halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,073
Maybe it's because the biggest clubs eventually want to have that revenue stream for themselves and the PL is too weak to do anything about it .....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Maybe it's because the biggest clubs eventually want to have that revenue stream for themselves and the PL is too weak to do anything about it .....
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
sorted for you simple mistake to make ;)Maybe it's because the yank clubs eventually want to have that revenue stream for themselves and the PL is too weak to do anything about it .....
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I do wonder if that played a part in those people who turned them down? “There’s massive opportunities here to make more cash, stop fleecing the fans AND cut the cancerous TV companies out at the same time”.If the Premier League went to a direct to customer streaming model, they would make a fortune.
There was study done a few years ago that said if they sold a subscription world wide at £10 per month, they could raise as much as £26bn per year, compared to the £3bn they raise at the moment.
I happen to think that is a rather high estimate and doesn’t factor in things like £10 in some countries being far higher than what they pay and above the working class’ budget. Plus there is no way they would sell it that cheap here in the U.K.
So let’s do a calculation on raising £15bn through that model.
Every Premier League club could earn £500m per season.
All 72 EFL clubs could earn £13.8m per season.
Every football club, estimated to be 7,000 (not just in the non-league pyramid, but children’s clubs, and women’s clubs) could receive just over £71k per season with £500m worth of revenue, or £142k per season if £1bn was thrown at them.
That would still allow £3bn per season to be reserved for rainy day funds, charitable causes etc, or even grants for football related infrastructure projects.
We’re not having any of that old shit, you either work how we say or you do one!!
They did one…..
The redshirts have proposed this but got nowhere.Maybe it's because the biggest clubs eventually want to have that revenue stream for themselves and the PL is too weak to do anything about it .....
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
If the Premier League went to a direct to customer streaming model, they would make a fortune.
There was study done a few years ago that said if they sold a subscription world wide at £10 per month, they could raise as much as £26bn per year, compared to the £3bn they raise at the moment.
I happen to think that is a rather high estimate and doesn’t factor in things like £10 in some countries being far higher than what they pay and above the working class’ budget. Plus there is no way they would sell it that cheap here in the U.K.
So let’s do a calculation on raising £15bn through that model.
Every Premier League club could earn £500m per season.
All 72 EFL clubs could earn £13.8m per season.
Every football club, estimated to be 7,000 (not just in the non-league pyramid, but children’s clubs, and women’s clubs) could receive just over £71k per season with £500m worth of revenue, or £142k per season if £1bn was thrown at them.
That would still allow £3bn per season to be reserved for rainy day funds, charitable causes etc, or even grants for football related infrastructure projects.
I can assure you now, there is serious discussions over a streaming model.
The company I work for were at a meeting last week with the Premier League along with other companies to discuss.
Good. Inevitable I feel. It might even put a halt to ridiculous ticket price hikes.I can assure you now, there is serious discussions over a streaming model.
The company I work for were at a meeting last week with the Premier League along with other companies to discuss.
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
Good. Inevitable I feel. It might even put a halt to ridiculous ticket price hikes.
You'd of thought the whole covid fiasco and empty stadiums would have put a stop to pricing increases but it didnt sadly.
Not sure if its a good or a bad thing for match day going fans.
Just have to look at leagues like serie A, all games on tv and lots of empty seats etc
Since the pandemic event attendances across the board have gone up, that’s everything from football games, other sports, concerts, even pubs playing live music.You'd of thought the whole covid fiasco and empty stadiums would have put a stop to pricing increases but it didnt sadly.
Not sure if its a good or a bad thing for match day going fans.
Just have to look at leagues like serie A, all games on tv and lots of empty seats etc
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,122
I am cynical but even if TV/streaming revenue increases for clubs I am sure they will still put prices upYou'd of thought the whole covid fiasco and empty stadiums would have put a stop to pricing increases but it didnt sadly.
Not sure if its a good or a bad thing for match day going fans.
Just have to look at leagues like serie A, all games on tv and lots of empty seats etc
Twas ever thus in Italy. I remember when AC MILAN got 1,000, yes one thou, for a televised UCL game.You'd of thought the whole covid fiasco and empty stadiums would have put a stop to pricing increases but it didnt sadly.
Not sure if its a good or a bad thing for match day going fans.
Just have to look at leagues like serie A, all games on tv and lots of empty seats etc
Isn’t that because all the attendances were zero during the pandemic? ;)Since the pandemic event attendances across the board have gone up, that’s everything from football games, other sports, concerts, even pubs playing live music.
Almost a 'Zero San Siro' thenTwas ever thus in Italy. I remember when AC MILAN got 1,000, yes one thou, for a televised UCL game.
Mutually cancel the deal and hey presto sign an new one the day after :-)Technically (I think), the PL has made an agreement that City say is unlawful, but it surely can't be void just because City say it is. But if City signed a deal today, who's going to assess FMV?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
IPTV providers everywhere shitting them knicks.I can assure you now, there is serious discussions over a streaming model.
The company I work for were at a meeting last week with the Premier League along with other companies to discuss.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
IPTV providers everywhere shitting them knicks.
Not when they also provide every platform, series and film in existence ;)
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
Twas ever thus in Italy. I remember when AC MILAN got 1,000, yes one thou, for a televised UCL game.
1,000? when was this?
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
I am cynical but even if TV/streaming revenue increases for clubs I am sure they will still put prices up
i reckon so to.
At least 15 years ago. No ref, just a guess. Knowing the Italians, they won’t keep a record anyway. Iirc, they did not play at San Ciro due to a rent dispute.1,000? when was this?
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
So that 'club statement' that Sky read out then...
what statement?