Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
I notice that net spend over the last 4 years is City £221million, Liverpool £269 million. My guess is that rather than make the 5 year comparisons that the media do now, they will revert to “since the takeover total spend” next year when the Coutinhio effect drops off
 
Brian's Kid said:
Another gripe I have is that whenever anyone is talking about teams like united and Chelsea becoming a force again, they almost without exception say (in this exact order) that they are years away from getting close to "Liverpool and City". Why is it always that order? One team has won 6 of the last 10 (and 4 of the last 5) Premier League titles and one has won one.
Click to expand...
And united were 2nd last year.
 
coolcity said:
I prefer "Not in my lifetime", personally.
Click to expand...

alex-ferguson-manchester-united.gif


"There’s little joy in life for me,
And little terror in the grave;
I‘ve lived the parting hour to see
Of one I would have died to save."
 
PPT said:
Exactly this and it will be the American owned clubs that drive the switch to PPV on their own channels and it's coming soon. Why SKY can't see this is strange (or maybe they can and just don't know what to do about it?). If they became more neutral, fair, balanced and objective with their football coverage and made the subscription charges affordable then everyone would benefit. With SKY blowing smoke up the backsides of the American owned clubs and aggressively promoting them above all others it does seem like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Click to expand...
The whole thing is a complete farce anyway. I can watch City v Brighton (for example) live if I live in Hong Kong but not if I live in England, if Sky, BT, Amazon or whoever else is in on the act don't have it on their list?

That's why I had to laugh at the FA supposedly getting behind the "people's game" stance when the Euro Super League was announced, yet all they've done is sell the game to the highest bidder, and the clubs - and fans - get little or no say in it. What's the difference?

Government are totally out of touch too, I remember some stupid cow from Ofcom raving about how great it was for fans that "we now have a choice" when they announced that BT were also going to show matches. totally oblivious to the fact that the choice was either pay for an extra platform (with still no guarantee that your match is going to be on); or miss out.

PPV for your own club makes far more sense whoever broadcasts it. Why would I want to pay for a service to watch some other random match when my own team is playing?
 
coolcity said:
The whole thing is a complete farce anyway. I can watch City v Brighton (for example) live if I live in Hong Kong but not if I live in England, if Sky, BT, Amazon or whoever else is in on the act don't have it on their list?

That's why I had to laugh at the FA supposedly getting behind the "people's game" stance when the Euro Super League was announced, yet all they've done is sell the game to the highest bidder, and the clubs - and fans - get little or no say in it. What's the difference?

Government are totally out of touch too, I remember some stupid cow from Ofcom raving about how great it was for fans that "we now have a choice" when they announced that BT were also going to show matches. totally oblivious to the fact that the choice was either pay for an extra platform (with still no guarantee that your match is going to be on); or miss out.

PPV for your own club makes far more sense whoever broadcasts it. Why would I want to pay for a service to watch some other random match when my own team is playing?
Click to expand...
The issue with PPV is it will increase the income of the big boys.
 
coolcity said:
The whole thing is a complete farce anyway. I can watch City v Brighton (for example) live if I live in Hong Kong but not if I live in England, if Sky, BT, Amazon or whoever else is in on the act don't have it on their list?

That's why I had to laugh at the FA supposedly getting behind the "people's game" stance when the Euro Super League was announced, yet all they've done is sell the game to the highest bidder, and the clubs - and fans - get little or no say in it. What's the difference?

Government are totally out of touch too, I remember some stupid cow from Ofcom raving about how great it was for fans that "we now have a choice" when they announced that BT were also going to show matches. totally oblivious to the fact that the choice was either pay for an extra platform (with still no guarantee that your match is going to be on); or miss out.

PPV for your own club makes far more sense whoever broadcasts it. Why would I want to pay for a service to watch some other random match when my own team is playing?
Click to expand...


PPV for your own club would in effect just support the clubs that are already big, it's why the media are suck cock suckers to the red tops right now.

The 3 o'clock kick offs should be shown and the money distributed evenly between PL clubs.
 
mat said:
The issue with PPV is it will increase the income of the big boys.
Click to expand...
Of course! There's no such thing as a perfect system. But that's the same with any business, and it's one of the few sports where the smaller clubs get a financial cut of proceeds.

If it's "about the fans" why are we in a position where we have to pay at least two broadcasters for a chance to watch our team? That's not a better system. I know there are "alternatives" and I have my own, but that's not the point.
 
mexico1970 said:
PPV for your own club would in effect just support the clubs that are already big, it's why the media are suck cock suckers to the red tops right now.

The 3 o'clock kick offs should be shown and the money distributed evenly between PL clubs.
Click to expand...
I get the point, but the bigger clubs get the bulk of the revenue now anyway. Is there really that much difference?
 
coolcity said:
I get the point, but the bigger clubs get the bulk of the revenue now anyway. Is there really that much difference?
Click to expand...

They don't though, in fact the big clubs get very little advantage with TV money.

If big clubs gad their own channel it would make it into a bigger cartel than it is already.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Ronay is moving his position but he still can't let go of the totally false claim that "City are owned by a nation state." He can't be that stupid can he? He can check all the audited accounts carried out over 14 years by blue chip firms with impeccable reputations. He knows the claim has been tested in court, and independently investigated by scores of lawyers for UEFA, the PL, and those doing due diligence for the Chinese and US firms who bought a 24 per cent stake in our club.
Not even Der Spiegl or UEFA have accused us of being "owned by a nation state." Their worst allegation (disproved) was that ten years ago some of our sponsorship money may have come direct from our owner not the sponsor.
Yet Ronay and his pals can't let go of a claim that is verifiably false. On that basis you can't believe anything he writes about anything. You just can't trust him. Is he incompetent or motivated by malice?
Click to expand...
"Owned by a nation state" appears to be being used again more frequently than ever before by this type of journalist, when it is such an obvious (though deliberate) lie.
 
mexico1970 said:
They don't though, in fact the big clubs get very little advantage with TV money.

If big clubs gad their own channel it would make it into a bigger cartel than it is already.
Click to expand...
Must admit it's not something I've ever looked into. But whatever the answer, it can't be right that I can watch my club live if I live in Hong Kong but not in the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top