I'm very wrong about the amounts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:Think it goes from £40m for winning the league to £25m for last place. That's the prize money, the TV money is the same for everyone isn't it? Isn't that the point of the Real/Barca thing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:IIRC half of the money coming in goes toward prizes, and the other half is split equally. Right, I wasn't sure if that came from the TV money or from sponsorship and the like.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 14:57
|
|
|
Can't blame Schmeichel. As others have said, he's not all that good and how many promising youngsters have we seen drop out of the game entirely or just go to the lower leagues. Why not either make as much as he can before either of these happened? Also, I assume he, like everyone else thought they had loads of money when he signed, so what's the harm in that? I don't know what the average wage is down the leagues for a goalkeeper, but that contract is almost £1m a year and if things had gone as everyone thought, that could have set him up for life if he dropped out completely. Same goes for Sol really, though at the other end of his career. Why not take a payday off what he thought was a very wealthy club?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Now the ownership's gone he may be helping push the club into administration, but no one in that situation is going to turn down 18k a week and go for a mutual termination for morality reasons, when the alternative is a prolonged bout of unemployment followed by a hugely slashed wage to re-sign at about the same level and probably not get first team football. Absolutely. Campbell was in a different situation, as he is already very wealthy, so he was able to walk away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:He's not a part-time brickie from the Unibond League who has lucked into a million-pound contract. It's not a binary between him being good enough to start as an EPL keeper, and being a fat poo poo clogger from Barnsley. He certainly looked passable for City. Not the starter that people were talking about him being, but good enough to play at that level and not embarrass himself. There's no reason he can't go back to Denmark and make £3,000-£4,000 a week, at least. Of course, but as I said above, the future can be very uncertain for average players and while I'm sure he could be fine, there's no harm in him trying to make as much now as he can, in case it doesn't work out for him in the long run.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:the sad thing is that we could possibly even see a BIGGER example of it with United in 2-5 years. Sad?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
TyChan posted:As Liverpool fans, we're not entitled to gloat at all. It's not gloating. I just wouldn't be sad if United went out of business.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
Vando posted:It's some vague 'EU rules' thing, I think. Surely it goes against EU rules? I doubt they're too keen on employees being tied to their job and being unable to take another one if they were to leave. The window is a load of bollocks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
There's been talk for years that transfers themselves are illegal in that if a person is moving from company A to company B, company B doesn't have to pay a fee. Although, considering how long I've been hearing about this, I'd imagine if there was anything in it, it would have happened by now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I don't think that takes into account the fact the players are on contracts. Yeah, I know that and that's how Bosman came about. That's why I say, if there was anything in it, it would have happened back then/by now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:There's no interest from either party. Clubs would have players walking out all the time and players get a cut of the huge fees so they aren't going to change their approach either. Fair point, though all it would take was one player who wanted out of his club and to pursue it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:two best players agitating and possibly looking for a transfer out. Who's the second?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
Right, I was struggling because he's not very good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Outrespective posted:gently caress me spurs are getting 8.5 mil a year? I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think Tottenham have a bigger "international profile" than Villa. Just look at TRP and how many more Tottenham fans there are than Villa fans. I know it's a small sample group and proves nothing, but I would think Tottenham have a bigger following.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Outrespective posted:Internationally yes, but with regards to the kids, Villa has a good crop of English players young and old. Good point, but I would imagine sponsors look abroad rather than in Britain in terms of where they want exposure. Depends on the club and company I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:I think it's if you go into administration while expecting relegation Yeah, Leeds went into administration the day after being mathematically relegated from the championship a couple of years ago. The League then gave them the points deduction (14 I think?) the following season causing lots of trouble and resulting in Leeds programs not having a page 14 and printing the table without the reduction. In a way, they have a point, as I'm not sure there was anything official in place to stop them circumventing the rules like that, though maybe there was.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 11:56
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Leeds got a 15-point deduction, but that was for basically still being in tax arrears and not actually meeting the criteria to start the season. Right ok. I remember them going into administration as soon as they were down though, so I thought that was what the extra deduction was for, as it's a little cheeky.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:Harry Redknapp is going to cost Pompey two relegations and a long time at that level or there about. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
The Mash posted:It's not strictly Redknapp to be fair. If the financial backing hadn't been so awful, there might have been possibilities for the future. Imagine if the Arabs suddenly left City. You wouldn't blame Hughes for buying all those expensive players when the club went belly-up. Yeah, I do agree with this, but you have to question the structure of the deals, which I think he set up (correct me if I'm wrong) in that they're still paying for players who they've already sold on for more, with that money nowhere to be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:True, but if the owners have a reputation for loving over their local fans they won't get nearly as many fans worldwide. When you can hand pick who to support, who wants to join in with a team that has douchebags for owners? Most people who choose won't give a gently caress as long as the team are successful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:Lots of teams are successful, but at the end of the day if I'm a glory hunter I still have a choice to make, there's not one team that wins everything all the time its spread out between a few clubs. I don't know what your argument is here. My point was that gloryhunting fans couldn't give a gently caress about the ownership of a club, they just care about success. Especially as a lot of them get into said club as kids. Chelsea have one of the most despicable owners around, but it didn't stop them gaining a legion of fans shortly after he took over because they started winning things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I would take Roman any day over the Americans at Liverpool or Man U. That's exactly my point. Plastics don't care about anything except success.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:I meant in terms of morality and general likeability. Still proving my point, really.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:My point is that even if success is the biggest factor, clubs who are successful and treat their local fans well are more appealing to most international fans than clubs who are successful but have their fans protesting in the stands every game. Either way I'm not exactly sure when Roman has abused his local fanbase. All he's done is bought them trophies. Fair enough, I take your point and yeah, he hasn't done anything to the fans as such. But I really thing you're overestimating how much a lot of fans in Malaysia or the US care about "the club".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:Oh most of us don't give a gently caress about the club but we definitely want people(especially the local) to think we do. It's all a part of the experience for some people. Get the jersey and the scarf, watch the team on tv, talk about the teams performance on a forum, see the club in I can't speak for foreign fans really (technically one myself, but that's slightly different), but I think we get a fairly skewed view of them on here. Most of the non-European fans on here seem to really love their clubs, at least enough to learn about them and discuss them at length. However, I don't think this is what the majority of, say, far east fans are like, who are the ones spending the money. Also, Adnar posted:are you serious?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
Flayer posted:The only really expensive thing in London is property/rent. Apart from that just avoid toff and tourist hangouts and you'll be fine. Things like transport are a lot more expensive though, no?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
Flayer posted:Probably. It's 1.20p for a bus ticket now. I guess it's like 50p or something in the north. Ahh, thought the bus was more. Single on the tube's around £3 though, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:yes but i have a feeling the fans groups are so desperate to get rid of hicks and gillete they are going to support this without really thinking what being owned by a private equity firm is going to entail. What is it going to entail? I really don't know much about this sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2010 13:16
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/22/portsmouth-fined-premier-league Yeah, how dare the league not just let them away with breaking rules...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Lyric Proof Vest posted:i take your point but the league is a football creditor and has fined them months after the incident taking place when they know they have to get paid first and as a requirement for being admitted to the football league Article says "a series of breaches". To me, this looks like something happened that was the last straw. I feel sorry for the fans, of course, but if the league were to let anything slide, it would be a kick in the face for similar sized clubs who run themselves properly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
Absolutely. Also, we hear very little about the fact that the Glazers probably wouldn't have been able to take over if not Mr Ferguson hadn't pissed of Magner and McManus back then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Maybe so, but if the fans/club were more than happy to take all the money from being on the stock market, they should have been aware that it left them open to a takeover down the line.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
TyChan posted:I agree with you for the most part, but to be fair, I don't think it's unreasonable for fans to have believed that most, if not all, of the board members and/or shareholders responsible for turning Man-U into a PLC would be less profit-driven and would have had the club's long-term interests more in mind when faced with the Glazers' takeover offer. A takeover still requires someone to be willing to sell the shares and, from what I understand, the implications of the Glazers' way of acquiring the club and running it were pretty obvious to everyone from day 1. I assume the shareholders did have the club's best interest at heart before Mr Ferguson decided to try and dick them over a horse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 16:44
|
|