seriously son...i apologise but come on lets not make this another we are better than you thread as this is not what its about.
THudd - Captain Obvious (U1029)
apology accepted...you are now allowed to play with the others again...but remember the naughty step is always an option...
Of course I'd like us to be able to pay more in wages but not at the risk of selling out to players who dont care about the club one bit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You ave already done that with Modric.
He didnt want to be at the club, you dug your heals in, and rewarded him with a much improved contract.
Its interesting that everyone is complaining about us wanting more money from international TV rights rather than an equal split, but then nobody complains about the TV rights in this very own country.
Last season Man Utd made more thatn £20m more from TV payments than Balckpool did. So why would it be different if we went out and got a deal that paid us £20m more for international TV rights,
The reason Man Utd got more moeny is because they are shown more on TV than any other team. And that is the case abroad too. Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal game are shown more abroad but we have the an equal split.
but the way football in general is going the whole of the prem will fall behind the other competetive teams in europe due to them having more financial muscle due to tv rights.
______________________________
We still have Sky remember who are massively bank rolling the league plus sponsors and advertising. In no way is the league poor. On the whole in debt, but as the historic home of football and based upon the strength of European football, the Prem, La Liga, Bundesliga & Serie A will always reign supreme.
Don't forget leagues have peaks and troughs in terms of success. Prem clubs were getting spanked in the CL in the early/mid 90's
@FatJanMolby: Well sort of. A quarter of the revenue strictly speaking is 'prize money' for the final position in the league, partly why the relegated clubs get parachute payments. Liverpool got 3m less than Utd in 2009-2010, not a game changer by any means. 50% of the money is equal, a quarter is based on games shown. And I don't personally agree with this either, and have complained about it many times in the past. But why make a situation worse? Anyone who wants this can't call themselves a football fan, they can call themselves a Liverpool/Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea whatever supporter, but not a football fan.
I don't like the fact that football has turned into a 'Global Business' but you can't fault staff of a club working in their best interests to make their club financially more competitive - it is a business after all.
I'd love to see a salary cap and clubs living totally within their means and developing their own youth players. Unforunately it's no longer like that.
Having lived in Holland for 10 odd years I see what the power of the 'super rich clubs' does to the game here. Your Ajax's and PSV's of this world can no longer compete at the top end of European football. The Dutch league has just become a 'feeder league' for the rich European clubs. I'd love to see a day where there's a level playing field again, but the gulf is only getting bigger.
**** While I honestly do find it a shame that the Dutch League has become a 'feeder league' I do like Ajax 'feeding' us Luis Suarez and hopefully they can also 'feed' us Christian Eriksen and Jan Vertonghen in the near future
@LastChanceForHangingBaskets: So Ronaldo and Fabregas and...no I don;t see big players leaving the PL to go to Spain often? Nope sorry, it's not happening. Aguero/Silva/Mata? Worldwide sought after young prospects like Lukaku joining the PL? See my previous post of recent CL finalists etc, the PL is more than competitive. The Dutch league isn't at the moment, but it's not like the CL is a Spanish only won contest. I can fault the staff all I want, they're being short-sighted idiots. The big clubs are nothing without the other clubs to play them every week.
This is just a catch 22 situation.
Although clubs with a worldwide appeal make a fair point about benefitting from their own rights, in the long run it will affect what they are benefitting from domestically.
The EPL will lose its appeal worldwide if it becomes like the SPL.
This may be ok for Man Utd and "other" in the short term but eventually they will will start to lose out financially when things go stale and become another Celtic and Rangers. England will become more like Scotland if they are not already heading that way.
Its just pure short term greed, plain and simple!
scousers are very sensitive arent they.
goo goo gaga scousers.
Bahamas :
Twas the Heysel legacy.
English absence from UEFA tournaments meant the clubs lost the experience of regularly playing teams of that calibre. And collectively forgot how to apply the 'Liverpool method' when they were re-admitted.
Yeh I remember RDBD but leagues do still go through their ups and downs. This tends to be either linked to financial reasons or actual footballing reasons. Look at Serie A which has been usurped by the Bundesliga. Who would have seen that coming from the mid nineties to the early 2000's?! Serie A used to kick ass!
They need 14 prem clubs out of the 20 to vote for a change, can't really see this happening as its turkeys voting for Christmas... what Ayre is probably angling for is a greater proportion of the collective rights to go to the likes of Liverpool and Utd, the contract is up for renewal in 2013.... this is the opening shot in negotiations.
Lets be honest here this is Liverpool scrapping around for more millions to compete with the top 3 of the premier League (let alone the big two in Spain which are light years ahead of Pool)...
@FatJanMolby: Well sort of. A quarter of the revenue strictly speaking is 'prize money' for the final position in the league, partly why the relegated clubs get parachute payments. Liverpool got 3m less than Utd in 2009-2010, not a game changer by any means. 50% of the money is equal, a quarter is based on games shown. And I don't personally agree with this either, and have complained about it many times in the past. But why make a situation worse? Anyone who wants this can't call themselves a football fan, they can call themselves a Liverpool/Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea whatever supporter, but not a football fan.
--------
Bunsen, 50% o fteh broadcasting fees are split equally between the clubs, then you get merit fees whch is based on where you finsh which is fair enough, then you get facility fees which is based on how many games are shown involving yoru club. Obviously Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal games are shown more which means they get more money.
Overseas the same teams are shown more often, but the money is split equally. If a team is getting more money domestically for being on TV more often, why should it be different internationally?
@FatJanMolby: Because two wrongs don't make a right? It's bad enough as it is, why make it worse? We've seen teams like Stoke and arguably Wolves, establish themselves as PL sides. I fail to see how they'd manage that so readily without this. If this went ahead, I'd like to see the other clubs raise their collective middle finger and just not play. Look at the NBA lockout, the power would be there, their season is effectively cancelled. The big clubs would have to bowdown to pressure then, or they get nothing, and the rest of Europe can clean up.
I'm not actually saying that it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily agree with Liverpool going down this road. But before we as football fans start talking about Liverpool being greedy we should look at the system in our own country which is already unequal. Some football fans are actng as though all teams get the same money already and that Liverpool are doing something terrible. They're not, as theinequality already exists.
We've all been on holiday and watched the games over there. More often than they're showing Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc. The more games they are shown in in England the more money they get, but internationally they get the same as Bolton who might only be shown in a hadful of games.
I;m not saying its the right thing to do, but I also don;t see the big deal, because the broadcasting payments are already unequal.
Oh I'm not blaming Liverpool anymore than any of the other clubs that will no doubt support this, Liverpool might have gone public, but they won't be the only club thinking this, I've got no doubt it's what Kroenke will have in mind for our brand, and I hate it. I'm blaming any fans that throw their weight behind it though, of any club. Believe me I view this as far bigger than club rivalries.
I don't care if Bolton are shown once/twice/never in the PL. They're as important as any other club in the league.
And seeking to worsen the inequality is a bad thing. Women are paid less than men on average in this country, if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal.
Lets not go into women's pay mate. I think Sean Lock got it right
"They say, don’t they, that a woman’s work is never done. Perhaps that’s why they get paid less than men "
"...if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal."
-----
We need a 'can of worms' smiley.
If they want to negotiate their own TV rights, they they have to negotiate their way into a non-FA league as far as I'm concerned
-------------------------------------
I agree with this. If LFC want their own TV money let them play in their own league. How many people will watch LFC 1st team v LFC reserves?
In addition, I believe all teams should get an equal share of money.
The German league is the best run in Europe the league is ultra competitive.
Diamond Lights
------------------------
You lot should build and fund your own staduim then and not rely on the tax payer to fund it for you, or do you now have a problem with that?
If Spurs was in our position i wonder how many of you would seriously have a problem if your own club went down that route to benefit the club, like you are trying to do with buying a staduim you havent built or funded, bet you dont have a problem with the money that would generate your club do you!
"...if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal."
-----
We need a 'can of worms' smiley.
---------------------------------------------
If you think that is a can of worms, I used to work for someone who stated that if a woman was prepared to sign a contract stating that they had no intention of skiving (his word) for a year on maternity leave, then he would happily pay them the same as men (this was before the rules on paternity leave were changed), but when he never knew whether someone would take a year off, paid, he wouldn't hire women, as maternity pay and the overtime for someone else to do that role would bankrupt his company, as he was only just keeping his head above water as it was.
He ended up getting prosecuted for it, and had to fold the company up due to the cost of the case.
Sign in if you want to comment
Liverpool and tv rights
Page 3 of 4
posted on 12/10/11
seriously son...i apologise but come on lets not make this another we are better than you thread as this is not what its about.
posted on 12/10/11
THudd - Captain Obvious (U1029)
apology accepted...you are now allowed to play with the others again...but remember the naughty step is always an option...
posted on 12/10/11
<naughtystep>
Agggrrr!
posted on 12/10/11
Of course I'd like us to be able to pay more in wages but not at the risk of selling out to players who dont care about the club one bit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You ave already done that with Modric.
He didnt want to be at the club, you dug your heals in, and rewarded him with a much improved contract.
posted on 12/10/11
Its interesting that everyone is complaining about us wanting more money from international TV rights rather than an equal split, but then nobody complains about the TV rights in this very own country.
Last season Man Utd made more thatn £20m more from TV payments than Balckpool did. So why would it be different if we went out and got a deal that paid us £20m more for international TV rights,
The reason Man Utd got more moeny is because they are shown more on TV than any other team. And that is the case abroad too. Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal game are shown more abroad but we have the an equal split.
posted on 12/10/11
Too many Liverpool fans
posted on 12/10/11
but the way football in general is going the whole of the prem will fall behind the other competetive teams in europe due to them having more financial muscle due to tv rights.
______________________________
We still have Sky remember who are massively bank rolling the league plus sponsors and advertising. In no way is the league poor. On the whole in debt, but as the historic home of football and based upon the strength of European football, the Prem, La Liga, Bundesliga & Serie A will always reign supreme.
Don't forget leagues have peaks and troughs in terms of success. Prem clubs were getting spanked in the CL in the early/mid 90's
posted on 12/10/11
@FatJanMolby: Well sort of. A quarter of the revenue strictly speaking is 'prize money' for the final position in the league, partly why the relegated clubs get parachute payments. Liverpool got 3m less than Utd in 2009-2010, not a game changer by any means. 50% of the money is equal, a quarter is based on games shown. And I don't personally agree with this either, and have complained about it many times in the past. But why make a situation worse? Anyone who wants this can't call themselves a football fan, they can call themselves a Liverpool/Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea whatever supporter, but not a football fan.
posted on 12/10/11
I don't like the fact that football has turned into a 'Global Business' but you can't fault staff of a club working in their best interests to make their club financially more competitive - it is a business after all.
I'd love to see a salary cap and clubs living totally within their means and developing their own youth players. Unforunately it's no longer like that.
Having lived in Holland for 10 odd years I see what the power of the 'super rich clubs' does to the game here. Your Ajax's and PSV's of this world can no longer compete at the top end of European football. The Dutch league has just become a 'feeder league' for the rich European clubs. I'd love to see a day where there's a level playing field again, but the gulf is only getting bigger.
**** While I honestly do find it a shame that the Dutch League has become a 'feeder league' I do like Ajax 'feeding' us Luis Suarez and hopefully they can also 'feed' us Christian Eriksen and Jan Vertonghen in the near future
posted on 12/10/11
@LastChanceForHangingBaskets: So Ronaldo and Fabregas and...no I don;t see big players leaving the PL to go to Spain often? Nope sorry, it's not happening. Aguero/Silva/Mata? Worldwide sought after young prospects like Lukaku joining the PL? See my previous post of recent CL finalists etc, the PL is more than competitive. The Dutch league isn't at the moment, but it's not like the CL is a Spanish only won contest. I can fault the staff all I want, they're being short-sighted idiots. The big clubs are nothing without the other clubs to play them every week.
posted on 12/10/11
This is just a catch 22 situation.
Although clubs with a worldwide appeal make a fair point about benefitting from their own rights, in the long run it will affect what they are benefitting from domestically.
The EPL will lose its appeal worldwide if it becomes like the SPL.
This may be ok for Man Utd and "other" in the short term but eventually they will will start to lose out financially when things go stale and become another Celtic and Rangers. England will become more like Scotland if they are not already heading that way.
Its just pure short term greed, plain and simple!
posted on 12/10/11
scousers are very sensitive arent they.
goo goo gaga scousers.
posted on 12/10/11
Bahamas :
Twas the Heysel legacy.
English absence from UEFA tournaments meant the clubs lost the experience of regularly playing teams of that calibre. And collectively forgot how to apply the 'Liverpool method' when they were re-admitted.
posted on 12/10/11
posted on 12/10/11
Yeh I remember RDBD but leagues do still go through their ups and downs. This tends to be either linked to financial reasons or actual footballing reasons. Look at Serie A which has been usurped by the Bundesliga. Who would have seen that coming from the mid nineties to the early 2000's?! Serie A used to kick ass!
posted on 12/10/11
They need 14 prem clubs out of the 20 to vote for a change, can't really see this happening as its turkeys voting for Christmas... what Ayre is probably angling for is a greater proportion of the collective rights to go to the likes of Liverpool and Utd, the contract is up for renewal in 2013.... this is the opening shot in negotiations.
Lets be honest here this is Liverpool scrapping around for more millions to compete with the top 3 of the premier League (let alone the big two in Spain which are light years ahead of Pool)...
posted on 12/10/11
@FatJanMolby: Well sort of. A quarter of the revenue strictly speaking is 'prize money' for the final position in the league, partly why the relegated clubs get parachute payments. Liverpool got 3m less than Utd in 2009-2010, not a game changer by any means. 50% of the money is equal, a quarter is based on games shown. And I don't personally agree with this either, and have complained about it many times in the past. But why make a situation worse? Anyone who wants this can't call themselves a football fan, they can call themselves a Liverpool/Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea whatever supporter, but not a football fan.
--------
Bunsen, 50% o fteh broadcasting fees are split equally between the clubs, then you get merit fees whch is based on where you finsh which is fair enough, then you get facility fees which is based on how many games are shown involving yoru club. Obviously Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal games are shown more which means they get more money.
Overseas the same teams are shown more often, but the money is split equally. If a team is getting more money domestically for being on TV more often, why should it be different internationally?
posted on 12/10/11
@FatJanMolby: Because two wrongs don't make a right? It's bad enough as it is, why make it worse? We've seen teams like Stoke and arguably Wolves, establish themselves as PL sides. I fail to see how they'd manage that so readily without this. If this went ahead, I'd like to see the other clubs raise their collective middle finger and just not play. Look at the NBA lockout, the power would be there, their season is effectively cancelled. The big clubs would have to bowdown to pressure then, or they get nothing, and the rest of Europe can clean up.
posted on 12/10/11
I'm not actually saying that it is the right thing to do. I don't necessarily agree with Liverpool going down this road. But before we as football fans start talking about Liverpool being greedy we should look at the system in our own country which is already unequal. Some football fans are actng as though all teams get the same money already and that Liverpool are doing something terrible. They're not, as theinequality already exists.
We've all been on holiday and watched the games over there. More often than they're showing Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc. The more games they are shown in in England the more money they get, but internationally they get the same as Bolton who might only be shown in a hadful of games.
I;m not saying its the right thing to do, but I also don;t see the big deal, because the broadcasting payments are already unequal.
posted on 12/10/11
Oh I'm not blaming Liverpool anymore than any of the other clubs that will no doubt support this, Liverpool might have gone public, but they won't be the only club thinking this, I've got no doubt it's what Kroenke will have in mind for our brand, and I hate it. I'm blaming any fans that throw their weight behind it though, of any club. Believe me I view this as far bigger than club rivalries.
I don't care if Bolton are shown once/twice/never in the PL. They're as important as any other club in the league.
And seeking to worsen the inequality is a bad thing. Women are paid less than men on average in this country, if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal.
posted on 12/10/11
Lets not go into women's pay mate. I think Sean Lock got it right
"They say, don’t they, that a woman’s work is never done. Perhaps that’s why they get paid less than men "
posted on 12/10/11
"...if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal."
-----
We need a 'can of worms' smiley.
posted on 12/10/11
If they want to negotiate their own TV rights, they they have to negotiate their way into a non-FA league as far as I'm concerned
-------------------------------------
I agree with this. If LFC want their own TV money let them play in their own league. How many people will watch LFC 1st team v LFC reserves?
In addition, I believe all teams should get an equal share of money.
The German league is the best run in Europe the league is ultra competitive.
posted on 12/10/11
Diamond Lights
------------------------
You lot should build and fund your own staduim then and not rely on the tax payer to fund it for you, or do you now have a problem with that?
If Spurs was in our position i wonder how many of you would seriously have a problem if your own club went down that route to benefit the club, like you are trying to do with buying a staduim you havent built or funded, bet you dont have a problem with the money that would generate your club do you!
posted on 12/10/11
"...if we suddenly slash the money women earn in half, well it's not a big deal, because the wages are already unequal."
-----
We need a 'can of worms' smiley.
---------------------------------------------
If you think that is a can of worms, I used to work for someone who stated that if a woman was prepared to sign a contract stating that they had no intention of skiving (his word) for a year on maternity leave, then he would happily pay them the same as men (this was before the rules on paternity leave were changed), but when he never knew whether someone would take a year off, paid, he wouldn't hire women, as maternity pay and the overtime for someone else to do that role would bankrupt his company, as he was only just keeping his head above water as it was.
He ended up getting prosecuted for it, and had to fold the company up due to the cost of the case.
Page 3 of 4