Do you think it's fair the way the Premier League split the domestic money?
If so, then why isn't it fair if the international money is split the same way?
No he wants more money to go to SUCCESSFUL clubs. Clubs that do well and get into the top positions in the league.
You do deserve the money, but if a Bolton finish 19th and Villa finish 5th for example then Villa should be rewarded with more money from the TV rights.
If 25 Villa games are shown in Spain, and 15 Bolton games are shown in Spain, then more money should go to Villa.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
What evidence do you have to suggest it would put the league in danger?
You go on about how well you are supported internationally, therefore you will get more than you are receiving now, no?
No need for the Premier League to know who is showing what as each individual club would be selling their own rights to the foreign TV companies, so believe me, they would know. Your comments are all ridiculous and you are making points on a topic which Ayre didn't even talk about. You feel that you would be disadvantaged and are complaining about it yet you are complaining about Liverpool fans who think they would be advantaged.
---
The Prem has handed over sole rights to Sky for distribution of games for which it is paid very handsomely.
As long as L'pool wish to remain in the Prem, they have no rights whatsoever to sell the broadcasting rights to anyone.
Only individual clubs greed can ruin this fantastic arrangement with Sky that makes us the richest league in the world.
So your comments are probably the most ridiculous on this thread.
Fred, you have a lot of common with Ian Ayres. You band about insulting comments about things of which you have little knowledge. You insult us; he insults our club.
At 20, you're a baby to most of the people you're debating this with. You don't even remember football before the premier league. I visited Anfield before you were born. You insist history counts for nothing because it doesn't serve your club's specific wants and needs to acknowledge it. You harp on about training sessions in Malaysia. A lot of people attend those training sessions to see star players (you completely ignored my earlier comment about Torres). With a bigger share of domestic TV receipts, sponsorship, gate receipts, corporate entertainment and merchandising, Liverpool can afford to sign and pay those stay players. This is why kids in Malaysia watch them train. Because they are star players.
On top of all this your greedy, johnny-come-lately managing director wants this to become an ever-increasing spiral. More money for the clubs who have the star players. An even greater capacity to sign and pay star players.
If Bolton could afford to sign world stars, these people would tune in to watch them play. There's nothing special about your club inherently, they want to see the star names. In fact, when your club was successful in the 70s and 80s, the product of top flight English football was sold for absolute peanuts. Liverpool haven't pioneered the PL era either commercially or in footballing terms. If any club deserves an unequal share of foreign TV rights it is Manchester United. The fact that they aren't calling for it and Liverpool are is a discredit to your club. The fact that you are prepared to defend it and throw insults about like confetti is a discredit to your club also.
I don't want to read your MD's "clarification" unless it contains an apology for denigrating Bolton Wanderers.
Exactly they have no rights but Ayre is arguing that we should have, due to us earning more for the league than teams like Bolton.
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
I think the gripe here with your fans is that he used Bolton as an example. He isn't exactly going to use Man United is he?
It's like Oftel saying that BT and Virgin should split their earnings with phone subscribers, even though BT have the majority of customers.
No he wants more money to go to SUCCESSFUL clubs. Clubs that do well and get into the top positions in the league.
You do deserve the money, but if a Bolton finish 19th and Villa finish 5th for example then Villa should be rewarded with more money from the TV rights.
If 25 Villa games are shown in Spain, and 15 Bolton games are shown in Spain, then more money should go to Villa.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
---
Mr Commerce. You are getting confused again.
Domestically, 50% of broadcasting rights are distributed evenly amongst the 20 clubs.
The other 50% is made up of merit award dependent on league position and the number of games you are shown on Sky in the form of a "facilities fee", so that the more successful clubs are already better rewarded.
I'm sick of repeating myself, but as to overseas broadcasting rights, all Prem games are provided to each of the ~200 media companies.
Sky value & get paid on the basis of subscription rates to Prem games in these countries and really don't want to waste money having to pay 2000 or so people watching the 200 or so media channels to see what games they are showing from all the games they buy just so L'pool get a few more quid.
Got it yet or do I need to explain myself further or draw you a picture?
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
--
Really? you think that Liverpool will be able to compete with more money? Barca are light years ahead of teams like Liverpool.
Yes but why should Sky value it? Ayre is saying that this should be down to Liverpool to value their own matches.
"Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona."
====================
So Bolton are stopping Liverpool from competing with Real Madrid and Barcelona?
"I think the gripe here with your fans is that he used Bolton as an example. He isn't exactly going to use Man United is he?"
That's certainly a big part of the gripe and a very reasonable one it is too. You don't denigrate commercial partners publicly. You don't denigrate other clubs publicly without good reason. This man is a newcomer to our game and he had no right. He should apologise.
First of all I missed your comment about Torres, but considering he was a Chelsea player at the time of that session in Malaysia I don't know why he's been brought up. Suarez and Gerrard were not at that session either.
However I did not realise that it was my fault that I'm only 20, I apologise but as much as I am a "baby" I have been making better points than anybody else on this thread so far.
Also, I also apologise for the MD of my club, I forget that the directors of any club should not want the best for their club and that their job is to bankroll the other less successful clubs in the league.
Plus the Liverpool fan base has always been around, if it was the case of star players then when Alonso, Torres, Mascherano, Owen, Fowler, McManaman etc all left, it would have disappeared, but no, it's still there despite our recent mid table positions.
Bolton fans wouldn't say a word if it wasn't their club he used for an example (still have yet to see this interview or see anybody else post a source to it), but he, probably misguidedly picked Bolton as an example.
comment by Moses'-SWA (U2460)
posted 26 seconds ago
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
--
Really? you think that Liverpool will be able to compete with more money? Barca are light years ahead of teams like Liverpool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be to do with them being able to negotiate their own rights, whilst we are not. Which is what Ayre is arguing.
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise.
Also when we say English teams, we are referring to ALL English teams, not just Liverpool, so again, your points are ridiculous.
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise.
--
Were are part of the PL therefore we are a commercial partner of yours and you say we don't understand business?
There'sOnly
Part of me is thinking we should give up. I really don't think these guys understand business.
I think they'd be happier in Soviet Russia.
The commercial PARTNERS of Liverpool are companies like Jack Wolfskin and Standard Chartered, I have never ever ever in my life seen Bolton referred to as a "commercial partner".
A rival perhaps, but not a partner and thus we have no obligation to bankroll you just because we are a more successful establishment.
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
--
They two completely different business models so you can't compare them ....
The commercial PARTNERS of Liverpool are companies like Jack Wolfskin and Standard Chartered, I have never ever ever in my life seen Bolton referred to as a "commercial partner".
--
We are both in the same Organization therefore we are partners within that organization ......
There's no such place as Soviet Russia - it was called the Soviet Union. Nobody is asking for you to bankroll us you tool.
You also don't understand the term commercial partnership and I have lost my rag with your arrogance. I am out of this thread.
comment by Moses'-SWA (U2460)
posted 50 seconds ago
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
--
They two completely different business models so you can't compare them ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
The point I'm making is, that in business, companies who generate the most income to the sector of business their involved in, don't share that with their rivals. It doesn't matter which business model it is, that is how business works.
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise
---
Just like we didn't shed a tear when you failed to get in the Chumps League and dropped out of top4 status.
You're probably 5th now in the Prem in terms of size of club as Deloitte value clubs by turnover, assets & profit, not the number of fans they have watching the game in the pub!
And there we go, another person who can't handle the truth. And largehat, did you not forget I am just a baby? I was 7 months old when the USSR was broken up.
And yet I can still beat you in an argument, sad for you really isn't it.
So Moses if you get three points this weekend and we get one, should you have to give us one of your points to make it fair?
Sign in if you want to comment
Just how much does history count?
Page 5 of 12
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 16/10/11
Do you think it's fair the way the Premier League split the domestic money?
If so, then why isn't it fair if the international money is split the same way?
posted on 16/10/11
No he wants more money to go to SUCCESSFUL clubs. Clubs that do well and get into the top positions in the league.
You do deserve the money, but if a Bolton finish 19th and Villa finish 5th for example then Villa should be rewarded with more money from the TV rights.
If 25 Villa games are shown in Spain, and 15 Bolton games are shown in Spain, then more money should go to Villa.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
posted on 16/10/11
What evidence do you have to suggest it would put the league in danger?
You go on about how well you are supported internationally, therefore you will get more than you are receiving now, no?
posted on 16/10/11
No need for the Premier League to know who is showing what as each individual club would be selling their own rights to the foreign TV companies, so believe me, they would know. Your comments are all ridiculous and you are making points on a topic which Ayre didn't even talk about. You feel that you would be disadvantaged and are complaining about it yet you are complaining about Liverpool fans who think they would be advantaged.
---
The Prem has handed over sole rights to Sky for distribution of games for which it is paid very handsomely.
As long as L'pool wish to remain in the Prem, they have no rights whatsoever to sell the broadcasting rights to anyone.
Only individual clubs greed can ruin this fantastic arrangement with Sky that makes us the richest league in the world.
So your comments are probably the most ridiculous on this thread.
posted on 16/10/11
Fred, you have a lot of common with Ian Ayres. You band about insulting comments about things of which you have little knowledge. You insult us; he insults our club.
At 20, you're a baby to most of the people you're debating this with. You don't even remember football before the premier league. I visited Anfield before you were born. You insist history counts for nothing because it doesn't serve your club's specific wants and needs to acknowledge it. You harp on about training sessions in Malaysia. A lot of people attend those training sessions to see star players (you completely ignored my earlier comment about Torres). With a bigger share of domestic TV receipts, sponsorship, gate receipts, corporate entertainment and merchandising, Liverpool can afford to sign and pay those stay players. This is why kids in Malaysia watch them train. Because they are star players.
On top of all this your greedy, johnny-come-lately managing director wants this to become an ever-increasing spiral. More money for the clubs who have the star players. An even greater capacity to sign and pay star players.
If Bolton could afford to sign world stars, these people would tune in to watch them play. There's nothing special about your club inherently, they want to see the star names. In fact, when your club was successful in the 70s and 80s, the product of top flight English football was sold for absolute peanuts. Liverpool haven't pioneered the PL era either commercially or in footballing terms. If any club deserves an unequal share of foreign TV rights it is Manchester United. The fact that they aren't calling for it and Liverpool are is a discredit to your club. The fact that you are prepared to defend it and throw insults about like confetti is a discredit to your club also.
I don't want to read your MD's "clarification" unless it contains an apology for denigrating Bolton Wanderers.
posted on 16/10/11
Exactly they have no rights but Ayre is arguing that we should have, due to us earning more for the league than teams like Bolton.
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
posted on 16/10/11
I think the gripe here with your fans is that he used Bolton as an example. He isn't exactly going to use Man United is he?
posted on 16/10/11
It's like Oftel saying that BT and Virgin should split their earnings with phone subscribers, even though BT have the majority of customers.
posted on 16/10/11
No he wants more money to go to SUCCESSFUL clubs. Clubs that do well and get into the top positions in the league.
You do deserve the money, but if a Bolton finish 19th and Villa finish 5th for example then Villa should be rewarded with more money from the TV rights.
If 25 Villa games are shown in Spain, and 15 Bolton games are shown in Spain, then more money should go to Villa.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
---
Mr Commerce. You are getting confused again.
Domestically, 50% of broadcasting rights are distributed evenly amongst the 20 clubs.
The other 50% is made up of merit award dependent on league position and the number of games you are shown on Sky in the form of a "facilities fee", so that the more successful clubs are already better rewarded.
I'm sick of repeating myself, but as to overseas broadcasting rights, all Prem games are provided to each of the ~200 media companies.
Sky value & get paid on the basis of subscription rates to Prem games in these countries and really don't want to waste money having to pay 2000 or so people watching the 200 or so media channels to see what games they are showing from all the games they buy just so L'pool get a few more quid.
Got it yet or do I need to explain myself further or draw you a picture?
posted on 16/10/11
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
--
Really? you think that Liverpool will be able to compete with more money? Barca are light years ahead of teams like Liverpool.
posted on 16/10/11
Yes but why should Sky value it? Ayre is saying that this should be down to Liverpool to value their own matches.
posted on 16/10/11
"Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona."
====================
So Bolton are stopping Liverpool from competing with Real Madrid and Barcelona?
"I think the gripe here with your fans is that he used Bolton as an example. He isn't exactly going to use Man United is he?"
That's certainly a big part of the gripe and a very reasonable one it is too. You don't denigrate commercial partners publicly. You don't denigrate other clubs publicly without good reason. This man is a newcomer to our game and he had no right. He should apologise.
posted on 16/10/11
First of all I missed your comment about Torres, but considering he was a Chelsea player at the time of that session in Malaysia I don't know why he's been brought up. Suarez and Gerrard were not at that session either.
However I did not realise that it was my fault that I'm only 20, I apologise but as much as I am a "baby" I have been making better points than anybody else on this thread so far.
Also, I also apologise for the MD of my club, I forget that the directors of any club should not want the best for their club and that their job is to bankroll the other less successful clubs in the league.
Plus the Liverpool fan base has always been around, if it was the case of star players then when Alonso, Torres, Mascherano, Owen, Fowler, McManaman etc all left, it would have disappeared, but no, it's still there despite our recent mid table positions.
Bolton fans wouldn't say a word if it wasn't their club he used for an example (still have yet to see this interview or see anybody else post a source to it), but he, probably misguidedly picked Bolton as an example.
posted on 16/10/11
comment by Moses'-SWA (U2460)
posted 26 seconds ago
Only teams like Bolton, who expect to get the same money as other teams who are shown, much more than they are stopping English teams competing with the likes of Madrid and Barcelona.
--
Really? you think that Liverpool will be able to compete with more money? Barca are light years ahead of teams like Liverpool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be to do with them being able to negotiate their own rights, whilst we are not. Which is what Ayre is arguing.
posted on 16/10/11
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise.
Also when we say English teams, we are referring to ALL English teams, not just Liverpool, so again, your points are ridiculous.
posted on 16/10/11
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
posted on 16/10/11
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise.
--
Were are part of the PL therefore we are a commercial partner of yours and you say we don't understand business?
posted on 16/10/11
There'sOnly
Part of me is thinking we should give up. I really don't think these guys understand business.
I think they'd be happier in Soviet Russia.
posted on 16/10/11
The commercial PARTNERS of Liverpool are companies like Jack Wolfskin and Standard Chartered, I have never ever ever in my life seen Bolton referred to as a "commercial partner".
A rival perhaps, but not a partner and thus we have no obligation to bankroll you just because we are a more successful establishment.
posted on 16/10/11
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
--
They two completely different business models so you can't compare them ....
posted on 16/10/11
The commercial PARTNERS of Liverpool are companies like Jack Wolfskin and Standard Chartered, I have never ever ever in my life seen Bolton referred to as a "commercial partner".
--
We are both in the same Organization therefore we are partners within that organization ......
posted on 16/10/11
There's no such place as Soviet Russia - it was called the Soviet Union. Nobody is asking for you to bankroll us you tool.
You also don't understand the term commercial partnership and I have lost my rag with your arrogance. I am out of this thread.
posted on 16/10/11
comment by Moses'-SWA (U2460)
posted 50 seconds ago
Do you expect BT to share their income with Virgin, even though they have more customers?
--
They two completely different business models so you can't compare them ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give up.
The point I'm making is, that in business, companies who generate the most income to the sector of business their involved in, don't share that with their rivals. It doesn't matter which business model it is, that is how business works.
posted on 16/10/11
Bolton are not a commercial partner to Liverpool, if you get relegated, there will be no unrest or upset in the Liverpool camp, financially or otherwise
---
Just like we didn't shed a tear when you failed to get in the Chumps League and dropped out of top4 status.
You're probably 5th now in the Prem in terms of size of club as Deloitte value clubs by turnover, assets & profit, not the number of fans they have watching the game in the pub!
posted on 16/10/11
And there we go, another person who can't handle the truth. And largehat, did you not forget I am just a baby? I was 7 months old when the USSR was broken up.
And yet I can still beat you in an argument, sad for you really isn't it.
So Moses if you get three points this weekend and we get one, should you have to give us one of your points to make it fair?
Page 5 of 12
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10