Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 46 seconds ago
Eventhough the fan base for two Scottish clubs is apparently in the hundreds of thousands, not enough people care to put any real money into the league?
The original point was that the scottish league budget is 1% of Englands. Money follows support so clearly the English league is around 100x as popular as the Scottish, its reasonable to assume that this is because it is 100x better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not always the case in fairness. The disparity was exacerbated by the deregulation of the media market in the 1980s during a period where Thatcher and Reagan ushered in neo-liberalism. The deregulation of the media meant that the likes of Murdoch's BSkyB merger was allowed to happen, and that live sport was an easy way to bring about TV subscriptions.
The potential of the Premier League was global because England is a big country and it had a few big clubs, not only just two.
Scotland is a smaller country and its two biggest clubs face a similar situation to the likes of Dutch and Portuguese clubs in that smaller countries do not have the marketing potential of bigger countries. The Portuguese get around this through their South American scouting systems, however the Dutch are in a similar position in that PSV and Ajax have achieved little in Europe for a while.
The original point was that the scottish league budget is 1% of Englands. Money follows support so clearly the English league is around 100x as popular as the Scottish, its reasonable to assume that this is because it is 100x better
i suppose it might make a bit of a difference seeing your countrys population is about 10x that of ours but dont let that get in the way eh!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
do Scotland, China or the USA have the funds available that the EPL have? Of course you have a better quality league you utter buffoon ,the billions you have had pumped into your league obviously makes your league better than all those countries,deary me are you really that fooking thick.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 19 minutes ago
I'll try and spell this out so even your wee little Scottish brain might be able to comprehend it.
English football is rich because it's good quality, people invest in entertaining leagues becausethese are more popular and it offers them the chance for more money.
Someone with billions looking to invest would go to England because it's good, thy wouldn't go to the spl, because it's poor quality, and not enough people are interested.
I'll try and write it in language you understand;
England league good = people watch = money = get more good
Scotland league bad = nobody watch = less money = even worse
M'kay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow- such a simplistic view of football. Again, did you start watching football in 2003?
Your point about American and Chinese football is flawed because there is a lack of an appetite in those countries for the sport of football (or soccer as they would say in America), and hence there is no point investing heavily because it will not attract the audiences for major global corporations to market their product to a mass market through the mass media.
It is ridiculous to say Scottish Football is poor simply because you are comparing it to England, why on earth would a country of 5million people be able to compete with a country with ten times the population anyway? Scotland should be compared with the countries of similar populations to it: Norway, Finland, Denmark, Slovakia? I do not see clubs from those leagues doing any better than Celtic, or in the past Rangers have done.
English Football became rich because it is a large country whose population love the sport of football. Therefore in the 1980s when Thatcher started a period of media de-regulation, people like Murdoch sensed an opportunity to buy up the broadcasting rights because: (a) he knew people would pay for it because the English love football and; (b) The audiences generated from subscription television would largely be built upon its sports coverage and that would allow more advertisers to use the platforms of channels such as Sky Sports to market their goods to consumers.
In order for their to be substantial media coverage there has to exist both an appetite among consumers and a large enough market-place to make it profitable for advertisers to advertise their goods and services. Why do you think the BBC has been almost priced out of screening live football games? Because it does not have the advertising revenue to profit from it: its money is better spent elsewhere. You may make a point about World Cups and the Euros, but those are exceptions to the rule which everyone knows about.
The effects of media deregulation have had an enormous impact on English Football, but it has hardly all been great news as even with these untold millions in TV money the supporters have hardly seen the cost of ticket pricing go down? Clubs have exploited globalisation to price out local supporters as they know they can up prices and still attract supporters from the likes of Asia.
Regardless, I only came onto this article to debate people ridiculing Celtic's fan-base when our club holds the highest attendance for a match in any league in Europe; and also our European Cup semi-final in 1970 was the highest of any club match in European competition. Not to mention our North American, Japanese and Australian fan-bases as well as the crowd we took to our last European final in 2003. We've always had a big fan-base, there are only some English clubs that can claim to have had a large fan-base throughout most of their history- not just the last twenty years.
Sign in if you want to comment
Lol at Liverpool
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 28/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/4/14
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 46 seconds ago
Eventhough the fan base for two Scottish clubs is apparently in the hundreds of thousands, not enough people care to put any real money into the league?
The original point was that the scottish league budget is 1% of Englands. Money follows support so clearly the English league is around 100x as popular as the Scottish, its reasonable to assume that this is because it is 100x better
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not always the case in fairness. The disparity was exacerbated by the deregulation of the media market in the 1980s during a period where Thatcher and Reagan ushered in neo-liberalism. The deregulation of the media meant that the likes of Murdoch's BSkyB merger was allowed to happen, and that live sport was an easy way to bring about TV subscriptions.
The potential of the Premier League was global because England is a big country and it had a few big clubs, not only just two.
Scotland is a smaller country and its two biggest clubs face a similar situation to the likes of Dutch and Portuguese clubs in that smaller countries do not have the marketing potential of bigger countries. The Portuguese get around this through their South American scouting systems, however the Dutch are in a similar position in that PSV and Ajax have achieved little in Europe for a while.
posted on 28/4/14
The original point was that the scottish league budget is 1% of Englands. Money follows support so clearly the English league is around 100x as popular as the Scottish, its reasonable to assume that this is because it is 100x better
i suppose it might make a bit of a difference seeing your countrys population is about 10x that of ours but dont let that get in the way eh!!
posted on 29/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/4/14
do Scotland, China or the USA have the funds available that the EPL have? Of course you have a better quality league you utter buffoon ,the billions you have had pumped into your league obviously makes your league better than all those countries,deary me are you really that fooking thick.
posted on 29/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/4/14
comment by MurderOnZidanesFloor (U7958)
posted 19 minutes ago
I'll try and spell this out so even your wee little Scottish brain might be able to comprehend it.
English football is rich because it's good quality, people invest in entertaining leagues becausethese are more popular and it offers them the chance for more money.
Someone with billions looking to invest would go to England because it's good, thy wouldn't go to the spl, because it's poor quality, and not enough people are interested.
I'll try and write it in language you understand;
England league good = people watch = money = get more good
Scotland league bad = nobody watch = less money = even worse
M'kay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow- such a simplistic view of football. Again, did you start watching football in 2003?
Your point about American and Chinese football is flawed because there is a lack of an appetite in those countries for the sport of football (or soccer as they would say in America), and hence there is no point investing heavily because it will not attract the audiences for major global corporations to market their product to a mass market through the mass media.
It is ridiculous to say Scottish Football is poor simply because you are comparing it to England, why on earth would a country of 5million people be able to compete with a country with ten times the population anyway? Scotland should be compared with the countries of similar populations to it: Norway, Finland, Denmark, Slovakia? I do not see clubs from those leagues doing any better than Celtic, or in the past Rangers have done.
English Football became rich because it is a large country whose population love the sport of football. Therefore in the 1980s when Thatcher started a period of media de-regulation, people like Murdoch sensed an opportunity to buy up the broadcasting rights because: (a) he knew people would pay for it because the English love football and; (b) The audiences generated from subscription television would largely be built upon its sports coverage and that would allow more advertisers to use the platforms of channels such as Sky Sports to market their goods to consumers.
In order for their to be substantial media coverage there has to exist both an appetite among consumers and a large enough market-place to make it profitable for advertisers to advertise their goods and services. Why do you think the BBC has been almost priced out of screening live football games? Because it does not have the advertising revenue to profit from it: its money is better spent elsewhere. You may make a point about World Cups and the Euros, but those are exceptions to the rule which everyone knows about.
The effects of media deregulation have had an enormous impact on English Football, but it has hardly all been great news as even with these untold millions in TV money the supporters have hardly seen the cost of ticket pricing go down? Clubs have exploited globalisation to price out local supporters as they know they can up prices and still attract supporters from the likes of Asia.
Regardless, I only came onto this article to debate people ridiculing Celtic's fan-base when our club holds the highest attendance for a match in any league in Europe; and also our European Cup semi-final in 1970 was the highest of any club match in European competition. Not to mention our North American, Japanese and Australian fan-bases as well as the crowd we took to our last European final in 2003. We've always had a big fan-base, there are only some English clubs that can claim to have had a large fan-base throughout most of their history- not just the last twenty years.
Page 6 of 6
6