Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fiery Zac

Webber

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

I genuinely can't see the promote but no relegation happening. Why would most clubs even consider allowing more teams to become shareholders, diminishing their 'slice' of the revenue; to be split 22 or 23 ways, instead of 20?

I've said this many a time. I don't think there's any realistic possibility of a 22 or 23-team Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, All the Germans said:

I genuinely can't see the promote but no relegation happening. Why would most clubs even consider allowing more teams to become shareholders, diminishing their 'slice' of the revenue; to be split 22 or 23 ways, instead of 20?

Because it would be a bigger cake?

Two extra teams = 82 extra games = 21% increase

Extra games = more games on TV = more TV revenue

 

 

 

Edited by Making Plans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

Because it would be a bigger cake?

Two extra teams = 82 extra games = 21% increase

Extra games = more games on TV = more TV revenue

 

 

 

I think All The Germans is right. The lump sum for rights is already agreed so the money for each team would be reduced. There may be higher match day fees for each televised game but I doubt it. The number of games to be televised next season is already agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that there would be 82 more live games. Where would they fit them into the (current) TV schedule? There may be a few more (odd midweek for example) but what kick off times could they add? They may clash with other games, possibly, but that would water down the other fixture(s) viewing figures . May be extra revenue, but not significant, I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think All The Germans is right. The lump sum for rights is already agreed so the money for each team would be reduced. There may be higher match day fees for each televised game but I doubt it. The number of games to be televised next season is already agreed

It might be agreed as things stand but as we have seen already what has been agreed can be renegotiated and amended.

Don't overlook the fact that everybody concerned has lost out on what was agreed for this season and the EPL and all the TV Companies will want to get that back as soon as possible.

Having extra teams in the EPL is the easiest and quickest way of achieving that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

I can't see that there would be 82 more live games. Where would they fit them into the (current) TV schedule? There may be a few more (odd midweek for example) but what kick off times could they add? They may clash with other games, possibly, but that would water down the other fixture(s) viewing figures . May be extra revenue, but not significant, I would say.

Think you're only looking at Sky but a huge chunk of money comes from Foreign TV Broadcasters who show virtually all the games.

If they want to pay less (i.e. by rebate) for fewer games this season then they would have to pay more for extra games next season.

And then of course every Club would play 4 extra games so they would get extra gate money from those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to factor in the EPL not having to fork out for parachute payments and the likely reduction in potentially costly legal actions. I would say the stronger argument against expanding the ELP for one season was fitting in the extra games in a season that is almost certain to start later than normal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

It might be agreed as things stand but as we have seen already what has been agreed can be renegotiated and amended.

Don't overlook the fact that everybody concerned has lost out on what was agreed for this season and the EPL and all the TV Companies will want to get that back as soon as possible.

Having extra teams in the EPL is the easiest and quickest way of achieving that

Oh absolutely MP, I am just saying the amount won't be as favourable on first viewing. 

How would they EFL look upon it also with less teams (especially those being the 3 previous season's EPL teams) for their own income streams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, All the Germans said:

I genuinely can't see the promote but no relegation happening. Why would most clubs even consider allowing more teams to become shareholders, diminishing their 'slice' of the revenue; to be split 22 or 23 ways, instead of 20?

You may be right but it would be a way through that basically required all 20 clubs to take approx a £10m hit for one season and play 4/6 more games. It’s eminently doable if the will is there and should be on the table for discussion at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Oh absolutely MP, I am just saying the amount won't be as favourable on first viewing. 

How would they EFL look upon it also with less teams (especially those being the 3 previous season's EPL teams) for their own income streams?

They wouldn’t have less teams if they promote from league 1. Less big/attractive to tv audience teams maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

They wouldn’t have less teams if they promote from league 1. Less big/attractive to tv audience teams maybe. 

Absolutely. A watering down of their product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Absolutely. A watering down of their product.

But if their tv deal is already done then would it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would presume that any (already done) deal would come with caveats, and those would be enabled. The TV companies are rightly precious about their investment,so marketing say, Aston Villa is a lot more fruitful than Burton Albion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go back to my original comment, I only asked the question.

I'm not saying it will happen but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Most of the income that the EPL, Football Clubs in the EPL, Sky and all the Worldwide Broadcasters get is generated by playing games, either from gate receipts and TV money.

Yes that are a few bits & pieces on the side like merchandising, advertising etc but even then a lot of that is dependant on exposure on TV.

So if it makes sense to provide more of the very thing (i.e. games) that keeps the whole thing afloat, then it is an obvious solution.

And would they all be too bothered about what happens in the EFL as a consequence?

Probably not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, daly said:

The finances of NCFC will determine if we can afford lawyer’s for a court case

Have to get a back street firm 

No Win No Fee

Get Neil Doncaster back, wasnt he a lawyer? May need a new job soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Murray from Brighton has just reiterated Webber’s point about the Championship having to finish as well, he’s now being interviewed on sky sports news 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do promote three without any relegation, presumably they would then relegate six at the end of that season? It would need to be agreed with the EFL, but I would have thought the extra interest generated in the relegation fight would be attractive to Sky. Imagine us, Leeds, Villa, West Ham and another 8 or so all battling it out, with the right marketing it could be more entertaining than Liverpool cruising to the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning fellow Canary Fans. While there are some very interesting points and thoughts on this subject aren’t we missing the main point here?

The safety of all the people involved in staging/playing a match.

What an earth would happen if, god forbid, football recommences and someone with the virus (and that will include anyone who comes into contact with anyone else who will be in the stadium, or, say, the coach driver taking the squad to games) passes it onto a player or member of staff and that leads to a death (not necessarily that person them-self but a member of their family).

You can test people regularly but does that mean 100% that none of them have the virus on the day/at the time a game is played.

Utter madness thinking about resuming football whilst social distancing is still in place.

Some players have already said they are nervous about playing again and that is now. How are they going to feel a day or two before they are due to play? They are the ones potentially putting their lives at risk, not those at the EPL or Sky who are presumably staying  at home and keeping themselves as safe as it is possible to do at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pearsos said:

Good morning fellow Canary Fans. While there are some very interesting points and thoughts on this subject aren’t we missing the main point here?

The safety of all the people involved in staging/playing a match.

What an earth would happen if, god forbid, football recommences and someone with the virus (and that will include anyone who comes into contact with anyone else who will be in the stadium, or, say, the coach driver taking the squad to games) passes it onto a player or member of staff and that leads to a death (not necessarily that person them-self but a member of their family).

You can test people regularly but does that mean 100% that none of them have the virus on the day/at the time a game is played.

Utter madness thinking about resuming football whilst social distancing is still in place.

Some players have already said they are nervous about playing again and that is now. How are they going to feel a day or two before they are due to play? They are the ones potentially putting their lives at risk, not those at the EPL or Sky who are presumably staying  at home and keeping themselves as safe as it is possible to do at the moment.

People haven't missed the point pearsos, it (people's safety) has been discussed on a lot of chats on here. It's just we are making comment on the PL's insistence to pursue a plan (which you can't actually criticise them for), it's more the substance and execution of it, which is what is happening here. Time will unravel all , very soon. 

Edited by Crabbycanary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I totally get your point Crabby what I was meaning is, what is the point (at the moment) of anyone coming up with and publicising a plan(s) that will put other peoples lives at risk but not their own.

Yes there have to be plans in place but by going public isn’t this a case of putting undue pressure on clubs to start playing again for one reason, MONEY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pearsos said:

Whilst I totally get your point Crabby what I was meaning is, what is the point (at the moment) of anyone coming up with and publicising a plan(s) that will put other peoples lives at risk but not their own.

Yes there have to be plans in place but by going public isn’t this a case of putting undue pressure on clubs to start playing again for one reason, MONEY?

It most certainly is about money.
 

Presumably the reason it hasn’t been mentioned more in this thread is because it has been done to death in others. The OP was about Webber and his upcoming comments. Comments that have had an effect (as was obviously intended) but that don’t dismiss the idea or opinion that safety of players and staff should be the top priority

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

If they do promote three without any relegation, presumably they would then relegate six at the end of that season? It would need to be agreed with the EFL, but I would have thought the extra interest generated in the relegation fight would be attractive to Sky. Imagine us, Leeds, Villa, West Ham and another 8 or so all battling it out, with the right marketing it could be more entertaining than Liverpool cruising to the title.

This might also be a reason why clubs won't vote for it though.

A normal season sees 15% of the league get relelgated.

An extended 23 team season with 6 relegation spots sees over 25% of the league going down.

If you're a team like Palace, Southampton or Brighton would you want to increase your risk of relegation next season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, king canary said:

This might also be a reason why clubs won't vote for it though.

A normal season sees 15% of the league get relelgated.

An extended 23 team season with 6 relegation spots sees over 25% of the league going down.

If you're a team like Palace, Southampton or Brighton would you want to increase your risk of relegation next season?

I would think it would be 4 places over the next 3 seasons - 6 relegation spots in a single season wouldn't work I don't think.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if they promoted 3 with no relegation as it would lead to a lopsided Premier League.  I know that's the situation in League One this season, but I can't imagine they'd be happy with a Premier League where one team is always not playing each weekend, especially as it gets to the final few game weeks.

Edited by Matt Juler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting statement/explanation here that was issued by the FA (decision having been ratified by the FA Council) when they ended the non-league.

See in particular the section on Points Per Game v Expunging results.

Although I know the response will be financial considerations its hard to reconcile this stance with the stance they are supposedly taking in relation to the premier league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Good find Jim, very interesting. I always thought the philosophy was that, as far as possible, football should be the same across the leagues regardless of pyramid level, so it is difficult to reconcile this document with their current stance re: the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Chris Sutton has waded in now, telling us we should just be getting on with it. I used to worship this guy, I wonder what his beef is about us ?.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God. That F.A statement is laughable with what’s being said now, they have provided their own evidence why Ppg is unfair 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...