Liverpool

pickles110564

mr.broderick wrote: »

Rubbish pickles, tell me, how much did these cost?

Denis Irwin, Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt, David Beckham, Lee Sharpe, Paul Scholes !!!

Broders these were all through his excellant home grown youth policy after he was established.
If he had not have spend those ridiculous sums in the first place he would never have been allowed to set up his empire.
I know that you mean well but even a Manc fan if he goes back through history would have to accept the facts.;)

Really2

Backbiter wrote: »

It's laughable how Liverpool fans think that there's a buyer just waiting in the wings if the US owners default on their loan, whereas they confidently predict any decision by RA to 'just walk away' when he 'gets bored' would mean instant closure for Chelsea.

Point is they would sell before defualt surley as the club actualy is profitable.

No one said RA would quit, we just said it would be very funny:)

Generali

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8090633.stm

Setanta faces administration "within days" unless backers provide more funds to pay £30m it owes to the English Premier League, reports suggest.

The broadcaster has already failed to pay the Scottish Premier League £3m it owes in television rights money......



There are also doubts about whether the Premier League could match the £159m Setanta paid for the right to screen 23 Premier League games each season from 2010-11.



A shared deal with ITV saw them secure rights for England and FA Cup matches for £425m - and it is likely another firm would buy up these rights.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8090633.stm

I did debate whether to start this yesterday.

The worst thing about it (well not as bad as the people who may lose their jobs) will be if they do, the only option is sky.:(

Truthfully I would rather wipe my @ss with a broken bottle than give money to sky.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

I did debate whether to start this yesterday.

The worst thing about it (well not as bad as the people who may lose their jobs) will be if they do, the only option is sky.:(

Truthfully I would rather wipe my @ss with a broken bottle than give money to sky.

If Sky go back to having no meaningful competition will they continue to pay their current rates? To be fair to them, they have a history of maintaining rights payments at increasing real levels even as competitor firms go to the wall.

It's interesting to see that Sky are net gaining customers and increasing revenue per customer at present despite current economic problems (link). My guess had been that Sky would be in the firing line once unemployment started to rise but there's no evidence that I can see for that so far.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

If Sky go back to having no meaningful competition will they continue to pay their current rates?

It's interesting to see that Sky are net gaining customers and increasing revenue per customer at present despite current economic problems (link). My guess had been that Sky would be in the firing line once unemployment started to rise but there's no evidence that I can see for that so far.

I can only think of one reason people would rarther spend £50 on sky per month instead of going out to the pictures or the pub.
So perhaps not going out saves £150 and spend £50 sky meaning in reality they have saved £100. (they could have saved £150 though)

Only a theory but perhaps their is some logic there.

lemonjelly

Brings back memories of ITV digital doesn't it?

With regards to some of the above comments, Phil Gartside of Bolton has floated the idea of a 2 tier premiership. Yet to a certain extent, there is already a 3 tier league in place - the so called top 4, 4 teams fighting for a europa league spot, and 12 teams aiming to survive & build!

Extremely valid point regarding what rates sky will pay Gen. I'd be worried they'll be looking for a bargain!

Really - lovely yet horrible analogy!

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

I can only think of one reason people would rarther spend £50 on sky per month instead of going out to the pictures or the pub.
So perhaps not going out saves £150 and spend £50 sky meaning in reality they have saved £100. (they could have saved £150 though)

Only a theory but perhaps their is some logic there.

I went through a similar thought process when I got Sky many years ago. Trouble was, loads of people used to come over on a Sunday afternoon and I'd cook them all a big roast. By the time I'd bought the food I was out of pocket I reckon (although I got a lot of good wine out of it so not all bad).

lemonjelly

I'm also wondering if sky is now seen by many as being a neccessity. Also, I encounter many who have sky who are already not working who have it, therefore increases in unemployment are less relevant here. A lot of stay at home mums have it for the children.
Plus, the fact that you are tied in to 1/2/3 year contracts will make a lot of people "manage" in difficult times - sky are notorious in refusing cancellations of contracts. Frequently the best you can do is to reduce the package.

I have enjoyed the social environment when my team is on sky. Though to be honest it is pretty rare!

Harry_Powell

It's a shame the FA, UEFA or FIFA don't have a ruling that says wages have to be a percentage of income. This'll help prevent the big 4 from poaching the best players and offering them outrageous salaries.

As a Spurs fan, I'm sick to death of our best players being poached. There is no way we can compete with the sort of salaries on offer with the big 4. :mad: