Is the Premier League worth £3bn plus?

the_flying_pig

FTBFun wrote: »

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.

yes, redistribution is simpler in a closed shop than a relegation/promotion based system, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to think of some way of doing it.

absolute salary caps [e.g. £100m p.a.] are good for compitetive balance. relative ones [e.g. 60% of turnover] are bad for competitive balance since no-one will ever be able to out-spend manyoo. good for financial stability, though.

MacMickster

Possibly the most frustrating thing about Sky paying this amount for TV rights is that they must be confident that many of their customers now regard Sky Sports as an "essential" in their life and one of the last items of expenditure to be cut when times get tough.

We hear of 800,000 mortgages receiving forbearance. Increasing rent and council tax arrears, expenditure on food being cut etc but it seems that at the same time their Sky package remains sacrosanct.

FTBFun

MacMickster wrote: »

Possibly the most frustrating thing about Sky paying this amount for TV rights is that they must be confident that many of their customers now regard Sky Sports as an "essential" in their life and one of the last items of expenditure to be cut when times get tough.

We hear of 800,000 mortgages receiving forbearance. Increasing rent and council tax arrears, expenditure on food being cut etc but it seems that at the same time their Sky package remains sacrosanct.

I have the full Sky package but it would be no.1 on my "things to cut" list if I ever lost my job.

MacMickster

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yes, redistribution is simpler in a closed shop than a relegation/promotion based system, but it can't be beyond the wit of man to think of some way of doing it.

absolute salary caps [e.g. £100m p.a.] are good for compitetive balance. relative ones [e.g. 60% of turnover] are bad for competitive balance since no-one will ever be able to out-spend manyoo. good for financial stability, though.

The problem with any type of rule like this is that clubs will always find a way around it. I could envisage a club's sponsor making payments to players in respect of image rights as a way of bypassing any salary cap. A bit like tax avoidance, the richest clubs would stay one step ahead of any rules intended to restrict them.

the_flying_pig

MacMickster wrote: »

Possibly the most frustrating thing about Sky paying this amount for TV rights is that they must be confident that many of their customers now regard Sky Sports as an "essential" in their life and one of the last items of expenditure to be cut when times get tough.

We hear of 800,000 mortgages receiving forbearance. Increasing rent and council tax arrears, expenditure on food being cut etc but it seems that at the same time their Sky package remains sacrosanct.

afaik the concern used to be that Sky wanted to hoover up all the footie rights basically because doing so enabled them to sell more of everything else; that this 'must have' content made it less likely that people would switch to cable, & soon. so i suppose it's possible that the £3bn doesn't reflect the value of just the footie rights per se...

the_flying_pig

MacMickster wrote: »

The problem with any type of rule like this is that clubs will always find a way around it. I could envisage a club's sponsor making payments to players in respect of image rights as a way of bypassing any salary cap. A bit like tax avoidance, the richest clubs would stay one step ahead of any rules intended to restrict them.

yeah, i dunno. lots of sports do have working salary caps.

ruggedtoast

shortchanged wrote: »

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.

What are they supposed to do about it, drag each play acting tosspot of the field and make them have an xray? The reason it happens is because there is so much money in premiership football that losing a game can eventually cost millions of pounds, and the players (who are already prima donnas) are paid more money in a week than most people are in a year to ensure their club wins.

Obviously they are going to cheat as much as they can to get the result they need, you don't pay someone £50,000 a month to kick a ball about and expect them to be honest, you expect them to know what side their bread is buttered (both sides in the case of premiership footballers).

If you dont like it the best thing you can do is what you are doing, supporting lower league clubs and not having Sky TV.

shortchanged_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you dont like it the best thing you can do is what you are doing, supporting lower league clubs and not having Sky TV.

But this is the main thing that hacks me off about Sky TV and sports.

I don't actually want sky sports for football as I am a rugby fan and seeing as sky has gobbled that all up now there are little options to watch it unless you have Sky.
But seeing as most of Sky sports budget (and therefore their subscription price) is gobbled up to show premiership football it hacks me off that I have to pay such a high subscription to pay for a sport I am not really that interested in.

Thrugelmir

MacMickster wrote: »

Possibly the most frustrating thing about Sky paying this amount for TV rights is that they must be confident that many of their customers now regard Sky Sports as an "essential" in their life and one of the last items of expenditure to be cut when times get tough.

We hear of 800,000 mortgages receiving forbearance. Increasing rent and council tax arrears, expenditure on food being cut etc but it seems that at the same time their Sky package remains sacrosanct.

Football is sold internationally.

MrRee_2

DervProf wrote: »

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

Are you completely dellusional??

If someone pays £x for something then it IS worth £x .... actually selling it for £x PROVES that it is/was worth that.

End of ...