Shake up of Premier league

[king canary 7,605]

23 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Brilliant, chicken. I would add two general points, which have been made before,  which are linked and whose significance is highlighted by your analysis. One is that the Big Six plan gave those clubs control certainly over the EFL as well as the EPL and arguably further down the pyramid.

The second is that the voting system gave them in effect absolute control, so that if they didn't like the way the scheme was working for them (as opposed to the rest of the EPL and all of the Championship) they could change it unilaterally. Nothing was set in stone, so that none of the promised figures - the eight streamed games, for example, could become 10 or 12 - could be relied on in the longer run.

Hypothetical strawman's, don't you realise? 😉

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

Hypothetical strawman's, don't you realise? 😉

And you accused me of being snappy?!😜

[BigFish 1,986]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

Currently there are 20 teams in the EPL and they each play 38 games per season, so 380 games in total. Losing two teams would reduce that by 74 fixtures. 8 fixtures per remaining EPL team would be a further 144. That is a total reduction of 218 games. And as others have pointed out, not just any games. The top six will feature heavily in many of those 8 picks which is, we are led to believe, the main attraction for the heavy investment in advertising etc. I mean, lest face it, you don't see the Burnley team on Nivia adverts do we?

Corrected your Maths @chicken, but that rather strengthens your case rather than weakening it. I  think Purple hits the nub of the argument building on your excellent post. I don't think the parachute payment case holds water though and arguing against subsidised away fans seems to argue against rather than for the spirit of traditional football.

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Brilliant, chicken. I would add two general points, which have been made before,  which are linked and whose significance is highlighted by your analysis. One is that the Big Six plan gave those clubs control certainly over the EFL as well as the EPL and arguably further down the pyramid.

The second is that the voting system gave them in effect absolute control, so that if they didn't like the way the scheme was working for them (as opposed to the rest of the EPL and all of the Championship) they could change it unilaterally. Nothing was set in stone, so that none of the promised figures - the eight streamed games, for example, could become 10 or 12 - could be relied on in the longer run.

 

[sgncfc 1,227]

As mentioned before, if you look at US similarities and the way in which they move "sports" around for purely financial gain, this is just the first shot across the bows. I think everyone knew it would be rejected out of hand. They will come back with a slightly watered down version again and again, until it is accepted.

There are some "unknowns" however. What will Amazon/Sky/BT do if their enterprise position is threatened? Will Fox/NBC etc or even Google/Apple/Facebook/Netflix/Disney move in? The broadcast and tech sphere pretty much controls the world now - why not football?

One thing is clear - if we want to stop anything like this happening, we need to cancel our TV subscriptions en masse. I suspect that won't happen, but maybe there's a Greta for football out there somewhere....

[BigFish 1,986]

40 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

One thing is clear - if we want to stop anything like this happening, we need to cancel our TV subscriptions en masse. I suspect that won't happen, but maybe there's a Greta for football out there somewhere....

This is the key and the pressures will just get worse at each and every change of Media contracts. It is also, however implausible, the only alternative suggestion I can recall from this thread.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

52 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

As mentioned before, if you look at US similarities and the way in which they move "sports" around for purely financial gain, this is just the first shot across the bows. I think everyone knew it would be rejected out of hand. They will come back with a slightly watered down version again and again, until it is accepted.

There are some "unknowns" however. What will Amazon/Sky/BT do if their enterprise position is threatened? Will Fox/NBC etc or even Google/Apple/Facebook/Netflix/Disney move in? The broadcast and tech sphere pretty much controls the world now - why not football?

One thing is clear - if we want to stop anything like this happening, we need to cancel our TV subscriptions en masse. I suspect that won't happen, but maybe there's a Greta for football out there somewhere....

But how do those sea-green incorruptible visionaries👼 who've never watched satellite television, let alone had a subscription, help this noble cause?🤓

[sgncfc 1,227]

38 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

But how do those sea-green incorruptible visionaries👼 who've never watched satellite television, let alone had a subscription, help this noble cause?🤓

By not going to the pub/restaurant/friends house to watch either. If we all just turn it off, there would be no money and we'd get our game back. But we all know that's not going to happen. Therefore teams like Norwich can only compete with a billionaire owner, and if there isn't or can't be one we're pretty much doomed to the Championship being our top level.

[chicken 2,624]

Thing is, the TV thing, I don't see it as being anything but inevitable.

It may be that Sky/Fox/Disney/BT - whoever - offer to run platforms for clubs instead. But the bulk deal thing, it'll be gone. Now, it may be that some teams will see the attraction in the idea of offering deals, like multi-buys, especially further down the leagues where traditionally TV money is slim pickings. Like Four subscriptions for the price of three or something.

It may well mean rethinking of football as we know it, but for the fans, in some ways I can only see it as a good thing. There are a fair number of people who can't make regular home fixtures for various different reasons. So many of those would be happy to support the club in different ways, especially going forwards into the future with more people being tech savvy. At least then if clubs do well the big 6 teams can't claim everyone is just getting money they raise and riding on their coat tails.

I freely admit that possibly there won't be as much money in football anymore, but in many ways I don't see that as a problem. It would add a new dynamic to player fees though. They may be able to correlate games watched to player appearances. Some players may drive up viewers which in tern may be reflected in their price due to helping to raise advertising revenue etc.

[chicken 2,624]

On 15/10/2020 at 08:08, PurpleCanary said:

Brilliant, chicken. I would add two general points, which have been made before,  which are linked and whose significance is highlighted by your analysis. One is that the Big Six plan gave those clubs control certainly over the EFL as well as the EPL and arguably further down the pyramid.

The second is that the voting system gave them in effect absolute control, so that if they didn't like the way the scheme was working for them (as opposed to the rest of the EPL and all of the Championship) they could change it unilaterally. Nothing was set in stone, so that none of the promised figures - the eight streamed games, for example, could become 10 or 12 - could be relied on in the longer run.

Thanks.

Yeah, that was somewhat deliberate. I was mainly stripping back the bit of the deal that was meant to be attractive to everyone else to show that it really was the Emperor's New Clothes.

If what they are offering as the sweetener is rubbish, who cares about the stuff they want out of it? They could ask for a seat at the Queens table for all I care! Not going to happen, and it didn't. Their side of things is rather straightforward and just a simple power grab - which they are trying to do at a moment of vulnerability and need. I already had that down as a scummy move.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

This detailed Guardian exclusive is very much worth reading:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/oct/23/revealed-greg-clarke-real-role-in-controversial-project-big-picture-talks-fa-chairman