Manchester City Forums

This is a discussion forum for Manchester City Football Club fans
It is currently Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:57 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Liverpool FC
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:47 am 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
claiming that they should be allowed to sell their own rights overseas

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15269831.stm

This makes me a bit angry, because it's basically saying 'we are more famous than the other teams so give us more money'. If anything the spanish clubs should be forced to adopt the model in place here - so that all Premier League clubs are on a (relatively) even footing in terms of the financial rewards for playing in the top tier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:23 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29099
Location: Limbo
fucking murderers

Liverpool threaten breakaway from Premier League's TV rights deal• Current deal sees top-flight clubs share billions of pounds
• Liverpool's managing director Ian Ayre raises alternative
• David Conn: a recipe for the rich to get even richer

Tweet this

reddit this Andy Hunter guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 22.30 BST Article history
Liverpool's Steven Gerrard shouts into a television camera. Photograph: Gareth Copley/PA Archive/Press Association Ima
The deal that shares television's billions equally between Premier League clubs is facing its biggest threat to date after Liverpool announced they would lead a challenge for overseas TV rights to be sold on a club-by-club basis.

Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, has insisted the break-up of the established broadcasting deal, worth £3.2bn in total to all Premier League clubs for 2010‑13, is "a debate that has to happen", with the Anfield club in favour of the Spanish model that allows Barcelona and Real Madrid to negotiate individual contracts that dwarf their domestic and European rivals.

Since the Premier League's foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with "merit" awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league's very structure.

At present, the Premier League sells domestic and overseas broadcasting rights collectively and more than doubled international revenue in its last negotiations, from £625m for 2007‑10 to £1.4bn for 2010‑13. With the Premier League shown in 212 countries and having 98 broadcast partners around the world, it is expected the next deal will show a similar increase, with overseas rights potentially worth more than domestic for the first time.

Ayre believes the Premier League's four biggest global draws – Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal – deserve an increased share from 2013, with overseas broadcasting having a greater influence on the Anfield club's financial future than a new stadium. "Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally," said the Liverpool managing director. "Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area.

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal.

"So is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others. At some point we definitely feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."

It would require 14 of the Premier League's 20 members to vote in favour of a new commercial arrangement. Though Sir Alex Ferguson recently described the collective deal as "fair", albeit while insisting clubs deserved more from overseas rights, and La Liga's system has attracted widespread criticism, Ayre believes the status quo jeopardises the financial might of the Premier League.

"If Real Madrid or Barcelona or other big European clubs have the opportunity to truly realise their international media value potential, where does that leave Liverpool and Manchester United? We'll just share ours because we'll all be nice to each other? The whole phenomenon of the Premier League could be threatened. If they just get bigger and bigger and they generate more and more, then all the players will start drifting that way and will the Premier League bubble burst because we are sticking to this equal-sharing model? It's a real debate that has to happen."

Liverpool insist their radical proposals are limited to overseas broadcasting, although success on that front could set a precedent domestically in the long term, and the club plans to raise the issue at the next Premier League meeting. Ayre's frank admission comes almost one year on from Fenway Sports Group acquiring the club from Tom Hicks and George Gillett in the high court and, along with broadcasting revenue, another major financial decision to be resolved by the American owners remains whether to construct a new stadium or redevelop their current home, Anfield.

Liverpool's managing director insists the club are pursuing "a parallel course" on both options, with planning regulations complicating the redevelopment of Anfield and the financial benefits of a new-build uncertain, although Ayre admits the latter option is only viable with a naming rights deal. "We have been in discussions here and in other parts of the world with a small group of people that we have narrowed down that we are targeting for naming rights. That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don't stack up without it.

"When will the decision be made? It'll only be when we reach an answer with both. It's hard to put a time on it. If you put a deadline on the naming rights, then you start to marginalise the deal. We aren't desperate. We think we have an amazing proposition as one of the biggest clubs in the world. I don't recall any football club of this size with this international reach that's ever done a naming rights deal. It is quite unique in that sense. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Manchester United haven't. Nobody in football has done this at this level. It's new ground and it will take what it takes."

Ayre, along with the former Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, ex-chief executive Christian Purslow and Fenway Sports Group, remains the subject of a £1bn lawsuit filed by Hicks and Gillett over the events surrounding their departure last October. "It's an unwanted and unwelcome distraction. That's their prerogative but we remain extremely confident that we did the right thing," he said. The Liverpool MD offered his resignation to John W Henry following FSG's victory in the high court, and admits the five-times European champions could have entered administration had Hicks and Gillett retained control.

"Certainly the bank had the power to call in the debt and at the time there wasn't anyone ready to take on that debt. So I guess the answer to that [would Liverpool have gone into administration] is yes. It's hypothetical but based on where we were and based on the circumstances at the time that was a very real threat. That was the case in the final hours. That was one of the other routes we could have gone down."

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:33 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
In my opinion the problem here is that Spain's system is unfair - as is borne out by the total gulf in class between Barca/Real and the rest of the league.

I don't want to see the Premier League with an even greater gulf in class than there currently is - it's still a pretty competitive league - and I fear that if Ayre gets his way then within 5 years we'll be talking about a European Super League for the elite clubs, and the domestic top tier becoming like the Championship is now.

There should be nothing to stop Liverpool setting up their own TV channel overseas (as I think they probably have) but to own the broadcasting rights to their own matches, because they think they can market it themselves at a lucrative rate, is the greedy actions of an aggressive global corporation, not the actions of a football club steeped in history and tradition (something which the 'big four' love to use as leverage in any argument about City).

Instead of trying to exploit the system to their advantage (sadly this includes us these days), I wish clubs were trying to level the playing field a bit more. I think financial controls such as a global wage cap would be a good way of achieving this, but it'll probably never happen, at least not in a conventional way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:44 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 11866
Location: Rural Berks.
Yeah the Spanish model on this is pretty shocking IMO. The Premier League should own the rights and sell/distribute them as they see fit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:27 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 11646
Location: Leeds/Manchester
ah so its liverpool that's trying to kill football now


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:32 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:48 pm
Posts: 1926
Location: Dublin
Everyone should just refuse to play the scouse pricks...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:23 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:06 pm
Posts: 223
menzies wrote:
Instead of trying to exploit the system to their advantage (sadly this includes us these days), I wish clubs were trying to level the playing field a bit more. I think financial controls such as a global wage cap would be a good way of achieving this, but it'll probably never happen, at least not in a conventional way.


Don't you think wage caps would harm the game?

Let's jump on the logic train:

(1) wage caps implemented (effectively putting teams on even footing, or at least more even footing)
(2) chances of winning trophies/making money seriously negatively affected
(3) less investment from outside sources
(4) deterioration of football facilities / player growth
(5) harmful to the game


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:26 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29099
Location: Limbo
BiscuitBlueCheese wrote:
ah so its liverpool that's trying to kill football now


not content with offing opposition fans, nor their own, they shall now attempt to kill top level football.

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 5:34 pm
Posts: 29099
Location: Limbo
Quote:
Manchester United and Chelsea refuse to back Liverpool breakaway plan• Rivals clubs distance themselves from TV rights proposal
• Liverpool want overseas rights sold on club-by-club basis


Tweet this

reddit this Owen Gibson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 October 2011 14.04 BST Article history
Rival clubs have refused to back Liverpool proposal over the sale of TV rights. Photograph: Paul Thomas/Action Images
Manchester United and Chelsea are among several clubs who have moved to distance themselves from Liverpool's proposal to break from the Premier League's model of collecting television rights revenue.

It is understood that Manchester United, who claim to have 333m fans globally and have targeted overseas sponsorship revenue as a route to increase income, will oppose any moves to challenge the status quo under which the Premier League sells television rights overseas on behalf of all 20 elite clubs.

A spokesman for Chelsea said: "We are supportive of the Premier League on this and want to continue with the way they sell [TV rights] collectively."

United insiders pointed out that their chief executive, David Gill, had repeatedly underlined the support of the club's owners, the Glazer family, for the collective model. Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, Gill said: "The collective selling of the television rights has clearly been a success and it has made things more competitive."

It is understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur will continue to back the existing arrangement that last season paid each club £17.9m, while Wigan chairman Dave Whelan reacted with outrage.

Whelan told goal.com: "I have just read his [Ayre's] comments and I find them diabolical - I just can't believe what he has been saying. They are thinking 'how can we get more money?' You won't get more money by killing the heart and soul of the Premier League and killing the heart and soul of football in England.

"We invented the game and we have still got the finest league in the whole world and some of the finest supporters in the whole world and they want to rip the whole thing up."

The public stance of other big clubs will come as a disappointment to Liverpool, who were understood to believe that others would support them. Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, said that clubs in other countries, notably Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain, have a growing financial advantage over English clubs because they secure TV deals individually.

Without the support of those who stand to benefit most the idea would be dead in the water, because none of the League's smaller clubs would vote for something that would hugely disadvantage them.

Overseas revenues could outstrip the domestic deal, currently worth £2.1bn over three years, for the first time when the Premier League launches its tender process next year.

Liverpool would need to persuade 13 of their fellow Premier League clubs of the merit of the plan in order to force through the change since any significant change to the Premier League rulebook requires a two thirds majority.

Ayre became the first representative of a leading Premier League club since Peter Kenyon at Manchester United in 2003 to challenge the collective sale of overseas TV rights, which brought in £1.4bn over the three years to 2012-13.

Ayre said: "Is it right that the international rights are shared equally between all the clubs? Some people will say: 'Well you've got to all be in it to make it happen.' But isn't it really about where the revenue is coming from, which is the broadcaster, and isn't it really about who people want to watch on that channel? We know it is us. And others.

"At some point we feel there has to be some rebalance on that, because what we are actually doing is disadvantaging ourselves against other big European clubs."


ha!

_________________
"It felt like a really pointless version of ketamine: no psychedelic effects, no pleasant slide into rubbery nonsense, just a sudden drop off the cliff of wrongness."
"i'm gonna wreck you so bad we're going to have to change church"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:22 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:24 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Doire
whats to stop the sheik from paying us a fortune for our rights and thus getting round the financial fair play rules??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:24 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 6066
jcwilsn1 wrote:
Don't you think wage caps would harm the game?

Let's jump on the logic train:

(1) wage caps implemented (effectively putting teams on even footing, or at least more even footing)
(2) chances of winning trophies/making money seriously negatively affected
(3) less investment from outside sources
(4) deterioration of football facilities / player growth
(5) harmful to the game


(1) Wage caps implemented (effectively putting teams on even footing, or at least more even footing)
(2) Chances of winning trophies/making money for teams other than Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur positively affected
(3) More investment from outside sources, prospective owners know cap on wages will allow for some sort of control on costs
(4) Investment spent on facilities and coaching as well as players, thus facilitation of better player growth
(5) Beneficial to the game

These logic trains are fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:27 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
jcwilsn1 wrote:
Don't you think wage caps would harm the game?


Nah. A wage cap of say £150k per week would still allow bigger clubs to attract bigger players, and more of them. It also wouldn't automatically put teams on an even keel, it would just mean that players' decisions would be more influenced by prestige than by cash. It would also stop the situation from spiralling to the point where smaller clubs are priced out of the game and held to ransom by greedy players and agents.

In my opinion it's essential to the survival of football as we know it. It's only going to get worse

(plus we already got in there now, so quick shut the door before someone else does it) :-D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:28 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
DarloBlue wrote:
(1) Wage caps implemented (effectively putting teams on even footing, or at least more even footing)
(2) Chances of winning trophies/making money for teams other than Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur positively affected
(3) More investment from outside sources, prospective owners know cap on wages will allow for some sort of control on costs
(4) Investment spent on facilities and coaching as well as players, thus facilitation of better player growth
(5) Beneficial to the game

These logic trains are fun.


^^^vigorously this

It would spread the money around more and make things a lot more interesting - players would not constantly be having their heads turned by attention from the 'elite', so clubs stand a chance of retaining their talent and of building for the future.

Can only be a good thing, surely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:48 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 16403
Location: frank sidebottoms shed in timperley
keys and grey have been flogging the hillsbrough thing all morning for the last 3 days...
scousers are going to be thinking people like them with all this attention..

_________________
I Belong To City
____________________
BJWB.1920-31/12/2010.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:19 pm 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:06 pm
Posts: 223
DarloBlue wrote:
(1) Wage caps implemented (effectively putting teams on even footing, or at least more even footing)
(2) Chances of winning trophies/making money for teams other than Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur positively affected
(3) More investment from outside sources, prospective owners know cap on wages will allow for some sort of control on costs
(4) Investment spent on facilities and coaching as well as players, thus facilitation of better player growth
(5) Beneficial to the game

These logic trains are fun.


I dont get how you get from 2 to 3. Why more investment in response to chances of winning dramatically decreased? The "control on costs" means absolutely nothing when prospective revenue is effectively hamstringed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:41 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 1:18 pm
Posts: 15013
Location: Warrington
Amazing that even the non scousers become whining scousers

_________________
The Senior Member


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:37 am 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:59 am
Posts: 2038
Location: Penzance, Cornwall
The whole of Europe would need a wage cap. That's the only way it would work. That way it actually makes little difference, besides keeping costs down. Does anybody honestly think greedy bastards like Tevez should be getting 250k a week for doing nothing? I'd slap a 100k wage cap on the whole of Europe. See how many greedy Tevez's bugger off to play in the non leagues of the middle east, s america etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:05 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:36 pm
Posts: 11866
Location: Rural Berks.
If there was a wage cap there would need to be parity in income tax rates or an adjustment in the cap else places like Spain that charge about 20% to foreign players for the first few years would be way more attractive than our socialist utopia and it's 50% rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:39 am 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
Tresidentevil wrote:
The whole of Europe would need a wage cap. That's the only way it would work. That way it actually makes little difference, besides keeping costs down. Does anybody honestly think greedy bastards like Tevez should be getting 250k a week for doing nothing? I'd slap a 100k wage cap on the whole of Europe. See how many greedy Tevez's bugger off to play in the non leagues of the middle east, s america etc.


yeah, that's why i said 'global' in my original post :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:41 am 
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 403
Winston_Smith wrote:
If there was a wage cap there would need to be parity in income tax rates or an adjustment in the cap else places like Spain that charge about 20% to foreign players for the first few years would be way more attractive than our socialist utopia and it's 50% rate.


...or the wage cap should be on take home pay [which might sound weird, but a lot of clubs and players negotiate / report on this basis anyway]

it would certainly be manageable anyway, if implemented correctly.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group