[Archived] Premiership In New £625m Tv Deal

[Alex Rover]

Premiership windfall

I think this should have it's own thread as it's not just a small rise, the deal will mean that even the team finishing bottom will claim £30m which is about what Chelsea won last season.

It's going to make the relgation scrap next year even more pressurised and you certainly wouldn't want to go down this season and miss out.

[Jan]

Premiership windfall

I think this should have it's own thread as it's not just a small rise, the deal will mean that even the team finishing bottom will claim £30m which is about what Chelsea won last season.

It's going to make the relgation scrap next year even more pressurised and you certainly wouldn't want to go down this season and miss out.

Fine- but do we need TWO topics?

[Alex Rover]

Fine- but do we need TWO topics?

Agreed but if you checked, both were posted it at the same time time which is why there's two. Mods will merge them hopefully.

[benhben]

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=4...+bumper+pay-day

The deal is even more on here! 900m a seaon.

[sussexrover]

I'm not sure this will necessarily be the answer to solving financial difficulties and getting rid of our debt. It is just as likely to create a further spiralling of transfer fees and wage bills. Even if we try to be prudent and retain a sensible wage and transfer structure, other clubs will start throwing money around to secure better players and as suggested relegation will become an even more damaging prospect, meaning we may need to compete financially as much as we can.

If you increase the total amount of money within an economy (in this case the football world), inflation is the obvious result.

[rover_groo]

The gap is just increasing in value between the Premiership and the Championship.

If a team that gets promoted from the Championship and spends pretty heavily and incrreasing their wage budget, it's really sucidal if they go down the following year. Speading money wisely is a must on both proven and unproven players and anyone who really ends up being an expensive dud, then they can cost their club to go on the brink of non-existance.

Great money from this deal for the clubs with added revenue from the Internet and Mobile Phones. An important fact, is that grass-routes will also gain £38 million with an agreement from the government to aid their development.

[stuwilky]

I'm not sure this will necessarily be the answer to solving financial difficulties and getting rid of our debt. It is just as likely to create a further spiralling of transfer fees and wage bills. Even if we try to be prudent and retain a sensible wage and transfer structure, other clubs will start throwing money around to secure better players and as suggested relegation will become an even more damaging prospect, meaning we may need to compete financially as much as we can.

If you increase the total amount of money within an economy (in this case the football world), inflation is the obvious result.

Thats EXACTLY what will happen, along with perpetuating the issue of promoted clubs getting hammered unless they ahve serious financial backing.

Presumably parachute payments will also increase, making it harder still for other clubs to break into the Premiership.

[Moppy]

I just wish sky had put pressure on the PL to force a cap on ticket prices. It cant be a good advert for the league having half empty stadiums. Maybe if they put a cap of say £25 regardless of whos playing it would get fans back. The clubs could really argue (although they would) as they are getting enough money from the deal to counteract the loses.

[James No. 7]

If you increase the total amount of money within an economy (in this case the football world), inflation is the obvious result.

I agree to a large extent, with English transfers and wages being inflated even further. However, it might well prove to increase purchasing power outside the UK, with hot prospects less likely to go to Italy and Spain and instead be lured by Premiership clubs. Also, prices for players outside the UK would be less off-putting. For example, McCarthy might well have been bought a year early with the extra money. The effect would be making the Premiership clubs stronger in European competition. The status quo would stay in the Premier League, naturally, and with the whole of England itself, including inflation. The gap between the Championship and the Premier League, as Stuwilky says, will widen even further.

[OscarRaven]

The gap between the Championship and the Premier League, as Stuwilky says, will widen even further.

Basically football will become less competitive.

Ticket revenue is less of an influence as TV money inflates, if I were Rovers next season I'd cap all ticket prices at £15 a game (incl season tickets). A full house can be a great motivator when things are going well.

[Eddie]

Why would we do that though? Attendances have shown that some games will always have a good attendance (Liverpool this season, which was even on TV), even when the tickets are expensive. I agree that most of the games should be priced at £15-20 for non season ticket holders, but games like United, Liverpool, Chelsea and some others should be more expensive, the demand is high enough.

[Gav]

The down side to this is that eventually the money will go to the players, not to subsidise ticket prices in the long run. It may take a few years for wages to come in line with the new windfall but rest assured they'll come in line eventually...........

[Moppy]

Why would we do that though? Attendances have shown that some games will always have a good attendance (Liverpool this season, which was even on TV), even when the tickets are expensive. I agree that most of the games should be priced at £15-20 for non season ticket holders, but games like United, Liverpool, Chelsea and some others should be more expensive, the demand is high enough.

If you look at it from a pure business sense your right. I am looking it at the point of view its a sport, and if we get a regular attendence of 25K again maybe they can look at doing up the WS. I know football is very much a business now but that doesnt mean its has to be ONLY about money. If it was introduced people who attend the "lower class" matches would get priority for the "higher class" games. 15K paying £15 one game and the 30K paying £30+ another or 25K paying 20 and 30K paying 20 arnt that different. + you would have a better atmosphere. Obviously it might not work that well but something needs to be done accross the board. This would also stop people like Bolton charging away fans £39.

[joey_big_nose]

If you look at it from a pure business sense your right. I am looking it at the point of view its a sport, and if we get a regular attendence of 25K again maybe they can look at doing up the WS. I know football is very much a business now but that doesnt mean its has to be ONLY about money. If it was introduced people who attend the "lower class" matches would get priority for the "higher class" games. 15K paying £15 one game and the 30K paying £30+ another or 25K paying 20 and 30K paying 20 arnt that different. + you would have a better atmosphere. Obviously it might not work that well but something needs to be done accross the board. This would also spot people like Bolton charging away fans £39.

That works on the premise that if you lower prices more people will come on a long term basis. While Idon't dispute that a few more will come I still think we will be thousands down on 2002-2003 for example. People don't want to turn up at the moment, across the league. Prices are only a component, not the sole cause, of this.

[ABBEY]

That works on the premise that if you lower prices more people will come on a long term basis. While Idon't dispute that a few more will come I still think we will be thousands down on 2002-2003 for example. People don't want to turn up at the moment, across the league. Prices are only a component, not the sole cause, of this.

thats true because certain people on here wouldnt have bought a season ticket next season if we hadnt of bought david dunn

[blue phil]

That works on the premise that if you lower prices more people will come on a long term basis. While Idon't dispute that a few more will come I still think we will be thousands down on 2002-2003 for example. People don't want to turn up at the moment, across the league. Prices are only a component, not the sole cause, of this.

Seeing the new money go to the players - even more of whom will come from abroad having smelt the dosh - will further alienate the punter in the street . It's a vicious circle unfortunately .

[roversyoyo]

Interesting article on the bbc here about the current state of english football in light of the new deal.

He raises some very good points a lot of which I agree with. Lucas also gets a mention as well, and not a favourable one .

bbc article - click me

[American]

Note that this is more revenue coming in from us overseas fans who some consider of no monetary value to the club....

[kevinyip]

I think all of you should thanks us as PCCW NOW (HK boardband TV company) use a HUGE amount of money (in our HK guy sense) to bid the right to show EPL football...

[Paul]

I can't see any of this benefitting the average fan. The money will be wasted on players salaries and agents fees. Until the clubs collectively have the backbone to stand up to the players and reduce the obscene money paid to them any other "benefits" from TV money are mere tokenism.

This supposed windfall will simply make it even harder for clubs like Rovers to compete. New signings come down to money, nothing else, and if our competitors have more money available it simply makes it tougher to attract players to Ewood Park. Unless gates have fallen off the edge don't expect local fans to benefit one jot, never forget as customers the live support is at the bottom of the PL pile. When you can sell to billions around the world for £3.7 billion (Sky etc) why worry about 20,000 in Blackburn??

PS - these are general remarks, not aimed at Rovers but the PL in general.

[joey_big_nose]

I can't see any of this benefitting the average fan. The money will be wasted on players salaries and agents fees. Until the clubs collectively have the backbone to stand up to the players and reduce the obscene money paid to them any other "benefits" from TV money are mere tokenism.

This supposed windfall will simply make it even harder for clubs like Rovers to compete. New signings come down to money, nothing else, and if our competitors have more money available it simply makes it tougher to attract players to Ewood Park. Unless gates have fallen off the edge don't expect local fans to benefit one jot, never forget as customers the live support is at the bottom of the PL pile. When you can sell to billions around the world for £3.7 billion (Sky etc) why worry about 20,000 in Blackburn??

PS - these are general remarks, not aimed at Rovers but the PL in general.

Not sure i agree with that, the massive increase in TV money means that we will be more competitve as smaller gates will be less of a handicap in terms of overall revenue.

As for player wages, thers not really a lot we can do. If we 'stand up' to the players it means that we simply won't be ableto atttract the best, certianly not the Bellamy's and the McCarthy's. It's a free global market- the only way to combat it is to impose salary caps the world over. I am not sure you can really justify that, and obviosuly it is not realistic.

[Paul]

Not sure i agree with that, the massive increase in TV money means that we will be more competitve as smaller gates will be less of a handicap in terms of overall revenue.

For me the problem is it's actually pretty level playing field in terms of TV money for all clubs. OK I think the champions and runners-up will get an EXTRA £50m, poor loves must be short of a centre-forward, but after this the TV revenues are roughly equal. Realistically an extra million or so for finishing a few places higher or lower makes no difference.

Consequently gate money is crucial as it makes a real difference to the club's ability to compete. 75,000 at OT against 22,000 at Rovers, every match, plus the knock on effects of sponsorship etc.

As for player wages, thers not really a lot we can do. If we 'stand up' to the players it means that we simply won't be ableto atttract the best, certianly not the Bellamy's and the McCarthy's. It's a free global market- the only way to combat it is to impose salary caps the world over. I am not sure you can really justify that, and obviosuly it is not realistic.

I agree Rovers have to compete, or at least try, and it probably costs more to bring a player to Blackburn than to say Charlton. This is why I constantly complain it is the PL as a whole that must address the issue of player salaries. For the Arsenal game we took a young woman to her first game; one of the points she made later was she couldn't understand why players are not given a basic salary and then rewarded with bonuses for winning. her view was simple; what is the incentive to play well or better? this from someone who had never seen a live PL game before.

[RevidgeBlue]

This supposed windfall will simply make it even harder for clubs like Rovers to compete.

Have to disagree most strongly with that Paul, from our point of view the smaller percentage gate receipts are of our overall revenue the better.

The increase in TV money also means that our relative financial strength in comparison to Championship Clubs and most European clubs is also improved. I wish people would stop using the most extreme example of Man Ure's crowds, we're not in the same 20 -30m market for players as they are, neither are 18 of the other Premiership Clubs!

Really, properly managed (in footballing terms), no Club that's been in the Premiership two or three seasons should ever be relegated. Thankfully it's a bit more of a complex mix than that or it would be a bit boring.

I've said it several times before and I'll say it again. We've never had it so good. I can just imagine Bill Fox's face if he heard people whinging about having to compete despite (barring a disaster) getting a minimum 37m TV and Sky money next season!

[Paul]

I wish people would stop using the most extreme example of Man Ure's crowds, we're not in the same 20 -30m market for players as they are, neither are 18 of the other Premiership Clubs!

Yes, you're quite right, it was a poor comparison

I've said it several times before and I'll say it again. We've never had it so good. I can just imagine Bill Fox's face if he heard people whinging about having to compete despite (barring a disaster) getting a minimum 37m TV and Sky money next season!

I'm not whinging but I do have concerns about just how good for the game this money is. It certainly can be put to good use, hopefully something more constructive than player salaries. As a thought I wonder if Rovers might look at this and consider using the additional cash to fund more traditional players. By which I mean investing in British/Irish players who tend to be more expensive than their foreign counterparts. This might have the benefit of improving the supporter/player connection, crowd motivation etc?? Just a thought.

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm not whinging but I do have concerns about just how good for the game this money is. It certainly can be put to good use, hopefully something more constructive than player salaries. As a thought I wonder if Rovers might look at this and consider using the additional cash to fund more traditional players. By which I mean investing in British/Irish players who tend to be more expensive than their foreign counterparts. This might have the benefit of improving the supporter/player connection, crowd motivation etc?? Just a thought.

Good idea.

On a similar vein it probably could never be implemented but in an ideal world it would be nice if there was a ruling that the extra cash had to be sunk into academy facilities and/or bringing in and the development of talented youngsters etc.