Is the Premier League worth £3bn plus?

shortchanged_2

FTBFun wrote: »

Yeah it was much better when it was 22 men kicking each other. It is still 1970 right?

I watch lower league and non-league football as well (I love live football) but am pleased that when I go to see Spurs I can actually watch some half decent football where things like technique aren't frowned upon.

Where do I say anything about players kicking the sh*t out of each other?

At the end of the day football is a contact sport. What I can't stand is what I stated in that all this play acting and rolling around on the floor like they have been shot in the knee by a sniper that makes premier league and other top flight European football a real turn off for me and many others I'm sure.

Like I said it is a sad relection that the governing bodies of football have never got to grips with this and have let it get out of hand.
Yes, a foul is a foul, but players need to be punished for play acting and diving such as facing a ban for a few weeks. They do it in rugby after a game and it's called citing. When something untoward goes on during a game they can face retrospective punishment.

But unfortunately for some reason the governing bodies of football are too weak to do anything about this problem which has been spiralling out of control for years within the game.

grizzly1911

purch wrote: »

Quite why BSkyB need to bid £3 billion plus for the rights is quite bizarre.

They have no credible competitors (Al Jezeera or Google are not credible IMHO) for the rights.

Interesting thought.

When the Premier/sky link up was established I read that they deliberately torpedoed the then competition by putting in a ludicrously high bid.

As you say who else would pay funny money for it. Obviously BSB know they have an easily tapped audience.

MrRee_2

Of course it's worth £3b ... why? Because someone has paid that for it!

DervProf

Someone may have paid £3bn for it, but that doesn't mean it is worth that much.

The stock market doesn't seem to think that BT & SKY got a "bargain".

RUN_RABBIT_RUN

they made a good point on the radio about england fans booing their own team in recent years -

point being that england fans go to games being sold to them as a chance to come and see the cream of the english crop from our prestigious premier league, only to be served up the complete defensive long ball dross that has been england's bread and butter (especially against better teams) for a long long time

fans realise that what they've paid through the nose to see something that isn't much better than their local lower league team and start booing.

the_flying_pig

MacMickster wrote: »

Television money has actually ruined the Premier League as meaningful competition.

In the 70s and 80s the supporters of any club had hopes of next year being their year to win.

Nottingham Forest won the league title in their first year in the top flight, then went on to win the European Cup twice. Derby County, Aston Villa and Everton had their years.

The system now merely ensures that the current elite are likely to remain so in the future, and as a result effectively disenfranchises the fans of most clubs.

The money from television rights has not stayed within the game to improve lower league and grass roots football, instead going to pay ever more exhorbitant wages to average players in the Premier League. Those players, who were once working class heroes, use that money to behave like spoit brats. Meanwhile, lower league clubs continue to go out of business.

Eventually, it is inevitable that a European Super League will be formed, at which point the TV money (and rich foreign owners) will desert the domestic game, leaving English football to sink into obscurity.

yeah, i dunno.

the premiership TV money is actually distributed fairly equally, relatively speaking. the top club in the division only gets, say [i'd have to check] about double what the bottom does. the real source of inequalities between top & bottom are down to one or more of vastly bigger crowds & overseas support [in manyoo's case], gazillionaire foreign owners [in man c/chelsea's case], and 'champions league' TV cash [in all top four cases {except spurs, snigger}] . the huge premiership tv money is quite interesting in that it enables no-mark clubs like, say, fulham to stay [fairly] good for quite long periods. of course it is mostly global tv saturation that's meant that manyoo have so many overseas fans, & that wealthy foreigners have become interested in English football, but it's not the premiership TV cash per se, far from it.

the 'old days' [e.g. when forest & derby were good] were very different, of course... in those days you basically had provincial businessman upsetting the 'natural' competitive balance, putting their own money in so that teams who weren't actually that popular would quite often win the big prizes. was that any 'fairer' than what we have now? not really IMO. the good thing about it i suppose was that it was interesting/unpredictable. you never quite knew who'd challenge for the league from one season to the next. the tv money, crowds, & ticket prices, nowadays are such that provincial businessmen can't afford to bankroll title winning teams in the top division, only yer oligarchs, oil barons, etc can.

personally, to freshen things up, i'd quite like to see a 'draft system' like in the US, so that the best young players always go to weaker clubs, who are able to cash in on them. it looks, though, like this 'elite player performance' lark is designed to do the opposite - to make sure that all the best young players are at end up at rich clubs without any meaningful compensatione, e.g. 'the Ox' would have been somewhere like arseanal anyway, depriving southampton of a fee, ditto jones/smalling at manyoo, etc. the spectacle will suffer.

FTBFun

The draft system wouldn't work here as they have an enormous collegiate sport system which we don't have here. IME sports teams at university are generally made up of the captain and his/her mates.

the_flying_pig

FTBFun wrote: »

The draft system wouldn't work here as they have an enormous collegiate sport system which we don't have here. IME sports teams at university are generally made up of the captain and his/her mates.

it coudl just be about cash, then. right now the team who finishes top of the prem gets most tv money, followed by second, etc. they could reverse it.

FTBFun

the_flying_pig wrote: »

it coudl just be about cash, then. right now the team who finishes top of the prem gets most tv money, followed by second, etc. they could reverse it.

But then the teams that get relegated get the most money! It works in the US as they have franchise systems with no relegation but I don't think it would work here.

The Football League has a rule I think where wages are capped at 60% of turnover. Maybe that could work in the Premier League.

the_flying_pig

probably the real obstacle to a fairer distribution of cash is the way that yer manyoos can threaten to leave the premiership in a way that yer dallas cowboys can't the NFL.

the NFL has pretty much been expanded to its biggest possible state. there are probably no more potential teams out there for the cowboys to go and form a superleague with. although the US is only one country it's geographically huge... the distance between the seattle seahawks & miami dolphins is exactly the same as between arsenal & the washington redskins.

so the cowboys need the 32nd best franchise [whoever that might be at the time] in a way that manyoo transparently don't need, er, crystal palace or whoever.