Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Ric_C · Post by **Ric_C** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:05 am

err.... can we change our vote?

Commy · Post by **Commy** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:34 am

If it was in now I think Leicester and West Ham would be regretting it and us, Watford and Huddersfield would be laughing at them.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:57 pm

This is where all of this Champion's League stuff has led us. Just because a team is located in a certain English city doesn't mean that the players come from that city or even country. So, there's no reflected glory, except for those supporters who only crave winning, the so-called "Glory Seekers", and we all know who they are.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:06 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Ask yourself Roy, why do they deserve more money.
And what do they need more money for.

The whole premise behind the formation of The Premier League was for the big clubs to get a bigger share of TV money. Their argument was the same as with these overseas payments - they are more popular then other clubs and therefore should get more money to reflect that.

We (Burnley fans) are happy things at the moment because we are in this top league (remember when Barry Kilby used to object to the idea of parachute payments but took them anyway when we were offered them).

If it is true, as that Times article says, that the 'The Premier League was established on a 2:1 ratio for television income — the top club taking twice as much as the bottom. Over the past 25 years, that ratio has decreased closer to 1.5:1, largely through that equable share of overseas income...', then surely the big clubs have a case.

I prefer more equality but ever since the sharing of gate receipts was stopped in the late 1960s the big clubs have been more and more advantaged.

I don't believe we can stay in the Premier League indefinitely so we should just enjoy the ride whilst we are here.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:20 pm

Hipper wrote:The whole premise behind the formation of The Premier League was for the big clubs to get a bigger share of TV money. Their argument was the same as with these overseas payments - they are more popular then other clubs and therefore should get more money to reflect that.

We (Burnley fans) are happy things at the moment because we are in this top league (remember when Barry Kilby used to object to the idea of parachute payments but took them anyway when we were offered them).

If it is true, as that Times article says, that the 'The Premier League was established on a 2:1 ratio for television income — the top club taking twice as much as the bottom. Over the past 25 years, that ratio has decreased closer to 1.5:1, largely through that equable share of overseas income...', then surely the big clubs have a case.

I prefer more equality but ever since the sharing of gate receipts was stopped in the late 1960s the big clubs have been more and more advantaged.

I don't believe we can stay in the Premier League indefinitely so we should just enjoy the ride whilst we are here.

Just because something wrong is the norm, doesn't make it right. They bought the rights to show premier league matches, not to continuously watch Citeh, Chelsea or Man U.
If they argue the toss just bring in a clause where every team gets equal coverage, or they could always just accept it as it is.
I reiterate, they don't need this extra revenue, it's just pure unadulterated greed. I would be quite happy for the rest of the league to say this is a sport, not a money factory, if you don't like it go and form your own league and we'll make the premiership as competitive as it hasn't been for the last 25 years.
Most fans love the championship, all the premiership offers is Kudos and money. A premier league without the big 6 would be even better than the championship as a league.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:04 pm

Chester Perry wrote: More interestingly the biggest problem they have is matchday income being stagnant or even dropping as the capacity drops by over 2000 to meet disabled access requirements (cost to install well over £20m). The cost of Investment to complete the final stand over the railway would not bring a suitable return to investment but could take capacity up to 90,000+ (a point of pride to some I would imagine)

United now looking to expand Old Trafford, latest technology sidesteps the old complications apparently - though only to an estimated 88,000 or so

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... plans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seems that the pride has got to them

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:23 pm

Be fascinating to see the outcome of tomorrow's PL summit meeting.

Surely not another abstention from us?

Even if the amendment was voted through (which is highly unlikely) the new TV deal from the '19/'20 season will ensure an Income upwards of £140 million for us. So important, therefore, that we retain our PL status for the next few seasons at least.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:39 pm

Chester Perry wrote:United now looking to expand Old Trafford, latest technology sidesteps the old complications apparently - though only to an estimated 88,000 or so

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... plans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seems that the pride has got to them

Have you ever watched a game from the back of that new stand. I watched the England - Spain friendly. It was like watching ants run around on a mouse mat. I wouldn't go and watch another game from there if they paid ME.
A truly horrible experience.
I can only imagine that the seats get filled by tourists in town for a one off, to say they've been.
To make the real point, increasing capacity does nothing for the fans, only adds to the coffers of Old Trafford. Totally within their rights by the way, but it shows what they think of the supporters.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:39 pm

Colburn - I have said previously on here that I think that ground is a death trap and would never go again - not been all the way to the top but the view is not the best from where I was - about two thirds up.

Think it is all about Pride (the additional match-day income will take a very long time to return on investment if seats given to ordinary punters) with regards to the expansion.

Though now they have full control and profit taking from the Megastores and Experience facilities they can significantly up the matchday till receipts.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:43 pm

Latest from the Telegraph who have done an article or opinion piece on it every day in the last week - some unfortunately behind the paywall

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... ger-share/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hold firm please boys

and in the Blackburn news Sean has his say

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sp ... ompetition_/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:47 pm

Today's the day for the big vote - suspect that there has been a lot of shenanigans going on behind the scenes - but we live in hope that at least 7 of the 11 hold strong.

Interesting to see how even people with die-hard connections to the big 6 are coming out in opposition

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -cash.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:42 pm

I imagine if this vote goes the way of the big clubs it would be the thin end of the wedge leading eventually to individually negotiated deals. There's still a huge lack of exploitation of broadcasting rights through modern media. Things like individuals being able to buy a season ticket to watch all Man Utd games on-line (Champions league games obviously to cost extra, as will adding a mobile device, etc, etc).

This vote in itself won't change the scene that much, the extra revenue for the top clubs and lower for the bottom will cement the existing positions but it won't be that disruptive. It is more the precedent it sets for future decisions.

On the parachute payments, the plan is that the longer you stay in the Premier league the higher they'll be (although in reality they won't be increasing, they'll just be cutting them for clubs with only one or two seasons staying up). That's obviously a plan to try and maintain the status quo in the league and stop the yo-yo clubs establishing themselves. If that rule was in place when we were promoted under Coyle I seriously doubt that we'd be where we are now.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:39 pm

That'll be more money to us, then!

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:03 pm

not agreed too today but talks will continue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41497079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buxtonclaret · Post by **Buxtonclaret** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:34 pm

Don't think it matters which way the vote goes really.
The Big Boys have stated their intent now.
One way or the other, this won't go away until they get what the want.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:01 pm

The key factor from the meeting today is that no vote was taken, which suggests that a compromise is likely somewhere down the line. If clubs like ours were intent on rejecting any deal they could have blown Scudamore's proposal out of the water with a majority 'No' vote.

The suspicion therefore is that perhaps a 20% deal of overseas TV rights might be acceptable when the clubs get together in November at the shareholders meeting.

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:24 pm

I read that the intention is to fix the differential at 1.6. This would ensure that increased overseas revenues were no longer distributed evenly but were not too disadvantageous for the other 14 clubs in the league.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:00 pm

In regards to the parachute payments, fans of various clubs had a real whinge when we got relegated under Dyche, because we didn't spend much money so didn't give it a proper go apparently and therefore didn't deserve the money.
It would appear that some football fans will get their wish soon enough.

Nice to see the PL still aren't encouraging clubs to operate within their means though.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:22 pm

The real question is, do we want a permanent "Big Six", or do we want fairer competition like exists in North American professional sports. Remember, when Leyton Orient and Liverpool were promoted to the old Division One back in 1962, they came up as more or less equals. One club was ambitious, the other wasn't. I don't think you'll ever see anything quite like that again under the modern rules of income distribution.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:06 pm

ontario claret wrote:The real question is, do we want a permanent "Big Six", or do we want fairer competition like exists in North American professional sports. Remember, when Leyton Orient and Liverpool were promoted to the old Division One back in 1962, they came up as more or less equals. One club was ambitious, the other wasn't. I don't think you'll ever see anything quite like that again under the modern rules of income distribution.

Leyton Orient had never previously played in the top flight and had an average gate that season of 14751. Liverpool had been in the first division from 1906 to 1954 without a break, were 5 times champions of England and had an average gate in 61/62 of 39,237. (And in those days gate money was very significant). I don't think that ambition was the determining factor in subsequent history but I can't prove it.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:40 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Richard Scudamore is trying to change the distribution of the television money in the next deal. The money that comes in from foreign broadcasters is currently divided evenly between the 20 clubs but he wants 35% of it to be allocated based on position. For it to be passed, it would require 14 clubs to support it and he currently has the support of nine - Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Leicester, Liverpool, Man City, Man United, Tottenham & West Ham.

As far as I'm concerned Scudermore can get stuffed and so can anyone else who proposes the same thing.

RammyClaret61 · Post by **RammyClaret61** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:31 am

The so called big six cant demand more money because they're more popular. On the international broadcast deals every premier league game every week is screened live. So just taking where I live, Australia. Optus have paid X amount to screen the games. You choose which you want to watch. So if 10,000 watch Liverpool v Man Utd on the same day that just 100 watch Burnley v Stoke for example. Then 10,100 are watching. At half time the ads in every match are the same. So no extra revenue. Plus you have to pay for a subscription to Optus, so it really doesn't matter how many watch. The money is already in the bank, and the ads have been payed for. The fee Optus have paid is to show the Premier League in full. Not just the top six. So imo every club should get the same, we're all in the same league. Yes it's different in the uk. That's were they do get much more than the so called less attractive clubs, due to limited live coverage.
Anyway the so called big six are self proclaimed. They became bigger because they took their ball and went home.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:13 am

Yes, but if the big six go away and form a six-team league playing each other six times a season, they wouldn't get the money they do now. The Premier League is the attraction, and the big six might be the biggest part of that attraction but they aren't the whole thing.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:21 pm

dsr wrote:Yes, but if the big six go away and form a six-team league playing each other six times a season, they wouldn't get the money they do now. T

I think you have missed the real point DSR. It is not just 6, it is all the top teams in Europe forming one league. UEFA want it very much. Next stage, would be to invite the top south american clubs and probably a US team for the money.

Replacement for national teams, which only comes alive at finals.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:21 pm

By the way, it's TV football not live fan football anymore.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:34 pm

IanMcL wrote:I think you have missed the real point DSR. It is not just 6, it is all the top teams in Europe forming one league. UEFA want it very much. Next stage, would be to invite the top south american clubs and probably a US team for the money.

Replacement for national teams, which only comes alive at finals.

I don't think they'd get much more money even then. Is the combined market for Spurs v Barcelona any greater than the separate markets for Spurs v Everton and Barcelona v Seville? If there was (say) an 18-team European league, of which Chelsea and the rest would get one-eighteenth of the money, how much greater would that be than the one-sixteenth or thereabouts of the PL money PLUS the European Cup money that they're getting now?

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:54 pm

An extra £14 million or so to Chelsea or Man City is like loose change and will make no difference to them. To us it is very significant.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:58 pm

Not gonna happen, looks like West Ham aren't backing it anymore either according to this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... g-11292875

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:05 pm

that is good news Vegas

starting_11 · Post by **starting_11** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:08 pm

Blackrod wrote:An extra £14 million or so to Chelsea or Man City is like loose change and will make no difference to them. To us it is very significant.

I suspect that's why they want it done.

They don't want the playing field levelled. Look how much more equal it is since the 09/10 PL season.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:22 pm

It wasn't that long ago when Chelsea were a yo-yo club, bobbing between the 1st and 2nd divisions. Then a certain Russian mobster came along, and changed everything. It's the same today with Thai and Chinese billionaires, and their ill-gotten gains, taking over British clubs. Oh, and did I mention that West Ham is owned by pornographers?

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:02 am

And this is why the big six are fighting so hard for the change

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/201 ... -tv-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... ent-a-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The growth in revenue in overseas rights will mean that the clubs will increasingly earn a much more equal amount if the current system prevails. Just the South Africa and China deals alone theoretically mean an extra £10M p.a. for each club (the rights are sold in over 200 countries)

Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs

Re: Scudamore wants more money for the bigger clubs