Should there be a cap?

It's a good service, not subbed at the moment but will be once the rugby season starts up again.

The premiership and stuff is just a bonus. Has MMA, boxing, darts and all sorts. Anything that isn't already on Sky here basically. For a tenner a month it's great.
 
FoxEye said:
Going off topic here, but there is no other place than Sky that will give you all the channels.

Discovery
Discovery Science
Discovery History
National Geographic
Nat Geo Wild
Eden
Animal Planet
Yesterday
History
PBS America

NowTV has Discovery (regular) and Nat Geo I think, only. In SD. Btw, you know NowTV *is* Sky, right?
TalkTalk has a couple of them, in SD only.
BT has a couple of them in HD... but BT is also paying billions to the EPL.

Literally the *only* place that gives you the channels above is Sky. And that's why I begrudgingly have them.

e: Sliver and co, instead of being ******s why don't you cut personal insults and stick to the points/facts? Too much to ask?
Click to expand...

https://tvplayer.com/

Not sure what the quality is like for those channels as I've only used it for ITV which wasn't the best quality but ITV usually isn't very good anyway! But there is a fair few of those channels on the premium service, There is a 1 month free trial. You can use it on phones/tablets etc
 
Matteysan said:
https://tvplayer.com/

Not sure what the quality is like for those channels as I've only used it for ITV which wasn't the best quality but ITV usually isn't very good anyway! But there is a fair few of those channels on the premium service, There is a 1 month free trial. You can use it on phones/tablets etc
Click to expand...
Would be ideal if it was just for me. Alas, it has to be usable by someone who still has difficulty with the Sky EPG, and wouldn't have a clue how to use the TV's web browser to access TVPlayer content. Just too difficult.

But that's interesting. A decent chunk of Sky channels there for £6/month.
 
Sorting out Ffp properly would help a lot

According to forbes psg had a turnover of just under €400m ( upto mid '16), yet they are paying over 50% of that on one transfer fee ( ignoring wages and legal fees are for the momemt)

IF the selling club insist on all of it upfront, it should be accountable that year alone also - not being able to spread it over 5 year term of his contract.

The buying club should also be able to prove using only existing contracts ( sponsorship, kit deals etc) that they can afford to do the deal, they shouldn't be given a year or two to clean up the (massive) hole

I don't know how uefa / fifa could word it, but maybe also insist on player sales in the current and previous windrow (s) to account for 50% of the transfer ( net sales %) more for the perception value rather than anything else.

Obviously the above is clearly related to current income levels - ie if a club offers £100m for a player after earning £250m for the season there is less likely to be a problem than if the numbers are reversed. Not suggesting that all accounts shouldn't be looked at, but some need to be highlighted \ fast tracked

The above should also give Uefa / fifa the power to stop a deal in its tracks until the books have been seen ( or pre- approved)


In regards to wages - why are football players any different from movie stars? Two different forms of entertainment is the only difference really.
Tom Cruise is on set for a month or two, gets multiple chances to get each scene right and gets 30-40 m or whatever before profit share / till receipts
Neymar now gets the same ( basic) wage, for 90 minutes a week ( maybe 180 with cup comps) for 9 months of the year but has to get it right more often than not.
I don't see the wage cap as an issue at all
 
FrankJH said:
IF the selling club insist on all of it upfront, it should be accountable that year alone also - not being able to spread it over 5 year term of his contract.
Click to expand...

Whether a club pays a transfer fee in 1 lump sum or spread over 5 years, for accounting purposes the fee will always be spread over the length of the player's contract. The player is effectively an asset and when a club buys a player they haven't just flushed the money down the toilet, the player has a value. The value decreases as his contract length shortens because when his contract is up, he can leave for nothing.

As I mentioned in the transfer thread, I have no idea if the normal rules apply here though as technically speaking no transfer fee was paid - Neymar paid the full fee up front (the only way the cause could be triggered) to buy out his contract and PSG signed him as a free agent. We don't even know if it was PSG directly that even gave Neymar the money to buyout his contract (if it wasn't then there would be no cost on the accounts at all) and if it was, how this money gets recorded on the accounts.
 
It's a nice dodge of fair play rules for sure - the only outcome of this I suspect is that La Liga will be told to change their rules as regards buyout clauses.
 
BaZ87 said:
Whether a club pays a transfer fee in 1 lump sum or spread over 5 years, for accounting purposes the fee will always be spread over the length of the player's contract. The player is effectively an asset and when a club buys a player they haven't just flushed the money down the toilet, the player has a value. The value decreases as his contract length shortens because when his contract is up, he can leave for nothing.

As I mentioned in the transfer thread, I have no idea if the normal rules apply here though as technically speaking no transfer fee was paid - Neymar paid the full fee up front (the only way the cause could be triggered) to buy out his contract and PSG signed him as a free agent. We don't even know if it was PSG directly that even gave Neymar the money to buyout his contract (if it wasn't then there would be no cost on the accounts at all) and if it was, how this money gets recorded on the accounts.
Click to expand...
That's exactly why right at the topi said cleaning up Ffp would help and that was one possible solution

It proves the money comes direct from the club that benefits , not from an intermediary or some totally different entity all together

The contract itself still has a value even after the transfer fee is paid off ( or if there wasn't one at all), doesn't stop Ffp changing and forcing deals to be accounted for in full in one year when everything is up front like this ( money still has to come from somewhere after all)

Psg are still gaining a €220m asset in an underhanded way, even if legally Neymar was wealthy enough already to pay it himself and the 40m wages are partially paying him back ( extremely unlikely but possible with a psg backed personal bank loan)

I'm not disputing what happens now with 99% of transfers but what Ffp should have been from the start and what it could be changed to with will from Uefa in the future which would make dodgy deals like this impossible



Edit just like any club doing a deal with barca will ask for more money now, psg are likely to get less money for any potential sale this summer ( unless it's barca buying veratti I guess) because other clubs know psg NEED to sell to get anywhere close, I'm not sure they have three other players of that kind of value....without decimating their 1st team
 
Last edited:
You want UEFA to change accountancy practices? :confused:

Buying an asset isn't an expense. The loss of value of that asset is an expense. The payment terms of buying that asset make zero difference to the way the cost is recorded on the accounts. UEFA can't do anything about that. They also can't stop Neymar being sponsored by the Qatar FA/State or wherever else - they have no authority over that.
 
Indeed, that's why I think FFP is a complete waste of time and only serves to keep the current crop of top teams at the top and acts to prevent others from breaking into the elite club.

So what if football teams go bust? They're businesses like any other.
 
I've mentioned it before, when UEFA first started talking about introducing some sort of financial controls the reason was debt - they didn't want clubs being millions upon millions in debt. When they began speaking to the major European clubs about this they decided this wasn't important but they wanted controls to protect themselves from the likes of Chelsea, City and now PSG. FFP has been created for 1 reason and that's to protect the (historically) biggest clubs and to make it cheaper for them to retain their place at the top table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom