Increasing Club Revenue

[Czarnikjak]

16 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the pressure coming from the super-clubs is not to create a collective income based on streaming, it's to use streaming to concentrate incomes - so that a stream of Norwich vs Newcastle, watched by 300,000 people around the world brings in half a million pounds each for the two clubs, whilst Man Utd vs Liverpool, with a global audience of a billion brings in overr a hundred million for each team. 

The big battle as we move from TV to streaming is to retain the collective income structure that's already been eroded in TV through the changes to the Champions league structure and the changes to the way TV money is distributed across the Premier League and English leagues.

Each time we move from one broadcast model to the next, there seems to be an increased concentration in the way the incomes are distributed - it'll take a massive collective effort from clubs, fans and media to prevent that happening again.

You are nailing every point here.

Massive effort required to keep the income evenly distributed. It might even be a loosing battle, you are essentially fighting against capitalist instincts.

At the end of the day most people in charge of big clubs are here to make money, they will do everything possible to safeguard more revenue for themselves, including making selfish and short-sighted decisions.

Let's not pretend Villa are above that. If we were one of the Big 6 clubs at the moment, I am sure Purslow would try the same, push for changes benefiting us and stopping anybody else from breaking into the establishment.

[Tomaszk]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the pressure coming from the super-clubs is not to create a collective income based on streaming, it's to use streaming to concentrate incomes - so that a stream of Norwich vs Newcastle, watched by 300,000 people around the world brings in half a million pounds each for the two clubs, whilst Man Utd vs Liverpool, with a global audience of a billion brings in overr a hundred million for each team. 

The big battle as we move from TV to streaming is to retain the collective income structure that's already been eroded in TV through the changes to the Champions league structure and the changes to the way TV money is distributed across the Premier League and English leagues.

Each time we move from one broadcast model to the next, there seems to be an increased concentration in the way the incomes are distributed - it'll take a massive collective effort from clubs, fans and media to prevent that happening again.

Bang on.

And that's when the superleague will happen.

PR work / Propaganda will be ramped up as it gets closer to the greedy six keep their own fans on side.

It might not be that hard when you say to them you can watch every game a season, online for £100... and it'll be against only other big boys.

They might actually out greed each other and kill football totally.

As much as they don't want to share £300m with Burnley. They won't want to share £75m with Bayern or PSG.

If they split revenues by what each club makes, you're looking at about three or four clubs competing for every trophy. Forever. Unless Barca go out of business before then which would be a frightful shame. Then it'll be two or three clubs.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Tomaszk

[CVByrne]

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

But the pressure coming from the super-clubs is not to create a collective income based on streaming, it's to use streaming to concentrate incomes - so that a stream of Norwich vs Newcastle, watched by 300,000 people around the world brings in half a million pounds each for the two clubs, whilst Man Utd vs Liverpool, with a global audience of a billion brings in overr a hundred million for each team. 

The big battle as we move from TV to streaming is to retain the collective income structure that's already been eroded in TV through the changes to the Champions league structure and the changes to the way TV money is distributed across the Premier League and English leagues.

Each time we move from one broadcast model to the next, there seems to be an increased concentration in the way the incomes are distributed - it'll take a massive collective effort from clubs, fans and media to prevent that happening again.

Yes, but the 2 attempts by the Big Clubs to take ultimate control (Project Big Picture and then ESL) by cynically used the opportunity created by the Global Pandemic on club finances has shown clear as day what their aims are. To create such a financial disparity between 4 clubs and the rest of the League which cannot be un done, this is the aim for the Cartel as this will then allow profits to be made from football with reduced competition. This should galvanise the other clubs and Premier League into action.

If we make the move to streaming via the Premier League they essentially have no real say give the 14 clubs out vote them. There is difficulties in fixing the inequality that is the current state as changing prize money to take away more from top positions of the League to give to the bottom is a complicated one. The situation I described is when moving to streaming all 20 clubs revenues will jump significantly, that is the opportunity to level the playing field in terms of 90% of income is split evenly and 10% goes to performance for example. There is no special revenue for "being chosen for TV" as all games are streamed live. This way income has grown for all clubs relative to their existing expenses. If the Premier League are the ones to do this they can reset the model. 

[The Fun Factory]

I always find it quite ironic that the good old us of a which is probably the most capitalistic country in the world, actually has a fairer distribution of income of most of their sports.

I may be wrong but I believe quite a lot of the sports over there have salary  caps and shared distribution of television incomes. Plus the draft system is designed, at least in theory, to favour the worst teams in picking the best young players from the college systems. You still have the big cities having the biggest teams with the largest budgets  but the winners of the sport are more evenly distributed. Look at the Packers they are from a tiny place in Wisconsin.

I know you can't compare as its a franchise system with no promotion and relegation etc but always think its interesting.

[danceoftheshamen]

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

I always find it quite ironic that the good old us of a which is probably the most capitalistic country in the world, actually has a fairer distribution of income of most of their sports.

I may be wrong but I believe quite a lot of the sports over there have salary  caps and shared distribution of television incomes. Plus the draft system is designed, at least in theory, to favour the worst teams in picking the best young players from the college systems. You still have the big cities having the biggest teams with the largest budgets  but the winners of the sport are more evenly distributed. Look at the Packers they are from a tiny place in Wisconsin.

I know you can't compare as its a franchise system with no promotion and relegation etc but always think its interesting.

Personally i think the US system makes it much more fun and is a much more sustainable model for clubs. The college football i guess is almost what the lower leagues are to us where lots of new upcoming players are blooded and discovered. The big difference of course is that the're all young players not a mixture of old pro's & the like that we have in the pyramid. The no risk or relegation is huge and takes away that awful sceptre of doom which we have meaning clubs can plan better. I know there are some small points like the fairytale of a Wimbledon or Bournemouth suddenly making it to the big time but in all honesty i would rather have a set 2 top divisions each with 22 teams which would effectively mean the Premier League & Championship would be alamgamated into North /South divisions with playoffs at the end of each season to reach the ultimate final between North & South Champions! That way enough teams could be in it to represent all parts of the UK (Scotland included) and with no risk of relegation. All of the traditional big clubs could be part of it and all would have a chance of winning the title.... Much better in my eyes.

[HKP90]

2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

I always find it quite ironic that the good old us of a which is probably the most capitalistic country in the world, actually has a fairer distribution of income of most of their sports.

I may be wrong but I believe quite a lot of the sports over there have salary  caps and shared distribution of television incomes. Plus the draft system is designed, at least in theory, to favour the worst teams in picking the best young players from the college systems. You still have the big cities having the biggest teams with the largest budgets  but the winners of the sport are more evenly distributed. Look at the Packers they are from a tiny place in Wisconsin.

I know you can't compare as its a franchise system with no promotion and relegation etc but always think its interesting.

As I said before, we’d struggle to implement a salary cap, as much as it can be admired in US sport.

I think the PL and EFL could maybe work out a way to better distribute youth talent though, through impartial assessment of youth ability and control of the number of the top youth talent at higher rated teams.

If a way to do this could be found it would also be a way of distributing income, since top clubs would need to pay lower league teams big money for developed talent. 

Edited October 1, 2021 by HKP90

[S-Platt]

The TV money distribution how did that work last season every game for every club was on TV?  There should be an equal split there.

[Peter Griffin]

On 01/10/2021 at 10:24, blandy said:

Absolutely right. It's what the whole breakaway thing was about - the current "big" clubs grabbing and keeping more money at the expense of everyone else. The utter words removed.

The clubs that generate the most revenue should get a bigger share. It is nonsense to suggest the money generated should be shared equally or even close to equal distribution. All clubs want to have as much money as possible and don''t want to share it with the teams below them, that is why the PL has more money than the Championship. By having 6 to 8 really good quality clubs in the PL that can afford to pay the highest wages and buy the best player serves to protect the massive broadcasting rights of the PL. 

[Peter Griffin]

On 01/10/2021 at 15:32, The Fun Factory said:

I always find it quite ironic that the good old us of a which is probably the most capitalistic country in the world, actually has a fairer distribution of income of most of their sports.

I may be wrong but I believe quite a lot of the sports over there have salary  caps and shared distribution of television incomes. Plus the draft system is designed, at least in theory, to favour the worst teams in picking the best young players from the college systems. You still have the big cities having the biggest teams with the largest budgets  but the winners of the sport are more evenly distributed. Look at the Packers they are from a tiny place in Wisconsin.

I know you can't compare as its a franchise system with no promotion and relegation etc but always think its interesting.

How is having a closed shop where relegation cannot happen and no new entrants are allowed be a fairer distribution of income?

[MotoMkali]

39 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

The clubs that generate the most revenue should get a bigger share. It is nonsense to suggest the money generated should be shared equally or even close to equal distribution. All clubs want to have as much money as possible and don''t want to share it with the teams below them, that is why the PL has more money than the Championship. By having 6 to 8 really good quality clubs in the PL that can afford to pay the highest wages and buy the best player serves to protect the massive broadcasting rights of the PL. 

They generate more revenue because they get unfair media coverage. If it was more balanced. More fans would support other clubs and they'd generate more money. Its a vicious cycle. And the onyl way to end it is to stop giving them priority treatment. 

[MotoMkali]

Really they need to introduce a soft salary cap where if you go over some TV rights money is distributed to the teams under. The more oyu go over by the more money distributed. With greedy owners like the glazers that will probably fix the competition a lot easier. And prevent teams from buying the league for extended periods of time as their revenue drops massively when they are over spending. Which causes their overspending to be more painful. 

[Peter Griffin]

13 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

They generate more revenue because they get unfair media coverage

It is not unfair. The teams that are on TV more play the better football and are more enjoyable to watch for the neutral. If someone wants to watch a good game of football there is more chance that they will elect to watch a game with the better teams in it. This is exactly the same reason the PL get more viewers than the Championship, it is better quality football. It is difficult to become a top side but with the right management at a club and the appropriate investment it can be done. Moaning about the big clubs is just hypocrisy when you look down the league and look at the Championship and then League 1 etc. The teams below us say it is a closed shop to get where we are. But we have proven it is not. We have good owners, a good CEO and a good manager, that is why we are moving up the league. 

A few years ago we play Blues in the league when Jack got attacked by one of the scum fans. At the start of that game Blues were 2 points ahead of us in the Championship and a win would have put them 5 points clear. Look at the gap between us now. PL and Europe is not a closed shop and the paranoia that suggests Sky is trying to keep teams out of the top 6 is tinfoil hat stuff. 

[Czarnikjak]

1 hour ago, MotoMkali said:

Really they need to introduce a soft salary cap where if you go over some TV rights money is distributed to the teams under. The more oyu go over by the more money distributed. With greedy owners like the glazers that will probably fix the competition a lot easier. And prevent teams from buying the league for extended periods of time as their revenue drops massively when they are over spending. Which causes their overspending to be more painful. 

The "greedy owners" as you call them, don't overspend atm anyway. Glazers and Kronkes don't put their own money into their clubs. Man Utd spend big cause they have big revenue and can legitimately spend big without any help of their owners.

Two types of clubs overspend( now or in the past), clubs owned by vanity driven owners (City, Chelsea) and smaller clubs owned by ambitious owners trying to better themselves (Everton, Villa).

Salary Cap like you proposing ( salary capped at let's say 70% of revenue with Luxury Tax on top) would have no effect on the likes of ManU as they are already ran in sustainable way. It would also be unlikely to deter the likes of City from overspending as they can afford it.

It would only negatively affect teams like us and Everton and make it even more difficult to break up the established elite.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Czarnikjak

[MotoMkali]

2 hours ago, Czarnikjak said:

The "greedy owners" as you call them, don't overspend atm anyway. Glazers and Kronkes don't put their own money into their clubs. Man Utd spend big cause they have big revenue and can legitimately spend big without any help of their owners.

Two types of clubs overspend( now or in the past), clubs owned by vanity driven owners (City, Chelsea) and smaller clubs owned by ambitious owners trying to better themselves (Everton, Villa).

Salary Cap like you proposing ( salary capped at let's say 70% of revenue with Luxury Tax on top) would have no effect on the likes of ManU as they are already ran in sustainable way. It would also be unlikely to deter the likes of City from overspending as they can afford it.

It would only negatively affect teams like us and Everton and make it even more difficult to break up the established elite.

No a uniform salary cap across the league. Determined by average revenue. 

[MotoMkali]

3 hours ago, Peter Griffin said:

It is not unfair. The teams that are on TV more play the better football and are more enjoyable to watch for the neutral. If someone wants to watch a good game of football there is more chance that they will elect to watch a game with the better teams in it. This is exactly the same reason the PL get more viewers than the Championship, it is better quality football. It is difficult to become a top side but with the right management at a club and the appropriate investment it can be done. Moaning about the big clubs is just hypocrisy when you look down the league and look at the Championship and then League 1 etc. The teams below us say it is a closed shop to get where we are. But we have proven it is not. We have good owners, a good CEO and a good manager, that is why we are moving up the league. 

A few years ago we play Blues in the league when Jack got attacked by one of the scum fans. At the start of that game Blues were 2 points ahead of us in the Championship and a win would have put them 5 points clear. Look at the gap between us now. PL and Europe is not a closed shop and the paranoia that suggests Sky is trying to keep teams out of the top 6 is tinfoil hat stuff. 

It is unfair. They generate more revenue because they are shown more. They had 5 good seasons in an era with unprecedented foreign growth and everyone decides that's that these are the guys. If they broadcast other games talked about other people then those fan bases would grow more as well. 

[brummybloke]

I cant see why clubs with rich owners can't pay a deposit for how much they will spend the following year ? If that money is already ring fenced for salary and transfers then that club is ' safe' for the following years spending, what ever that amount is.

It allows teams with investors the opportunity to catch up and the poorly managed like Barca drop back. 

 

That's a fair way of doing things 

[Peter Griffin]

9 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

It is unfair. They generate more revenue because they are shown more. They had 5 good seasons in an era with unprecedented foreign growth and everyone decides that's that these are the guys. If they broadcast other games talked about other people then those fan bases would grow more as well. 

And why are they shown more? Because they are better at football and there is a greater demand to see these teams. This demand drives increased broadcasting and advertising revenue and this is why they are on TV more and why they deserve more of the money. 

[villa4europe]

46 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

And why are they shown more? Because they are better at football and there is a greater demand to see these teams. This demand drives increased broadcasting and advertising revenue and this is why they are on TV more and why they deserve more of the money. 

So Newcastle are better than us? And Everton? Wolves etc? 

And I loop it back to what I've said a couple of times, the "unfair" nature of this is when you then link it to FFP

In theory Newcastle can spend £8m more than we can every summer because sky put them on TV more than they do us - that it bullshit... Spurs can spend £20m more than us because of it

Edited October 3, 2021 by villa4europe

[Peter Griffin]

Just now, villa4europe said:

So Newcastle are better than us? And Everton? Wolves etc? 

What point are you trying to make? Are you disagreeing that the better teams get more televised games than the rest? 

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

What point are you trying to make? Are you disagreeing that the better teams get more televised games than the rest? 

I'm disagreeing that you can define "better" 

In 19/20 Newcastle earned more money for TV appearances than 5 teams that finished above them 

Edited October 3, 2021 by villa4europe