Media coverage 2018/19

Status
Not open for further replies.
YaYa's Left Peg said:
Thanks. What’s our our share of that international money currently relative to the usual culprits?
Click to expand...

International income has always been evenly split by PL club.
City wanted (and I think got through?) a weighting based on position in the PL. Memory says not a big weighting, but a weighting nonetheless.

I dislike the idea - anything that reduces balance is bad. Spurs for example have radically less income than City but do ok.
 
29,000 at wembley last night, i'm sure there will a full scale media castigation over this......

now if it had been us......
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
I would be interested to know which team you support as it helps my reply.
It had to take outside money to break the cartel operating that meant the same 4 clubs from England qualified for Europe every season (with the exception of a freak season when Everton and Spurs got in).
You see the so called big four and their European counterparts in the cartel financially doped the European Cup so it became the Champions league and with a format that pretty much guaranteed 3 home games and a huge chance (via seeding) that they would all make the latter stages (= more money via home games and TV).
No one ever mentions this cartel as financially doping the game. It meant the big four got richer and the gap between the rest widened. So the big four could buy the best players (how many times did the rags break the transfer record?) and pay the most in wages.
On top of this, the big four are on TV more in the premier League than the rest so they get more TV revenue and further widen the gap. No one EVER said ''this isn't a level playing field''. The poorer clubs never complained but just got on with it.
And then Chelsea and City come along and all of a sudden fans from the rags, Liverpool and Arsenal are screaming like the spoilt brats they are ''it isn't a level playing field'' ''how can we compete with that?'' - these self serving fans see no difference between forcing UEFA to give them more money or they will form their own league and demanding more money from the premier League at the expense of others and money coming in from outside sources. One is deemed ''self earned'' the other is dirty money. These fans are like MP's fiddling the expenses whilst saying ''it is within the rules'' - yes because the rules were created by themselves to be able to still feast at the trough. Money the rags, Arsenal and Liverpool ''earned'' during the period when they were in Europe year in and year out is tainted. It was money earned whilst being able to play sides from Albania and Estonia in a tournament designed to ensure no big club was knocked out in the first round and no big club was pitted against another big club in the first 3 rounds..... but that is seen as clean money.
So as I said, the cartel / non level playing field needed smashing and the only way it could happen is via outside investment.... I don't hear fans from Fulham complaining loudly, or Watford or Burnley.... the only fans who seem to really be griped by City are the ones knocked off their guaranteed top four perch..... Liverpool, Arsenal and rags.... funny that, isn't it...
Click to expand...
Very eloquently put and right on the money (excuse the pun), and the ex-players of the original cartel are just as culpable with the utter tripe they spout through the various media outlets.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
International income has always been evenly split by PL club.
City wanted (and I think got through?) a weighting based on position in the PL. Memory says not a big weighting, but a weighting nonetheless.

I dislike the idea - anything that reduces balance is bad. Spurs for example have radically less income than City but do ok.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...big-six-win-battle-overseas-television-rights

Premier League’s top six win battle for larger share of overseas TV rights...

From 2019-20, the first season of TV deals being concluded now, the current level of revenue from international TV rights sales, £3.3bn, will still be shared equally between all 20 clubs. Any increase on that level, which Scudamore is understood to be confident of securing, will then be distributed according to where a team finish in the league. So the six, confident of finishing in the higher places every season for the foreseeable future, will for the first time be paid more of the international TV rights revenues on that basis.

The UK TV rights money, currently £5.1bn, has always been shared out equally, part according to where a team finish, and part according to how many times they are shown on TV, which also favours the more successful clubs.

Part of the compromise reached is that the difference this makes to the earnings of the top six will be capped. The Premier League pointed out that currently the highest-earning club from TV and sponsorship central distributions, the title-winning Manchester City, were paid £149m, approximately 1.6 times more than the lowest-earning, bottom-finishing West Brom, who made £95m.

The differential now the international money-sharing formula is to be changed will be 1.8, Scudamore said, and any income above that will be shared to maintain that differential. Proponents of the rule change, including the clubs which pushed for it, argue that the entirely equal sharing had become outdated as the rule was established in 1992, when the international rights were negligible.....

However, opponents argue that the richer clubs are already inhabiting a different financial plane, and should not be enabled to stretch even further away. It is also seen by some as a dangerous step to change a foundational rule, allowing the new formula, and the cap, to be challenged again in the future.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
I would be interested to know which team you support as it helps my reply.
It had to take outside money to break the cartel operating that meant the same 4 clubs from England qualified for Europe every season (with the exception of a freak season when Everton and Spurs got in).
You see the so called big four and their European counterparts in the cartel financially doped the European Cup so it became the Champions league and with a format that pretty much guaranteed 3 home games and a huge chance (via seeding) that they would all make the latter stages (= more money via home games and TV).
No one ever mentions this cartel as financially doping the game. It meant the big four got richer and the gap between the rest widened. So the big four could buy the best players (how many times did the rags break the transfer record?) and pay the most in wages.
On top of this, the big four are on TV more in the premier League than the rest so they get more TV revenue and further widen the gap. No one EVER said ''this isn't a level playing field''. The poorer clubs never complained but just got on with it.
And then Chelsea and City come along and all of a sudden fans from the rags, Liverpool and Arsenal are screaming like the spoilt brats they are ''it isn't a level playing field'' ''how can we compete with that?'' - these self serving fans see no difference between forcing UEFA to give them more money or they will form their own league and demanding more money from the premier League at the expense of others and money coming in from outside sources. One is deemed ''self earned'' the other is dirty money. These fans are like MP's fiddling the expenses whilst saying ''it is within the rules'' - yes because the rules were created by themselves to be able to still feast at the trough. Money the rags, Arsenal and Liverpool ''earned'' during the period when they were in Europe year in and year out is tainted. It was money earned whilst being able to play sides from Albania and Estonia in a tournament designed to ensure no big club was knocked out in the first round and no big club was pitted against another big club in the first 3 rounds..... but that is seen as clean money.
So as I said, the cartel / non level playing field needed smashing and the only way it could happen is via outside investment.... I don't hear fans from Fulham complaining loudly, or Watford or Burnley.... the only fans who seem to really be griped by City are the ones knocked off their guaranteed top four perch..... Liverpool, Arsenal and rags.... funny that, isn't it...
Click to expand...
Great post, but I'd take issue with the part where you mention the big 4 clubs protecting their positions and then Chelsea and us come along and disrupt the cartel.
Think it was 2002 or 03 that we started getting 4 teams in the CL and by that point Chelsea were well established as part of what could be called the big 4 at that point.
So it is really only ourselves that have broken into that group.
 
tonea2003 said:
29,000 at wembley last night, i'm sure there will a full scale media castigation over this......

now if it had been us......
Click to expand...

The reporter in the I said he couldn't really blame them all things considered what with the cold and that.

Also in the I Daniel Storey reporting on the dippers talks of when not if they wrap up the title as does the guy doing a piece on Benitez. I've been naive thinking we still had a chance looks like it is only a matter of time
 
rabby said:
Great post, but I'd take issue with the part where you mention the big 4 clubs protecting their positions and then Chelsea and us come along and disrupt the cartel.
Think it was 2002 or 03 that we started getting 4 teams in the CL and by that point Chelsea were well established as part of what could be called the big 4 at that point.
So it is really only ourselves that have broken into that group.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct and something I pondered before posting. I stated big 4 but then purposely only listed Liverpool, Arsenal and rags. Chelsea were breaking through with funding from Matthew Harding but obviously when the dirty Russian money came in, that took Chelsea to the next levels as what happened to City, so I feel it was relevant to include Chelsea with City on that basis but it is open to scrutiny as you rightly highlighted.
 
The perfect fumble said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...big-six-win-battle-overseas-television-rights

Premier League’s top six win battle for larger share of overseas TV rights...

From 2019-20, the first season of TV deals being concluded now, the current level of revenue from international TV rights sales, £3.3bn, will still be shared equally between all 20 clubs. Any increase on that level, which Scudamore is understood to be confident of securing, will then be distributed according to where a team finish in the league. So the six, confident of finishing in the higher places every season for the foreseeable future, will for the first time be paid more of the international TV rights revenues on that basis.

The UK TV rights money, currently £5.1bn, has always been shared out equally, part according to where a team finish, and part according to how many times they are shown on TV, which also favours the more successful clubs.

Part of the compromise reached is that the difference this makes to the earnings of the top six will be capped. The Premier League pointed out that currently the highest-earning club from TV and sponsorship central distributions, the title-winning Manchester City, were paid £149m, approximately 1.6 times more than the lowest-earning, bottom-finishing West Brom, who made £95m.

The differential now the international money-sharing formula is to be changed will be 1.8, Scudamore said, and any income above that will be shared to maintain that differential. Proponents of the rule change, including the clubs which pushed for it, argue that the entirely equal sharing had become outdated as the rule was established in 1992, when the international rights were negligible.....

However, opponents argue that the richer clubs are already inhabiting a different financial plane, and should not be enabled to stretch even further away. It is also seen by some as a dangerous step to change a foundational rule, allowing the new formula, and the cap, to be challenged again in the future.
Click to expand...

Thanks. So a graded share after the first 3.3 bn.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Thanks. So a graded share after the first 3.3 bn.
Click to expand...

The "top" clubs wanted more, but the other clubs (with two exceptions) voted no.

It's a small difference in income, but the real issue is that it has broken the equal shares for all principle, there can be no doubt, that time will erode it further in favour of the big clubs. City played a prominent role in all this, by some reports "the" prominent role. With the UK domestic market stitched up with blocks of immovable fans of the old top four, City see international growth as paramount and it wants a bigger slice.
 
The perfect fumble said:
The "top" clubs wanted more, but the other clubs (with two exceptions) voted no.

It's a small difference in income, but the real issue is that it has broken the equal shares for all principle, there can be no doubt, that time will erode it further in favour of the big clubs. City played a prominent role in all this, by some reports "the" prominent role. With the UK domestic market stitched up with blocks of immovable fans of the old top four, City see international growth as paramount and it wants a bigger slice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understood all that.

I just wish it wasn't being done by adding more imbalance.
 
mccity said:
Don't consider this me making a statement on what Keown said, but I just thought given the discussion over the last couple of days this story about a producer getting fired over a Tom Brady 'slur' in the US was relevant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47066305
Click to expand...
Everyone involved in the ball tampering should have been punished more and the team kicked out of the compy for the season however, the producer is a prick and deserves to be turfed as well.

He was there to make a program if he wants to be funny do a comedy routine.
 
The BBC report was bereft of the words such as 'allegedly' or 'possibly' when they mentioned the Keita pen and Maguire's 'red' card. Both instances were nailed on certainties and the ref buggered it up for the Dippers. Compare that to the shite Sterling gets and the number of yellow cards that we get which Auntie is desperate to morph into reds à la mode The Alty Tit!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top