Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
This is why Apple should have bought the rights, and actually pumped it through their own internet service a la BT Vision, only cheaper.
Oh well..
Oh well..
New Premier League TV rights
- Thread starter DanH84
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I'm sure I read they get 18 of the 38 "big" games, which seems, considering the number of games they have vs Sky a very large portion of the biggest games.
As said bit of a shame as I quite liked that with ESPN, like Sky you get a lot of extra content over just the football. Nicer to spend £10 a month on a crapload of stuff as well as the football, than £10 a month on just a small number of football games. Not like I watch an awful lot of other stuff on ESPN but, still feel less ripped off by it.
Meh, why on earth not provide access online for a fairly hefty fee(but not ridiculous) to online streaming of any game you want. Fact is I'd pay £300-400 for a legal season ticket to some BT/virgin/sky run website where you can watch any of the games you want all season long with every single game available.
Most people if they want can and will pay for online streaming that isn't legal, there is so much money to be made there, any losses from tickets/**** people buy in stadiums would be massively more than made up for by the increased tv revenue(as offering such a service would be so profitable they would have to pay through the teeth for it, it would be way more than 3billion). Most of the smaller clubs, infact, most of the clubs in the league will be getting more tv money than from tickets now anyway. Fact is people still will go to live games, its better, but not everyone can get to live games, simple as that.
I remember Alan Sugar talking about his time owning Spurs and the first big Sky deal coming about and he put forward the idea that a % of the TV money should be held by the Premier League and could only be used for emergencies and/or improving stadium/training grounds etc. His idea was rejected by the other chairmen then and I suspect would be rejected again but I can't help but think that something along those lines would be for the best for everybody (maybe except the players).
Eventually this extra money is only going to end up in players and agents pockets through bigger wages and transfer fees. If, for example, the Premier League held back £20m (the average amount extra each club will get from the increased domestic rights alone) per year from each club it's not going to make any difference to the fans - clubs aren't going to cut ticket prices etc - nor would it even make a great deal of difference to owners because, as above, the bulk of that extra £20m would only end up going to players anyway. And in a few years time when club x wants to exand their stadium or build a new training ground, they've got £60m sitting in the Premier League's bank account that can be used to pay for it.
If the overseas rights grow at anything like the rate that they have been, with MOTD thrown in too, it wouldn't be a shock if we're looking at £6bn over the 3 years.
Eventually this extra money is only going to end up in players and agents pockets through bigger wages and transfer fees. If, for example, the Premier League held back £20m (the average amount extra each club will get from the increased domestic rights alone) per year from each club it's not going to make any difference to the fans - clubs aren't going to cut ticket prices etc - nor would it even make a great deal of difference to owners because, as above, the bulk of that extra £20m would only end up going to players anyway. And in a few years time when club x wants to exand their stadium or build a new training ground, they've got £60m sitting in the Premier League's bank account that can be used to pay for it.
If the overseas rights grow at anything like the rate that they have been, with MOTD thrown in too, it wouldn't be a shock if we're looking at £6bn over the 3 years.
Great news for the clubs, players and agents.
Not so great for the fans.
Makes an absolute farce of the FPP and only serves to make the stranglehold of the top 4/6 stronger. Don't expect a more competitive Premier League anytime soon folks
Not so great for the fans.
Makes an absolute farce of the FPP and only serves to make the stranglehold of the top 4/6 stronger. Don't expect a more competitive Premier League anytime soon folks
I mean cheapens the product in regard to quality not cost, sorry I didn't really make that clear.
Yup, I'm sick of trawling p2p sites for some pile of carp jerkovision stop start footy with a foreign commentator, I believe that if the fee was collected weekly or monthly there would be such a massive uptake that the service could be provided for around £200 possibly less if the service was offered abroad bypassing the current rights winners, FFS bypass outside bodies and have the Prem do it themselves, it could replace Sky type tv.
Per Premier League game (380 games) = approximately £2.6m.
Per game that Sky/BT have the rights to show (154 games) = approximately £6.5m.
anyone else worried, considering the fact BT have got a lot of the 'bigger games', that this isn't gonna come cheap? =/
Frankly, with the way its going, I can see myself dropping Sky Sports completely and moving onto a paid streaming service i've used in the past, £3 / month is substantially more acceptable.
Frankly, with the way its going, I can see myself dropping Sky Sports completely and moving onto a paid streaming service i've used in the past, £3 / month is substantially more acceptable.
Once the overseas rights and highlights rights are sold, we're going to be looking at somewhere in the region of £6bn over 3 years or an average of £100m for each Premier League side per season or an average of £5.2m per Premier League game (televised or not).
It's not that bonkers though.
Look at it this way, by my reckoning Arsenal generate in excess of £2m per home match from just 60,000 spectators (admittedly live spectators obviously have much higher costs than tv watchers due to physical seating, policing etc etc!). The numbers watching on TV will be at least an order of magnitude greater.
Look at it this way, by my reckoning Arsenal generate in excess of £2m per home match from just 60,000 spectators (admittedly live spectators obviously have much higher costs than tv watchers due to physical seating, policing etc etc!). The numbers watching on TV will be at least an order of magnitude greater.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,077
- Location
- Shepley
If the price is too high then Sky Italia here we come.
Ive always had the feeling that a lot of the "big" games are on Sunday - so not sure hwo BT are going to show any of them
Just the impression Ive had over the years not being able to have Sky
Baz - good idea about holding back £20m/season/club, but surely it would need to be much higher than that?
Liverpool just had to write off £5m? for the aborted Stanley Park stadium design didnt they - £100m is a good start for a new stadium (Emirates was like £400m wasnt it, unless my memory is going again lol). I totally agree with your theory either way, just think the figure needs to be higher.
I would still be AMAZED however if enough of the Chairmen / Owners etc agreed to it though, simply because Im sure they are already planning on spending all the extra cash somehow lol
Just the impression Ive had over the years not being able to have Sky
Baz - good idea about holding back £20m/season/club, but surely it would need to be much higher than that?
Liverpool just had to write off £5m? for the aborted Stanley Park stadium design didnt they - £100m is a good start for a new stadium (Emirates was like £400m wasnt it, unless my memory is going again lol). I totally agree with your theory either way, just think the figure needs to be higher.
I would still be AMAZED however if enough of the Chairmen / Owners etc agreed to it though, simply because Im sure they are already planning on spending all the extra cash somehow lol
Last edited:
Problem is it would be different to define the emergency/training/stadium regulations tightly enough to avoid abuse (i.e. clubs using it to gain an advantage over others)
Basically in a situation like that if I in charge of a club I'd say right all spending on the training facilities, ground etc STOPS NOW, we'll use the EPL funding for that and spend the money we'd planned on spending on new training facilities on players/wages. Basically you'd be pretty unlucky if you were a club like Arsenal who've recently built a new ground and have debts to pay yet can't tap into that cash, compared to say another club (lets say Chelsea) who are thinking of moving stadium and can get a free handout towards it from the EPL.
Also I'd want some creative accounting going on, make sure the new ipads, plasma tellies being installed go down under the training budget etc "they are for match prep!".
Basically in a situation like that if I in charge of a club I'd say right all spending on the training facilities, ground etc STOPS NOW, we'll use the EPL funding for that and spend the money we'd planned on spending on new training facilities on players/wages. Basically you'd be pretty unlucky if you were a club like Arsenal who've recently built a new ground and have debts to pay yet can't tap into that cash, compared to say another club (lets say Chelsea) who are thinking of moving stadium and can get a free handout towards it from the EPL.
Also I'd want some creative accounting going on, make sure the new ipads, plasma tellies being installed go down under the training budget etc "they are for match prep!".