blonde poker forum

The EPL has just sold rights to be shown abroad for a wopping £625m per season.

Now the premiership winners will be getting £50m and the bottom placed club will be getting £30m!

I think this is bad for several reasons.

1) Increased player wages and tranfer fees etc will mean a wage cap will never come into place as the foreign markets who buy the right will always want the EPL to have the best players.

2) The gap between the top and bottom clubs is only going to get wider. No longer will unfashionable clubs be able to win the league by a combination of good management and buying youth players who grow into winners.

3) The G14 and/or Uefa will undoubtedly try to put some kind of restriction on imports to England.

4) Clubs who get relegated with a £30m budget will be coming straight back up. It is highly likely Championship clubs will no longer rotate between who comes up and who doesn't.

5) Winning the league now pays more than winning in Europe!

Is it time for the wage cap to promote some uncertainty of outcome in our league?

Just curious, when did this last happen?

The last place getting 30m, and the champ getting 50m. That seems like a rather flat payout structure if anything.

I understand a gripe that it makes the gap between the Premiership and the lower divisons, but isn't that why it's called the Premiership?

yeah, this is terrible all the clubs in the league getting money. I don't think it is fair. I think clubs should rely on foreign investors from Russia and sheiks from Dubai or wherever

I guess the money is going to the clubs anyway.

The question is who does it go to in the end.

Either it goes to the owners or the players. so thats either to the Glazers, Ambramovich, Lerner or Gerrard, Scholes, Giggs etc

The only other option is for the money to be captured by the "authorities" and handed down to lower leagues. But the Premiershiip was created for exactly this reason they own their own rights and the FA cannot step in and redistribute to the football league.

Chelsea were the last of the so called "smaller clubs" to come up and play with the big boys for obvious reasons. The season before their buyout they were going bankrupt had they lost on the last day Vs Liverpool. (They did win in fairness)

Cloughie did ok with the unfashionable Derby and even more with Forest. In the 80s Villa and Everton were pretty useful too.

I understand no club has broken the oligopoly at the top in many years (other than Chelsea) but with Lerner, Magnusson, Abramovic, DIC and the Glazers it was going to be a lot more interesting.

Now a £100m takeover doesn't really mean much when EVERY club is going to get at least £30m a season!

Essentially yes it is a flat payout structure but bridging the gap from a lower division now will be nearly impossible.

Look at Watford. Worked their bollocks off to get PL football. Now they'll go down without anything like £30 million unlike next season's bottom placed team. In the future they'll be competing for the Championship Vs clubs who have had that £30m earner.

To DIC and Abramovich this will make no difference.

I have no problem with the clubs getting money, it's more the amount of money in comparison to the rest of football.

Imagine you are a Hammers fan and you've just had a £100m takeover happen. How is that going to help when in 2 seasons every club will have earned over half of that just for turning up!

European super league please.

Imagine you are an unfasionable club and no rich guy from russia, iceland, dubia wants to pump money into your club.

why should west ham fans feel hard done by?

Here's one for you Baron...

Is someone is now more liekly to come along and invest 25m in a club like Plymouth.

It looks a lot more financially viable now, if they can make it to the Prem league and get their cool 30m showing up money.

I see this as potentially bridging the gap, rather than extending it.

There are too many clubs, why bridge the gap, if they can't cut the mustard then they can close.

True but how is giving the top flight clubs more money going to bridge the gap you speak of?

Actually, financially this does make sense. Every nation (bar Italy) has 2 leagues when we have 4. Our distribution of fans is hyouge meaning smaller fans bases for our bigger clubs and therefore less money.

It's the best idea out there. Bates, Mandaric, Risdale - they're all doing exactly that. The value is in the championship clubs.

The problem is after next year these clubs are going to be competing against a club that has just come down from the PL but now got £30m to spend! It's not very easy to get promoted over that.

Baron its a flat structure at the moment with the top getting £30 mill and the bottom getting £20mill (please correct me if i am wrong) so i dont think this will make a big difference.  Just a bit more extra money in eryones pocket.

I think the worrying thing is that attendances are in the most majority down and something needs to be looked into this- maybe by subsidising matches.

Last nite, although they were only replays, i noticed that Tottenham and Newcastle had only 27,000 each.  That really shocked me for these two clubs.  I think if Arsenal too had an early round replay we would be nowhere near capacity.(Actually maybe not as our first 7 FA Cup and CL matches are included in our season ticket)

Nem - was your match last nite a Category A match?  Surely it could have been subsidised a bit?

Rooky same with Newcastle - why such a low crowd?

The Premier League wont be this good forever and these clubs need to be a little careful with all the money they are getting now?  I mean Chelsea's wage bill, what a joke!  John Terry £120-150k a year!!

and West Ham supposedly paying Lucas Neill if he signs £60,000.

The world has gone mad!!

You are correct about the current payout but...

To the Championship sides it will make a huge diffrence.

Even the gap between the top and bottom Premiership clubs will be widening with the new payout making the already predictable league even more boring.

because they are cra  not very good

SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPER LEAGUE!

But the 30M if they do get up is going to have to be spent to compete. Unless someone gambles 25m to take Plymouth up, then refuses to spend and leaves the country having asset stripped ... but they'd be hated forever (and fans can get FAR to serious if they think you've fecked with their club, it could be hunted instead of hated).

I wasn't suggesting they do it to make a quick killing, a+EV oppurtunity, rather a double value 2 for the price of 1 in terms of squad strengthening investment. Anyone who does invest in football with the intention of making a quick killing is perhaps a bit of a mug anyway.
I always thought clubs were like model boats for bored multi-millionaires. They spend loads of cash, with litle hope of getting it back, it's just all about taking them down to the river and racing them. If I'm way off the mark on this then tell me.

Even in a couple seasons time, when the relegated teams come down with 30m in fun money, it may still be worth a punt wiith one of the championship sides because of this 2 for 1 thing. (For those in the market for remote control river racers anyway)

It will be intersting to see over the next few years how many relegated sides win instant re-promotion. I don't think the proportion will be quite as high as the Baron fears.

Ah - I get you now Tank.

There's a rumour going about that Sunderland are taking this gamble - if they miss they could be in the deep brown & smelly for some time though....

That wouldn't surprise me one bit but as I said earlier in the thread I doubt they're the only club doing it.

Mandaric at Leicester, Bates at Leeds, Risdale at Cardiff and now it's looks as though maybe even Souness at Wolves.

So the likely end result is that it will be a high class, very competitive league.

Why is this bad again?

Why will it be competitive?

The current payout between top and bottom is £10 million per season (not including how much you are shown on TV) and this gap is going to widen to £20 million.

The league will become LESS competitive.

In Italy, Milan and Juventus now broker their TV rights individually. (Well they did until last season's cheating scandal.) By doing this they essentially made the league a 2 horse race.

We are going down a similar path. Not to mention the gap beween our league and a) the leagues below and b) the foreign leagues.

Tottenham only had 27,000 due to 3 factors

1: Crowd segregation

2: Cardiff not taking full allocation

3: It being Cardiff at home.

John Terry is on 150k per week not a year!

What do you think of The FA giving in to their favourite bitch (David Dein) over our allocation of tickets at the Library next week?

League cup rules:

1: Are you able to accomdate 15% of travelling fans if you reach the semi final? Yes, but not if it is against Tottenham Hotspur. We cannot have 9,000 fans out singing the 60,000 prawn sandwich brigade! ;)

PMSL rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

Nem, it is well known that we are not the most vocal fans in the country but even we sing more than your fans and lets face it its a cup final for your fans everytime you play us. Spurs fans are very very quite every game ive been to but this could be due to the fact that you normally lose. :kiss:

Oh and just to add no you didnt get 15% but you got 8% ,5500 tickets, even if we had 15% of your tin pot ,toilet of a ground we would only have 5500 lol.

Shockingly low crowd midweek, I would guess at a comnination of: midweek, price, and the fact it was on tele supported the fact the team playing at the moment is not going to entertain. I didnt go, I was working away, but I cant honestly say i would have gone if I had been around.

Obviously i meant £150k a week - i wish he was on £150k a year!!

Have you read the reasons why we only gave ur lot 8% rather than 15% - was coz in a new stadium we werent sure we were ready that quickly to deal with 9,000 fans - esepcially spurs fan!! Sounds a pretty pathetic reason

The other issue between the two teams is that we wanted to subsidise tickets as its a meaningless cup competition just there to give experience to our kids, whilst you guys want to make it a Category A match as its your equivalent of a Champions League Final!!!  The league ruled somewhere imbetween.  You didnt even want to give concessions to OAP's and kids - shame on u!!!

Why is crowd attendance relevant?

Serie A has it right, get all the matches on telly so people can watch it at home/in the bar rather than freezing your ass off at the stadium.

The Herd

The firm that no one ever sees, or has even heard of! :D

Revenue based on how popular you are?

Why do people need to come to the game though? Surely you can be popular and watched on TV?

Atmosphere you mug.

If it wasnt for people standing in the freezing cold (as you put it) the games that you watch on TV would be dull dull dull.

SUPPORT LIVE SPORT !!!

Atmosphere is normally better in the pub......

I get it for proper games but not the boring games where its never going to be good. If you are a man utd fan why is it important to watch a home game vs Charlton, seems fecking pointless to me!

Playing say liverpool i could understand.

It is because you have no passion mug, you are obviously not a "club" fan, you are a sports fan. Nothing wrong with that... you just cant understand why people travel hundreds of miles cramped in the back of an escort van on a cold rainy winters evening to watch their team play.

I think a lot of it has to do with your upbringing, ask most diehard footy fans how they started and its 99% certain they will tell you how their Dad took them to a game when they were small, and the noise, colour, atmosphere of the occassion got into their bloodstream, and it will never truly leave them.

Well you must of heard of them, lol