Media Thread 2017/18

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Lol with money. It's rotten to the core .

When the head of the premier league comes out with "We need a successful man Utd " I think it confirms there is clearly a bias / agenda to that aim.

He didn't say that.

 

[Blue Mooner]

How did Sky help the Rags get easy europa fixtures?

That wouldn't have been Sky that would have been David Gill in his role as deputy chairman of club competitions and part of the Exec committee at UEFA http://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/abou...news/newsid=1962085.html?redirectFromOrg=true undoubtedly part of the agreement to ensure that BT get 'value' from what they bid for the Champions league rights. Its viewing figures that drive ad revenues don't you know? This bias is pervasive across the whole of football.

 

[Bill]

He didn't say that.

Yes he did.

 

[The blue phantom]

That wouldn't have been Sky that would have been David Gill in his role as deputy chairman of club competitions and part of the Exec committee at UEFA http://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/abou...news/newsid=1962085.html?redirectFromOrg=true undoubtedly part of the agreement to ensure that BT get 'value' from what they bid for the Champions league rights. Its viewing figures that drive ad revenues don't you know? This bias is pervasive across the whole of football.

So let me get this right.

The deal that was set up was in someway involving Gill. When Sky lost out to BT in the TV rights deal it was stated that the rags must somehow get easy fixtures in the Europa?

 

[Bill]

He didn't say that.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26782112

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26782112

I've scanned that article and I can't find the quote you've proffered to support your argument, namely that the Premier League "needs a successful Man Utd". He didn't say that. You may interpret it that way, but that's an entirely different thing. You wouldn't be paraphrasing to try and bolster a weak case, would you? :-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thing is, I accept that in many ways the game is bent, and that certain other clubs benefit from that in various ways, but whenever questioning whether things are entirely as they seem, you have to apply logic - and logic tells me that the Premier League is richer than ever, and the principal reason for that is the latest tv deal that was negotiated off the back of the league providing the best entertainment, which is characterised by the fact that unlike Germany, Spain and Italy (where a total of four clubs can realistically win those leagues) the Premier League can be won by up to six clubs. That is its USP and we are very much a part of that. If earnings were down, then the counter-argument would carry significantly more force, as money usually provides the answer where human beings are concerned. In this instance, the answer appears to be that the Premier League does not hate our presence at the top table, for entirely commercial reasons. If we were to dominate, like united once did, then their perspective would doubtless change, but that is descending into the realms of speculation, for now at least.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I've scanned that article and I can't find the quote you've proffered to support your argument, namely that the Premier League "needs a successful Man Utd". He didn't say that. You may interpret it that way, but that's an entirely different thing. You wouldn't be paraphrasing to try and bolster a weak case, would you? :-)

It is pretty easy to interpret it in that way though! He admits that Man Utd doing badly impacts the PL but that needs to be 'offset' (interesting word) by the need to show competition. He leaves no doubt that a successful Man U is 'good' for the PL from a business perspective.

 

[Bill]

I've scanned that article and I can't find the quote you've proffered to support your argument, namely that the Premier League "needs a successful Man Utd". He didn't say that. You may interpret it that way, but that's an entirely different thing. You wouldn't be paraphrasing to try and bolster a weak case, would you? :-)

Fuck off with your lawyer shit

Xx

 

[The blue phantom]

Thing is, I accept that in many ways the game is bent, and that certain other clubs benefit from that in various ways, but whenever questioning whether things are entirely as they seem, you have to apply logic - and logic tells me that the Premier League is richer than ever, and the principal reason for that is the latest tv deal that was negotiated off the back of the league providing the best entertainment, which is characterised by the fact that unlike Germany, Spain and Italy (where a total of four clubs can realistically win those leagues) the Premier League can be won by up to six clubs. That is its USP and we are very much a part of that. If earnings were down, then the counter-argument would carry significantly more force, as money usually provides the answer. In this instance the answer appears to be that the Premier League does not hate our presence at the top table, for entirely commercial reasons. If we were to dominate, like united once did, then their perspective would doubtless change, but that is descending into the realms of speculation, for now at least.

As i said earlier. Anyone who thinks Sky/Bt or the PL want the rags to win it year in year out are deluded. Would they like them challenging, yes, as its hard to get away from their fan base who subscribe to the product. Then again theres another 19 clubs fans who fuckin despise the rags who subscribe too. And every last one of us are lapping up their demise played out in the PL.