EFL TV deal and League Splits

[Dave-R]

I don't know but you know what it reminds me of, where females during the war just wanted seperate toilets in the workplace to the men and better pay. Do you know how hard those women fought to even be heard it took them a very long time to get male bosses to come to the table over it.

Ok so it's not toilets but it is about a standard of football that is being delivered and about a pay that obviously has a big gap to even the lowest in the premier league to the highest in the championship ship.

The EFL must realise that there are some big games pulling in some serious fans in the championship, more so than some premier games. It doesn't make sense to pay half the premier teams 100 mill each a season and not some of the big clubs from the championship  who pull in as many fans on the day. 

I do hope the EFL are taken to court and made to pay those teams that have been affected for as long as its been going on, because I bet it's been going on way longer than before we dropped down..

[villa89]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

By all accounts we're front and centre of the teams leading the "protest" against the deal.

We agree not to kick up a fuss about this TV deal and the EFL agree to ignore our FFP issues? 

[Raver50032]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Benin sports, international broadcasters or how about itv or BBC? Why should we be bullied by this pathetic deal from the efl? They ignored us and big clubs like leeds.Even the villa vs blose derby is bigger than the lame derbies like Southampton vs bournmouth or fulham vs Chelsea.

If the club's stick together then the efl cant ignore us all.

 

I really cannot see the BBC (not a commercial station) stumping up anywhere near the amount of cash that even Sky have offered the EFL in this deal. BBC barely clings on to the last vestiges of crown jewels now and is a spent force for marketable professional sport beyond Wimbledon. Even ladies football seems to be only on the red button and any exposure for ladies football is good exposure.

ITV... meh... more interested in Jungle Highlights and wannabe pop stars than lowly EFL matches. I can't see them biffing off the current prime time TV slots midweek for EFL dross. Sure, they show some World Cup and Euros games every two years... But if they can't afford to compete with Sky/BT over Champions League, they won't stump up even what Sky have offered the EFL. You can forget mainstream broadcasters in this country. It just isn't marketable apart from maybe 8 clubs from 24.

You (the royal you, because it wasn't just 'you' that quoted my initial tease response) can quote all the other international channels you like, including any combination of subscription channels that try to muscle in on the Sky/BT duo. Who will actually pay anywhere near what Sky have bid... and will actually tempt subscribers for EFL coverage? For example, I don't pay both Sky and BT... I pay for one or the other, and pick up the highlights off the other channel when available elsewhere. For Villa games I can't go to, if they're on Sky, I go to my folks to watch. No way, whilst I have a hole in my arse, am I paying two different subscription services for a football fix. I would imagine that unless you're moneybags rich and don't really care either way, then I am not the only one who pays once, and bugger the rest off as greedy noise makers.

It's a fickle market.

Football isn't my only interest, and I'd like to think that other supporters, Villa and non-Villa that they actually have other interests too to spend their time and money on. It's borderline delusional to think that there's a bigger deal out there... especially in this country. A foreign operator might pay more money, and if they did, good luck to them and the clubs benefitting from it. But I won't pay a second subscriber out of principle. There's more to life than TV.

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Raver50032
sausage finger typos tw@ery

[LakotaDakota]

15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Bigger crowds than La Liga in 2016-17.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42704713

Newcastle have left since then, so things might have changed.

In terms of viewing figures, the nearest I can find suggests that this seasons most watched Serie A game had almost 2m viewers as opposed to 820k for last seasons most watched Championship game. Interestingly there's a big drop off in Italy for viewer numbers after the top couple of teams, with some games getting less than 10,000 viewers - I wonder how close the averages might be.

 

 

 

Not sure that a simple aggregate is the best indication as there are more teams  in the championship (generally 4-6 more), meaning an extra 2-300 matches make up the total figure which takes the championship average down to 20,500 compared to 44,650 in germany, 27,300 la liga, 22,500 ligue 1 & 25,200 serie a. (these are 2017/18 figures)

Still very good for a second tier competition but the huge number of extra matches greatly distorts the aggregate figure

Edited November 21, 2018 by LakotaDakota

[blandy]

1 minute ago, LakotaDakota said:

Not sure that a simple aggregate is the best indication as there are more teams  in the championship (generally 4-6 more), meaning an extra 2-300 matches make up the total figure

Your overall point is right, but the maths isn't, surely  - the 4 extra teams in the EFL compared to the PL would be 92 extra games a season. Even 6 more is 138 extra.

[LakotaDakota]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

Your overall point is right, but the maths isn't, surely  - the 4 extra teams in the EFL compared to the PL would be 92 extra games a season. Even 6 more is 138 extra.

Maths is fine.

552 games in the championship compared to 380 in the premier league & 306 in the bundesliga. 

246 more games in the championship compared to the bundesliga

Edited November 21, 2018 by LakotaDakota

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

552 games in the championship compared to 380 in the premier league & 306 in the bundesliga. 

246 more games in the championship compared to the bundesliga

OK, ta. I stand corrected.

[LakotaDakota]

If anything it shows how well attended the bundesliga is, The championship in total number of games isn't that far off 2 whole seasons of bundesliga and still nearly 2 million off the aggregate figure. Maybe the Germans should be shouting for more TV money too

[DaveAV1]

3 hours ago, villa89 said:

We agree not to kick up a fuss about this TV deal and the EFL agree to ignore our FFP issues? 

That’s a very good point. If the EFL are basically giving us a very raw deal on the TV money, surely they are in part responsible for us not meeting our FFP targets. 

Now we have owners with both nous and clout, I’m pretty sure this won’t be lost on them. If the TV money doesn’t even cover the loss in gate receipts, what’s to stop us not letting the cameras in?

[ShaldonAVFC]

8 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Not everyone lives in Birmingham mate. I live in London how would I get to a midweek game? Some live even further than me.

I think the red button is no different to thise getting a stream off fb via avtv 

I live in Devon , had a season ticket for 5 years nearly killed me 

[Mark Albrighton]

2 minutes ago, ShaldonAVFC said:

I live in Devon , had a season ticket for 5 years nearly killed me 

I think that’s true of all Villa season ticket holders, regardless of where they live 

[Junxs]

Think some people are valuing the championship far too highly.

It wasn't that long ago that a group of TV companies (ITV, Ch5 etc) merged on a project to bring us OnDigital and bought the rights to the EFL, it was a separate subscription before the days of Setanta, ESPN, BT etc purely for EFL but the figures were so low and they gave it up.

The only reason people are watching EFL is because its part of their Sky subscription, the OnDigital experiment proves this. A breakaway league with a separate subscription to someone like Quest would be a complete disaster. Its a case of better the devil you know as the grass most definitely isnt greener as history proves.

Also I would be against splitting TV money with the larger clubs getting a bigger percentage, because if successful this will then mean the Premier League would demand a similar split and the last thing we need is for the bigger clubs to get even more money than the rest of the league.

Well done FFP, this has all come about because of their nonsense and the structure of the football pyramid is now at risk!

[westholmevillan]

We should simply bin the PL league and let history repeat itself when we are the founders 'of a new league'. **** Sky and let them pay for a Euro league... that's  been their aim for s long time anyway!....,give fotball back to the people!!  Let's have 'sport' again and ditch the 'cashcow' aka Sky who have ruined 'the beautiful game'!

[OutByEaster?]

In fairness, I don't think the only part of this deal that's causing unhappiness is the value of the contract. It's equally about the way in which games and access have been given  up for it. Leeds for example have had seven of their last eight games televised - that hits attendances and the TV appearance fees don't cover it - too high a proportion of the matches of larger teams are moved and Friday nights just don't sell like Saturday afternoons - if affects bigger teams. It affects us - our weeknight attendances are around 4000 less than our weekend attendances - that's £150k of income - that's more than we get for being on the telly. Last year we got £520k for sixteen games - this deal is better, but it's not going to make up that shortfall. I have a feeling that for games broadcast on the red button, the income is substantially less than for games broadcast on proper Sky - its introduction means there are a lot of games available for viewers and that big teams are having more and more games moved. 

If anything, you can watch more of your teams games in the Championship than you can in the Premier league, but the disparity in money means that in the Championship gates matter and the more often you're on, the more money you lose. I think if there was an agreement that teams would be limited in terms of the number of games that are covered or moved then the larger clubs would be happier. It's not just that the price is too small for the larger clubs, the portion is too large too.

4 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

If anything it shows how well attended the bundesliga is, The championship in total number of games isn't that far off 2 whole seasons of bundesliga and still nearly 2 million off the aggregate figure. Maybe the Germans should be shouting for more TV money too 

Here's an interesting thing, the last deal for the Bundesliga was for €4.64billion and in Germany they negotiate the rights to their top two divisions collectively. Bundesliga 2 attendances are at just under 20,000 last year - less than the Championship - the Bundesliga is the best attended league in Europe, more than the Premier league - yet the two leagues negotiate their TV deal together.

Their system of distribution of that money is controversial in Germany in that Bayern get a lot more than a lot of teams in the top division, the Premier league is a little more even in its distribution - but the difference in the distribution of money between the Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 is absolutely miles different to here.

Here, last season bottom club West Brom received £94.7m and the top Championship club, Wolves, received around £7.4m. In Germany, the bottom Bundesliga club last season earned €27.8m and the top Bundesliga 2 club earned around €11m. That means the ratio in England is about 13:1 whereas in Germany it's about 5:2. If that ratio had been applied to Wolves then they'd have earned nearer £40m. It means Germany's leagues are much closer together.

The Championship is more valuable than Bundesliga 2 and yet massively disadvantaged in terms of TV money when compared to its senior league. This is the price we pay for the folly of 1992 when the Football League's refusal to modernise gave up control of football to Sky and created a schism which has only widened. 

I don't think you can blame Championship chairmen for looking at the current distribution model, the value of their TV deal, the amount of football they've ceded to TV companies and the effect it has on their revenues and thinking "maybe this isn't the best deal we could get".

I don't think we'll see a breakaway league - largely because I don't think the Premier league is interested in having one and I'm sure it doesn't want to share its revenue with anyone - but I do think that the EFL can go back and either ask for more or offer less. I don't think it's a great deal.

 

[ciggiesnbeer]

If its a choice between what Aston Villa & other clubs want vs what the EFL wants I am with my club every day of the week.

Breakaway league would be fine by me although I have zero idea how such a thing could work.

Admittedly we have only been down here a few years but from what I have seen so far the EFL is simply incompetent.

 

[villakram]

Man Utd., Man City, Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool are said to be very concerned about all this EPL2 talk... 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

8 hours ago, Dave-R said:

I don't know but you know what it reminds me of, where females during the war just wanted seperate toilets in the workplace to the men

Oh the irony of how this has come full circle in 2018.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Man Utd., Man City, Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool are said to be very concerned about all this EPL2 talk... 

Why?

Although the "big guns" being "concerned" might get something done?

Or is it just that they are being selfish and actually just want more money to themselves?

[The Fun Factory]

8 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

Not sure that a simple aggregate is the best indication as there are more teams  in the championship (generally 4-6 more), meaning an extra 2-300 matches make up the total figure which takes the championship average down to 20,500 compared to 44,650 in germany, 27,300 la liga, 22,500 ligue 1 & 25,200 serie a. (these are 2017/18 figures)

Still very good for a second tier competition but the huge number of extra matches greatly distorts the aggregate figure

Yes- though I expect if you excluded the attendances for midweek games, every club's average attendance would be higher. We are averaging about 35,000 on weekends, and about 30,000 midweek.

As for the EFL talks, unless Villa and the other rebels actually have a different concrete offer from a different broadcaster that is higher than Sky then I can't see what they are complaining about. Regardless of the fact that the Championship at present has some big teams in it, it is a inferior league to the Premier League and has very little international interest hence the huge difference in cash. The last time the Football League did that it ended in total abject failure with the collapse of ITV digital. 

I guess it would be somewhat of a irony if this results in another breakaway from the Football League since Villa helped found it back in 1888 with the famous letter.

[villakram]

23 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Why?

Although the "big guns" being "concerned" might get something done?

Or is it just that they are being selfish and actually just want more money to themselves?

Oh sorry, it was meant in jest.

If someone else were to shake things up, that would conveniently allow them to claim someone else made the first move. Also, from a practical point, an EPL2 out from under the direct super vision of FA would grant the clubs much much more power.