Next years TV deal and what it means to football

[Lunarcrash 0]

Looking at the money on offer to Prem teams next season with the global rights going haywire, it''s imperative that we stay in this division at all costs.

What though must all those other teams blow us feel like. The Derby''s the Lecister''s the Cardiff''s. etc.

I can only imagine the gap is going to increase and its going to be harder to compete for the promoted sides. Not just that but I predict that the demoted sides will crash and burn through the divisions more often. Just like we did.

[Lunarcrash 0]

Oops, not blow us but below us. Blooming auto correct

[Gingerpele 0]

Of course we''ll stay up. If anyone suggest otherwise i''ll have them dealt with. I hear Mungo knows a guy who is in the waste disposal business, if you know what I mean.

And with these international TV rights, how does it work?

I was under the impression that Sky make most of their money from selling the Football to countries like China. So are Sky in charge? Or are they losing the rights to companies in these other countries? Or what?

[Bill 1,788]

Sky are one of the distributors who buy some of the UK rights from the Premier League, that''s all

 

I posted this up a few days ago, which should explain the basics, moneywise that is -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ''£64 million pay packet'' is based on us finishing exactly as we did in 2011/12 (possible) and the overseas TV rights being the same amount (almost certainly will not), so Last season we received £46.6m. This was made up of - Domestic TV rights being divided up as 50% - £13m, equal share to all clubs 25% - £6.25m, amount of games shown 25% -£6.79m, based on league position Worldwide TV rights being dived equally £18.76m In the 2013/14 - 2015/16 seasons the domestic TV rights are increased by around 71%, so presuming we finish as we did last season we would receive - 50% - £23.4m, equal share to all clubs 25% - £10.6m, amount of games shown 25% -£11.5m, based on league position Worldwide TV rights being dived equally £18.76m that being the £64m being talked of - however there are a number of variables ie we could finish higher or lower, we could have more TV games and the most important one being, the overseas TV rights. It is almost certain that they will rise (still in negotiations). The suggested rise is anything from 30% - 100%, which would put that £18.76m figure up to somewhere between £24m -£19m So the figures look to be about from £58m (lowest overseas rise and relegated) to £84m (highest rise and 10th spot)

[Yellowbeagle 0]

The real meaning of the increased tv deal, means that the same players in the premier league will now get more money while the standard stays almost exactly the same.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Freeze wages and the transfer budget and build a new Main Stand.

[Bill 1,788]

it ain''t money the sole block on this

 

until you find an acceptable way of housing 4000 season ticket holders from the Main Stand you are whistling in the dark

 

too, too many ''powerful'' voices and interests to be swayed by the idea of spending millions on subsidising a few fickle glory hunters

 

 

ps I will happily give up my season ticket to anyone who applied for a season ticket before the 2009/10 season started and are still waiting for a ticket

 

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Also we didn''t sell out for the Stoke game last week.  I realise this is probably the least attractive Prem fixture currently, but if we expand the stadium we''ll end up selling out for games like Man U and having empty seats for some of the games.  I think it makes sense to wait a season or two before deciding.

[Old Shuck 183]

I suspect a lot of people within the game, the most vocal of which was Phil Gartside, the Bolton Chairman, will soon be pushing for no promotion/relegation from the Premier League-well, once he''s got his team back up there!

 

I''ve always though there should be a Premier A and B, much like Serie A and B in Italy of 18 clubs each. Spread the cash out a bit more (36 rather than 20 clubs) including into the divisions beneath those.

 

But there''s more likely to be the European Pepsi Sony together with Sky Super Alpha League in the future and, quite honestly, if our top clubs keep posturing and expecting more from the communal pot with more priviliges to go with it else they''ll up sticks and join it, then call their bluff and let them do just that.

[Rolf Harris 31]

[quote user="City1st"]

Sky are one of the distributors who buy some of the UK rights from the Premier League, that''s all

 

I posted this up a few days ago, which should explain the basics, moneywise that is -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ''£64 million pay packet'' is based on us finishing exactly as we did in 2011/12 (possible) and the overseas TV rights being the same amount (almost certainly will not), so Last season we received £46.6m. This was made up of - Domestic TV rights being divided up as 50% - £13m, equal share to all clubs 25% - £6.25m, amount of games shown 25% -£6.79m, based on league position Worldwide TV rights being dived equally £18.76m In the 2013/14 - 2015/16 seasons the domestic TV rights are increased by around 71%, so presuming we finish as we did last season we would receive - 50% - £23.4m, equal share to all clubs 25% - £10.6m, amount of games shown 25% -£11.5m, based on league position Worldwide TV rights being dived equally £18.76m that being the £64m being talked of - however there are a number of variables ie we could finish higher or lower, we could have more TV games and the most important one being, the overseas TV rights. It is almost certain that they will rise (still in negotiations). The suggested rise is anything from 30% - 100%, which would put that £18.76m figure up to somewhere between £24m -£19m So the figures look to be about from £58m (lowest overseas rise and relegated) to £84m (highest rise and 10th spot)

[/quote]60 mil zone is the bottom of the league and we don''t know how much anyone will get yet because the foreign revenue hasn''t been all sold yet. 60-100mill is been thrown about.

[Rolf Harris 31]

[Rolf Harris 31]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/PL-TV-split-13-14-forecasts1.jpg for a larger images go on the link basically bottom could end up being worth  53 mil 58 mil 62 mil 66 mil 72 mildepending on how well the overseas money goes for

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Freeze wages and the transfer budget and build a new Main Stand.[/quote]

 

Unilaterally or with agreement of the other 19 clubs?

 

I have no doubt in my mind that these new premiership millions will end up in the same place as all the rest of the premiership millions. Premier club''s are finding it so difficult to make ends meet that they are having to charge £45/£55 per seat for category Z games...

 

 

[ZLF 271]

agreed nutty & ors,   this extra cash is going to end up in the hands of players and agents (wes for example is well placed to benefit) as it always does meaning the club is no further forward in financial terms

 

The only way clubs will benefit is if there is a wage cap applied to all clubs,  and one that is at or above the euro leagues levels too;  otherwise the best players will do what they do at the moment and go where the cash is

 

Even financial fair play wont really help  - the level of money available to spend on wages simply goes up.

 

The only way it is key not to get relegated is that the jump up will make it harder still to get promoted and stay up...

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"]The real meaning of the increased tv deal, means that the same players in the premier league will now get more money while the standard stays almost exactly the same.[/quote]..............and the agents will be even busier getting rich. nearly all this extra money will end up outside football in increased salaries and agents fees. and the little clubs will be sh1t upon once again by the greed of the big clubs.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="star_manic"][quote user="Yellowbeagle"]The real meaning of the increased tv deal, means that the same players in the premier league will now get more money while the standard stays almost exactly the same.[/quote]..............and the agents will be even busier getting rich. nearly all this extra money will end up outside football in increased salaries and agents fees. and the little clubs will be sh1t upon once again by the greed of the big clubs.
[/quote]

The big losers will be those teams that spend every penny of the increased money on players wages and transfer fees then find themselves relegated and trying to support that infrastructure in the Championship, 3 teams will still have to go down each year and law of averages and history says it wont be the same three that come up every year to go down. Its a strange situation, we''d all be daft not to be desperate to miss this boat but at the same time it could actually be will probably really bad thing for football and the clubs in the bottom half of the league. Personally i''d have rather seen the extra money split between all the divisions.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

It''s a shame a proportion of the money doesn''t have to go towards facilities and ticket prices.

 

Is it possible for the government to introduce tax incentives for structural work? It would help with construction which is contracting rapidly.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

yep, I can see that working

 

good news, we''ve just rececieved an extra £20m TV money so there''s £10 off every ticket

 

bad news, we''ve just been relegated so ticket prices will have to go up by £10 ... as we''ve lost the TV money

 

 

 

 

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Apparently, the increase is such that clubs could stand still and take £32 off each ticket.

No one is expecting that but simply putting the extra revenue into players and agents pockets will do nothing to change the status quo.

The prize money per place could be scrapped in favour of an equitable distribution at the beginning of the season to even things up a little.

A Norwich City averaging gates of 32,000 say would attract a higher profile with increased revenues from advertisers and sponsors. We need to break out of simply being a provincial club which might mean some people tolerating new supporters.

I am proud that Norwich City are on the cusp of being debt free. Sides like Hearts who owe tax to the Revenue deserve all they get. For football clubs to pay massive salaries but not their tax or debts to small businesses is despicable and they should be liquidated.

Do I expect any of this, no. So in many ways I agree with City 1st''s attitude of solvency first. But I can dream.

[Bill 1,788]

"I agree with City 1st''s attitude of solvency first"

 

I am not advocating solvency first, merely point out the flaws in many of the crackpot ideas that are floated on here. The latest being your barmy idea about subsidisng tickets. Ticket prices are set at what the ''market will bear (what folk will pay) at any given time.

 

The idea that "increased revenues from advertisers and sponsors" will be of any significance when the crowd is made up of of any number of cheapskates who will quickly melt away once the subsidy goes, along with PL status and TV money is farcical.

 

If the higher attendance is there because of subsidised ticket prices what on earth will be the attendance figures if we drop back to the PL and have to PUT UP the ticket prices ?

 

Maybe some who post on here were once running ITFC

 

 

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I don''t expect a subsidy. But I would like to see a better deal for young people and parents. As it is my ST cost £790- and I plan to miss at least three home games.

What would stick in my craw would be an above inflation rise in ST prices after this new money. I might then vote with my feet as a matter of principle. And I am one of those happy to have paid £30 for the Spurs cup game and would have paid move for Villa. That said, it should be significantly cheaper for the ''End Stands'' not the same price.

I guess we will all have to see how this pans out and react accordingly.

[Bill 1,788]

Do young people and parents see a lesser game.  Should someone be entitled to a cheaper ticket because they have a child(ren) than someone whose children are no longer dependant upon them ie over 21 ?

 

What preference in price for an adult with children in a well paid job over a single adult working for Bernard Mathews on the production line ? If they are too be cheaper then there are being subsidised.

 

The price for season tickets next year will be based on what price the club thinks enough fans will pay. Fans will in response pay what they think is an acceptable price. Speculating, I think demand is beginning to cool. We came up very sudden and I''m sure there was a sense of don''t miss out, in case it doesn''t last. That novelty may be wearing thin now as fans see that games against the likes of Stoke, Wigan, Fulham are not any better than games against Leeds, Leicester and Ipswich. Games can easily be seen in pubs and on the internet as well.  

 

In general the club has pretty much got the pricing fairly accurate, in as far as keeping the ground full and still generating as much income as possible - and with there being a possible massive boost the funds with more TV there is an argument to take the squeeze off fans in some areas. Food/drink, programmes, booking fees etc. The problem is what happens if that TV money goes. Could the club reinstate those higher charges in the Championship ?

 

 

 

 

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

[quote user="City1st"]

Do young people and parents see a lesser game.  Should someone be entitled to a cheaper ticket because they have a child(ren) than someone whose children are no longer dependant upon them ie over 21 ?

 

What preference in price for an adult with children in a well paid job over a single adult working for Bernard Mathews on the production line ? If they are too be cheaper then there are being subsidised.

 

The price for season tickets next year will be based on what price the club thinks enough fans will pay. Fans will in response pay what they think is an acceptable price. Speculating, I think demand is beginning to cool. We came up very sudden and I''m sure there was a sense of don''t miss out, in case it doesn''t last. That novelty may be wearing thin now as fans see that games against the likes of Stoke, Wigan, Fulham are not any better than games against Leeds, Leicester and Ipswich. Games can easily be seen in pubs and on the internet as well.  

 

In general the club has pretty much got the pricing fairly accurate, in as far as keeping the ground full and still generating as much income as possible - and with there being a possible massive boost the funds with more TV there is an argument to take the squeeze off fans in some areas. Food/drink, programmes, booking fees etc. The problem is what happens if that TV money goes. Could the club reinstate those higher charges in the Championship ?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

No where in your argument do you state where you think this extra TV money should be spent.

You don''t want to see cheaper tickets, you don''t want extra seating so that more fans can see live games, so where do you want the spending to be made?

You want it to go into higher wages for footballers and their agents, or do you want to stick the money in the bank and then see the taxman get his hands on it?

So just to what area of the club would you allocate this increased income - once the debt is paid off?

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

Yeah what must the likes of the Lecisters and the Cardiffs feel like with their wealthy Malaysian backers?