Do any obligations come with the cash?

[BOO 0]

"Norwich and the rest of the Premier League clubs receive millions from TV companies who rely on audience figures to attract sponsors, and need a spectacle to attract subscribers. Some clubs feel they deserve the money just for being in the Premier League. For me, they have a duty to entertain, that’s the return the TV companies want for their investment."

So says our "mate" Adrian Durham. Lets just forget the author for one minute ( because we all know he will take any oppertunity to knock us) and think about what he is saying.

Why are we getting all this dosh next season, is it because those nice TV men think we are in the EPL therefore we deserve it, or is it because they want to sell the product we produce, ie the games we play? To what extent does the football club have a duty in exchange for willingly accepting the dosh to produce a football product which is entertaining and saleable. Does this same duty extend to fans many of whome will use up a large part of their disposable income to come and support the club and be entertained?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

They do, but it must come second to our survival. I believe we will have more about us next season.

We must remember that there are 3 points for a win for a reason, although if Durham had his way, it sounds like he''d make that 4 points!

If you look at Stoke, they made it by playing really ugly football and this summer found themselves finally able to try and play nice. This worked reasonably for a bit until like us they tailed off.

It wasn''t until they went back to their ugly ways that they got the results to put them over the line. Do you think their fans minded going back to old ways when they were battering their way past us? No. Do you think they''d mind if they played that kind of football next season? Probably but rather that than playing pretty and going the way of Wigan.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

The guy''s a troll

The big problem, entertainment-wise, with the PL is that only a handful of teams could win it - next season at most 3. Do they have a duty to make it more open?

Reality is Sky and the others shell out a fortune for the rights because they get loads of viewers . If viewing numbers drop off then there would be a debate about why and what to do about it soon enough. But I don''t think the style of play of a mid-table team like us is going to have any impact on that whatsoever.

[BOO 0]

The whole "entertainment" debate is an interesting one. There is quite clearly a big devide on here between fans who pay their money and Expect to be entertained, as if they were going to the cinema or the theatre, and those that are happy to see Norwich draw a boring game because its one point nearer to survival. The costs of watching football are so high, particularly if you travel away, it''s not surprising that some see entertainment as being crucial to the day out.

I wonder if there is an age factor at play here, is it the younger fans that have higher expectations and demand to be entertained every time they attend a game, or perhaps is it fans that have more recently started to attend matches?

[Aggy 752]

The only reason the TV money is so high is because the league is already one of the most (if not the most) entertaining leagues in the world. Sky didn''t pump millions into the league to try and make it competitive and entertaining; they did so because it was already competitive and entertaining.

And how long has the sky money been coming to England? Ok, not as much as this year, but the EPL has been one of the top earners from TV right money for a long, long time now. During that period there have always been "unfashionable" sides such as Stoke in the division. They just add to the ''entertainment''. Watching 20 Barcelona type sides every week would bore me stupid, I''d much rather watch the occasional Stoke kicking lumps out of Arsenal type game.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

To be fair, if you don''t enjoy the football, don''t go. Go and watch some local games or 5 a side leagues instead.

If the game became to easy to play ''the stoke way'' we''ll call it, then it would be up to FIFA to change the rules to suit, as they did with the offside rule for instance.

Perhaps we could give a bonus point for each successful ''rainbow flick'' made?

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

From a club''s perspective, the only obligation is to stay in the PL!

 

Given that SKY are quite willing and able (and do) change the times and dates of football matches to suit their viewing figures, then as they couldn''t care less for the travelling and paying public, their "rights" to any obligation has been forfeited!

 

Perhaps that Peterborough supporter should get that into his thick skull!

[blahblahblah 2]

The spectacle doesn''t neccesarily come from nice football.  The spectacle comes from the drama of the league - something which has been missing from the last day this season, especially when compared to the "Aguero" moment of the previous season.  The only thing left to play for was the last champions league place.As has been said, if all teams played the same way, it would soon get dull.  Complexity of character gives a form of drama in itself, but the league must remain a competition in order for the money to keep rolling in.  This is less Norwiches'' problem than it is Arsenals, Chelseas, Man Citys'' and Tottenhams'' problem - how can they stop the Man United juggernaut ?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]The spectacle doesn''t neccesarily come from nice football.  The spectacle comes from the drama of the league - something which has been missing from the last day this season, especially when compared to the "Aguero" moment of the previous season.  The only thing left to play for was the last champions league place.

As has been said, if all teams played the same way, it would soon get dull.  Complexity of character gives a form of drama in itself, but the league must remain a competition in order for the money to keep rolling in.  This is less Norwiches'' problem than it is Arsenals, Chelseas, Man Citys'' and Tottenhams'' problem - how can they stop the Man United juggernaut ?
[/quote]

 

Yes from the Sky perspective last year was a dream with the league actually being settled in injury time after Man U had finished their final game.  I''d be interested to know the Sky viewing figures for that final day compared to Sunday just gone.

 

This year has been disappointing for them with the league sewn up for ages, 2 teams relegated a while back too and nothing of substance left for the final day (it was so boring driving back on Sunday when 606 were going on and on about whether Gareth Bale would leave Spurs because they missed out on the Champions League, ok it matters to Spurs fans a lot but frankly it doesn''t interest me in the least whether Arsenal or Spurs are in the CL).

 

I guess we can hope ManU go into a Liverpool type decline, and I expect Mourinho to put Chelsea back to challenging for the title, for a while at least.

[Aggy 752]

The slightly worrying thing (certainly if you''re looking at it from a financial point of view rather than strictly in terms of competitiveness within the league) is that if Man Utd do go into a Liverpool type decline, as you mention ICF, English clubs are going to really struggle in Europe.

If that happens, we might see the top players wanting to move to Spain, Italy, Germany and possibly even, in a fair few years, France instead of England for the chance to win European competitions. If that happens, you can probably expect the really big Sky money to go with the top players.

That in turn might make the Prem more competitive for clubs outside of the top 6/''big 4'', but won''t necessarily improve the quality or financial future of the teams in the division.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]The spectacle doesn''t neccesarily come from nice football.  The spectacle comes from the drama of the league - something which has been missing from the last day this season, especially when compared to the "Aguero" moment of the previous season.  The only thing left to play for was the last champions league place.

As has been said, if all teams played the same way, it would soon get dull.  Complexity of character gives a form of drama in itself, but the league must remain a competition in order for the money to keep rolling in.  This is less Norwiches'' problem than it is Arsenals, Chelseas, Man Citys'' and Tottenhams'' problem - how can they stop the Man United juggernaut ?
[/quote]

 

Indeed and it''s far more than just the football on display. The drama always takes centre stage whether it''s penalty decisions, disallowed goals or those "career ending" challenges that are replayed more than the goals anyway. It''s a soap opera where the Redknapp and Holloway characters will always outshine the Hughton and Moyes types.

 

As for the suggestion that we don''t play entertaining football I''d challenge that. How many games were disappointing at Carrow Road this season?

 

 

[Gaz06 0]

Manchester United will not go into decline. Their financial power is getting stronger each year and will continue to be competitive domestically and abroad as they have the funds to spend on world class players. Lets get one thing straight, they are a much much bigger club than Liverpool financially!

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Aggy"]The slightly worrying thing (certainly if you''re looking at it from a financial point of view rather than strictly in terms of competitiveness within the league) is that if Man Utd do go into a Liverpool type decline, as you mention ICF, English clubs are going to really struggle in Europe. If that happens, we might see the top players wanting to move to Spain, Italy, Germany and possibly even, in a fair few years, France instead of England for the chance to win European competitions. If that happens, you can probably expect the really big Sky money to go with the top players. That in turn might make the Prem more competitive for clubs outside of the top 6/''big 4'', but won''t necessarily improve the quality or financial future of the teams in the division.[/quote]

 

Interesting point.  Actually I think the increased Sky money will give us more strength in depth in the CL.  If you look back over the past few years, English teams have done well in Europe when they haven''t been winning the PL - Liverpool, and last year Chelsea.  Whereas Man U, despite their dominance in the PL, have only won the CL once since 1999.  Man City showed the importance of experience in the CL, and looking back Man U had quite a few humiliating experiences in the CL before ''99.  I can see Chelsea, with a bit of investment and Mourinho in charge, being our top hope for the CL next year, and Man C with a new manager might be better second time around (they certainly ought to have the players for it).

 

Not saying our teams will be strong enough to be better than Barca, Bayern etc.  But I think we''ll do better in the CL than we have this year, even if Man U go down.

 

I think it was a key moment when Ronaldo went from Man U to Spain.  If you look at the very top players in the world - him, Messi, etc, there are more at the top clubs in Spain/Germany than here.

 

As for Sky going into the rest of Europe, I think the answer is that they''d do it if they could, but regulators have blocked it because they don''t like Murdoch.  In England Sky has used the PL rights as a battering ram to create a dominant position in the pay-TV market, and I think Spain, Italy, Germany, France just won''t let Sky do this. 

 

Overall I have mixed feelings about the money.  I remember when there was a fuss about Roy Keane getting £40k per week which is £2m a year, but now that would be sneered at by any of the big players.  Which can''t be right, can it ?

[Sussexyellow 55]

Interesting thread.

Top sports players only earn megabucks because some company or other is turning a very nice profit from the public stumping up the cash to watch. Why do the public stump up up - well lets use the term entertainment whatever that might be. In football terms as has been pointed out that comes in many forms, skill, attacking football, appreciation of tactics, results and raw emotion to name a few. At the moment the premier league model works, attendances are high, television subscriptions are presumably doing very nicely and the popularity of football is on a high. 

So given the television money that comes in, playing for survival (whatever that takes) is a good business model for our club. However should the bottom two thirds of the division all start delivering turgid stuff then the model could start to come apart if the viewing public vote with their feet. In which case the TV companies might just seek to change the model - for instance (and this is purely hypothetical) proposing a European super league. In which case we would be once again on the outside looking in. So in the short term probably no obligation to entertain but in the medium term and onward I would have thought it is very much in our interest for the Premier League from top to bottom to be an attractive and thrilling viewing proposition.

That aside supporters help the club win matches. Our club has really drawn on this in the last few home games. The use of the "clappers" being a prime example. However gimmicks will only go so far. Hoots in his interviews recently has recognised the importance of the crowd and the need to give us supporters something in order to draw the roar to push on the team. So irrespective of the money argument it is in the interest of the club to deliver something to the attending supporters - as that in turn helps to deliver the results that delivers the money.

And towards the end of the season I thought we were watching some pretty entertaining stuff at least at home even if it did involve a large chunk of raw emotion.

OTBC