Premier League TV rights

[Filo]

Equates to £10M per game, obscene!

[Chris Black come back]

It is now seriously unhinged. This is a cartel to serve the interests of the members. If you are a member, then sweet jesus you haven't half hit the jackpot now. If you are outside the Premier League when this deal kicks in then you now have precisely zero chance of ever making it there.

[DearneValleyRover]

It is only a matter of time before the Champions League becomes a full on League. Deals like this will send shivers through the elite of Europe as they won't be able to compete with wages making them open to what the powers that be want, ce me it can't come soon enough. Yes money will leave the domestic game but things will even themselves out and with less domestic footie on telly and lower prices attendences will rise and footie will come back to the supporter, obviously to well run clubs.

[silent majority]

The increase is the equivalent of £40 per supporter per game!

[besty]

This is unbelievable,I dont have sky but I bet its gonna go up just a tad 

[RobTheRover]

I await the FA announcing an equivalent increase in money to grassroots football with baited breath.  Last year, even under the old TV deal which was still an incredible sum, they only managed to allocate £35M.  TO put that into context, St George's Park cost £105M.

Anyone could reasonably determine that the FA dont really see a successful England team in the future as much of a priority.....

[NickDRFC]

It is now seriously unhinged. This is a cartel to serve the interests of the members. If you are a member, then sweet jesus you haven't half hit the jackpot now. If you are outside the Premier League when this deal kicks in then you now have precisely zero chance of ever making it there.

Have they done away with promotion and relegation as well then?

[RobTheRover]

No, but the parachute payments for those relegated will make the Championship a very uneven playing field

[Mr1Croft]

Personally I think its time to stop relegation from and promotion to the Championship. I dont one them being worlds apart financially but the parachute payments are breaking the Championship and making the inequality much more evident.

[BobG]

I am going to be insufferably smug. I don't have Sky. I've never had Sky. I will never have Sky - at least until it starts to behave like a reasonable part of our society and gets rid of the globe trotting cancer that can't decide its own nationality at its heart.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

£1850 per second of every televised game.

Ho hum...

[Boomstick]

Its a bubble,it will burst. The rise in tv money simply cannot continue.

May jeopardise a smaller premier clubs when it happens though

[dijit8]

Its a bubble,it will burst. The rise in tv money simply cannot continue.

May jeopardise a smaller premier clubs when it happens though

I keep saying this but every time they re-negotiate it just gets higher. Sky paid 70% more than last time.
Clubs getting even more money that will end up in  the players pockets and ticket prices will continue to rise

[BobG]

I think the money will carry on rising for quite a long time yet.

BT has a problem: it's a fixed line company (though possibly changing with the purchase of EE) and fixed lines are semi obsolete. So it has to find a new role for itself. That, so far, has been the ideal of subscription tv and associated services. Now, investment in tv is quite expensive, so you need a lot (!!) of subscribers. How is BT ever going to get those? By stealing them from Sky. And footy is the best way to steal. That's what Sky used to build its market dominance in the first place. So, BT will continue to pay premium prices. It has no other option even if it does take over EE.

Now Sky is built around subscriptions too. So it cannot afford to lose too many. How can it defend what it has? Triple play, of course. But BT will be able to do that too before much longer. So what else? More and more sport..... And with footy being the most popular of them all, and with Sky's roots being in footy, Sky will try to emasculate BT. Not strangle it as that would upset the regulators, but force it to pay top dollar every time for a tiny share of the product and hence the market. BT has to break that - and it can only do so by outbidding Sky....  But Sky has exceptionally deep pockets. It can afford to outbid BT every time if it wants to. So, prices will carry on going up.

End result? The PL is a golden cow with udders pouring out cash in a never ending flood. There's absolutely no sign of that ending any time soon.

BobG

[RobTheRover]

Bravo, Bob.  That is pretty much the best summary of the situation I've ever read.

Now take that to the next logical conclusion, the rises in subscription fees, the droves of customers looking to alternative "legally grey" means to get their TV fix (XBMC, dreambox, etc)  and the latent risk of this house of cards collapsing.

[Jimmydee]

The Sky subscribers might get a little p/ssed off with the subscription packages getting more expensive and maybe people will cancel and watch the attractive games at their local pub, and then the landlords will get p/ssed off with their increased subscriptions and cancel, and then the football fan can put a coat on and go to their local football ground and support football properly at the ground itself.  Sorted.

[albie]

Despite having more money than they know what to do with, Richard Scudamore still thinks like a dinosaur;
Richard Scudamore: It is not clubs’ responsibility to pay staff living wage | Football | The Guardian

Is there any hope that these people will see beyond the end of their own noses any time soon....they can't even see their snout because its buried in the trough!

[Snods Shinpad 2]

I'm with Bob.

Boycott Sky, boycott The S*n, boycott everything with Murdoch's grubby little paw prints on.

[wilts rover]

Personally I think its time to stop relegation from and promotion to the Championship. I dont one them being worlds apart financially but the parachute payments are breaking the Championship and making the inequality much more evident.

The current top 6 of the Championship are:
Middlesbrough - last in PL 2008-09 (6 seasons ago - no parachute payments for last 3 seasons)
Bournemouth -never in PL and no parachute payments
Derby County - last in PL 2007-2008 (7 seasons ago - no parachute payments for last 4 seasons)
Ipswich Town - last in PL 2001-2002 (13 seasons ago - no parachute payments for 10 seasons)
Watford - last in PL -2006-2007 (8 seasons ago - no parachute payments for last 5 seasons)
Brentford - never in PL and no parachute payments

so there is no team currently in the top six in receipt of parachute payments.

The three teams who have the large Year 1 payments are currently 7th, 16th and 18th. Of the other teams in the Championship who are currently recieving parachute payments, one is 24th and bottom, another is 23rd, second bottom.

Also of course from last seasons Championship 2 of the 3 promoted teams, including the runaway winners, were not recieving parachute payments.

You would think that what Mr Croft has said would naturally be true with the extra money those teams have, but actually the opposite tends to be the case. The financial drop down is such that teams tend to overspend in an attempt to ward of relegation, so then go down with big financial problems which generally take a while to overcome. So there is always room for a well-run club with an astute manager and a few good signings to get up there, Blackpool, Burnley, Hull being recent examples.

[silent majority]

You could all sign the petition here;

http://fsf.org.uk/petitions/share-tv-wealth/

[Filo]

You could all sign the petition here;

http://fsf.org.uk/petitions/share-tv-wealth/

Done!

[since-1969]

There should a Petition to change the name of the league to " We'er in the money and the rest can F*** themselves League"  . If any of the top 4 side at the moment were to find themselves facing relegation the'd soon change the rules to prevent that . What chance do we stand when relegated sides have £100m to play with .

[RedRover45]

I think the money will carry on rising for quite a long time yet.

BT has a problem: it's a fixed line company (though possibly changing with the purchase of EE) and fixed lines are semi obsolete. So it has to find a new role for itself. That, so far, has been the ideal of subscription tv and associated services. Now, investment in tv is quite expensive, so you need a lot (!!) of subscribers. How is BT ever going to get those? By stealing them from Sky. And footy is the best way to steal. That's what Sky used to build its market dominance in the first place. So, BT will continue to pay premium prices. It has no other option even if it does take over EE.

Now Sky is built around subscriptions too. So it cannot afford to lose too many. How can it defend what it has? Triple play, of course. But BT will be able to do that too before much longer. So what else? More and more sport..... And with footy being the most popular of them all, and with Sky's roots being in footy, Sky will try to emasculate BT. Not strangle it as that would upset the regulators, but force it to pay top dollar every time for a tiny share of the product and hence the market. BT has to break that - and it can only do so by outbidding Sky....  But Sky has exceptionally deep pockets. It can afford to outbid BT every time if it wants to. So, prices will carry on going up.

End result? The PL is a golden cow with udders pouring out cash in a never ending flood. There's absolutely no sign of that ending any time soon.

BobG

Agree absolutely Bob. However, remember next season BT have the sole rights to the Champions League for 3 seasons. Don't underestimate how many subscribers BT will steal from Sky then. Sky have been planning their next move for the 6 months since BT released the news.
BT subscribers get FREE BT Sport when they take broadband. Somehow that ain't going to be the scenario from next season. Everybody is waiting for how much BT charge it's subscribers for this European circus. If it overprices, subscribers will not take the bait. They have got to get it just right.
My own personal view is that in the next couple of years, this charade will implode under the financial pressure and there will be a huge fallout with at least one major player a victim.
All for the good of the game though.

[idler]

Done.

[niteowler]

Well said Bob G, man after my own heart. Can t stand  the Murdoch Mafioso and all they stand for and it wont be long before a proportion of the Armchair Glory Hunters will be having to pay paying a price for Sky subscriptions beyond there means.

[BobG]

I hear on the radio that Sky are insisting that they 'will not raise subscription prices' as a result of this wonderful new deal. Fair enough. So what else might they do instead then to pay all these billions? Reduce spend on other sports? Reduce own programme making? Sack some people and make the rest work a lot harder? (That's how BT do it btw).

One of the reasons I detest Murdoch is their insistence over years that we are all idiots. Just because they say 'we are not going to raise prices' don't bloody mean that the costs will magically disappear. Yes. They could fund the costs out of reserves for a while. But that's no strategy for long term success unless it knocks BT out of the game - which the regulator won't allow them to do. So they have to pay for this somehow. Yet they apparently believe we won't spot that! Tossers. Almost as bad as the toe rag from ACPO tonight wriggling worse than a worm in a birds gob to avoid admitting that an official report today that police exceeded their remit/authority/common sense is accurate. They've taken leave of their senses. Who could ever imagine it was the right thing to do to twist the arms of newsagents so the plod could get the names and addresses of those Englishmen who bought the commemorative edition of Charlie Ebdo? This country is barking mad.

BobG

PS I just had another thought: not having to raise prices could, of course, mean that they've been ripping off everyone for years and years and years.